Talk:Generation X/Archive 1

Untitled
'''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 How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Generation_X. Thank you. ManekiNeko | Talk 23:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Gen X into the early 1980s?
I was born in 1981. I know I am X gen because of the marketing targeted at me, & my generation. I feel it was a form of warfare. It still goes on today. It is done by all, the baby boomers, those before, & those after. Away from marketing, I'll continue with, anyone who was in their teens upon the new millennium, is certainly, X gen. Me, I don't care. Why do we label? I've had this debate with my father who claims he is a boomer, & loosely, he is. 1981 was a birth of a new age, if you look at what occured in 81 you'd recognize this group as gen X. Currently, the population of renegades is difficult to tabulate, but you'll find a percentage of this group hails from, 1981. - allan@alicairo.com


 * I was born in 1981, but as a graduate of the high school Class of 2000, and with my early immersion in technology, I consider myself at the beginning of Generation Y. I think the Class of 2000 is considered to be the first of the Y'ers. For the U.S. at least, I would use these guidelines: Those in Generation X were in school to see the Challenger explode. Those in Generation Y were not out of school (including college) and on their own when the Sept. 11 attacks happened. There might be some overlap, but not much.


 * In other words, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of Generation X.


 * I was also born in 1981, and in most articles I have read in the past, I have been classified as Generation X (the very end of it, but still in GenX). I listened to a black Michael Jackson on records, had a childhood before the overabundance of (pointless) toys --- just look at what GenY grew/grow up with --- and watched The Simpsons through late Primary School and High School --- Bart and Lisa once even refer to themselves as GenX (not that The Simpsons have ever been a reliable source of information).  When I look at Generation Y today, I do not understand them at all, and frankly they annoy the heck out of me.  They listen to crazy music, enjoy wierd movies, and have no fashion sense.  I am familiar with technology --- heck, I work in IT! --- but I do not understand why GenY use Instant Messaging to chat with a friend who lives 5 minutes down the road!


 * The trouble with a thing like this, however, is that the Generations are not clearly defined: there is no official body who say `Generation X was 19xx-19xx': it probably comes down to more of a `feel' than anything else. It is who you feel you best relate to. Anything I have ever read about Generation X tends to move the start and end around a few years: it is only really the middle part that is indisputable. Elric of Grans 22:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Gen Xer here:


 * To me everyone is going to have an opinion on this subject so here is mine people born from 1964 to 1981 are Gen Xers. Gen Y starts in 1982.  It just seems logical to me. I was born in 1977 and I definitely consider myself a Gen Xer because all my teen years were spent in the early and mid nineties when grunge and alternative music ruled the music scene.  When I started high school people were still listening to Winger and Warrant.  By my second year everybody had flannel shirts and ripped jeans and were listening to Pearl Jam and gangster rap and in some i dont know what you want to call it but i will call it conservative gen xers want to call people born 76 77 78 79 almost gen y  because alot of the pop icon of today were born than is hog wash look at gwen stefani born in 1969 and is a huge pop star that all the gen y kids look up to i think alot of the older gen xers aka peopel born in the mid to late 60's want to make the generation more exclusive and they frown on anyone being born in the 80"s a gen xer .if you were gonna snip a couple of years off the gen i would not snip 80 or 81 i would snip 64 and 65.


 * If the Generation X is born between 1967-1979, what am I born in 1981? Generation Triple X?


 * Think about it...

Isn't 1967-1979 Generation X?

Coupland's Generation X and shorter generations
Ten Years ago Douglas Coupland declared "X is dead", but apparently nobody was paying attention. In "Generation X", Coupland was specifically talking about the post-peak baby boomers, also known as Trailing Edge Boomers. Marketing and media throughout the early 90's later attached the name to the group following the back end of the baby boom, the baby busters.

"Generation X" is a social satire based in part on the intergenerational conflict of the 1958-1964 group with pre-boomers (who drive nice cars and have lots of cash), older boomers (who took all the best jobs and left behind only "McJobs") and the first half of baby busters (he labels Global Teens) who have different traits altogether (and with their non-formally educated technology savvy, got ridiculously high paying jobs that we all heard about and got sick over). None of these cohorts are long enough to constitute a "generation" because in the modern world, change is lightning quick (hence...accelerated culture).

It seems pointless to consider 22-year generations at all for anything following pre-boomers because the first and last year will have little if any shared life experiences in common. Following demographics and considering birth cohorts (like back-end boomers or baby busters) is pobably much more meaningfull. The main thing to consider is that terms like "Gen-X" are just a description of someone who wears Doc Martens and listens to grunge music ... and can be applied to someone born in 1958, 1970 or 1981.

What are Gen X attitudes?
We know what is going on today with young people because we experience it, see it on the street and at the raves and on TV. And we can read alot about what happened with young people in the sixties or seventies. The Gen-X Wiki article only seems to say that Gen-Xers are anti idealistic and then talks about some of the social influences and events during their childhoods. But it does not say anything much about attitudes common among them about race, environment, poverty, war and such. Are those only topics that "idealists" think about (so, therefore, GenXers don't care about them at all)? Its almost like the article is style instead of information. But thats not what an encyclopedia is supposed to offer.

Comment about Talk discussions

 * 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)

Boomer's perspective
As a boomer ('53), I feel fortunate to have raised my college-aged kids to conform to neither boomer nor Gen-X ideals - respecting the values of those who came before them, conscious of the ideals which mobilized a generation before their time, educated yet unpretentious, not needing material things to be happy, loving even those who hate them, appreciating classical, blues, jazz, be-bop, hip-hop, classical rock, country, and all the rest, sure enough of themselves and eager enough to contribute to society that they have no time to find fault with or poke fun at traditions and values whose time has passed, but whose lessons live on. AyeSpy


 * "My child the emperor" - didn't Steinbeck call this a disease and name it paedosis?


 * Also an early GenXer ('69), but raised by a Dad and Grandparents who still remembered the Depression and WW2 and taught me values gleaned from those occurrences. My GenX friends call me a BoomXer.  Why are stuck on these labels?  --Invictus

Gen X not slackers?
(moved from the non-talk page): Some have also suggested, though with questionable basis, that the Generation Xers are more like the World War II generation that preceeded the baby boomers. The WWII generation was one of confidence in the value of tradition and strongly-held cultural mores, which seldom questioned whether their society was on the right path. The formula rebellion of stereotypical Gen-Xers is anathema to such thinking.


 * I'm 1966 myself. It's interesting to note that while the original meaning of "Generation X" had to do with being a "slacker" or something like that, later research showed that Generation X was a highly motivated and entrpreneurial generation.  I remember reading Coupland's initial descriptions and the subsequent media love affair with the term and being puzzled because it seemed so remote from my life or the lives of my friends.


 * I personally think that there is a good reason to doubt the validity of assuming a consistency among people born in a particular time period, except perhaps with regard to some fairly superficial pop culture stuff. I had a Six Million Dollar man action figure.  So what? :-) --Jimbo Wales

Generation between boomers and Gen X?
It is said that Generation X follows the Baby Boomer generation, however I think that there must have been an intervening generation, too early to be GenX, but too late to be Baby Boomers. The "lost tribe of the seventies?" I wouldn't know how to characterize them. They'd have experienced Disco, ABBA, the 8-track tape, Watergate, and the Energy Crisis.

Here is how I come to this conclusion. A generation of time is a 30 year period, however when speaking of a generation as a collection of people, I think we refer to a people born in a 15 year window. For example, GenX'ers are born in, roughly, the 1967-1982 time frame, and GenY in 1983-1998 period. The Baby Boom would have been in 1937-1952, and this mystery generation in 1953-1966.

What do you think? Is this mystery generation just Baby Boomers in disguise? Or were they proto-GenX'ers? Or do they deserve a generation name of their own? Is 15 years between definable generations right, or is it better to stick to 30 year intervals? -- BryceHarrington


 * Calm down everyone! The End of Eternity memorably satirises generational chauvinism by drawing together people from different centuries in a parallel world outside time.  A character from an future ice age inveighs against his home-when being described as underpopulated instead of sensibly populated.


 * I have some sympathy with the contributor above born in 1953 as that year has always seemed to me to be a cusp between early boomers and late boomers. Tony Blair was born that year which may account for some of his appeal.  In my experience, those born too late to be boomers but too early to be Gen-X are usually called the yuppie generation.  They are people who grew up during the 1970s.  Since the 1960s lasted until the fall of Saigon (May 1 1975) and the 1980s began with the election of Margaret Thatcher (May 4 1979) we are rather a small cohort :-) -- Alan Peakall 17:25 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

Personally, whilst the Baby Boomers really were a quite recognisable group because of the population bump, without such a demographic phenomenon subsequent "generations" really are hard to differentiate. As somebody born in 1976, what am I? Am I a "cynical Gen-Xer"? A net-obsessed, label crazy Gen-Y? Both? Neither? --Robert Merkel


 * Robert, consider yourself lucky to not have had rehashed 1960s hippie and 1970s disco culture assault you during your formative years.


 * The length of a generation is more like 22 years, 1976 is definitely within the birth years of Generation X, and there is no intervening generation between the Boom and X. -- Gpietsch 15:16 Oct 7, 2002 (UTC)

Article violating copyright?
I know I've read this somewhere before; I recognize the style as William Strauss and Neil Howe but I can't pinpoint which of their books it came from. This is almost assurredly a copyright violation though. If it's not a word-for-word copy of one of their book chapters, it takes very large portions of it verbatim. Dave Farquhar

Notes on generations and this article
A few notes that mostly apply to all of the "generation" articles:
 * The person above who said only Baby Boomers are part of a clearly defined generation is correct. Is there any rational and logical argument that other generations described as such are anything more people born between randomly chosen years?
 * Do they apply only to the US? If so, it should be made explicit in the first sentence.
 * Grunge music became popular in the early 1990s. The oldest Xers were 25 in 1990.  While Cobain and Eddie Vedder et al may have been living up to the description of Generation X before that, the vast majority of Xers grew up listening to Def Leppard, A Flock of Seagulls and Guns n Roses.  Does this description apply to black people?  If so, I suppose the black equivalent of Nevermind is The Chronic or Straight Outta Compton?  It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back?  The Great Adventures of Slick Rick?  These are fundamentally different from the ethos of grunge music.  None of the 80s or early 90s hip hop artists condemned, explicitly or implicitly, 1960s radicalism.  Public Enemy, Grandmaster Flash et al were actually pretty activist, and then gangsta rap popped up with the earliest examples of bling-bling -- very different from grunge's anti-fashion.  What about women?  Tori Amos and Tracy Chapman are Xers, right?  None of this really makes much sense.  In country music, Garth Brooks, Dwight Yoakam and Clint Black rose to prominence -- once again, absurdly different from grunge.
 * The paragraph beginning "other people born" is ridiculous. The fact that there is no Generation X identity is used as support for there being a Generation X identity?  The very problem central to Generation X is that the years chosen are entirely random.  I was born in 1981, but stayed in kindergarten for two years -- hence, almost all of my high school friends were born in 1982 and are not Xers.  This would come as a great shock to them, I imagine.  Yet people who graduated from high school in 1983 and were probably listening to Quiet Riot are part of Generation X?  The people that bought "We Are the World" are Generation X?
 * Where does the list of cultural endowments come from? If I had to come up with a list of cultural endowments made by Americans born from 65 to 81, it would have been totally different.  "Planet Rock", Appetite for Destruction, The Breakfast Club (maybe, how old is Hughes?  The actors were the right ages, but does that count?  Ally Sheedy's character is Xer, and maybe Bender but three out of five seem totally out-of-place, as does Sheedy's ending conversion -- does it count?)
 * I do think Generation X needs an article because it is a real term, but it should be contextualized as a fictional construct unless someone can point out something that Xers actually have in common (and please, not a lack of having anything in common). Do people born from 65 to 81 have any similarities?  The article implies that they do, but concrete examples are few and far between.  The following characteristics are given:
 * A rejection of 60s idealism and activism -- doesn't apply to old school hip hop, Pearl Jam, female singer-songwriters or the honky tonk revival
 * A rejection of consumerism -- most Xers grew up during the late seventies and eighties, hardly a time when consumerism was on the wane.
 * The they fantasize sentence about Baby Boomers and sex -- has no meaning that I can discern
 * What the hell is a generational core, and why am I looking for one? Or does that only apply to immigrant Xers?  Or am I not really an Xer because I identify with people born in 82, making me a member of whatever fictionally constructed generation comes next?
 * Generation X survived a hurried childhood of divorce, latchkeys, open classrooms, devil-child movies, and a shift from G to R ratings. -- at the very least, some facts would be nice, about the rate of divorce, latchkey kids... Once again, however, this is purely arbitrary -- why not spotlight cocaine use, increased attempts at censorship of music, sex ed, the rise of obesity and Brat Pack movies?
 * The Reality Bites reference in the last sentence is ludicrous and pointless. I haven't seen the movie, don't know what it means and don't really care.  In any case, that came out some years after Xers hit adulthood.  Does it still count?
 * I could write just as accurate a description as this article, and make it seem true and such, about people born from 1974 to 1986 or any other pair of randomly chosen years.
 * The generations previous to the Boomers are even more fictional in my mind than this one, but the same basic ideas apply. Silent Generation: Dick Cheney and John Erlichman "fell under the trance of their free-spirited next-juniors, the Boomers"?  People born 1925 to 1942 were civil rights activists, huh?  All?  Most?  Proof?  Missionary Generation: Harding and FDR are part of the same generation?  I'm no presidential historian, but that seems strange.

Reading over my comments, they seems confusing and meandering, with little information. But then, so does the article in question. Tuf-Kat

General suggestions for the article
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)

Britney Spears a Gen-Xer? I think not - surely, Britney doesn't have that Gen-X style - not grungy enough, eh? Dzof 8 November 2003


 * 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)

Questions
Can I have a question here... Roscoe_X
 * Who(are there any real job?) divide people in generation(by the year they were born)?
 * Why generation X ends in 1977?
 * And to which Cultural Endowments "American Pie" movie is in?


 * I've always heard that "Generation X" referred to the tenth generation of people born in the United States. I've not read any of the early uses of it, though -- can anybody confirm this, or is this just a retcon?

Is there any basis to generational theory?
Am I alone in thinking that this whole concept is just lazy-minded, posturing tripe? The first and most obvious thing that struck me when reading this article was that "Generation X" can not be said to exist on any even vaguely scientific grounds. The idea that all the people in the world born between two (quite arbitrary) dates share universal, very specific traits should only be dealt with in an encyclopedia like this as the crank theory that it most blatantly is. How is it that when all the Aboriginal tribespeople, American McDonnalds cashiers, Icelandic fishermen, Somalian prostitutes, Siberian sheep farmers, English aristocrats, Peruvian cattle dealers, and hundreds of millions more born within a certain time period are tossed wholesale by a complacent American journalist into a non-existent pigeonhole for the sake of a soundbite, anyone outside his profession takes him at all seriously?

This article comes from totally the wrong angle - the phenomenon is a media creation and nothing more. The huge flaw of the article is that it takes the concept far too seriously - if “Generation X” (which means nothing without the inverted commas) merits discussion at all, it should only be in terms of where the phrase come from, who thought it up, why they thought it up, who used it, who identified themselves with it, what effect the existence of such a concept may or may not have had on certain specific cultural groups, etc., always citing sources.

The article is full of patently subjective, un-researched, ill-conceived items of nonsense posing as fact. These three quotes (I could have used many more) can only be applied to individuals, not cultural groups:


 * - "A fashion for grunge music exemplified by the band Nirvana expressed the frustrations of a generation forever doomed to live in the shadow of its elders."


 * - "Generation X has survived a hurried childhood of divorce, latchkeys, space shuttle explosions"


 * - "As young adults... they date and marry cautiously"

This leaves me suspecting that the writer is writing about himself or about his immediate circle of friends, and projecting these very personal issues onto a vast and complicated world he’s never seen. The following is also nonsense:


 * - "In Europe, the generation is often known as Generation E, or simply known as the Nineties Generation... In France, the term Génération Bof is in use, with "bof" being a French word for "Whatever", the defining Gen-X saying. In Iran, they are called the Burnt Generation."

These phrases are not widely used in any of the places mentioned. If they have been used at all, it should be stated by who and when, and demonstrated that this is more than just their way of refering to the US media phenomenon under discussion (as apposed to a cultural phenomenon identified with by those populations as a whole). Further nonsense:


 * - Assuming generations have a 22-year average length, this means Generation X's children will be born from 1982 to 2004. Its typical grandchildren will be born from 2005 to about 2027. (What is meant by typical is that a generation's grandchildren will be born at a bell-curve rate and those years are the top of the bell curve.)

This a plain error (I'm often suspicious of people who throw the term "bell curve" around) - human fertility as a timeline does not follow a normal distribution, and even if it did, a span of twelve years could not be said to form the "top of the curve".

All in all, this article needs a thorough working-over. But probably a demolition team will do a more satisfying job than a cosmetologist. User:Palefire 21/9/04

Suggestion for cultural "touchstones"
Some cutural 'touchstones' rather than disputed dates might give a better feel to the article. Old enough to see Star Wars in the cinema. Grew up with the cold war. There must be more too. Roo, 25/8/05

Classic Quote from article

 * They [GenXers] fantasize about how the 1960s and 1970s supposedly offered Boomers easy sex without consequence while resenting the lasting damage done by an era in which they now realize they were the babies adults were trying so much not to have."

LOL - yeah, the lasting damage of birth control on an entire generation is terrible. Who writes this stuff?

Major Date Problem
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)

Well, I was born in 1983 and I've NEVER EVER felt like I was Generation X. I specifically remember when I was in junior high, 7th or 8th grade, hearing the term and not liking it, what it stood for, and being annoyed because I knew that it didn't describe me or my friends. Again, in high school, I would hear Generation X and think, "aren't those people in their 30s now?" while I listened to my NSync c.d.s. lol. In addition, it wasn't because of a technological divide-- computers, the internet, and cell phones had nothing to do with why I never felt Generation X. It just seemed and still does to be so over and old-and I'm sure people born in 2004 will think the same of Generation Y (btw the name sucks) considering I'm 20 years older then them--I guess they'll be Generation Z. lol. So just because YOU are a very proud member of generation X, does not mean the vast majority of us are. I think the well-documented end date of 1981 proves this.

I was born 1978 and don't feel like I'm part of any generation. The world that existed when Generation X was still teenagers didn't exist anymore by the time I was a teenager. In fact, it was hard core stricter. I talked to many real Xers (Mid 60-Mid 70s) and they confessed that things were already different in my time. Why is it that people born in the late 70s are automatically Xer's? Late 70s and early 80s people are more similar than early 70s and late 70s. August 17, 2005

People choose what generation they identify with most, that they want to be in. If you are born in 1962, you could say you belonged to Generation X because you can't remember Kennedy's assassination. Being born in 1980, I could ostensibly classify myself as a member of either generation X or Y. I can remember typewriters, and I listened to "grunge" music, which was popular around in the early nineties when I was an adolescent. I did not feel, nor can I remember my peers feeling, this animosity toward the baby boom generation. Two people feel strongly enough to post here to declare that they are part of either generation. At best, there is a grey area between one generation and the next (say, 1975-1985 in this case). The named generations are not useful other than to make stereotypes and divide people. There is no particular reason for 22 years, or any length of time for that matter; you can't make a clean cut between liberals and conservatives, and you can't make a clean divide betwene generations.

Article is too America-centric
Article keeps on making reference to the USA as if the Generation X syndrome didn't exist in other western countries. For example, "In their book Generations William Strauss and Neil Howe called this generation the "13th Generation" because the tag, like this generation, is a little Halloweenish, and it is the thirteenth to know the flag of the United States (counting back to the peers of Benjamin Franklin) and set its birth years at 1961 to 1981."

This kind of stuff only applies to one country. I'm a Generation Xer, and don't relate to that kind of thing at all.

List of generation xers
is quite long - would it be suitable for another article?

Are we going to list all of them?

List of Cultural Achievements
I suggest omitting the List of Cultural Achievements for the following reasons:

1. The existence of Generation X is questionable 2. The date-range is also debatable (e.g. 1945+ / teens in the 1965-1989). This means its difficult to know if any particular artist is a Generation Xer. 3. Whether to regard any particular item as a "cultural achievement" is POV.

I gotta agree with this. The whole list seems like and extremaly arbitrary pop culture list. It should be removed.

This Is A Useless Debate
Wow, it's so great to be born in 1963, and thus be automatically classified a baby boomer! I have great memories of participating in the whole "Summer Of Love" thing... when I was five. And oh, how that whole Vietnam War bugged me... it's a great thing it ended three years before I was old enough to get a drivers license.

I keenly remember the arguments I had with my brother who was born in 1965 and is thus a "Gen X-er:" "Turn down that Kiss/Rush/Black Sabbath crap!  I'm trying to get my peace-and-love thing going with my Jefferson Airplane albums!  And for God's sake, will someone please get me a hit of acid?  I don't care if you think nine years old is too young to board the yellow submarine!"

"And impeach Nixon, whoever he is!"

Can we all just knock this crap off?

The "generational debate" was invented for one reason: To catagorize the buying population into "identifiable" classes to which trinket salesmen can market their crap. A few years back, some genius from a marketing group pigeonholed me at the mall and asked me to take a survey on a new modern rock station that had just hit the airwaves. The entire conversation went like this:

"We're looking to interview listeners between the ages of 18-33." "I just turned 34 last month." "Oh well, never mind."

Do yourself a favor and stop wasting any more brain cells on this debate. Like what you want to like, and reject as useless anything that doesn't suit you. And if anyone tries to tell you what your tastes ought to be based on what particular year or star sign you were born under, do yourself and mankind a favor and kick him in the shins.

Just make sure you're young enough to run away from the cops.

Second paragraph
The second paragraph in the article seems poorly done. Do we have any references for this? How did the classification become popular, and how do you know it is? Where do any of these years come from? A lot of this looks like random guesses as to what years count. And it's worse as the paragraph goes on, turning out to look like one guy's personal rant about how he doesn't count the youngins as being part of his generation. Let's get some references for this paragraph, or else it's totally useless. -- LGagnon 19:01, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Because of what is mentioned here and in the discussion below, I've decided that this article should have the neutrality dispute template added to it until these issues are resolved. -- LGagnon July 3, 2005 02:00 (UTC)

Cultural Aspects of Generation X
I would like to see further discussion on the cultural aspects of Generation X. Movies for example. One mentioned Fight Club. Are there other movies? One I have in mind is Trainspotting. What famous people, such as actors, athletes, inventors would place in Generation X? There was mention of Grunge music. How about other musical styles? I was born in 1971; the sort of music I liked was synth pop and electronic. -- 63.98.134.150


 * It's kind of hard to say what definitely counts as Gen X and what doesn't. Do we count something made by a member of the generation, or do we count something that helps define the generation? Also, how do we reach these definitions? And again we have not given a definite definition for the generation itself; we haven't yet came up with a NPOV set of years that the generation was born in. Without that, who's to say what culture belongs to the generation? -- LGagnon July 3, 2005 01:55 (UTC)

I've always thought "Reality Bites" was the quintecential GenX movie. I guess "Singles" could be mentioned. Personally I thought that movie seemed more "Let's set the movie in Seattle and show some bands because that's cool now," but I'm sure there's a lot of people that liked that movie. 70.106.199.72

What to do? Make it a collage.
I guess the only thing that could be done with a page like this, is to make it a montage of perspectives, theories, and accepted facts. The page must be necessarily ambiguous. It would talk about different people's perceptions of what Gen X was about, what motivated it, what it was like, where it was going. I think this would be fair, and interesting to read.

"Mystery" Generations
For those who came of age in the time of a multi-billion-dollar telecommunication system, a generational debate is useless. The generational template and its timeframe are vague and subjective, and depending on your source of information (and there is no one definitive source), the qualifying date of birth for Generation X ends as LATE AS 1984, and that for Generation Y begins as EARLY AS 1977. There is no definitive source because of the tonnage of information.

http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=neither_x_nor_y

Generation box
I have removed the years from the box at the bottom of this article, as they express a single POV of what the definite years are. I've noticed that similar boxes appear in other articles on generations; it might be best to remove the years from those as well, as they too express a single POV. -- LGagnon 23:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Outlook not so good
The Outlook section is blatantly filled with POV (who says the whole generation is like that?), weasel terms, and unverified data. Even if we clear up the POV about dates, we'd still have to keep the warning because of the poorly worded text in that section. Of course, don't get me wrong, these problems aren't only in the Outlook section, but they are worst there. -- LGagnon 01:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science...
If the events that marked the lives of the Boomers affected you personally, you're a Boomer. If not, you're Gen-X. I was born in early 1963 but I don't remember Kennedy, Marilyn, the moon landings, or Vietnam. I only remember Watergate because the hearings pre-empted my cartoons after school. I am firmly and irreversibly Gen-X.

At the back end, if you were born in the mid-80's when the entire concept of child-rearing changed and the country became far more child-friendly, then you're a Millenial (I prefer the S&H term). Was there a 'Baby On Board' sign next to your legally mandated car safety seat? Did your folks get hints from T. Berry Brazleton? Did you watch Barney? Then you're Millenial.

While hard, fast years are convenient, what we're ultimately talking about is a sea change in how society views itself and it's children. Things like that don't happen on a schedule, they creep in gradually and only become clear years after they've happened.

I vote for Gen-X = 1963-1985. NetSerfer 21:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone born in 1985 is waaaay to late to be a Gen Xer. They would not have experienced the grunge era or were not entering (or already in) the job market during the disastrous recession of the early 1990s. I would say anyone born after 1981 is Generation Y as they do not feel society has let them down to the same degree as the average Gen Xer. In my view Generation X's birth years are 1964 thru 1980 or maybe 1981 but definitely no later. Anyone who has known computers and the internet for their entire life is definitely Gen Y and if you were born in 1982 or later this would be true. Also, most people I know born after about 1981 tend to identify far more strongly with "hip hop" culture where as most Xers have a natural distaste for rap. As for the beginning of Gen X, the "baby bust" began in earnest in 1964 and this is also the year that the earliest boomers would have begun having children. As for the Baby Boomers, there was no "boom" until at least 1942 so the boomers are 1942 or 1943-1963. People born earlier than 1942 are definitely members of the Silent Generation. By the time of the "Summer of Love" they could no longer be considered youths. Having said that there is always blending at the beginning and end of each generation so some born in 1963 may consider themselves Boomers, others Gen Xers, depending on when they were most socially and culturally active and aware. Was it when they were in their late teens or was it when they were in their mid 20s? Do they relate to the Disco era or the glam rock/grunge era? The core of Generation X I would say is birth years 1967-1977 as people born in these years will overwhelmingly identify themselves as members of GenX. Of course when you're speaking of a 20 year time frame naturally there are bound to be differences between the earliest and latest members of any generation but the attitudes and experiences are somewhat similar. So yes, a 1948 is an early boomer and a 1958 a late boomer, but both are boomers nonetheless. Myself, I'm a '69, so as a core Gen Xer I relate very much to the characteristics that are often ascribed to our generation. I also feel a certain affinity to the so called "Lost Generation"; those who were born roughly in the 1880s and 1890s. Like us, they tended to be overshadowed by both the generations before and after them. I think our contribution to society will be to ensure that the Boomers (who I see as one of the most reactionary and dogmatic generations in history) don't get too carried away with their regressive social and economic reforms. -- 142.161.179.71


 * I thought that our conclusions had generally decided that it is absolutely impossible to define a cultural generation in tight years as seems to be the obsession here. For our puproses X refers to many people born in the 60s and 70s, leave it at that. Much more important than the exact year or month of birth are other factors such as social class, race, geographic location, education, etc... I do agree with the post below though, saying that for the article, we should quote sources, and not just argue about the people we happen to know, and whether or not they enjoyed the Sex Pistols. Peregrine981 11:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

That's perhaps your conclusion, but the reality is there do exist different generations with similar characteristics on a very general level. Of course social class, education, etc. are important as well. Certainly no one is suggesting that everyone born between certain dates is exactly the same. And you're quite right, the start and end dates of any "generation" are somewhat grey. Also, as this is a somewhat esoteric topic, sources will be difficult to obtain; and of course their viewpoint will be as equally subjective as anyone's written above. Don't always look for someone else to back up your argument; state your case and then back it up yourself. Christopher Columbus did not rely on "sources". --209.115.235.79 18:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are we using an ancient explorer as an example for writing an (potentally) academic work written in the present? Anyone who thinks using sources doesn't help make your writing more reliable doesn't know the first thing about writing non-fiction. And besides, references are needed for articles if they plan on becoming featured articles (which all articles shouls strive for if possible). -- LGagnon 21:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that failing to use sources makes writing more or as reliable. But what sources do you expect to find on such a topic? It's like using sources to write a critique or a review of a novel. The opinions expressed by the "sources" will be equally as subjective as your own. With respect to this article I see them as valuable but not entirely necessary. Also, Columbus was not an "ancient" explorer, but a Renaissance one. The example was one of many that could have been used. The point is, one can make an argument (and perhaps be proved right in the end) without relying exclusively on other sources, or the accepted opinions of the day. To believe otherwise would make one simply a slave to dogma. And one who can't spell "potentially" or "should" doesn't know the first thing about writing, period. --209.115.235.79 08:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sources make an article better because they improve the reliability of the article (as we know you aren't just making things up) and because many sources are written by someone with expertise (something that many Wikipedia editors lack). If you've ever taken a higher-than-101 level writing course in college (as I have), you'd learn about the concept of exigence, in that sources make your work much more credible. In fact, outside of original research, non-fiction works tend to be untrustworthy if they can't name at least a few sources for the "facts" they cite. And even if the sources are subjective, they at least show where you are getting your info from; that way, if you are using a bad source the reader can determine this by checking it (plus other editors can change false info easier if they know it came from an uncredible source). As for your "slave to dogma" argument, we are not here to push one opinion nor are we here to publish original research; thus, unless you can find sources to back your opinion (you probably can; look a bit harder for them), you shouldn't waste our time adding it just for the sake of rebeling against Wikipedia's rules (that is, the NPOV and no original research rules). And as for the Columbus and mispellings comments (the latter being rather immature of you), I recommend looking up "hyperbole" and "typo" in a dictionary; you don't seem to understand what those are. -- LGagnon 22:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

One of the cardinal rules of writing is that all work should should be proof read to check for errors (ie. "typos") in spelling and grammar. When one reads a piece of written work riddled with errors, whether argument or prose, the incredibility of the author is enhanced. As a dogmatic individual, you should be well aware of this. Furthermore, this is a discussion page, not part of the main article. Sources are valuable, as always, but not entirely necessary for these purposes. Certainly the main article should quote sources, if available, whenever a fact or opinion is expressed to enhance credibility. With respect to this page, I would never support quashing any individual's right to expressing his or her opinion simply because they were unable to quote "reliable", or indeed any, sources. All opinions merit interest, whether for debate or simply for dismissal. I am very pleased for you that you have completed a college writing course. Could I ask what purpose you had in mentioning this? Do you believe this will bolster your own credibility? Rather shallow, indeed. --206.45.166.115 08:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If a piece of work has numerous typos, then yes, it may lack credibility (that word, by the way, does not start with the letters IN). However, a few typos are really harmless, and do show up from time to time in professionally written works. Either way, they are minor mistakes, and not nearly as bad as not citing sources. And I think you miss my point on what sources are needed for. I have been arguing, over and over again, that the article, not the talk page, is lacking sources. This is a very serious problem for the article, as much of what it will be based around is certain points of view on the subject. However, rather than try to improve the article by coming up with more sources, people have been using this talk page as a soapbox to give their opinion on Gen X. This would be ok if it helped improve the article, but it doesn't if it contains nothing we can use - which is the case with almost all of them. The point of these talk pages is not to turn them into message boards about the subject, and yet that is exactly what this talk page is becoming. And as for the college bit, I mentioned that because you seem to be ignoring a rather basic concept of professional-level non-fiction writing, and because chances are you wouldn't have been taught about exigence outside of college (although you should have picked that concept up by now). -- LGagnon 21:34, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Read the phrase as above:"incredibility is enhanced"; Yes, the word does start with the words "IN". Something that is not to be believed is incredible not uncredible. If you believe you are a professional level writer with your numerous "typos" and grammatical errors I hate to think of the state of the writing profession, at least in your locale. As to the rest of your patronising (correct spelling) banter, I will simply make use of the classic Generation X expression........."Whatever". I have undertaken a great deal more formal education than a college writing course, but I feel little need to detail that here. I need not boast of my accomplishments to enhance my own credibility in argument. I suppose you are one of those people who if you earned a Ph.D., you would insist on being called "Doctor". --209.115.235.79 00:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of using "incredibility" instead of "credibility"; it sounds like you are trying (poorly) to cover your tracks with a rather unintelligible rationalization (yes, there's a Z there; it's called American English, and it's not wrong, it's just different from the British form). And it's just laughable that you define numerous as "two". I'm not going to bother commenting on the rest of your immature, snobbish buffoonery; college education or not, you haven't proven it in the childish way you act (and especially not in the way you put the trivial before the critical). -- LGagnon 02:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Potentally = Potentially, Shouls = Should, Rebeling = Rebelling, Uncredible = Incredible. That makes four by my count. Given the limited amount of comment involved, four is certainly numerous! Yes indeed, quite laughable! You count about as good as you write! With that type of primary school writing ability I'd say that makes you the childish one! Of course the trivial is more important than the critical.....did you not follow the 2000 and 2004 presidential election campaigns? --207.161.32.237 07:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * All you are doing now is trolling. You're adding nothing to the discussion and merely attacking me on the basis of typos (and you're still using the word "incredible" wrongly). If you have nothing constructive to say, I suggest you quit arguing. -- LGagnon 01:03, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself you anal-retentive bastard. If you weren't so stupid you'd realise that incredible is used correctly in the context above. I think you'd better enroll yourself back in one of your second rate colleges and retake your primary level writing course. Learn how to spell, and type! I'll write whatever I bloody well please and I won't let a fascist dogmatic asshole like yourself tell me otherwise!

Too much POV, too little research
Rather than argue about what we think, could we actually come up with some citable sources? We aren't going to resolve anything by sitting here and constantly saying "I think Gen X is this or that". There should be reference material out there that clears things up better than arguing over our own opinions will. We're not here to do original research, after all. -- LGagnon 12:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC) - But it is even POV with citable sources. Who carries the most weight? Coupland originally defined "Generation X" as tail end Baby Boomers; 1958   to 1966 in Canada, 1964 in the US. His criteria was: Even Statistics Canada (US Census Bureau equivalent) define Generation X as "back end Baby Boomers" (search "Generation X" http://www.statcan.ca and see 2001 Census result) as does Canadian economist/demographer David Foot. Strauss & Howe say 1961-1981 and Bruce Tulgan acknowledges "cusp" Xers, 1960-1964.
 * too young to march for peace (Viet Nam war protests ended in 1973; typical protestors 16-24 making youngest born in 1957)
 * don't remember/weren't born yet when JFK was shot in 1963 (long-term memory difficult before age of 5; youngest to recollect born in 1957)

These are all credible sources and much research went into each one. However, basically each source either recognizes demographic or psychometric parameters. Then is it a question of which is a more accurate sociologic tool? Or, maybe it depends on what is being defined in terms of marketing, economics, etc.

My POV: birth rates can't be disputed. And there are actual biological and economic consequences to large (boom) or small (bust) peer groups. Otherwise, there will never be agreement with psychometric parameters. Although there may be some agreement with the "experts", there probably will never be precisely defined Gen X years based on psychometrics.

Douglas Coupland defined a group that exists in an accelerated culture. Too much rapid change exists today for continuity from first to last birth year with a 20 or 22 year generation (POV?). Coupland originally defined the 1958 to final boomer year, Canadian or American, as Xers. This is equivalent to post peak (1957) American Boomers, and the younger half of Canadian Boomers. He originally wrote about Generation X in 1987 (Vancouver Magazine article) and the characteristics are identical to what is attributed to those considered Xers today (seeming lack of ambition, economically disenfranchised, live w/parents, over-educated, etc); those born from the mid 60's throughout the 70's. He also said in 1995 ... Let X = X; I say let it. -- 4.239.147.191


 * I understand that each expert and/or citable source will give different years. My point is that instead of using the millions of different year sets that will inevitably be suggested by Wikipedia editors, let's just use those that have actually been said in a citable sources and show that there are different sets proposed. After all, Wikipedia is not the place for POV or original research. If it was, we'd never fix the problems with this article. -- LGagnon 23:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Then, that would narrow it down to thousands of year sets by citable sources. But, the whole point is being completely overlooked. Wikipedia is not the place for POV or original research, but it should strive for accuracy.


 * This term being debated was specifically used in it's origin (notwithstanding Deverson & Hamblett which only got British acclaim in 1964) to describe those who could/should/would not be affiliated as a Baby Boomer, "Boomer-NOT" as Strauss & Howe said, back-end Boomers living in the shadow of their older peers even as they were told they were Boomers. The younger Boomers wanted to "X" themslves from the older group which they did not relate to. Then in the mid 90's forward, the term was corrupted to label another group of different year sets.


 * Today, people are completely unaware of the original connotation from 1987, later known internationally in 1991. Coupland painstakingly set up a foundation that somebody else later came along and built another house on. I think Wikipedia should read:

"Generation X - the group of back end Baby Boomers as defined by Douglas Coupland, 1958 to 1964 (in the US) 1966 (Canada). Other sources may claim a variety of other year sets using this term." Period. Let X = X. -- 4.239.147.191


 * And yet that supports only one POV, elevating it above all others. And it's not even the original definition. What we really need is to show various citable opinions on the year set and not put one above all others. -- LGagnon 21:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Deverson & Hamblett and got the international acclaim Coupland did, only being limited to the British public. Most people today think of another demographic other than British youth born 1940-1951. The term Gen X, that involves certain universal stereotypes originally applied a specific sub-cohort post-peak Boomers (in the US), was later exploited by media and marketers and used to label a younger demographic (usually those born 1965-1976) that shared many characteristics in common. -- 4.239.147.58


 * You are arguing that we should place one POV over others. We are not going to make the article POV just because you have a problem with the media's view, academic views, or any view other than Coupland's. I'm a Coupland fan too, but that doesn't change the fact that we have a NPOV rule. On an unrelated note, I took the liberty of changing the non-standard format of replying (the lines and lack of signature) for you, as it makes this page less confusing to read; I hope that's not a problem. -- LGagnon 22:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Referencing citable sources may have some validity. Then, where do the bracketing years of 1964 (the year I was born) - to 1979 or 1981 come from? What credible source stated "The starting point for Generation X should be 1964 because Eddie Vedder was born that year."? Was it Strauss, Yankelovich or Bruce Tulgan? I've only heard about it through Wikipedia, and possibly "NeXT generation" religious-based sources. I question where the author got that from, which is POV in the extreem, isn't it? And, it's one of the major points of the article.


 * There are other references we haven't added yet, you know. Given enough time, we should come up with more references with a wider variety of POVs. Then, we'll be better able to source these years. I wasn't saying that the references we have now are the only ones, after all; I was saying that we need more references, as this article isn't researched well enough. -- LGagnon 00:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I Hate GenX
Can I please add I Hate GenX as an external link? It's a great site with a lot of information despite the title; I Hate Gen X -- Jpblo


 * No. It's way too POV, factually inaccurate, and doesn't cite references. And it's not even from a reputable source; it's a just someone's Geocities page. -- LGagnon 22:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

-- Really badly written page, with dangling participles.

Another Xer
I surfed here, and thought I might add a few random thoughts. I was born at the end of 1969. My teen years perfectly span the eighties. I was 10 in 1980 and 20 by 1990. So here's my perspective:

I think things should be standardized. A standard 15 years is used for the first 12 generations. If we are 13th Gen, then we should be an even 15 too. If Baby Boom is '46 to '60. Then GenX should be '61-'75. I think this makes a lot of sense.

A friend of mine had a really practical test - he always told me "Generation Xers were old enough to see Star Wars in the theater" (since it seems to be such a cultural touchstone for so many, I always thought that was an interesting litmus test).

I think Generation Y has appropriated, copied and generally mimicked Gen X so much that it can sometimes be hard to tell them apart, but there really is a difference between those that remember the Vietnam war on TV during the dinner hour, and those that were born during the Reagan 80s.

Just my opinion.

Having been born in 1963, I definitely would not consider myself to be a Baby Boomer. The experiences and attitudes are quite different. 1960 seems like a reasonable baby boom cutoff date - as the differences between someone born in 1958 and those born 1963 are much greater than those between those born in 1963 and those born in 1968.


 * Those at http://www.babybusters.org/debunk.htm seem to think people born from 1958 to 1968 have a lot in common. Check out the celebrities born in 1957 and compare with those born in 1958...

Generation X ran from 1965 - 85, dates in this article are incorrect
A generation is commonly regarded as twenty years (with the assumption that by that time, the initial members of the generation will come of age and start producing the next generation). The dates of Generation X ran from 1965 - 1985. The fact that a number of important Generation X figures (Kobain, Courney Love, etc.) were born in the early '60s does not mean that they themselves are Gen-X-ers, just as many key Baby Boom figures -- Bob Dylan (born 1941), the Beatles (born between 1940 - 43) -- are not themselves Baby Boomers. Markt3 - August 21, 2005


 * Again, we have no sources for this. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this article isn't going anywhere until we get more references. Heresay, personal opinions, and wild guesses are not going to improve this article. -- LGagnon 16:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

While the end dates of Gen X are more debatable, the beginning years cannot begin before 1965, as the Baby Boom has ALWAYS been defined as running from post World War II (1945) - 65 (or 64). From the US Census (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01-52.html): '' "The baby boom population is defined as those born between 1946 and 1964." ''

This is the US Census definition. If this is the case, then Gen X cannot be defined as beginning in 1961. The article already *is* extremely slanted, POV. It should, at the very least, be based on commonly acknowledged and accepted dates, not simply based on which generation certain parties associate themselves with, regardless of when they were born. Markt3 Auugust 21, 2005


 * Douglas Coupland's original definition of Generation X was equivalent to Trailing Edge Boomers, which the US Census Bureau does acknowledge. The term was later applied to the group born after the Baby Boom, the "Baby Bust", as the Census Bureau defines as those born from 1965-1976.

A decade or so back, the popular term was "The 'Wonder Years' Generation" (after the sitcom of that name), meaning people of this age group who, as small children, witnessed the tail end of the late 1960s/early 1970s activism and unrest (through parents, older siblings and on television), but were too young to have participated themselves. But it was always acknowledged that this was a subgroup of the Baby Boom generation itself.


 * I've heard that expression but unfortunately didn't catch many shows. "Tweeners" are an organization w/same viewpoint.

A massive talk page, full of personal rants
Last I looked, these talk pages on Wikipedia were meant for discussion of the article and for helping to facilitate the improvement of the article. And yet, what we have here is a ton of personal rants about personal experiences (what happened to the No original research rule?) and POV. What we don't have is what the article needs: more references and more reliable data. But despite that, nobody seems willing to provide anything of the sort. From what I can tell, this talk page is going to end up being an endless pile of useless info if it continues on the way it is right now.

I have requested that those who wish to resolve the POV problem in this article help out by poviding references and real, usable data. So far, no one seems willing to. I'm going to ask again for the 3rd time on this talk page already: please try to retain focus and add some citable references so we can have real usable data. -- LGagnon 23:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

A bit of data
(1) "Generation X" was popularized by Douglas Coupland in his book with the same name. Strauss and Howe published a book called "Generations." Both were published in 1991. The S&H book was based on their research, and calculated transitions by looking at trend reversals (e.g. drug usage, SAT scores) by cohort (extrapolated). S&H put the start of GenX at 1961. This was unpopular at the time of publication, as those who defined the Baby Boom (for marketing/planning reasons) did so by birthrate, and so put the end of the boom at 1964. S&H argue that as their placement of the year depended on cultural parameters rather than simply birthrate, their's was the more relevant for cultural discussion. (They also called GenX the 13th Generation.) This original book focused on the United States ONLY. It wasn't until later books that the authors expanded their theory.

Strauss and Howe are both Baby Boomers. The impetus of the book, according to the authors, was experience parenting a GenX child vs. a child of the generation after GenX.

(2) The point of a cultural generation is that it's one of many cultures that might influence someone. Quite possibly a person can be born in a certain year but not raised in that peer group and of course it would make a difference. Also s/he might belong to a subculture that has a stronger effect, whether racial, religious, or professional (artist, engineer...). The degree to which a local community is trend-setting, trend-following, or traditional (trend-resistant) will also affect the amplitude and timing of adoption of country-wide generational attributes. Further, one of the variables that changes from generation to generation is how conformist the generation is. GenX were raised in an environment that valued creative expression relative to Silents, who were raised in an environment that more highly valued conformity.

(3) Given those caveats, GenX's unique experiences include:

- Being legislated against. Property tax revolt led by Howard Jarvis hit the schools and communities. Reagan-era caps on student loans with simultaneous new restrictions in financial aid and the beginning of the volunteer army that paid for college http://www-tech.mit.edu/V105/N2/budget.02n.html made it difficult to go to afford school but seductive to join the military to solve that problem. Repeal of income averaging (helps new graduates get started in life... 1986), and taxing educational benefits (also 1986) made it difficult to start out once people were out of college and working. The 1991 recession's net job loss in the US was borne by GenX (I asked Howe about this one, and he said it was based on census data). Further, the 60's and 70's had many experimental curricula, leading to a concensus by employers that GenX's education was spotty.

In contrast, there was a Baby Boom in the first place because of the end of WW II and the resulting return to family life during an economic boom.

Also in contrast, the generation following GenX, sometimes called "Millenials," had the SAT renormed in 1995 as the first cohorts began testing for college; also tenure has fallen out of favor since roughly the early 1990's, allowing more merit-based teaching assignments.

- Womens' Rights changed the world. Kinsey's reports were the beginning but Masters_and_Johnson really flung the doors open in 1966. The Birth Control Pill launched the beginning of the Sexual Revolution, not only because of an atmosphere of novelty but also because women could pursue career paths if they could control pregnancy, whether married or not. Women moving into the workforce meant family structures and rhythms that were socially novel. Title IX finally prevented gender discrimination in school in 1972. All of these things completely changed the ways that families worked, and the change meant at atmosphere of uncertainty for the children, because no one had the answers.

- For many reasons, divorce rates skyrocked during the time GenX were children. Again, this was novel, and society didn't have mature processes in place. From http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/fam-div.html  "(Divorce) jumped another 250% between 1960 and 1980. After peaking in 1981 and declining through the mid-eighties, the rate  leveled off at about 4.7 divorces per 1,000 population in the late 1980s and early 1990s before again declining to 4.2 in 1998."

(4) Because of this social upheaval in schools, home, and the business world, one secondary attribute that is often Generation X in its youth had a high suicide rate, as well as anxiety and eating disorders; as the Generation has matures, it has found antidotes ranging from humor to religious participation. Many people in Generation X have developed the ability to "pick up the pieces." Another trait is a relatively high degree of comfort with ambiguity and change, and a high degree of resilience as well as an intuitive understanding of the importance of strong social systems and reciprocity.

Kitode


 * This information really would have done more of a service on the main page. S&H are credible sociologists, no one would disagree. But there are some real factors of cause and effect from large and small birth cohorts. David Foot demonstrated that with Canadian society. I don't think it's a valid argument that fertility rates have nothing to do with what might be called a generation. Economic hardships are one of the major forces that shaped the post-boomer cohorts. Foot's models show how post-peak Boomers were hit with massive unemployment and low wages within an economy that expanded enough to accomodate the growing working population, pre-peak Boomers. Post-peak Boomers were left with dwindling available jobs and tremendous peer competition, amongst themselves and the Boomers before them.

My definition
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)

Definition of a generation
I disagree with the definition of Generation X because it violates the definition of a generation. According to Webster's Dictionary..... September 2005


 * This, like most other comments made here, is mere POV. It isn't helping to improve the article. And, might I add, the dictionary doesn't determine social constructs; people tend to define things without the use of a dictionary, after all. -- LGagnon 21:19, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

People have already used the late 70s as the beginning of the next generation, so it can't be part of Generation X. Here are some to name a few (google search on Generation Y): www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=136, www.trendsetters.com/demotrend/9001,1,Generation-Y.html, www.rcsa.com.au/events/conference2005/speakers.asp?ID=9, www.nurseweek.com/news/features/01-05/generations.html, honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/ committees/FacDevCom/activity/news1003.htm, www.dymocks.com.au/ContentDynamic/ Full_Details_smh.asp?ISBN=1740663179, www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/gendif/gendif.htm ==

Confessions of a Gen X'er
I question the influences of Douglas Coupland's book. This book was released in 1991, however, it never appeared on the New York Times best sellers list, nor the Los Angeles Times best seller list, or any other list of best selling books. Not in 1991, or any other year in the 1990s. So, my question is: How many books were sold, and who actually read this book in 1991 or 1992, or 1993..... It appears to me, that this book sat on some obscure bookself, until some advertisement executive dug it up, because they needed a catchy name to sell products.

Plus, starting in early 1990, the youth were already wearing baseball caps, jackets, sweaters, and t-shirts with the letter "X" engraved on it. A good example, look at Janet Jackson "Rythm Nation" video. She wears a black baseball cap, with the letter "X" engraved in the center. Also, you could see the letter "X" being infused heavily in fashion by looking at the music artist that came out during this time: Color Me Badd, Bobby Brown, New Kids on the Block, Mary J. Blige, Jon B., TLC, Snow, Vanilla Ice, Public Enemy and Boyz II Men, along with hundreds of others.

Therefore, these marketing execs blew the dust off of this book only for name value only; it had an "X" in its title. Furthermore, when you read this book (and I have) you'll find out that this book is crap!! Nothing in this book reflects this generation, other than the fact the we love gourment coffee (actually, I'm eager to try that new Pumpkin Spice Latte at Starbucks!!!). Even throughout this article, every other paragraph list stereotypes from the book, and then disputes their validity. So, why is there a major push to give Coupland's book "Da Vinci Code" status. I would like someone, who has the wisdom of Solomon, to provide some facts (not opinions) of what exactly was so influencial about this novel. When, did it gain "holy grail" status, because it definitely didn't happen in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995.......

Also, I believe if you truly consider yourself a slacker, then you should express your "opinions" here!!, or here!!! 65.129.185.70 23:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You do have a few legitimate things to say. While in college, I do remember seeing students wearing clothing with x's on them. But realize, alot of the people editing these articles are not from the first wave of Gen x'ers. So, their views are somewhat different from the first wave. But this happens in every generation, the first wave of boomers are vastly different than the second wave. So here are some facts. I was born in 1970, and i came into adulthood in the last 80's.  A good indication of adulthood is the first year you were allowed to vote.  For me it was 1988, at the age of 18. Afer the euphoria of the Reagan revolution, between 1989 to 1992 a major transitioning period happened for Americans X'ers (in music, fashion, television, politics, technology), and influences came from all directions. Primarily from music, because the first wave of X'ers witnessed the transtion from superficial bastardized pop music to more socially cautious music, with realistic lyrics and sound. Hip-hop/r&b went through a transition, and was a major influence in defining the mindset of the youth, primarily in the urban metropolitan areas. Rock music went through a transition as well, and was equally a major influencial in defining the mindset, primarily in suburban and rural areas.  I don't see what influences Coupland's book had during this time (I believe little or non), it appears the first wave of Gen X'ers were influences by everything that happened before and during this transitional period (the good, the bad, and the ugly). The next wave of X'ers entering adulthood (begining in 1993) were probably more influenced by a different society, and the fact that the letter "X" was literally everywhere.  So, Coupland book do have some influences, but probably more heavily with the second wave of X'ers.  But, that's just my opinion! :)

Ask people born in 1981.
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)

Some more food for thought from a less US-centric view
Just some points about Gen X that are less US-centric and perhaps more global...

BTW "global" is a term somehow linked to Gen X.

I agree with the simple definition that the people that belong to Gen X are the children of the baby boomers, of the hippies, of the 68-ers (sessantottini in italian).

Not all the baby boomers were marching against the war in Vietnam, smoking spliffs, and bombing universities (in Europe), similarly not all GenX-ers were listening to Nevermind and watching Beavis and Butt-head on MTV.

I think it's important to keep in mind that couples in the US tend to get merried and have children earlier than in Europe. Couples in the States usually have their first child in their mid-20s, whereas in Europe in their very late 20s or early 30s. It's no surprise that Gen X is skewed fowards by a few years in Europe.

I agree that GenX is a lable that can be applied more to white than to black people.

Personally I think that GenX is defined in equal measure by what the people that belong to it have in common, but what their parents (the baby boomers) have in common.

GenX-ers do not necessarily rebel against their parents, they rebel against some aspects, embrace or admire others, and make up completely new stuff. Their parents (as for any new generation) don't understand them and don't know what to think about them.

For example they don't understand their political views.

Sometime GenX-ers do not have political views because they simply do not care. They have grown up in prosperity and they don't feel that making a political choice will significantly affect their future.

Sometimes GenX-ers have realised that making a political choice is much like choosing a brand of cornflakes over another. They make that choice without clamour, marches and demonstrations. GenX-ers often do not claim to BE democrat or repubblican (and in Europe liberal, christian-democratic, communist, socialis, lefty, or righty). GenX-ers often simply voted, this time, democrat or repubblican, they ARE none of them.

GenX-ers sometime did much of what their parents did, they become post-70ers, they wear their parent's old jeans and shirts, they smoke cannabis, and get involved with anti-global or environmentalist campaigns.

Their parents, who were hippies in the 70, now have white-collar jobs, have in part rinnegated their past, and are, again, confused: Should they tell their children not to smoke cannabis and not to have sex before marriage (or at least before being in a stable relationship)? They find themselves denying the freedoms that thay conquered 20 years before.

This eclectism and seamless mix of sometime contraddictory values leads me to think of GenX as a postmodern generation.

Another aspect that devides GenX-ers and the previous generation is the digital divide. Gen-Xers have grown up playing videogames and are at ease with technology. Perhaps for the 1st time in history the children teach their parents how to use email, mobile telephones, and the Web. Skills that their parents need in their work and daily life.

Other things that I consider associated with GenX are videgames, demential humour (like Beavis and Butt-head), and anime/manga culture.


 * These are really great ideas. You have really raised the intelligence level on this topic.  However, I disagree with your statement ******I agree that GenX is a lable that can be applied more to white than to black people******. If this is really a "global" generation, why is there is comparison between black and white?  What about people like me who are bi-racial, where do I fit in this mix?  Plus, every black person I know loves the label "Gen X". Every white person I know loves being an X'ers as well. I guess what you wanted to say was, ******alot of the stereotypical "characteristic" the "media" has attached to GenX, applies more to whites than to black people******. I'll add, it doesn't apply to the majority of whites, blacks, hispanics, bi-racials, or even gay people. But, in this "global" generation, a "one dimensional" perspective is being written for the characteristic of this generation.  You did a great job giving a "balanced" and "global" perspective on the "talk page", but the "article" is very "opinionated" and in is "one directional".


 * - White and black people: You could be right. Perhaps most GenX-ers take racial equality as a given and there are no big distinctions between the experiences of blacks and whites.


 * - Being bi-ratial does not determine if you belong or not to Gen X or not. What we are trying to find are the main social and cultural trends of the people who have grown up in a certain time period. Now that you bring this up, should we say that white GenX-ers have happily adopted black culture? Think of Hip-Hop and R&B, they have become mainstream in this period. Most of the music in the charts has black origins, although it is often by white artists, and it targets to both white and black audiences.


 * - (un-)balanced views: Sure, I am not trying to be all-encompassing and objective. I am just raising a few points that I think are worth to be considered.


 * - One more point: Another thing that popped into my mind today is that in Europe the Socrates/Erasmus programme has influenced young people in Gen X. The programme has given the opportunity to thousands of European students to study in other another European countries.


 * In my view, black culture in America has always been the pulse of the world, dating back to the Jazz influences of the 1920s. So, white people adopting aspects of black culture is not something exclusive to GenX. Every Generation in the 20th century has adopted many forms of blackness. And vice-versa, many blacks have adopted many forms of white culture. Today, there's not much difference between the races. An example: look at this current generation (whatever they call themselves), black youths are worshiping the most undesirable culture blacks have to offer (pimps, thugs, ghetto bastards). In turn, white youths have followed suit, worshiping the most undesirable culture whites have to offer (trailer trash, trailer parks, hill-billies). Different folks...same strokes.


 * Anyway, this is the perpective that's missing from this article. These view are strictly American, and even exclude Canadians. There are two segments within American X'ers: those born between 1964-1973, and those born afterward 1973.  The "64 to 73" group begun their education at some point in the 1970s, in the midst of the "Age of Aquarius".  Therefore, they were the first-born generation educated and cultivated in a radically changing society.  Some black X'ers were the first to be bused to all white school, and some white X'ers were the first to be bused to all black school. So, at an early age, this group of X'ers were socially conditioned to interact with people of different backgrounds. This group of X'ers also spent a huge part of their teenage years in the 1980s, the most "over-the-top" decade in American history, and the greatest decade for entertainment.  This group of teenaged X'ers were bombarded by all forms of entertainment: music, sports, cable television, movies, and even the current president (Ronald Reagan) who was a former actor. This group was also bombarded by bad influences: poverty, drugs, unemployment, and literally a "cut-throat" society that preached "the only thing that matters in life was how much money is in your back pocket."


 * This group of X'er came of age begining in 1983, and started influencing society by 1986. Hip Hop was still considered underground music, as well as the early precursers to Grunge. As more members of this generation became adults, the more society gradually changed.  1991 was the "big bang" year, when everthing flipped from baby boom to X.  Since, this group witnessed the heavy influences of entertainment in the 1980s, entertainment was used to reflected this groups ideas. If you read the lyrics from many prominent Grunge/Alternative rock artist vs. HipHop/Rap artist, there not much difference. Differenct folks, same strokes.  The lyrics reflected the society in which they were cultivated.  And, they unleashed all of their rage and anger in their songs and music. And, all nationalities of this generation love and appreciated their music.


 * This is the foundation that is missing from the defininig element of this generation. The defining characteristics of this generation did not start with some dumbass book, it was a work in progress begining from the 1970s.

Agreed, Gen X are the Children of the Boomers

 * The children of the boomers started being born in approx. 1967, but the bulk of them weren't born until the 1970's. I was born in '67 to parents born in the "gap", before the boomers.


 * Some have called those born 1955-1968 the "Lost Generation" meaning, lost between the Boomers and the Gen Xers.

lets start a new generation
sorry to add onto your post but it seems like the general idea of the 79-85 era. We are the generation thrown into a terrible area. look at generation x for a few minutes. Generation X was part of "the breakfast club" the expression "rad" and those god awful "footloose" shoes. now I must admit, I have seen and been a part of all of these things. being born in 1979 I am the beginning of "generation who the hell are we" It seems for years my friends that were born from 1975-80 all make the claim "I am part of generation x" but they all back it up with some non-sense explanation almost without pause. seen as " I am part of generation X because I owned brand new starwars toys." so I say the fu$% with it. we should as a group band together and brainstorm new generational Ideas.

Lets try a few

"generation loner" "generation t.v." "generation internet" (we were the first teens to get the net) in fact thats pretty good "generation nintendo" "generation they kicked us out" "generation we left" "generation left"

any other ideas?

"Lost Generation?"

 * My mother was born in 1942, which I'm assuming, makes her a Baby Boomer. I was born in 1961, and have never discovered just what my generation was called. At first I thought that maybe my generation was part of the Baby Boomer or rather "Late Baby Boomer" era (if there's such a thing). If my generation was called the "Lost" generation, I would tend to believe that there might be some truth in that. Any comments?

Why this discussion exists:
If you take a look at this discussion, you notice there are generally two kinds of posts. The dominate number of posts are about how children born in the mid 80’s are gen-x. I’m sorry your stuck in between generations. I know that gen-x is damn sweet, but to make a internet post about how you belong in the lamest crap I’ve ever heard. That takes us to the minor number of posts: it’s clever comments by gen-x’ers with a lot of time on their hands. Guess which kind this is. Anywho the point is “I’m sorry your parents didn’t pop you out sooner cause then people wouldn’t have to read your drivel about how cool you think you want to be by labeling yourself old”. I should sell you some t-shirts, but chance’s are, you bought um already.

-Big_Rig

RfC: What should the wording of the introduction be?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

I think a range of early 1960s to early 1980s should be used in the intro. This leaves little room for debate and repeated consensus and edits to the article. Graduation dates should not be mentioned as it is not with the baby boom generation, and generations are supposed to be based on culture not academics. Academics are far too complex to include when determining generation boundaries. From what I was told by two administrators and another long time editor a consensus can be overridden if a new consensus is formed and a change is agreed upon. Educatedlady (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore if we are going to use dates then all possible should be used. We should be able to agree on a specific wording that reflects this. And it should not matter if a source is popular or not. Educatedlady (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

QUOTE FROM Millennials rising: the next great generation By Neil Howe, William Strauss

On page 4 of this book the authors specifically state "Meet the Millennials born in OR AFTER 1982". This does NOT state 1982 AND after, but 1982 OR after. Therefore these authors are not specifically stating that Generation Y, New Boomers, Millennials begins in 1982. They are stating it can begin in 1982 OR after.

Also this is to Creative Soul on page 19 of this book it states that the events that had the biggest impression on the class of 2000 WAS none other than "The Fall of the Berlin Wall". Now one of the first things you mentioned to me when we first crossed virtual paths is that you "saw the Berlin Wall crumble", in a tone that appeared to me that persons born in 1982 cannot relate to. Not to start an argument but this is what you stated.

There are a lot of inaccuracies in this book, and there is some accuracies as well. They mention the Columbine tragedy in the book influening the class of 2000. However, I feel since this happened in 1999 it would also greatly impact the class of 1999 as well and others. This is what I remembered being mentioned at the class of 1999's graduation for my high school, and nothing in regards to generation X or even 1999 incorrectly being referred to as the last class of the century. I do not think a person who has not experienced this generation first hand can write about this accurately. I also read Elwood Carlson's book again. His book is not detailed on specifics, which may be why it is not widely received but Strauss and Howes are not exactly either. Carlsons book is a published text and he is a distinguished professor and he discusses Generation X in his book so it should not be overlooked on this page and just referenced on the Gen Y page. Educatedlady (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would favor keeping the dates as vague as possible and not putting any hard start and end dates. There is not a specific date and time that one generation ends and another begins. WP:UNDUE may be of some use. The most well-sourced dates should be used, but if there are significant minority opinions they should be mentioned and noted as being minority opinions, but not necessarily in the lead. Consensus can change over time, we are not obligated to keep doing something just because that's the way it was done before, but older conversations can be useful for reference in the current one and can help avoid repeating the same arguments again and again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree that the whole concept of Generations is flawed?
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)

Agreeing with Peregrine981 please sign your posts. You are accurate in many aspects however since the research world has gone crazy in defining generation x by various years we have to use what has been researched. That is why I am proposing a range on early 1960s to early 1980s. Now the concept of the issue being flawed is another topic for research however Wikipedia does not accept original research. I would advise that you research this, have it reviewed and published and then state your arguments for inclusion. However if we are going to identify a generation by 9 or 10 years, this is more of a "group" than a generation. I agree that those born from about 1976-1982 probably have more in common. However I have a sister that is 11 years older than me. Since we have become adults we now realize that we have a number of cultural similarities. We both attended elementary school during a part of the 1980s (she in the early 80s and myself in the late 80s) we have virtually identical memories of childrens programming such as Sesame Street, because in the 1970s and 1980s many of the episodes contained the same segments. In terms of technology we both learned to type using a typewriter not a computer like children do today. When grunge exploded on the scene in the early 1990s I was a huge fan, while my sister who was in her late teens/early 20s at the time was not, and I have educated her on the genre in the years following. Now thanks to me she is slowly becoming a fan after 20 years. Maybe we are just different. I cannot say everyone has this same experience, however I do believe the gap between our ages has invisibly decreased in certain aspects. The list goes on and I could discuss this all day, but its not going to help getting this article changed. This is our focus based upon ALL research not what is considered popular. No not everyone in a generation is going to have everything in common, but it should be a majority. Most people can relate to one or more generations. For example the Vietnam War is often associated with the Baby Boomers, but there are those born in Generation X anywhere from 1961-1972 that remember something about the war as it ended in 1975. Educatedlady (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

Oh yeah, sure Banana, the sources are so 'reliable' that many are citing 1982 as a birth year for graduates for the class of 2000. It seems that graduating in 2000 is one of the criteria for defining Gen Y.

YET, an academic year begins in September, so those born Sept-1981 to August 1982 would have graduated in 2000, making the 1982 year invalid. In fact, if you were born in September onwards 1982 you'd graduate in 2001.

Hmm, not seeing much common sense in regards to mainstream 'researchers'./

I'm guessing you haven't read this Talk Page much, so try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generation_X#Proof_of_When_An_Academic_Year_Begins

And in regards to making a proper account, I might just do that, but like I already said elsewhere, I have a lot of studies to do so don't always have the time to focus on Wikipedia. I'm only commenting here because this whole page (and the Gen Y) needs amending.

Plus, I thought 'anyone could edit Wikipedia', so whether a comment comes from a registered member or some anon (like me) is irrelevant. In fact, I can edit this page as it was intended to allow EVERYONE a voice here.

btw, not impressed with your sneaky attempt at making my comments less legitimate Peregrine, that was low. I've deleted the reference to 'signed by random anonymous guy...' as it was not only insulting, but was a blatant flame bait.
 * TLDRActive Banana    (bananaphone  23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

USER: We are pretty much in agreement and it doesn't help when those of us that are supposed to be agreeing are at odds as well. You have stated previously that you are too busy to create an account for Wikipedia, that's fine. But I don't understand how you are too busy to create an account when you are always posting information here. Creating an account is much quicker than adding or editing a page, so if you have time to edit/add then you should have time to register. What we are saying is that even though anyone can edit Wikipedia without registering, it aids our position in creating a legitmate consensus. This is a different issue than simply just editing. So please in order to validate our arguments register! Educatedlady (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This thread seems to have fizzled out but I will comment anyway: Yes, the whole idea that there is a specific date that marks the end of one generation and the beginning of another is a flawed concept. Some born before that date may relate more to genx, and some genxers undeniably have more in common with the baby boomers, it's not a cut and dried barrier. On the behavioral points, users are in no way, shape, or form required to register an account. They are required to sign their talk page posts though, so please do that every time you post. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughly explained reasoning behind wording of the introduction
I have thoroughly explained why the introduction has been worded this way and provided proof that the majority of sources (and a variety of them) use (and why) 1981 as the last acceptable date. Please see previous talk pages which include those sources. Please stop making changes to dates. Peregrine, you're constant reverts are disruptive. I have proven the majority of sources (most widely used) use 1982 as the earliest start for the Millennials. You asked for the proof (which supports the previous consensus), then complain that the greater number of sources doesn't make what I say true. Nonsense. That's exactly what it means. We are not holding a consensus once a month on this issue. The current sources show the variety of date ranges, with the range previously decided upon showing the widest acceptable range. 1982, 1983, and 1984 are not part of Generation X. Further changes will be reverted. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the information about the subculture belongs in the Origins. That is not how the term is widely used today, but it is a part of the origins. Quite adding it back in the introduction. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

QUOTE FROM Millennials rising: the next great generation By Neil Howe, William Strauss On page 4 of this book the authors specifically state "Meet the Millennials born in OR AFTER 1982". This does NOT state 1982 AND after, but 1982 OR after. Therefore these authors are not specifically stating that Generation Y, New Boomers, Millennials begins in 1982. They are stating it can begin in 1982 OR after. This is one of many reasons to change the intro, and it will be changed. A previous consensus is NOT set in stone Educatedlady (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As I've said repeatedly, I am not convinced by your argument. Repeating it over and over does not make it any more convincing or "correct". I have listed numerous concrete objections to your position based on wikipedia policy, which you have not responded to. You simply refuse to acknowledge them. I waited several days to give you time to respond before inserting my changes, which you responded to almost immediately. To me that smacks of a deliberate attempt to avoid consensus building. At this point you are relying solely on the revert button to engage with me, and several other editors who are of similar mind. You are certainly starting to border into disruptive territory, I quote from WP:DISRUPT "Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. " Also please see, WP:OWN. I repeat AGAIN my specific questions regarding your position:


 * What is your understanding of the term consensus? What does it mean to you?
 * When, EXACLTY, did the consensus on the opening occur. Please provide a link.
 * Why does the old consensus override the majority opinion of today's editors? Especially if you acknowledge that the consensus is so tenuous that it has to be re-litigated every month.
 * What is your position on keeping the origins sentence in the opening in light of my explanation of WP:LEAD above.
 * What source are you relying on to prove the importance of graduating in 1999 for the definition of Generation X.
 * What source are you relying on to reject the conclusions of Elwood Carlson.
 * What is your answer to NPOV policy which states that we should fairly represent all credible points of view?
 * What is your opinion of the quotes I provided that state that generations do not have hard and fast end and start dates at all? Strauss and Howe themselves are perfectly frank about this as well.

Peregrine981 (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because a new consensus goes by feeling, doesn't mean its' claims are backed by sources. Several people once claimed the world was flat - it didn't make that consensus right. Regardless, I have proven my point several times over and defended the previous consensus' wording, you continue to engage in disruptive edits. I have explained the Elwood Carlson situation to you several times. It is not my fault you keep ignoring what I've written. His work is not widely accepted, and the majority of reliable sources use 1982 as the start of Generation Y/Millennials. I shot down the few sources using 1983 because they aren't reliable or widely known. It is not only Strauss and Howe who use 1982 as the start of Generation Y/Millennials, and I have provided excessive amounts of resources proving you wrong. Yet, you keep bringing up these two authors, who happen to be at the forefront of generational research and are highly respected. You complained about the lack of numerous sources and demanded quotes, so I provided that information. Educatedlady tried to make her opinions of Strauss and Howe as fact, and that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. She also tried to claim that the Millennial term does not apply to those who graduated in 2000 because the Real Millennium was in 2001, but I proved that the even the U.S. Navy (which she cited as backing up her claims about the Millennium) uses 1982 as the start of the Millennials, and that the term is continually used today (see previous discussions on that point). The fact is, that the majority of sources back the previous consensus. Peregrine981, when you were faced with the overwhelming evidence against you, you tried one more tactic. You attacked Strauss and Howe's work, claiming their recent work was published in 2000, when I said that both authors continued their research, publishing their findings almost every year. Neil Howe's latest book on Millennials and the workplace was just published this year - 2010. I also cited recent 2010 articles using 1982 as the start of Generation Y. Your claims are baseless and you are trying to use vague words to fit your own criteria/agenda. By using the phrase "early 80s," you can claim that 1982, 1983, or even 1984 was part of Generation X, when that is false. The facts are against you. It's ridiculous that this subject comes up once a month now - when the facts and the amount of sources speak for themselves.


 * Furthermore, you edits were reverted several times before by other editors for the reasons I have stated above. While my facts (many current sources as well) support the previous consensus, your consensus is made up of people who say they don't feel the date ranges are right. That is not an acceptable reason to keep inserting your changes. The previous wording stands. And what you added in the introduction about the counterculture belongs in the Origins section for now because it that is not how the term is widely used today - but it remains vital as part of the early usage of the terminology. I will be reverting any future changes you make to the dates. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You still have yet to show us where this old consensus was created. I've asked, over and over again, to provide a link so that we can see the discussion that took place. I have provided several contradictory sources and reasons for a change which you have never addressed! You just ignore them.


 * Please, understand, I am NOT saying that a lot of sources don't use 1961-1981. I have NEVER said that it isn't a common, perhaps the most common date range used. BUT that does NOT prove that other date ranges do not have merit. Secondly, just because you can find a lot of sources does not PROVE that it is the most common. That is original research. You need to find a source stating that it is the most common. Yet, even if it is the "most common" and you find a source explicitely saying so, does not mean that we don't mention competing claims because of NPOV. You have never addressed this problem. IT IS MY CENTRAL CRITIQUE!!!! You continue to say that just because you found a bunch of articles citing those dates it somehow invalidates everything else.


 * For the record, I am not against Strauss and Howe, I simply think there's more to life than Strauss and Howe. They are widely read, but not universally accepted. Plus, their research pertains primarily to the USA, not globally. I did not "attack" them, I simply said that their main book comes from 2000 when you critiqued another book for being published in 2003.


 * You continue to dodge my questions, just stating the same thing over and over again. You haven't addressed my points regarding NPOV, LEAD, graduation year, Carlson, or the variability of end years of generations. In fairness you have defended the "old" consensus by saying it is correct, while the new one is not. But you haven't addressed my critique of the old consensus using wikipedia polices, NPOV, No original research, and competing authors. You either ignore these sources or claim they are not valid without citing any verifiable secondary sources. And you continue to hide the old consensus so that it is impossible for us to critique it.


 * Now you are accusing me of having an "agenda"??? Which is rich coming from somebody who absolutely will not even try to compromise their exact wording. If you can provide me of proof from reliable sources that 1961-81 are the only accepted dates acknowledged among experts in the field I will be happy to concede. But I have found many books and sources disputing that contention on a variety of grounds. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

QUOTE FROM Millennials rising: the next great generation By Neil Howe, William Strauss On page 4 of this book the authors specifically state "Meet the Millennials born in OR AFTER 1982". This does NOT state 1982 AND after, but 1982 OR after. Therefore these authors are not specifically stating that Generation Y, New Boomers, Millennials begins in 1982. They are stating it can begin in 1982 OR after. Educatedlady (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In or after 1982 means those born in 1982 and later are part of the Millennial Generation - how is this not clear? The word 'in' is inclusive, and 'or' means 'not only 1982.' The authors did not write "either 1982 or later." All their books (which I have - ordered the new one) use 1982- (dash included, meaning from 1982 onward) as the start of Generation Y. Millennials Rising, Generations, 13th Generation, and The Fourth Turning all end Generation X in 1981 and the authors clearly state that fact. I have cited page numbers from Millennials Risingon the Generation Y page from this book and quotes from book discussing the 1982 birth year and the Class of 2000. The book also mentions the start of the Echo Boom in 1982 and discusses the boom in births as coinciding with the birth of the new generation. Here is quote about the first group of Millennials: "the first five Millennial cohorts (babies born between 1982 and 1986) are the trendsetters." And other sources I've provided even use date ranges starting from 1982- (again, dash included). You also fail to note the quote a couple of paragraphs below the one you provided: "Look closely at the dramatic changes now unfolding in the attitudes and behaviors of today's youth, the 18-and-unders of the year 2000." According to math and the authors'own standards throughout the book, those born in 1982 were eighteen years old in 2000. Several pages later: "The era of the worthy child had begun. Wanted Protected. Worthy. Thus did the heralded Class of 2000 arrive in America's nurseries and cribs. Soon a much longer glossary of (mainly) positive adjectives would describe them. From conception to graduation, this 1982 cohort has marked a watershed in adult attitudes toward, treatment of, and expectations for children. Over that eighteen-year span, whatever age bracket those 1982-born children have inhabited has been the target of intense hope, worry, and wonder from parents, pollsters, pundits, and politicians. Not since the Progressive era, near the dawn of the twentieth century has America greeted the arrival of a new generation with such a dramatic rise in adult attention to the needs of children." Neil Howe is regularly consulted regarding his research, doing interviews for CBS News, PBS, etc., and continues to publish papers and books. William Strauss died of pancreatic cancer back in 2007. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you providing Bios for Strauss and Howe, that information belongs on their Wiki pages not here. Strauss and Howe are NOT the only accurate researchers on this subject. They are the ones that indicated Millennials begin in 1982 OR after, so this tells me they don't know for sure and have contridicted themselves. Please cease in trying to justify your personal opinions, this is what they wrote, therefore again disputing the years. You have still failed to prove that other research outside of Strauss and Howe are not widely received. Again this is a informational article NOT a popularity contest. Educatedlady (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Also I know either you just ignored or overlooked this but Creative Soul on page 19 of this book it states that the events that had the biggest impression on the class of 2000 WAS none other than "The Fall of the Berlin Wall". Now one of the first things you mentioned to me when we first crossed virtual paths is that you "saw the Berlin Wall crumble", in a tone that appeared to me that persons born in 1982 cannot relate to. Not to start an argument but this is what you stated. Your "facts" are wrong. I really don't care if it takes months/years to correct this article it WILL be done. Educatedlady (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not ignoring anything. You posted a quote about the date and I gave an explanation. Strauss and Howe further explain in their book that there were events that left an impression on Generation Xers (or 13th Generation members), such as "The Fall of the Berlin Wall" as well as older Millennials - to them, those born in 1982-1986 are the older Millennials. There is no contradiction in their works. The authors also mention that the youngest members of Generation X (at the tail end - according to their books those born in the mid/late 1970s to 1981) were shaped by the presidency of Ronald Reagan, as well as Bill Clinton. They are not contradicting themselves.


 * I am not providing bios on Strauss and Howe. Peregrine981 insists on discrediting these authors, and you provided a quote from one of their books. Am I not allowed to expand on what you posted? Readers might want to know that William Strauss passed away, but that Neil Howe is continuing their work. And the authors have not contradicted themselves. They are remarkably consistent throughout their books. You obviously have not read any of their books or research papers. The charts in their books also end Generation X at 1981 and start Generation Y/Millennials at 1982. I have also explained their wording in the quote you posted. In or after 1982 means those born in 1982 and later are part of the Millennial Generation - how is this not clear? The word 'in' is inclusive, and 'or' means 'not only 1982.' The authors did not write "either 1982 or later." If the authors meant either 1982 or a later year, they would have written "either." My facts are not wrong. I have provided a variety of sources from around the world, and from reputable sources I might add. Anyone can see the long list of sources and quotes I previously posted which supports the previous consensus' reasoning. I don't care if you keep coming on here for years, I will continue reverting the changes to the dates because I have the facts to back up the 1981 end date for Generation X. Threatening me is not going to work, and coming on this talk page claiming Strauss and Howe were wrong is original research/opinion - not fact. You were warned before by other users for your disruptive behavior and for stating you would include your own research. The majority of sources use 1982 as the start of the Millennials. The way it works is the facts that stay are the ones backed by the greater amount of reliable sources.


 * I think I've clarified the authors' usage of dates. And I responded to you below regarding the Jane Deverson book. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

HERE is where they contradicted themselves: Those who graduated in the year 2000 graduated while Bill Clinton was President, these same individuals ALSO started school while Ronald Reagan was president. Our coming of age was not during the George W. Bush presidency. So why in the world are these world renowed authors are publishing FALSE info! It was NOT just those born in 1981 but those born in 1982 as well.

Furthermore these authors DID indeed write that the millennials begin in 1982 OR after. I know you are not trying to dispute that, and you can't. Please let me know which book you are reading.Educatedlady (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been away due to business/personal reasons, so I have been unable to respond. Please read what I previously wrote, including the reasons behind the consensus. You just supported what I've been saying. All their books start Generation Y/Millennials from 1982- onward. See my previous post. You are purposely ignoring what I have written regarding the Strauss and Howe use of '1982'. The charts in their books also end Generation X at 1981 and start Generation Y/Millennials at 1982. I have also explained their wording in the quote you posted. 'In or after 1982 means'' those born in 1982 and later are part of the Millennial Generation - how is this not clear? The word 'in' is inclusive, and 'or' means 'not only 1982.' The authors did not write "either 1982 or later."''' If the authors meant either 1982 or a later year, they would have written "either." The authors also use "1982-" (with a hyphen to indicate 1982 and later years, including 1982) in their other books. I have also included Neil Howe's most recent book (published in 2010) on Millennials in the workplace, which connects the oldest members to the 1982 birth year.

Moreover, the phase 1980s implies a vague start date in the early 1980s, when I have proven over and over again that the majority and variety of sources consistently use 1982 for the start of the Millennials. Peregreine981 and you have failed to show that reliable sources widely use 1983 or later as the start date. I have thoroughly proven and supported the previous consensus, while you and the others are changing the wording based on the fact that you yourselves disagree with not only Strauss and Howe but also other authors I might add. Those are your personal opinions. My sources back up 1982 as the widely used start date for Generation Y/Millennials - which coincides with the definition (including the start of the Echo Boomers). The previously wording shows the earliest and latest widely used dates. While 1964-1981 will probably be inserted as the more common date range used, 1961 is the earliest date backed by reliable sources. The sources included show the various date ranges, and while earlier end dates are used by some sources for Generation X, 1981 is the generally accepted last date range. 1982, 1983, 1984 (all early 1980s) have never been a part of Generation X. These birth years are part of the Echo Boom and those born 1982-1986 are older Millennials. Peregrine981 and you have both been warned about changing the date ranges, and every time the introduction gets reverted back, Peregrine981 comes back about every other month and starts up the argument all over again. Peregrine981 asked for more sources and quotes to back up the consensus; I provided them, then he doesn't accept them. He asked for quotes specifically showing the Class of 2000 being defined as the first graduating class of the Millennials, and besides Strauss and Howe, I showed quotes from other sources immediately, proving this. You have a problem with the fact that the majority of sources (including newspapers, books and magazines) support 1982 as the beginning of the Millennials. Yet, you're both trying to make the issue about Strauss and Howe's supposedly faulty research. These authors are both highly respected in their field and were at the forefront of generational research. Re-inserting vague wording is just another way to get 1982 and other early 1980s birth years into Generation X - even though these claims are not widely accepted by most sources'''. This is not compromise, but allowing a few disgruntled editors to change an article based on personal opinions, and thus, promoting false information.'''

Once again, even in the recent sources I provided, such as the previously mentioned conferences devoted to the study of Millennials (American and Canadian), including American authors of the Millennial Makeover project, who are also highly respected, and were recent guest speakers (discussing Millennials today) at Harvard University. Peregrine981, after demanding to show numerous sources using 1981 (with quotes) acknowledges the fact that most sources use 1982 as the starting date for the Millennials, but, then in the same breath, now claims that is not good enough, and that sources need the phase "widely used. He keeps changing the conditions. Anyone can read through the previous posts and understand that the previous consensus has been thoroughly defended. Just because you don't feel that 1981 is the right end date for Generation X, that doesn't give you the authority to change what was previously established by a consensus, and proven again by current sources. I will be reverting the wording back to the original and will make sure that any further reverts are thwarted. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Last warning on this article. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No serious scholar defines a "generation" by a graduation date. Your insistance on including this content in the lead is incomprehensible. The rest of your claims are merely Tendentious editing in your insistance that your single opinion to maintain old version of content overides the current consensus that other wordings better reflect the sources and scholarly opinion. Active  Banana    (bananaphone

CREATIVE SOUL: AGAIN A PREVIOUS CONSENSUS IS NOT SET IN STONE. Another consensus was previously started and you were the ONLY editor that wanted to maintain the wording. Strauss and Howe DID NOT state that Generation X is the class of 1999, even though that they stated Generation Y begins with the class of 2000 (which is ridiculous, are they researching academics or sociology?) and 1982 OR AFTER. YOU KEEP IGNORING FACTS BY THE VERY AUTHORS THAT YOU WORSHIP. I agree with Banana.

Changes WILL be made to this article soon. If you try to revert rejecting the CURRENT consensus you may be blocked Creative Soul. I was told this by an administrator. AGAIN YOU ARE IGNORING MY FACTUAL POSTS: HERE is where Strauss and Howe contradicted themselves: Those who graduated in the year 2000 graduated while Bill Clinton was President, these same individuals ALSO started school while Ronald Reagan was president. Persons born from 1976-1982 CAN relate to this. Our coming of age was not during the George W. Bush or Barack Obama presidency. So why in the world are these world renowed authors are publishing FALSE info stating that just those born from 1961-1981 were culturally influenced by these persons! It was NOT just those born in 1981 but those born in 1982 as well. AGAIN YOU ARE IGNORING THIS CREATIVE SOUL!!! ANSWER THIS, RESPOND TO THIS! Just like I called out out for bragging about the Berlin Wall "crumbling" influenced you, Strauss and Howe stated that persons who graduated in 2000 were influenced by this event. This proves to me you have NOT even read their books OR you read it and are trying to just reference the parts you want to. Educatedlady (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just looked at this article for the first time and I could tell without looking at the history that there was an edit war underway. You know why? Because of the absolutely absurd number of citation in the first sentence. Without getting into who is right or wrong, generally we don't need 13 sources to verify one sentence, it looks ridiculous. And everybody is wrong in an edit war, having consensus behind you is not an excuse, and you do not have to breach WP:3RR to be blocked for edit warring. Seek page protection and/or dispute resolution instead. Consider this fair warning to stop the revert warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to proceed. CS continues to ignore the arguments anyone else makes, just repeating the same thing over and over and over. I have asked several specific questions, suggested compromise wording, and tried very hard to wait for alternatives. However, CS continues to revert any and all changes to the article without engaging seriously in discussion about suggested changes. What can we do in the face of this? Peregrine981 (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When you find yourself in an intractable dispute it is probably time to find ways to open the discussion up to more users so that consensus on the issue can be gauged. A request for comment is a one way, and there are many other forms of dispute resolution available. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks. I have already tried RfC, which seems to have attracted comment from a couple of users. However, it doesn't seem to make any difference to CS how many people come and disagree with them. They are just convinced that they are completely correct, despite the fact that many users have now stated their opposition to the current wording. What we need is some respected wikipedia authority to convince CS to engage in discussion and consensus building. By now it seems that there is some personal animosity toward me. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources mentioning the Class of 2000 being the first of the Millennials have been added, but you keep removing them. Please stop. Right now. The proof is there, and that is the logic used by other sources, including newspapers, journals, etc. PBS documentary, 60 Minutes documentary, and NPR all mention the Class of 2000 and 1982 birth years as the start of Generation Y/Millennials. I have mentioned this several times. I will report those who remove the sources again. The previous consensus has been thoroughly defended. Stop the disruptive edits right now. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok people I've just protected the article for a few days. Allow me to clarify that there is no justification other than reverting blatant vandalism that makes it ok to edit war. I could just have easily issued a block here, everyone keep that mind after the protection period expires. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

'People keep erasing my sources that support the previous consensus even after I have'' answered their questions repeatedly. They are the ones dragging the discussion and repeating their arguments. It was up to them to prove 1982 or other early 1980s dates were widely used, but I proved that those birth years are not widely accepted by media or academia. They tried passing blogs and sources that are not well known or widely accepted as proof. The current "consensus" (somewhat gathered by canvassing) is made up of two disgruntled editors who have tried several times to revert the article to suit their own purposes. A group of people can get together and say the world is flat, but that is not true. While Generation X has various start and end dates (generally 1961 or 1965 as the start date, and and old end date of 1975), the current widely used end date for Generation X is 1981/Class of 1999. That is the latest date acceptable. 1982 is considered the start of the Echo Boom - Echo Boomers are Millennials, not Generation X members. Those who graduated in the New Millennium and born during the Echo Boom (start date of 1982) have never been a part of Generation X. Very few reliable sources use 1982, 1983 or 1984 as the end date of Generation X (not enough to warrant an overhaul of the article), and since it's not a widely acceptable date (and a minority view) it is not allowed on Wikipedia. The original range reflects the earliest and latest acceptable dates. At a later date, it is more likely that 1965-1981 will be used, since more sources are using these ranges (though 1961 to 1981 will still be mentioned in the article).

Some editors are using the logic of disagreeing with Strauss and Howe (as if they are the only ones who think 1982/Class of 2000 is the start of the Millennials - not true.) and stating that "they're wrong". A personal critique of a researcher is original research. It is also not true that Neil Howe and William Strauss stopped their research in 2000 (as Peregrine981 tried to claim). They continued to publish their studies, and Neil Howe also continues to publish books on the subject. Educatedlady also tried making false claims about Howe and Strauss being inconsistent about the dates used for Generation X and Generation Y, but I own all their books, and the dates never change. I have provided numerous sources, and a variety of them from around the world showing that 1982 is widely considered by most to be the start of the Millennials/Generation Y.

I'd also like to point out that there are several sources that specifically mention the Class of 2000 being the start of the Millennials - all Strauss and Howe's books (including Neil Howe's new book published this year), CBS News, NPR, school journals, article by Duke University Press, researchers from the Millennial Makeover who spoke at Harvard University, the Canadian Millennial conference, and more. There is also a recently published study and 2007 book by British researcher Dr. Sylvia Collins on Generation Y and religion (in 2007, those 15-25 year-olds; book mentions those born in 1982 and later). '''All the evidence is there, supporting the previous consensus. A vague phrase of early 1980s implies any year from 1980-1984, which is wrong, and promoting false information (and promoted in order for these editors to claim 1982 or 1983 as an acceptable end date for Generation X), since those born in 1982 and later are Millennials.''' Strauss and Howe even mention those born in 1982-1986 being the first group of Millennials. Millennials/Echo Boomers refer to those born during the boom of 1982 and came of age (18) in 2000 - what is considered the New Millennium. Here is a recent article from September 22, 2010 defining the Millennials. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but you have not to my knowledge addressed all of my concerns. You continue, even here, to address straw man arguments. Please, I would very much appreciate if you could address the questions I have repeatedly posed, as I think they get to the heart of our disagreement. Who knows, you may convince me, but not if you don't even address my concerns:


 * What is your understanding of the term consensus? What does it mean to you?
 * When, EXACLTY, did the consensus on the opening occur. Please provide a link.
 * What is your position on keeping the origins sentence in the opening in light of my explanation of WP:LEAD above.
 * What source are you relying on to reject the conclusions of Elwood Carlson.
 * What is your answer to NPOV policy which states that we should fairly represent all credible points of view?
 * What is your opinion of the quotes I provided that state that generations do not have hard and fast end and start dates at all? Strauss and Howe themselves are perfectly frank about this as well.


 * Now you have addressed the 1999 point. However, I continue to disagree with your interpretation of the sources. As far as I have seen, no one DEFINES gen y using the graduation date. It is merely a coincidence that some use as to name the generation. So, I reject that argument unless you can find somebody specifically saying that the graduation date is what defines the generational gap. Secondly, those sources are universally defining gen y, not gen x. I don't think that that kind of "negative" definition is particularly useful for gen x. We should define it on its own terms not those of other generations. Also, you still have not answered why you rejected the compromise wording saying, early 1980s, but usually not later than 1981. That, to me, satisfies us all. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting very TLDR but at a glance I don't see anything there showing that the revert warring was related to vandalism. Therefore we can consider all involved parties warned about edit warring when the protection expires. I also see source overkill in several places, if either the responsible parties or anyone else would like to WP:CITEBUNDLE those after the protection is over that would be great. There is also an obviously intractable dispute here, with at least two users who clearly are not going to agree on their own anytime soon. This is frankly a silly dispute. Clearly there is no hard and fast line between generations, and as such the sources do not 100% agree with each other. That, in so many words, is what the article should say. If you guys can't find a way of saying it that you can agree on don't edit war over it further, maybe try the WP:MEDCAB or something. These long rambling posts make the casual observer not want to wade into this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am not trying to be difficult. I want the intro to be worded where it decreases the amount of disputes and arguments on this talk page, and also to show that there are conflicting sources. So therefore the dates of Generation X are not set in stone, but are still researched. We should not be looking at what is popular or not but whether if the source is valid. That is why I suggested using early 1960s to early 1980s as an example. However, I am willing to work with everyone here to find a wording that suits not only our concerns, but reflects the generation accurately so the readers of this page will not be confused. Do you have any other suggestions Beeblebrox and Peregrine?Educatedlady (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, Beeblebrox's position is the one I have long been advocating, and frankly so have most editors. The reason for the long replies is an attempt to avoid edit wars with CreativeSoul, who will not let go of the 1961-81 wording, despite the common sense idea that generations don't have such absolute and specific date boundries. I am in favour of giving them time to defend themselves as needed, whether or not it is "accessible" to the casual observer. I would just like to have a good faith effort by them to try to compromise with otheres. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I proposed a consensus of early 1960s to early 1980s. I do not know what is the status of that proposal. I am not trying to include 1984 as 1984 cannot really be considered part of the early 1980s as it is the 5th year of the decade. Frankly I am confused in this entire dispute process. I followed directions of different editors and administrators, but it seems to be getting no where and Creative Soul has stated that the administrators are on her side, which I am believing more and more to be true. I will continue to press for change by going through the correct procedures. I know it may take some time and I am not trying to sound impatient, I just want to make sure we have accurate information. Now I can say that creative soul is being biased because she has no problem with 1960 being part of generation X, even though very few sources have included it with the generation. However for her years 1982, 1983 are just out of the question. She does not know how to leave her personal agendas at the door and come to an agreement that reflects the generation accurately, not using just one source and citing a bunch of different sources who all are using strass and howe anyway. Educatedlady (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you would say that you are increasingly convinced admins are on CS's side in this debate as I seem to be the only admin commenting her. Unless you are referring to the protection being added right after they made an edit. This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for an admin. Protection is used to stop edit wars, not to participate in them. See WP:WRONG for more on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear previously. It appears that some admins or other editors seem to be supporting her but they have failed to post anything here, although they consistently have gone to my talk page and warned me about arguing with her and informed me to comment on content not contributors, she has not been warned at all, even though she has called me rude and a liar, and has deleted some of my posts. Regardless I am trying to move forward and assist in modifying this article based upon all sources whether popular or not. All I want is everyone's participation in satisfying everyone's concerns in hopes of reaching a mutual agreement. Educatedlady (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me; I never deleted your posts, Educatedlady. In fact, another editor (Ian.thomson) backed me up and called you out on deleting my post (see User talk:Educatelady. I only removed repetitive posts on several talk pages, which is against Wikipedia rules, and re-directed those repetitive posts to one talk page. I never deleted your post or edited it, and if my login never went through, I made it clear in the edit history that the previous anonymous editor was me. So if anyone did delete it, it wasn't me, or it was archived. Nice of you to accuse me of something I never did - again. There is at least another editor (actually at least two current ones) who agrees with my arguments (not to mention the users/administrators who reverted your edits before), who needs a chance to be a part of this discussion.


 * I think it is ridiculous, Peregrine981, that you initially asked for sources supporting the definition of Millennials starting with the Class of 2000, then when I provided several of such sources with quotes, you said that was not good enough and demanded sources stating 1999 as the last of Generation X. Just plain stupid really. While Strauss and Howe are highly respected (see Judy Woodruff's interview via  PBS) and at the forefront of the field, other sources cite the Class of 2000 as the start of Generation Y, inferring the Class of 1999 as the last of Generation x. Strauss and Howe, do mention 1999 as the last class of Generation X, though. I will go back to the book and get that information. But it's not necessary. You know very well what I am saying is true. You are now being picky with words now when the evidence goes against your claims. I don't know what to say if you can't understand that by defining the Class of 2000 as the first of the Millennials, it infers that the Class of 1999 is the last of the previous generation - Generation X. Also, there were no hyphens used but the wording stated "ranging from 1961 to 1981" because 1961 is the earliest date used by many sources (though 1965 is probably what many will be using for the start of Generation X - we have to wait a few years on this) and 1981 is certainly the last acceptable date. Those born in the Echo Boom 1982-1995 are definitely not a part of Generation X (even with other sources using earlier dates). The previous wording included a variety of sources. Just because you disagree with Strauss and Howe, doesn't mean these two authors are wrong, or that they are the only ones using 1982 as the start of the Millennials/Class of 2000. Quite the contrary, as I have shown with the list of sources I provided. They are the most well known and at the forefront of generational research, but other researchers use 1982, too. My sources were perfectly acceptable, and there was no reason to remove them. You were the one asking for proof of the first Millennials defined as the Class of 2000.''' Other universities, such as Emory, have mentioned the Class of 2000 students (those born in 1982) as being the first Millennials to go to college. This information is relevant to the definition.


 * Your consensus is made up of people who support unreliable sources (or Elwood's book that is not referenced by many researchers or media, and you and Educatedlady are just annoyed that I was able to provide numerous sources backing up the previous consensus. The authors of the Millennial Makeover Project who spoke at Harvard are not Strauss and Howe, yet they use the Class of 2000 and 1982 birth year to mark the start of the Millennials. Neither are the British authors of a study conducted on Millennials and religion that I mentioned in a previous post. One of these authors is a psychologist from England. The fact is, most sources cite 1982 as the start of the Millennials/Generation Y. I went above and beyond to defend the previous consensus. A minority of sources include 1982 or 1983 in Generation X, and unreliable ones at that. When the majority, and a variety of sources use 1982 as the start of Generation Y, it is perfectly reasonable to use 1981 as the last year for Generation X. When most sources use certain information, that is what Wikipedia goes by as the standard. Even the source you added, by author Ronald L. Jackson II, states "sources tend to define it's range from as early as 1961 to as late as 1981." I have re-worded the introduction, but keeping it in line with the previous consensus (all previous sources are included, including the ones recently deleted). Also, once again: Keep Elwood Carlson's book off this page, please. He is not widely known, nor is he referenced by the majority of researchers and media. His reference belongs on the Generation Y page, as a side note, because his views are in the minority (minute as it is) and not common or widely accepted. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I partially agree with part of the change you made to the intro, but I am removing the graduation years, because I have not seen a source that references 1999 as the last graduating class of Generation X. Only the graduation class of the year 2000 is referenced in terms of Generation Y. While it may be assumed that 1999 is the last graduation class, no author has specifically stated this. Your sources are for Generation Y in terms of graduation years, not X. We cannot reference this based upon assumption, we need a source (a reliable one) that specifically states that the last class of Gen X is 1999. Because there was a cover story in Business Week dated February 15 1999 (just a few months before the class of 1999 commenced) that stated Generation Y begin in 1979 and ended in 1994. http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_07/b3616001.htm. Please respond to this Creative Soul with a legitimate answer.

It is NOT a question of which sources are used as a majority, it is the fact that other sources use 1975, and 1982 as an end year for Generation X. So again because Elwood Carlson is considered by you not to be widely known that is a good reason to keep him off this page? Show me a reference that states this. It is not just him that uses 1975 and 1982 but others as well which I have referenced to. And who are you to say whether a source is widely received or not? It doesn't mean it isn't accurate. While I do believe Elwood Carlson is not detailed in his research, but neither is Strauss and Howe. I personally would not reference either. The only reason why their research is used more often is because they began this in the early 1990's and Carlsons book was released in the 2000s AND no one has yet to challenge Strauss and Howe's work directly and officially through a book etc. Every legitimate source should be recognized. What are you stating is a mere OPINION and this is ORIGINAL research. Again you are ignoring my posts Creative Soul: '''Strauss and Howe contradicted themselves because those who graduated in the year 2000 graduated while Bill Clinton was President just like those who graduated in 1999, persons born in 1981 AND 1982 started school while Ronald Reagan was president. Our coming of age was not during the George W. Bush or Barack Obama presidency. So why in the world are these world renowed authors are publishing FALSE info stating that just those born from 1961-1981 were culturally influenced by Clinton and Reagan? It was NOT just those born in 1981 but those born in 1982 as well. Again you are ignoring this. '''Educatedlady (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * CS, yet again you continue to evade my questions, yet repeat for the hundredth time information that I have already seen. I AM NOT DISUPTING THAT 1961-81 IS A COMMON DEFINITION!!!!! I have said this many, many times yet you refuse to proceed with the discussion from there. IMO you are being disruptive at this point. Regarding the grad date, I have given specific reasons why I reject it, but you have not addressed my critique, simply stated again that "it's in the book." They mention it in the book, yes, but DO NOT DEFINE THE GENERATION BY GRADUATION DATE. AGAIN, I ASK:


 * What is your understanding of the term consensus? What does it mean to you?
 * When, EXACLTY, did the consensus on the opening occur. Please provide a link.
 * What is your position on keeping the origins sentence in the opening in light of my explanation of WP:LEAD above.
 * What source are you relying on to reject the conclusions of Elwood Carlson.
 * What is your answer to NPOV policy which states that we should fairly represent all credible points of view?
 * What is your opinion of the quotes I provided that state that generations do not have hard and fast end and start dates at all? Strauss and Howe themselves are perfectly frank about this as well.

And some new ones:


 * What is your source for Gen X being the first "post modern" generation.
 * Shouldn't we define Gen X based on sources discussing primarily Generation X, not the MIllenials?
 * Why did you "unbundle" the sources as specifically suggested by an admin? Peregrine981 (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I already explained the reasoning behind the consensus using 1961 as the earliest and 1981 as the latest - no hyphens were used and various sources were kept in the reference section showing the different date ranges. Secondly, it is inferred that if the Class of 2000 is the first of the Millennials - cited by several sources - not just Strauss and Howe (who do mention 1999 as the last graduating class), that 1999 is the last graduating class for Generation X. First you asked proof for the Class of 2000 being defined as the first Millennials, then you turned around and asked for proof that Generation X's last graduating class is the Class of 1999. You didn't like me proving you wrong? You both know very well that it is inferred that the Class of 1999 is considered by many as the last of Generation X - it is part of the definition because it supports the 1981 reasoning. If you can't understand that, well, I can't do anything about your reasoning skills. Stop removing the sources I have provided - they are good edits. Last warning. Finally, I have repeatedly told you the reason why Elwood Carlson's book doesn't belong on this page. I don't need to provide sources rejecting his views. His work is not well-known or widely referenced by media or other researchers, and his date ranges are in the minute minority (like the earth is flat fringe theories). That is his work is mentioned as only a side note on the Generation Y page. And including that type of reference in the lead implies that source carries weight, when it doesn't. The majority of sources, including the one one of your provided (Peregrine981 or Educatedlady) cite 1981 as the last year. I have clearly laid everything out in my previous posts, and provided an excessive amount of sources. I have also quoted Strauss and Howe, and they are consistent in all their books, despite what Educatelady says. Anyone can clearly read the books and see for themselves (including the recent 2010 book about Millennials and the workforce by Neil Howe). The British study, too, that I previously mentioned. They all used 1982 as the start of the Millennials. I will Keep removing Elwood Carlson references from this page; his book is left on the Generation Y page. Last warning about this. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Who exactly are you to be issuing "warnings" about this? On whose authority? Can I please be allowed to issue you, oh wise one, a "warning" for your constant reversions, refusal to discuss in good faith, personal attacks, ignoring Wiki policy, and evasion of questions? I would cite policy, but you always ignore it, so don't feel like wasting the effort. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The warnings are for you and Educatedlady, or anyone who adds Elwood Carlson's book to this page. I have thoroughly discussed this with both of you and gave a clear explanation for why his book is not allowed as a reference on this page. It is not my fault if you two cannot see reason and keep demanding more proof/support for my statements. I am not ignoring Wikipedia policy. You are for trying to add a minority viewpoint in the introduction (unreliable sources or one that is not widely accepted), and make it seem as if Carlson's work is important. His book does not belong on this page. It barely belongs on the Generation Y page, but is left as a reference in that article for reasons I have already laid out several times. You two have both had your edits reverted, yet you keep dragging this discussion into the ground. You ask for proof that the Class of 2000 is considered the first of the Millennials, then say that such proof is not good enough, asking instead for statements about the Class of 1999 being the last of Generation X. The proof is there, and you choose to ignore it because it does not suit your own agenda. Frankly, you two are the ones who look ridiculous. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly YOU are the one that is ridiculous and ignorant Creative because again you are validating your life by a generation. I never said I was going to add Elwood Carlsons info to this page. Again you have FAILED in providing sources that suggest his work is not widely received, and you have not posted a source that specifically states the class of 1999 is the last class of X. I have actually googled this and nothing comes up for me. I have not read this is Strauss and Howe's work unless I overlooked it. Again you have failed to address any of this creative soul so I will post until you do: '''Strauss and Howe contradicted themselves because those who graduated in the year 2000 graduated while Bill Clinton was President just like those who graduated in 1999, persons born in 1981 AND 1982 started school while Ronald Reagan was president. Our coming of age was not during the George W. Bush or Barack Obama presidency. So why in the world are these world renowed authors are publishing FALSE info stating that just those born from 1961-1981 were culturally influenced by Clinton and Reagan? It was NOT just those born in 1981 but those born in 1982 as well. Again you are ignoring this.  I am not denying that many sources use 1961-1981 however YOU IGNORED THIS CREATIVE: There was a cover story in Business Week dated February 15 1999 (just a few months before the class of 1999 commenced) that stated Generation Y begin in 1979 and ended in 1994. http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_07/b3616001.htm. Please respond to this Creative Soul with a legitimate answer.''' Educatedlady (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

--- I am going to go point by point over the arguments you and Peregrine981 have made, later, and will lay them out here for all to see. But to start: I am not validating my life by a generation. I think the article should reflect accurate information and reflect common and widely used data, not give weight to minority views in the introduction - which is one reason why Elwood Carlson's book belongs only on the Generation Y page, and at the bottom of the terminology paragraph. I provided numerous (and a variety) sources proving 1982 being the most common start date for Generation Y/Millennials. I do not know why it is difficult to understand why 1981 is considered the last date used for Generation X. If you came of age in 2000 (age 18), then you are a Millennial, not a Generation Xer. If you were born in 1982, you are an Echo Boomer, not a Generation Xer. I have the Strauss and Howe books and they do not contradict themselves with the dates. Who cares if older Millennials started school when Reagan was President? You can say the same with older Generation Xers sharing some experiences with late Baby Boomers. That does not invalidate any of Strauss and Howe's research. There are no contradiction. The authors mention in their books that that older Millennials (and they clearly state that the first Millennial group - the oldest are born between 1982 and 1986), started school when Ronald Reagan was president and remember President George H.W. Bush and part of the Cold War. That does not make them members of Generation X, but older Millennials. You obviously have not read any of their books and have just twisting quotes or giving partial quotes to suit your own purposes. '''Their books clearly state 1982 as the start of the Millennials/Generation Y, and 1981 as part of their date range for Generation X, 1961-1981. Ask any editor on the Strauss and Howe pages and they will tell you that I am right.''' You have a personal grudge against Strauss and Howe, as you have clearly shown in your previous comments. The statements you and Peregrine981 have made, disagreeing with Strauss and Howe's research (the most prominent and respect generational researchers) are considered personal opinion, not fact, and against Wikipedia's policy. You don't make a sound argument for 1982 being a part of Generation X - that claim contradicts the very definition of a Millennial and Echo Boomer. I think you know very well that when the authors wrote on page 4, "Meet the Millennials born in or after 1982," they meant 1982 and those born after, not either 1982 or later birth years. They mean not those only born in 1982, but 1982 and later (hence using 1982-) It's their word choice, because later on in their book they are even more clear about why 1982 is the start of the Millennials. As I said previously, the word "in" is inclusive, and 'or' means 'not only 1982'. The authors did not write "either 1982 or later." All their books (which I have) use 1982- (with a dash after it), clearly indicating from 1982 onward as the start of the Millennials. Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation, Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069, The Fourth Turning, other books published in 2008 and 2009 by Neil Howe (whose titles I don't remember off the top of my head), and Howe's latest book, Millennials in the Workplace: Human Resource Strategies for a New Generation (2010), all end Generation X in 1981 and start the Millennials at 1982.

I have cited page numbers from Millennials Rising on the Generation Y page and quotes from the book discussing the 1982 birth year and the Class of 2000. The book also mentions the start of the Echo Boom in 1982 and discusses the boom in births as coinciding with the birth of the new generation. I will quote some of the passages from this book below.

A quote about the first group of Millennials:

You also fail to note that a couple of paragraphs down from the quote you provided on page 4, the following:

According to math, and the authors' own standards used throughout the book (which is also laid out in the chart on page 11 the showing 1961-1981 as Generation X and 1982 as the start of the Millennials), those born in 1982 were eighteen years old in 2000.

There is also a box which shows a quote from Peter Jennings, and an abc.com poll from 12/19/1997 asking people to pick names for the new generation that can be found on page 6. "Millennials" and "Generation 2000" are on the list, clearly indicating that people associate the new generation (Class of 2000 and later) with the graduating Class of 2000.

Several pages later, on page 32:

I will need at least a few days, maybe a week to go through all the arguments. But, I want to address the issue of BusinessWeek. It does not matter that in a 1999 article cites the Millennials starting with a 1979 birth year. Others use 1976. So what? I was arguing that though various date ranges are used for Generation X (which is why all those sources must be included in the article), 1981 is the last acceptable birth year for the generation. Many sources dating back to the 1980s have used 1976 or 1982 start dates for the Millennials/Generation Y. How about the following article from BusinessWeek:

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:

To be clear: "roughly 80 million" not "roughly 1982-2000". Those who graduated from university or college in 2003 were the Class of 1999. Those who graduated in 2004, were generally born in 1982 and graduated from high school in 2000. They entered the workforce in 2004.

Some other business/work related references

From a USA Today article entitled Civic Generation' Rolls Up Sleeves in Record Numbers, written by Andrea Stone and published April 19, 2009:

From AllBusiness, a well-respected online business site whose articles are featured on BusinessWeek, CBSNews, NYTimes, SFGate.com, Washington Post (see About page for more info.), the article, The Generation Gap is Back - Chapter 4 - The Final Episode, by David Eichler, published July 2, 2010:

From an article written by Eve Gumpel, published by WomenEntrepreneur (part of Entrepreneur magazine) July 7, 2009:

Education

As I've mentioned previously, 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:

Psychology

I previously added some psychological sources. Here is another one 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:

Earlier you argued that Strauss and Howe were wrong, and the "Real Millennium" was in 2001: "The United States Navy is more reliable than two guys looking for fortune based on INACCURATE reseearch [sic]. These men are saying those born in 1982 are graduates of the year 2000 the FIRST of the millennium. This is WRONG!" And I said that the media and society does not care about that, and continue to cite the year 2000 as the New Millennium. We all still use the Gregorian Calendar as well, despite it's flaws. I proved you wrong. This August 8, 2006 article shows that the U.S. Navy continues to refer to those born in 1982 and graduated in 2000 as Millennials, regardless of the "Real Millennium". You also wrote: "People SHOULD care about when the real millennium begin because you are ignorant if you don't. You keep mentioning the Gregorian Calendar but you have failed to acknowledge this: According to the United States Naval Observatory WHO IS THE OFFICIAL TIMEKEEPER FOR THE UNITED STATES "Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000." Well, apparently the Naval Observatory doesn't care either, because the Honorable Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy U.S. Naval Observatory said on December 31, 1999 (New Year's Eve Remarks):

This quote is not based upon the actual calendar that Navy uses so are you saying this quote is more accurate than what the navy actually uses? This quote simple means this individual is basing his statement on popular opinion NOT facts. Here are other sources that refer to 2001 has the beginning of the millennium: http://americanindian.net/millennium.htmm, http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~schittek/millenni.htm,http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html, again you ignored and deleted the sources I posted previously on this. "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." I posted what is ACCURATE, ACCURATE NOT POPULAR!!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT???? I don't care about what is popular. I are about CORRECT research! Defining the Class of 1999 and the Millennial Class (2000) is an important to identifying the generations. If it wasn't, sources wouldn't explain why 1981 is commonly the last year used for Generation X, or focus on the Class of 2000. The Generation Y page is clearly defined (in terms of it's members being Echo Boomers and Millennials). Most people know this, and I provided several sources, from different countries (see Talk:Generation_X/Archive_6 under Reasons for Consensus), many of whom do not use Strauss and Howe, citing 1982 as the beginning birth year for Millennials. And if many sources do cite Strauss and Howe, why is that an issue? '''Even Judy Woodruff of PBS acknowledged Strauss and Howe being at the forefront of generational research. They are very well-respected. The fact that many cite these two authors goes to show that the majority or journalists and other researchers have faith in their work.''' Strauss and Howe use 1982-2000 for the Millennias, but many other sources use 1982-1995, directly coinciding with the Echo Boom. So those using 1982-1995 are not just citing Strauss and Howe, if they even are using them as a reference. You and Peregrine981 are biased against these two authors and your opinion about them is at the core of your arguments. Educatedlady (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)'''Last time I checked, personal opinion is considered original research, and against policy. As mentioned on the Generation Y page, the media (years before the high school Class of 1999 graduated) made a big deal about the Class of 2000, including stories by Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw (are they wrong, too?) who mentioned the Millennials entering college in 2000. '''Peregrine first asked for evidence citing numerous source using 1982 for the start of the Millennials; I did that, and then he said it did not matter. Guess he did not think I would be able to back up my claims. Then he asked that I prove that the Class of 2000 was ever called the first of the Millennials.''' Besides Strauss and Howe's works, and news reports by the anchors mentioned above, these sources define the first Millennials:

The First Millennials: Class of 2000

As stated in the article, titled "Getting it Right: Graduate Schools Respond to the Millennial Challenge," from the journal Communicator: Council of Graduate Schools, Volume 40, issue 7, page 1, published August/September 2007:

From "Decoding the Digital Millennials: Large in Number, Huge in Influence". Litmus (Resource Interactive): pp. 1, published by John Kadlic in Kadlic, John November 2006''':

From "Millennial Madness: Their Popularity & New Dimension to Diversity". DiversityBusiness.com, published by Lisa Orrell November 2008:

From The Seven Cries of Today's Teens: Hear Their Hearts, Make the Connection by Timothy Smith (editor Thomas Nelson). pp. 8. Excerpt published February 15, 2003:

From "The Millennial Teacher: Metaphors for a New Generation Johnson". Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 6 (1). 2006:

And from "Millennials and the World of Work: An Organization and Management Perspective". Journal of Business and Psychology 25 (2): 211-223. Published March 3, 2010:

After citing these source, you all changed your minds and decided the evidence wasn't good enough, saying the sources must cite the Class of 1999 as the last of Generation X. '''Who here cannot infer that when an article says the Class of 2000 is the first of the Millennials, then the last of Generation X is the Class of 1999? I mean, really?' Strauss and Howe mention the Class of 1999 in their book Millennials Rising'', but they are apparently not good sources. Again, really?

I did however, manage to find one citing both the Class of 1999 as the last of Generation X and the Class of 2000 as the first of the Millennials:

The "Freshmen, Sophomores Set To Make History" written by Alissa Lapinsky, and published by Orlando Sentinel (Tribune Company) August 9, 1996:

I think that I have clearly addressed your points. I am waiting to hear from administrators and get assistance from other editors. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have posted my own reply to CreativeSoul7981's talk page to avoid complicating things here.Peregrine981 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

'''Who are these administrators you are speaking to? Why are YOU just the one they are communicating with? And who appointed you chief executive officer of this article? Why are you still arguing about this Creative? The intro looks fine now, but again you want to change and add things to suit your validation. I am not disputing the authors or saying their research should be discarded. But while you try as hard as you can to discredit Carlson you praise Strauss and Howe because you like their research better. In my opinion neither authors are valid or detailed in their research, but since the research is there we should use both. Please just stop trying to discredit other authors and the points Peregrine and I have been making, because you just want to use Strauss and Howe because they validate your life because they use 1981 as an end year. There is no universally adoption for Generation X, even I believe Carlson is not detailed enough in his reasoning as to why he is using 1982 as an end year, however we can't reject his research because we don't agree, or because it is not "widely accepted" by you. I agree the research you have provided should be added to the article, just like the research I and Peregrine have as well, it will ultimately improve the article, but like Peregrine stated once, stop fighting with us and lets all work together, we all appear to be smart intelligent people, we can make this article one of the best on Wikipedia''' Educatedlady (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

AND HERE ARE ALL MY SOURCES I POSTED THAT YOU DELETED. YOU CANNOT SAY THIS INFORMATION IS INACCURATE, THESE ARE BY LEGITIMATE SCHOLARS: AGAIN STOP TRYING TO VALIDATE YOUR LIFE WITH GENERATION X. YOU CANNOT DENY THAT OTHER SOURCES USE OTHER DATE RANGES. PERSONALLY I DO NOT THINK ANY OF THEM ARE CORRECT, BECAUSE THE WAY A PERSON RELATES TO A GENERATION IS A INDIVIDUAL ISSUE.

"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/

Educatedlady (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As a user who is interested in generational theory I was asked to comment on this dispute to give another opinion. These start/stop dates are not this important. I really liked what Beeblebrox said ...there is no hard and fast line between generations, and as such the sources do not 100% agree with each other. I think readers would respond well to this information. Giving a broad date range with this attached would not be an indicator of when the generation actually begins or ends, but just a rough idea.


 * The amount of sources you all have found is amazing. Maybe there can be an additional sources section where others who are interested can follow up and make their own decisions from the original research. All we need to do is provide the information. My recommendation would be to compromise and let it lie. Corenabh (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving Forward with Introduction
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)

I agree Peregrine. I think since the intro does not say a specific range anymore, I think we should add in sources that verify other ranges by other sources that validate that the years are not universally adopted which is stated in the intro. I see no valid argument why we shouldn't, as long as we provide reliable sources. Also lets work on fixing the rest of the article as well, because there are a lot of points that need citations. I am hoping that we can use our expertise in finding sources to turn this C graded article into a featured article. I will post my sources here soon. Let me know what you think. Educatedlady (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

What issue is there to be resolved now Creative Soul? The intro has been changed. Are you conducting some underhanded manuerving in order to get this article to suit your purposes, is that why you have the "connections" with the administrators? You are a complete sad excuse for a human being. I have had enough of your biased behavior and trying to justify your ridiculous actions. I am not disputing the research posted. It is wrong, but I cannot post my own research here, so all verifiable research needs to be included. Elwood Carlson is not solely focused on Generation Y. He discusses Baby Boomers, X and Y. If you look at the archived talk pages for this article no one is arguing about 1981, and 1982 it is just YOU. I KNOW that the 1981 end date is more used than 1982, but you cannot deny the fact that both are used. However, all you care about is suiting your own agenda. The intro was changed, why can't you accept and lets move on, why are you such a troublemaker? I agree with your sources, but there are sources that challenge and contradict them, therefore no one's research is 100% accurate or worldly adopted. I was willing to move forward and work on the rest of the article but again you have to whine and complain.Educatedlady (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Now I made an edit. Only because the intro does not state a specific beginning year and just references the early 1960s. I removed the part "usually not later than 1981" ONLY because Carlson's book is referenced as a source (see source #5) and he is using 1982 as an end year, and the Washington Post article is using 1965-1979 (see source #4) and its definition says "roughly" which means without completeness. So I figured the ending should mirror the beginning, and just leave it at early 1960s - late 1970s/early 1980s. The sources provide details of this. By stating late 1970s/early 1980s indicates that years 1983-1984 are not as common and sources mostly refer to 1980-1981 and some 1982. But the good thing about it is that its not referencing to specific years, which is great. Let me know your thoughts, I did explain this when I made the edit and that I was willing to discuss. I figured the edit would cut down on controversy and the need for consensus every week. I like the neutral feeling of the article though. Educatedlady (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC) -- The issue has not been resolved. The source you all provided (Ronald L. Jackson) even says that though there are no exact time frames most sources tend to use 1961 as the earliest and 1981 as the latest date. Which is what I think the article should say; the earliest 1961 and 1981 at the latest - because that is accurate.

From your own source Encyclopedia of Identity by Ronald L. Jackson, II., pp. 307, published June 29, 2010; ISBN 978-1412951531:

I already explained why Elwood Carlson (minority view) should not be used as a source on Generation X. '''I am getting assistance from another editor and going through dispute resolution. So, keep the intro the way it is.''' I am not a troublemaker, but simply someone who wants to keep this article accurate. It is very rare for 1982 or 1983 to be included in Generation X; it is a very minor view and does not deserve the weight it is getting in the intro (as a source). The source is about Generation Y, so it belongs on that page, where it is placed at the bottom of the Terminology paragraph due to it not being a well-known source and supporting a minority view per Wikipedia guidelines. And your arguments are that Strauss and Howe are wrong - that is opinion and original research. ''' Not to mention the fact that the majority of journalists and researchers disagree with you.

I do not have a problem stating "there are no exact time frames". I don't even have a problem with using "early 1960s." But besides the vague dates, there should be some mention of 1961 being the earliest date and 1981 being the latest (no hyphens) in the intro. Other generation pages have a disclaimer, but have a date range. The wording now is too vague. There is also no reason to the keep out the explanation of why the 1981 birth year is used as the last date (being the Class of 1999). Sources back up that claim. I have I have others who agree with me, (one who contacted me himself) and I am waiting for them to catch up on the discussion and participate. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

'''Who are these others that agree with you? Why are they not posting HERE? Why are they not following the guidelines of Wikipedia with a consenus? Again you are performing underhanded tactics to get what you want and I will be reporting this.''' I am not disagreeing with you, but you are not accurate when saying that those using 1982 as an end year is a minority view. If you google this information you will find a number of sources who do. I emailed Elwood Carlson recently and asked was his book specifically about Generation Y, and his reply was that his text is referencing not just 'the new boomers' like he prefers to call them, but Generation X, and the Baby Boomers. Have you read his book? You cannot discredit this man because you don't like his work. I believe his research is somewhat inaccurate too because he does not explain specifically why he is using 1982 as an end year. Like I have told you before, no one has yet to actually challenge Strauss and Howe's work, they have published a number of books over the years, so it is no surprise that they are the most used referenced authors, however their research IS inccurate. They are using 1981 as an end year, but have failed to acknowledge that a number of persons born in 1981 graduated high school in 2000, and it is not a small number. Remember I referenced Barbara and Jenna Bush, Beyonce Knowles all born in 1981 but graduated high school in 2000. But you ignored this Creative. While this can be considered original research because I have not seen this published wouldn't you want to make this article as accurate as possible? There is an entire section on the 13th generation referening Strauss and Howe. Why the need to reference over and over again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs) 16:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In traditional British usage, aren't Generation X a radical subset of the baby boomers.
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)

This information belongs in the origins, and does not reflect the current usage of the term today. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

CreativeSoul where is it noted that Jane Deverson's information doesn't reflect the current usage of the term today? I am trying to research this but I am not finding anything that refers to your statement. Can you provide a source I may be overlooking? Educatedlady (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

Contradiction of Articles
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)

Consensus and Discussion
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)

Continuation of discussion- Generation X and Generation Y
I'd like to first address the previous points you made:

"As these generations are often international phenomena, the time span may be slightly different for different countries."

''':Well, actually, most of the generational terms were coined by Americans and later adapted by other countries. I acknowledge that various date ranges are used (as in the United States), but (as I have previously posted) I have shown even many Canadian, British, Irish, Australian, and German sources (reputable ones) citing 1982 as the starting birth year for Millennials. This indicates a wide and common usage.'''


 * The Lost Generation - coined by writer Gertrude Stein and popularized by fellow writer Ernest Hemingway.
 * The Greatest Generaton - coined by journalist Tom Brokaw (Strauss and Howe use G.I. Generation).
 * The Silent Generation - created by Time magazine in 1951.
 * The Baby Boom Generation - used to describe those born after WWII, first printed in 1948 by both Time and Newsweek magazines.
 * Generation X - though the term was coined by Robert Capa, and used by British author Jane Deverson, most people reference the term to American author, Douglas Copeland. Today, the term is very rarely used to describe those who were teenagers in the 1960s.
 * Generation Y/Millennials - the term "Generation Y" was first used in the 1993 article by Ad Age, and they ended the birth year at 1980. However, the magazine itself in recent years has used 1982 as the new starting year for Generation Y/Millennials. I spoke with someone there, and when they wrote the article in 1993, they wanted to distinguish between the teenagers from those 12 and under. Had they written the article in 1990 (about marketing to teens in the '90s), they would have used 1978 as the starting year for the new generation. I will discuss the Millennial term later in the discussion.

"I just don't see why it is so important to be so specific as to say that it starts precisely on January 1, 1982. People from 1981 are not so different from 1982 that a stark difference can be drawn. I don't see how the article loses anything in just saying Gen Y are people born roughly from the late 1970s through early 2000s depending on your definition."

Washington Post article from July 5, 2008


 * This article is basically about those on the cusp of two different generations. We all can agree that the same can be said about those at the end and beginning of other consecutive generations. It also mentions 1970s birth years to 1980s for Millennials. Nothing new here. The birth year 1982 is still generally used as the starting year for Millennials - not only because they would come of age (turn 18 in 2000) at the start of the new Millennium, but because of the expectations put on them by their parents and society (including media). They were the "new generation" that would change the world. I will discuss this further later.

USA Today article from November 8, 2005


 * I recognize sources use dates from the mid-1970s for the start of Generation Y. However, recent articles by both newspapers cite 1982 for the start of Generation Y/Milennials.

From a February 3, 2008 article printed in The Washington Post, ''The Boomers Had Their Day. Make Way for the Millennials'', by Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais:

Morley Winograd, a former adviser to Vice President Al Gore, and Michael D. Hais are co-authors of "Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics," published March 2009.

From a April 19, 2009 USA Today article, Civic Generation' Rolls up Sleeves in Record Numbers by Andrea Stone:

These authors are also highly respected and recently spoke at Harvard University about the Millennial Generation. They run the Millennial Makeover Project in the United States (as I previously mentioned). But the Americans are not the only ones who devote a special conference to this generation. The Canadians run the Millennial Conference, an ongoing research project on Millennials, with guest speakers (including professors, technological experts, CEOS, marketers, analysts,etc.) from not only Canada and the United States, but Australia, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands (I think Prof. Andre Nollkaemper is the one from the Netherlands). The Conference uses 1982 as the starting birth year. From what I've heard, they are planning another conference, but here is the link to their website with the 2008 Conference itinerary (not sure if the registration page will still open).

I think more and more sources will be using 1982 as the starting year, despite some sources starting the generation in 1970s. The point that I have been making is that 1981 is generally accepted as the last acceptable birth year for Generation Xers. It makes no sense that sources use 1978 as a starting year, since culturally and psychologically, there is not a lot of difference between those born in 1978 and 1981. The gap is either between 1975 and 1976 or 1981 and 1982. But, we all agree, sources just use a variety of birth ranges. '''That is why I do not have an issue with a disclaimer in these articles. But, I think that it should be mentioned that Generation X usually ends in 1981 - as it is currently written. That is the truth, and what is widely and commonly accepted.''' And, although I think 1965 is used a lot as the starting birth year for Generation X, 1961 is the earliest birth year used. The Ronald L. Jackson source added by Educatedlady herself acknowledges that despite no definite birth range for Generation X, 1961 and 1981 are the widely accepted starting and ending years.' Most sources (and people) do not (and have never) considered those born in 1982 to be Generation Xers, but Millennials because'' of the fact that they would (and did) come of age at the start of the new Millennium.

As I mentioned previously on the Talk:Generation X page (and can be found in Strauss and Howe's Millennial Rising: The Next Generation), Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw are just a few of the journalists who reported on the Class of 2000. I will get into this discussion later, but I have already provided several sources citing the Class of 2000 as the first of the Millennials (mostly made up of those born in 1982). Back in 1997, the late Peter Jennings held a poll on ABC News about what the name for the new generation (Class of 2000 graduates) should be. One of the names was Generation 2000 and the other "Millennials."

I don't have links to news clips from back in 1997, but as I was a senior graduating in 1999, we were called the "last of our generation," making way for the "Millennial Class." I will collect the sources I previously provided and add them back here later. For now, I will add more sources ranging from the late 1990s to early 2000s.

I remember, when I was a junior in high school, we had several guest speakers talking about Drugs, Alcohol (practically an all-day event for all high schoolers), and Drinking & Driving. It was sponsored by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD). They had a pamphlet about the new generation making better decisions. This website is sponsored by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA):

From the journal titled "Exploring the Future: Seven Strategic Conversations That Could Transform Your Association," American Society of Association Executives Foundation, page 7, published in 2001:

Mark McCrindle (The Australian Leadership Foundation), an Australian social researcher and generational expert who speaks internationally to corporations involved in training, managing or marketing to "Generation X" (VetNetwork2000 Biennial Conference), published on October 14, 2000 the following statistics:

From a February 2, 2001 Trinity Christian University article, Faculty Senate Looks for Ways to Reach Out: Presentation on Generation Y Targets Interaction with Students by Jillanne Johnson:

From HR magazine and BNET (a CBS Interactive News Network, an article titled Unleash the Creativity in Your Organization published June 1999, by Tina DeSalvo:

Another article, Managing Generation X by Brien Smith, was published November 2000 both by BNET (a CBS Interactive News Network and USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education):

From a February 1, 2001 study by James Bernard, published by Rice University's Macrocosm magazine, page 3 of the pdf, titled Baby Boomers: The Last  Real Generation? (Trouble reading the pdf file? You can also read the article here:

Author's Credentials James Bernard continues to shape the world of hip-hop in more ways than one. He is the founding editor of “XXL” as well as founding editor and partner of “The Source Magazine.” In addition to being a music critic for “Entertainment Weekly,” a columnist for “Request,” a member of the Advisory Board of the National Voting Rights Institute, a trustee of the Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation, Commissioner of the National Criminal Justice Commission, and a consultant for the Rockefeller foundation, Mr. Bernard has been published in numerous national magazines and newspapers including the New York Times, Village Voice and the San Francisco Chronicle. He has made television appearances and featured his work on “Good Morning America,” “CBS This Morning,” “Today,” “BET Our Voices,” “CNN Entertainment News,” “New York One,” “Larry King Live,” “ABC News Tonight,” “FOX Year in Review,” “MTV News,” and PBS. Mr. Bernard graduated Juris Doctor cum laude from Harvard Law School in March, 1992. He received his Bachelor of Arts (Honors), at Brown University, where he concentrated in Public Policy and American Institutions.

From a recent article published by the Examiner on June 10, 2010, What grades will history give Boomers as parents?, by Dena Kouremetis (I can e-mail the article):

From a June 1, 2000 article by Camilo Smith-Montealegre, Hispanics and Higher Education: Numbers Tell Conflicting Stories, published in the Puerto Rico Herald:

The American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF), a nonprofit, nonpartisan professional development organization based in Washington, DC, provides learning opportunities for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers working on youth and education issues at the national, state, and local levels. The About page and list of funders:

From a forum titled The Future of Education, Employment and Training Policy: A Conversation with Tony Carnevale, presented July 27, 2001. Carnevale is the author of The American Mosaic: An In-depth Report on the Future of Diversity at Work and America and the New Economy: How New Competitive Standards are Radically Changing American Workplaces:

An article published February 2003 (scroll down to see the publishing date and read the article here by The HR Consulting Group, authors Rob J. Thurston & Vince Ceriello:

Company Profile Who is Human Resources Consulting Group, Inc.? Human Resources Consulting Group, Inc. (HRCG) is an international Human Resources and Benefits Consulting Firm listed as one of the Top 25 Largest Consulting Firms by Employee Benefit News.

'''Your other comments are archived now, but I will address your other points and post a reply to them as soon as I can. You do not need to re-post your arguments, I will get to them. I am aware I haven't covered everything yet (Strauss and Howe, Elwood Carlson, etc.), but I thought it best to start with your earlier comments. Things are crazy around here, but I will respond to the posts on the Generation talk pages after I have finished here.''' I am having some issues with the Internet (or computer), and pages are loading a bit slowly. If you'd like to wait and respond after I address more points, that would fine with me. I will probably have one more Neil Howe book to come through the mail, so I will wait and see what's changed. Except for the end date of the Millennials (since they are one of the newer generations), from what I've read of the Strauss and Howe books, and Neil Howe's own works, there is no inconsistency in terms of birth years. The book on Millennials and the workforce doesn't contradict his previous research. The newer books are more of an update, since the first Millennials have not been out of university or graduate school for very long. The older books concentrated on the childhood and teenage years. I will discuss this in greater detail. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Boy, you look away for two seconds and suddenly this place is a hive of activity... The reason that I had moved the discussion to CS's talk was that it was getting completely out of hand on this talk page, with large unwieldy discussions on very detailed points. I simply moved it there to have a calmer discussion of the points we disagreed about in order to come to some form of mutual understanding before proceeding here. If I recall correctly there was some complaint that the talk page was "WP:TLDR." I didn't realise there was a policy against private discussions. It seems that we can't help but break some wikipedia policy or other.


 * At any rate, I have also been somewhat busy, so am inclined to let CS present their case in total before responding, as I think that our disagreement is more philosophical than factual. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Page protection
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)

Consensus - Date changed after the fact
Any type of discussion or consensus involving changes needs to made on THIS talk page. I just went to your page CreativeSoul and I read that you asked another editor to tell me to stop posting on this page. You all have been conversing for weeks on this matter on your talk page, but I had no knowledge of it. In order to fair so everyone has a chance to contribute, discussions need to be kept here. The guidelines of Wikipedia are to have discussions and consensus on talk pages. While I agree with the intro wording. I don't think 1981 or 1982 should be used in the introduction since a beginning year is not used. The intro states early 1960s which can include 1960 even though it is not referenced by a number of sources. So its only fair to include early 1980s at the end of the introduction as opposed to using 1981 or 1982. These years need to be referenced later in the article.Educatedlady (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked that you stop posting so quickly on this page, I did not prohibit you from posting here. I would try to respond to a post, but found myself not being able to because you had updated so quickly. I asked Peregrine981 to let you know so that I could answer his older posts before coming back here. I was very sick, and have also been helping my mother pack to travel overseas to take care of an ill relative. I wasn't ignoring you. Nor was I trying to block you from posting, as some editor claimed on my page. Why are you painting me as some kind of mastermind? Peregrine981 has been very nice about being patient. I thought it only fair to respond to all his previous posts.

Like I have said before, having the phrase "no exact time frames" is fine, because it is a true statement. However, people read the generation pages and want a general idea of when a generation roughly ends, not just a vague time frame. The original wording after your "consensus" was "usually no later than 1981". I thought that was a good compromise because there were no exact dates, but it happens to be true that 1981 is "usually" the latest year used. I am not making any false claims here. Even Peregrine981 has previously said that the majority of popular sources cite 1981. Shouldn't Wikipedia articles reflect common and widespread information?

Elwood Carlson's book (published in 2008) says the MIllennials were first born in 1983 - citing the fact that they were greatly affected by the September 11 tragedy. He is the only author to mark the generation by this event. When he published his book, Generation X was already defined and the eldest Millennials were already out of college. The Columbine tragedy occurred before September 11, and most sources discuss this horrific event as one that greatly affected Millennials (those 17 and under at the time). Other books published between 2008 and 2010 cite 1981 as the end of Generation X, and 1982 as the start of the Millennials (included in my sources).

And contrary to your own opinions, Strauss and Howe are the two most frequently cited authors on the subject of generations (and the most respected - Judy Woodruff's words, not mine), with Neil Howe continuing his research and publishing several works (most recently in 2010) on the subject. He is also a regular consultant (PBS, CBS, other news organizations). It is important to note that the same cannot be said for Mr. Carlson. In addition to Strauss and Howe, authors Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are also frequently referenced (not only in the U.S.) by journalists and other researchers. They were guest speakers at Harvard University on the subject, and run a Millennial Conference. Mr. Winograd served as senior policy advisor to Vice President Al Gore. I've provided numerous sources proving what I say to be true, including articles from the mid to late 1990s discussing the Millennials being born in 1982 or graduating in 2000. Moreover, when those of us were graduating in 1999, several media outlets were describing the Class of 1999 as the last of its generation. The Class of 2000 was called the Millennials. I provided several sources (some by universities like Emory) showing those born in 1982 who graduated in 2000 as the First Millennials. Whether you agree or not, this is in fact true.

Peter Jennings was just one well-known journalist reporting on the change in generations. Viewers were asked to vote for the New Generation - referring to those graduating in 2000. The majority of those born in 1981 are part of the Class of 1999. Those born in 1982 are part of the Class of 2000. This is according to the majority of research, books, media, and academic standards set, and guidelines used most frequently. These are not my guidelines. I am only citing what is most frequently used by most media, authors, researchers, etc. 1982 and 1983 (some say is part of Gen X) are not common enough or reported by major media to warrant the phrase "usually no later than 1982." The media tends to use 1981 as the end date for Generation X, because they are using the Class of 2000 as the start of the Millennials (see my sources for article on the first Millennials going to college).

If you're going to include the Elwood Carlson source on this page, then since it holds a view not supported by the majority of sources, it should not be used to define the end of this generation (violating Wikipedia's own rules about minority views). Instead, the phrase should read "usually no later than 1981," with the Carlson source as reference to support that statement (being the usual end date, but not necessarily definitive). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying to allow Carlsons book to define the WHOLE page. I am just saying to reference it. And I agree many sources use 1981, but other years before and after 1981 are used to. We are not using years for the 1960s so we should not use specific years for the 1980s either, whether it be 1981 or 1982. Since there are a number of authors, that reference one or the other or both, THEN ALL REFERENCES TO YEARS NEED TO BE REFERENCED IN THE ARTICLE, not the intro. Furthermore I believe that you indirectly prohibited me from participating in the discussions because I repeatedly asked you where was this discussion and YOU DID NOT ANSWER me, so that leaves me with the impression that I was purposely left out. Again generation X is not defined to just 1981 or 1982., its an ENTIRE generation! It begins technically in the early 1960s even though many sources begin at the mid 1960s. We cannot ignore the 1960s in favor of our time of being born. If we are not using a date for the 1960s then no date should be used for the 1980s. Educatedlady (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion I am referring to is the one you and others held on the introduction. After I was told by another editor that a consensus had been reached for the article, I checked the page, and the phrase "usually no later than 1981" was included in the introduction. I was not the person who inserted this phrase, so I can't pinpoint who said what. I was told that there would be a compromise and comments indicated that a disclaimer would be included about "no exact time frames".


 * How am I prohibiting you from participating in the discussion? I only ask that you hold of on the references to the comments you made to me. I can respond to other topics discussed more quickly in a shorter amount of time, but responding to all your posts will take a while. I am also responding to Peregrine981. I never asked you to stay off this talk page. I acknowledge that other sources use the mid to late 1970s as the end date for Generation X, but I've stated that it is more common today to see 1981 used as the latest end date - and very few popular sources by journalists, researchers, etc. use 1982 or later years. That is just fact. By changing the statement to read "usually no later than 1982," you are claiming that there are just as many sources citing 1982 as the end date for Generation X as 1981 - that is FALSE. Someone can make the same claim for 1983 that you are making for 1982, but there are infinitely more sources citing 1981. Either sources generally use 1976 or 1981. By your logic, 1983 and 1984 should be included since there are sources using those years for the end of Generation X.


 * I can bet that most people have heard of 1981 and the Class of 1999 being referenced as part of Generation X and those born in 1982 and the graduating Class of 2000 as Millennials. What I've proposed is what is reflected by most sources not only in the United States, but in Canada, Europe, and Australia (where the Australian Census Bureau defines Generation X as being born between 1965-1981). They start the Millennials at 1982. How can a person coming of age in (regardless of your arguments about the start of the Real Millennium - that society doesn't even use) 2000 be a Generation Xer? 1981 is a significant ending year (that is in fact the end year "usually" used) for all the reasons I have stated previously, chiefly, those born in 1982 would graduate in the New Millennium - 2000 - and would represent a New Generation (as reported by Peter Jennings back in 1997) who would change the world. That is one of the reasons why it should be included in the otherwise vague introduction. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC). AND HERE IS WHAT IS SAID ABOUT CANADA ON THIS OWN WIKIPEDIA PAGE: in Canada Generation X in Canada has been defined by Canadian economist and demographer David Foot in his book Boom Bust & Echo: How to Profit from the Coming Demographic Shift as those born 1961-1966 [22]. Those born between the periods of 1947-1966 were the Baby Boomers, where in Canada they were the largest boom of the industrialized world (relative to population)[23]. This large boom complicated the job market for the upcoming generation, Generation X.[24]'''

'''

Response may be slow due to the holidays and personal matters. I will do my best. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Again you're wrong. The class of 2000 is not just comprised on people born in 1982, but 1981 as well. First of all persons born in 1982 grew up in the 20th century. Millennials should be referenced to persons BORN in 2000 and after. How in the heck are we millennials and our entire adolescence took place in the 20th century? Explain how we are millennials? Graduation does not define our lives. Both persons born in 1981 and 1982 turned 21 in the new millennium, you cannot deny that. I have posted various sources that use 1982 as an end year. But you continue to ignore or lie and say its not a good enough source. Get over yourself. Now why don't you take a survey and ask people born in 1981 and 1982 what generation they feel they belong to. Because one of very close friends born in 1981 feels she belongs to Y while I feel I belong to X AND Y. I am sure most people would consider 1961 as part of the Baby Boom era. If you look up most articles regarding Barack Obama's generation (who happened to be born in 1961) the MAJORITY of sources place him with the Baby Boomers. Again we should not be just focusing on the end of the generation. What about the beginning? A generation is defined to at least 20-25 years. Here we are focusing on two years! Frankly I am not being nice and patient with you anymore. I am tired of you trying to define an ENTIRE generation based upon your desires to be the last of Generation X. This is personal with you, and its now personal to me. You never once admitted your wrong doing in this debate. You had no right to attack me in the beginning because you feel that 1981 and 1982 are worlds apart. Wake up! They are not.

Here are videos from the class of 1999. Not one video mentions this being the last class of Generation X. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjywZz4pJUI (this is a 25 part video, I watched the entire 25 parts, not one time they mention being the last class of generation x)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=class+of+1999+commencement&aq=f

Educatedlady (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And it doesn't matter Creative, new research is beginning to surface changing and disputing the dates set by Strauss and Howe. I am one of those people who are vigrously communicating with media outlets informing them that the research of Strauss and Howe should be respected but it is indeed wrong. Do you have a video of your graduation Creative? Does it say anywhere that you guys were the last class of gen x? Do you have any senior memorabilia that suggests this? Because I attended high school with the class of 1999, at a diverse high school. Not one student I can recall White, Black, Yellow or Brown, claimed to be the last of a generation. We all assumed we were the same generation because we were in high school together. In regards to Columbine having an affect on the class of 2000. I think this event had an affect on everyone who was in high school during this time. Particularly the class of 1999 because this happened one month before their graduation. I have found an article that states this, and I will post once I find it again. As a matter of fact the class of 1999 paid tribute to the Columbine victims at my schools graduation. Not one time generation X was mentioned or "last class of the century". Again you are believing inaccuate research by two men who know nothing about our generation. In fact I believe its Howe who has a daugther born in 1983, he is probably basing most of his research on her experiences. And as for other countries here is what is said about Generation X in Canada. I got this from the Gen X page here: "In Canada Generation X in Canada has been defined by Canadian economist and demographer David Foot in his book Boom Bust & Echo: How to Profit from the Coming Demographic Shift as those born 1961-1966 [22]. Those born between the periods of 1947-1966 were the Baby Boomers, where in Canada they were the largest boom of the industrialized world (relative to population)[23]. This large boom complicated the job market for the upcoming generation, Generation X." Educatedlady (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think anyone born after about 1978 can be considered a millennial. We have a lot of differences from those born prior. We became full adults and finised college in the new millennium. We started families in the new millennium, we started our careers in the new millennium, we came of age with the internet, and so on. We had a lot of life firsts in the new millennium. But if you really want to be PC and technical with it, then I would say the class of 2001 and those born from 1983 on are the official start of the millennial generation. I mean the first millennium started on 1 AD, not 0 AD. Bjoh249 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

End date sources
I have found some other sources that use early 1980s end date including 1982. I think the article should have an end in the early 1980s. I also think the article should try to avoid using exact date in the introduction. The other generation articles just use ranges in the article without precise dates.

Here is a realty.org article. It uses 1965-1982 as a date range for generation x. It was published in 2010.

http://www.realtor.org/wps/wcm/connect/0aa8258042b1f82d8103b5d4db880d7c/cpa_smartgrowth_ocg_summer2010_1.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=0aa8258042b1f82d8103b5d4db880d7c

Here is an article from a publication. It uses 1965-1982 date range. It was published in 2008.

http://www.rsajobs.com/publications/The%20organisational%20generation%20gap.pdf

Here is an article from sale manager magazine. It uses a 1965-1982 date range for generation x.

http://www.salesmanagermag.com/Art-Mark_McCrindle-ManagingNewGeneration_07.html

64.3.217.154 (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of sources use 1980 as the start of the millennial generation as well, some even use 1977 as the start year. I think the early 1980s would be a better way to say it. Heck, some even use 1983 as the start of Gen Y. I mean technically 2001 was the start of the new millennium since the first millennium didn't start with 0 AD, it started off with 1 AD. So in some disputes those born in 1982 are the last of Generation X. I mean there are so many disputes out there that it is hard to know what is what, and it would be fair if the early 1980s was just used. I was born in april 1981 but I don't feel much connection with those born in the 60s and 70s(especially those born in the early 70s). Most people born after 1977 feels more of a connection with the new millenium since they became full blown adults after 2001, finished college, started a family, etc.Bjoh249 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bjoh249 great comments. I noticed a comment on your page from CreativeSoul about Baby on Board signs: "Further down, quote: 'In 1982, when the first Millennials were born, we saw the appearance of baby-on-board bumper stickers all across America.' SEE? It is more likely that there is an error in your reference. I have the same date of the special with the transcript and it clearly quotes 1982." Same moderator - Judy Woodruff.

Just a note; Baby on Board signs WERE NOT released until 1984 and not popular until 1985. My mother DID NOT have a baby on board sign in our car when I was a baby simply because they did not exist in 1982. Here is a quote from the baby on board page on Wikipedia: "First marketed in September 1984 by Safety 1st Corporation, the sign became a ubiquitous fad, flourishing in 1985. Its use in the US rapidly declined by 1986" Educatedlady (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I would just like to add that originally the label Generation Y was used in 1993 by Ad Age to describe those who were thirteen and older (I think). However, I checked with the advertising magazine itself, and years since then, they have used 1982 as the start date for Generation Y, (I will add the source later to the Generation Y page). If they had written the article in 1990 or 1991, then Generation Y would refer to those born in either 1977 or 1978 respectively. Moreover, the term Milennial was already used by Strauss and Howe back in 1990 or 1991, before the Ad Age article, and journalists had already been using the term. I have sources from early to mid-1990s using the term Millennials that references 1982. Peter Jennings also did a special report back in 1997 about Millennials and the Class of 2000 as the New Generation. It is most common to use 1982 as the starting date for Generation Y or Millennials - not saying everyone uses this start date. To Bjoh249, I should also mention that I have come across several realty websites that use 1982 as the start of the Millennials and 1981 as the end of Generation X. Your source, Sales Manager Magazine, also quotes Mark McCrindle incorrectly. The Australian researcher uses 1965-1981 and 1982-2000 for Generation Y/Millennials. They are using the wrong date. I have a copy of McCrindle's original report that is filed with the Australian Parliament, as well as 2008 update reported by the Australian Press Council. Those are the dates used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Also, most reliable and popular (well-known) sources (covering a variety of topics - sociology, government, marketing, financial, education, psychological, entertainment, etc.) from the U.S., Canada, Ireland, Germany, and Australia; that I have previously provided, use 1982 for Millennials/Generation Y. I though I mentioned baby on board signs as just being associated with Milennials (According to Strauss and Howe, who were the first to use this term, the first group of Millennials were born between 1982 and 1986.). And the baby on board signs were first sold in 1984 - that is between 1982 and 1986. I might have mentioned the baby boom and those baby on board signs in the same sentence, but I don't recall saying the baby on board signs being invented in 1982. I said the next "baby boom" occurred in 1982 - when the birth rates really went up. Births may have increased a little in the late 1970s, but the "real boom" hit in 1982. That is what researchers and journalists have reported.


 * I'd like to request that the introduction read "usually no later than 1981, sometimes even as late as 1982," because, like I've said before, 1981 is the usual end date for Generation X. Granted, some sources use 1982, but there are few (and rare) compared to 1981. Peregrine981 and you yourself, Educatedlady, have previously acknowledged that 1981 is used much more often than 1982. The statement that I'm proposing is much more accurate and a good compromise. I'll come back after the holidays to respond to your sources that you put up a while back, but I thought I'd mention that one of your sources was quoted wrong (I think it actually mentioned 1982 later in the book - can't remember if it was a book or article right now), and another one of your sources used 1983 (for Generation Y) only in the title - there was no list of sources to back up the claim, nor was the date even mentioned in the article. However, few sources use 1982, so why don't we just word the introduction like I've proposed?


 * Oh, and I wasn't sure if you've checked, but the Elwood Carlson google book source sometimes doesn't come up. I mean, sometimes when you link to a book on google (where you can preview the book's contents), it doesn't link properly to the page number with the quoted material. I don't know, maybe the server was down at the time. Personally, I just do a search for a keyword in the search box, but the easier we can make it on readers, the better. I also like likes to google books more than amazon, when necessary, because amazon doesn't always allow previews. Let me know on here if you can access the page. I will try again later. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Creative I like the proposal of "usually no later than 1981, but sometimes even as late as 1982". I think that gives the impression that many sources use the 1981 end date, but other sources use 82 as well. The sources aren't rare that use 82 as an end date though, if you google generation x 1965-1982 a lot of sources appear, and not just one line sources, or blogs. However I think you have a great idea! Let's see what the other editors involved here think. I hope they agree so we can work together and improve other parts of the article. By the way the Carlson link populates for me. Let me know if you are still having trouble accessing it. Happy Holidays! Educatedlady (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi all I found this article recently on the Seattle Times website and thought it was very interesting. It reads" "First, a disclaimer. Howe acknowledges that dividing lines are inexact. It's hard to say with certainty that every 28-year-old is a Millennial and every 29-year-old is a Gen-Xer." Seattle TimesThis would be interesting to add as a source to the article. What do you guys think? Educatedlady (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Educatedlady, I would say, "No." The quote from the article (not Howe) is: "First, a disclaimer. Howe acknowledges that dividing lines are inexact. It's hard to say with certainty that every 28-year-old is a Millennial and every 29-year-old is a Gen-Xer. But research — from Pew and Gallup polls to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — show how key events and common characteristics link generational cohorts, creating a collective identity for them." Howe acknowledges (as do most people) that there are no exact dates for generations. However, sources tend to use certain date ranges. Just like your source Ronald Jackson mentions in his encyclopedia volume. This article says, "It's hard to say with certainty that every 28-year-old is a Millennial and every 29-year-old is a Gen-Xer." It does NOT say after that sentence, "Howe, says," like you would see in an article. This is Bob Young's own words, not Neil Howe's. I know this, because I am a writer and used to write for the school newspaper. There is no direct quote from Neil Howe. Neil Howe and William Strauss have always said that though there are no exact dates, they tend to use certain date ranges to define generations. Every book written by Neil Howe uses 1982 as the starting year for Generation Y, and in interviews, he talks about Generation Y/Millennials being born in 1982. Several times he (and Strauss in some cases) uses "1982-". The dash indicates starting from 1982 onwards, or 1982-2002 (or sometimes 200?). He doesn't add a disclaimer every time he is interviewed on the subject. You might as well say that about every author writing about Millennials or any other generation, including Elwood Carlson. The only thing that is a true statement regarding Howe is: "Howe acknowledges that dividing lines are inexact". We have already mentioned in the article that there are no exact date ranges. Everyone is well aware of this disclaimer regarding generations in general. We should leave things as they are. Regarding some criticism for Strauss and Howe, that can already be found on the authors' respective pages.


 * None of the sources using 1965-1982 are major newspapers or reliable sources. Most are personal websites, blogs, student paper, etc. I found several realty and housing groups that used 1982. And one Australian website even misquotes Mark McCrindle (Australian researcher). As I've said before, I have a copy of the original research that was sent to the Australian Parliament. On the other hand, there are hundreds of sources using either 1965-1981 for Generation X or just using 1982 for the starting year of the Millennials. Peregrine981 has also acknowledged that 1981 is more common. I have also provided higher quality sources (government, marketing, psychological, medical/psychological associations, NASA, etc.) from around the world, not just the United States. I don't agree with your interpretation of the proposed statement. What I propose would be a true statement indicating that 1981 is usually the latest date used, but that 1982 is also sometimes used. 1982 is not a common end date for Generation X, but it is sometimes used. Nothing but the truth, and less confusing for readers. I had others read it, and they thought it made sense. They didn't interpret it the way you did at all. I think that would be the most fair statement as a compromise, and I would be willing to support it.


 * I should mention that Harvard University (recent guest speakers Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais), Emory University (dating back 2000 to current), and Tufts University (recently updated December 18, 2010) all mention the Millennials as being born in 1982. Emory University even specifically mentions those students born in 1982 who are the "first Millennials" to go to college. Tufts Career Services uses the approximate range 1982-2002. Like other sources, despite acknowledging an approximate range, Tufts still uses 1982. And I know I've already mentioned this before, but two famous conferences devoted to Millennials also use 1982. Both conferences have speakers from around the word, and from a variety of fields. I really think my proposed statement is fair based on the evidence, but if you don't agree, then I will ask a mediator/administrator to decide after the holidays. It's not something that needs to be taken care of today.


 * The Elwood Carson source works for me now. I think the site was down. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make HOW I interpret the proposed introduction???? I think you misunderstood my "interpretation". The intro would use 1981 as a common end year, but leaves room for those sources that use 1982 as an end year as well. Again Wikipedia does allow for minority sources to be included as well. I am not disputing the more common end year. And I recently attended an event at RICE University in regards to this subject and again there was discrepancy amongst the dates, and persons in attendance born in various ends rejected the 1981 end date. I will post the transcript as soon as available. Again researchers like Howe are refering to a "marketable generation". Using 1982 as the start of a generation is perfect in terms of marketing because many persons born in 1982 (in the United States) graduated in 2000, which is the "marketable" (not accurate) new millennium. They are forgetting those born in 1981 who graduated in 2000 as well, which account for about 35-40 percent of graduates in 2000. Using 1982 as the start of the millennial generation is a perfect promotional tool. However its faulty, inaccurate and does not speak for everyone born in 82. They are forgetting those who completed school in the UK complete school at the age of 16. So therefore a person born in 1982 left school (unless they stayed to attend a sixth form college) in 1998! How is this accurate??? Educatedlady (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What I proposed is perfectly reasonable and fair to both parties: "usually no later than 1981, but sometimes even as late as 1982". I added a "but" to make it more clear. I would like to bring this subject up with an administrator later. As I've said, it is more common and popular for 1981 to be the end date for Generation X, but some (fewer) sources use 1982 (even Peregrine981 acknowledges this). I think it's only fair that you compromise a little, as well. So far, I'm the only one who has made a concession. Regarding your views on Strauss and Howe: I have already shown that they are not the only proponents of 1982 being the starting year. You are making it seem as they are highly criticized, when in fact, I have shown how well-respected they are by the quotes and references I provided. Criticism of their theories are on the authors' theory page. It should also be noted that their pages don't need to be littered with criticism. It's already there. The generation pages all mention rough dates, so I don't know why you are pushing the issue. There is even an unnecessary separate section that is a disclaimer on the Generation X page, even though the introduction already says there are no exact dates. It's overkill. Your opinion on Strauss and Howe is just an opinion. Opinion does not belong on Wikipedia. It is not my opinion that Strauss and Howe are well-respected - it is the opinion of many in the media (even those who would disagree with their theories). You have already added the Elwood Carlson source to two generation pages. I don't know why you need to add criticism after every paragraph that Strauss and Howe are mentioned. It's inappropriate. Leave the criticism where it belongs on the authors' theory page. It's already mentioned that the authors work is considered "pseudo-science" by some. I'd say that's pretty harsh.


 * Also, in the UK, 1982 is also a common start year (though obviously not a year used by everyone) for Generation Y/Millennials. I have a recently published book by a British psychologist that is currently regularly referenced by churches around the UK (in recent articles); as well as in Australia, Canada, and the United States. I have already provided the source for this, and the author mentions "1982" or "1982-" (meaning 1982 onwards) throughout her book. I have already shown that Canada and Australia both tend to use 1982 (not referencing Strauss and Howe). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

And I have provided numerous of reliable sources that use the 1965-1982 range as well, but you continue to ignore them, and have criticized them for not being reliable enough, although that is completely untrue. I have posted articles from the UK and Canada that use a different date range than the one that is more commonly used and again you ignore it. Are you blind Creative? I have repeatedly stated that the common end year is 1981, however there are other researchers use different dates. No year is set in stone, and there is plenty of room for more research to be conducted. I am not saying that there are not sources that use the 81 end year. I am NOT disputing the facts here, but you are by denouncing any source that ends Generation X in 1982 or later because again for your own apparent personal agenda, wanting to be the last of X. I have tried to reason with you and even offer my apologies for you not feeling well, AND wished you Happy Holidays, but you being the stubborn person that you are completely ignore my attempts to reach out to you. To end this we need a formal consensus with your proposal, if the consensus is reached it needs to be displayed on this talk page proving that a consensus was formed. After that I would like to move on to other things. Good day. Educatedlady (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding me. I only said that there aren't a lot of reliable sources using 1965-1982 (most are 1965-1981). I googled it, and did not see one newspaper using these dates or official census, unlike the Australian one. There was a realty website, but I have found several using 1965-1981 or 1961-1981, etc. Others seemed like personal websites or personal papers. I am more than happy to include my proposed phrase and I'm seeking arbitration a week or so after the holidays are passed. I am not unreasonable, which is why I made the proposal to be fair to both parties. And you can leave the Elwood Carlson source as a reference as well. There should be no problem after this is resolved. I do agree that we need to clearly state on the talk page that an agreement has been reached (when it has), and then keep an eye on the page. We might have to link to the Consensus page later on, seeing as how many anonymous users edit in their own dates and mess with sources. I forget the internal link, but there is a page that explains linking to previous discussions or something - not sure. I have confidence an agreement will be reached in the New Year and we can all move on. If in the future, too many anonymous users make changes to the dates or make unconstructive edits, then we one or both of us can apply for a semi-protection tag. Have a peaceful Christmas/holiday. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me. I am glad we are on the brink on a conclusion. Educatedlady (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * now that the year is settled, what month? I'm born in August, my friend is March, are we from the same generation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 14:08, 30 December 2010

Well, though 1981 is usually the last year with 1982 sometimes being used as the end year by some sources. . . what is your question? If you are referring to 1981 - then no birth months are really used. However, those born at the very end of 1981 and graduated in 2000 can also be considered a Millennial. So, either I guess. If you're one of the few who believe 1982 is included, I guess you could go by the same rule of thumb. Again, please sign your posts. I left a useful template for your on your talk page, but if you're having trouble, contact me or another editor/administrator for help. I was only able to be on for a few minutes, and it's almost New Years, so it might be a while before I can respond. Thanks. Happy New Year. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello editor. There is no month that is used for defining generations, just years. Hopefully more researchers will realize using exact years is somewhat inaccurate and use various ranges like early 60s to early 80s as a more suitable alternative. This is exactly what I am researching right now. Just a comment; I just pulled out my old yearbook from 1998-1999 and it actually calls the seniors for that year "Millennials" and it goes on to state that they just barely made the cut for Generation Y, which I totally forgot was printed in the yearbook. So therefore perhaps there were some schools saying 1999 was the last class of its generation (X), but other schools like mine who had close to 3000 students was stating the seniors of 1999 were the first of Generation Y. I found this to be interesting. I don't really remember any of us talking about generations that much while I was in high school. Do any of you that were in high school around this time have a 1998-1999 yearbook or a 1999-2000 yearbook? If so does it state anything about generations? I would actually really like some of your assistance with my research, regardless of your point of view.Educatedlady (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

EducatedLady, I agree that those born from 1980 on are definitely a part of Gen Y(the millennial generation). I was born in april 1981 and I can't see how I am so significantly different than those born just a year later in 1982(some born in 1982 I become the same age as for a period of time). Strauss and Howe are about the only generational experts I have heard use 1982 as the start year of Gen Y and claim that there is a huge difference between those born in 1982 and those born in 1981. I mean that is silly. Most other sources use those born in 1980, or the late 70s, as the start of the millennial generation. People born in both 1981 and 1982 both came of age with the internet and both became full blown adults in the new millennium. We are also all just as tech savvy. I mean it is just fact.

Also, CreativeSoul is wrong. I have many different sources from CBS News and so on that use 1980 and the late 70s as the beginning of Gen Y. I have argued with CreativeSoul profusely on this and I have found it a waste of time. When I posted these sources he slammed me down and said the conversation is over. He desperately wants to use his birth year of 1981 as the last of Gen X. I mean if he wants to use it then that is fine, it is his opinion, but I would rather stick to the obvious.Bjoh249 (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I am not wrong. And I am a "she" not a "he". CBS News, like other newspapers, has used different dates. I saw their special program on Millennials, and the official article by Rebecca Leung; both which used 1982-1995, stating that there were "nearly 80 million of them". Another earlier article cited a source using 1980. Other sources use 1976, some 1978 or 1979. Really, are we starting this again? You are wasting everyone's time. The introduction is covered by reliable sources. Journalists and researchers don't go by birthdays; they go by the birth year that is associated the most with a "class". Most people born in 1981 (yes, even those born in the late Fall) graduated in 1999. Most of 1982 graduated in 2000. Despite some exceptions, sources tend to associate 1982 with the Class of 2000. The wording already shows that time frames vary. And I provided numerous reliable sources, including one by the Australian Census Bureau showing 1965-1981 for Generation X and 1982-2000 for Generation Y/Millennials. I also had a U.S. Bureau of Statistics chart at some point, and as soon as I find the official copy, I will post that as well.


 * The truth is, the media has been using 1982 for a long time due to the extreme increase in birth rates. While birth rates started rising in the mid-late 1970s, it wasn't until 1982 that the Echo Boom (sharp spike in birth rates) occurred. They compared it to the previous "Baby Boom". Despite there being no exact time frames, 1981 is commonly grouped with Generation X, while 1982 is commonly used as the start for Generation Y/Millennials. I'm not disputing that some sources use 1982, just that it is not nearly as common or popular as 1981. Peregrine981 and Educatedlady, too, have both acknowledged this to be true. You don't have to agree, but that is what is provided by the media. There are even two official conferences held on the subject of Millennials - one based in the U.S. (both authors recently guest speakers at Harvard; one worked under Al Gore when he was Vice President), and the other in Canada (with speakers from around the world). I don't see any Millennial Conferences (well-known and reported by the media) that uses different dates. The media used 1982 as the starting birth year for the "new generation" as far back as the eighties; Strauss and Howe published Generations back in 1990/1991, and Peter Jennings did a segment on Millennials back in 1997 - asking for people to define the "new generation", referring to the graduating class of 2000 - most of whom were born in 1982. The name picked was "Millennial Generation." There will always exceptions when it comes to birth years, but 1982 is the date generally used (and associated with the Class of 2000).


 * Some have said the split occurs between 1977 and 1978, but many other believe the split is between 1981 and 1982. Those born in 1982, and especially those in the 2000 graduating class, were doted on by the media. That's just the way it was. All eyes were upon them and society labeled them as the "next generation" leaders. They are the class that was going to change the world. Can't you see what a big deal these cohorts are? Did you miss the hype surrounding the television series My Generation about the Class of 2000 (they had a timeline thing at the beginning of one episode showing the characters being born in 1982 - from the episode I saw anyway)? It wasn't my kind of show, but I am a writer, and came across articles on this show. It was about members of the Class of 2000, ten years after they graduated. A couple of the articles I read indicated the former students were now 28. That's just an example. If you're talking about technology, well, the Internet came when I was around 13/14. Ironically, we got the Internet right before I entered high school and unfortunately, a year before my Dad finally got cable. Still, I knew plenty of older people (technology lovers) who had AOL, too. That doesn't make them necessarily Generation Y, but part of the older Gen X set (1975/usually 1976-1981) or, by some people's definition, "cuspers".


 * I never even heard of Facebook until late 2006, and that is only because my younger cousin had an account. I only joined Facebook because family members and friends had accounts, and I wanted to see their photos. That was not even two years ago. But, one of my good friends, born in 1982, has been on Facebook since 2004, before she graduated from college. Every one of her friends were either on Myspace or Facebook, or both. I joined Myspace for a short while to look at friends' photos, and only added a profile when I was doing acting for a couple of years in L.A. I don't have the account anymore. I hardly even use Facebook. Most of the people my age, born in 1981 and in my graduating class, are hardly ever on Facebook. My younger friends, born 1982 and 1983, have hundreds of friends and post tons of photos. I understand that people are different, but me and my friends all still have land lines in addition to mobile phones, are generally conservative/moderate - especially on social issues. Personally, most of my younger friends usually just have a mobile phone, and tend to be Democrat or very liberal. I like computers and technology myself, but I am more like my older peers, generally my age or up to 12 years older. We like technology and the Internet, but we are not texting all the time or playing with our mobile phones. I acknowledge that these are all personal statements, but I really find this to be true. Of course I have many things in common with those born in 1982 - we're a year apart! We're bound to like some of the same music, movies, etc. However, overall, I relate more to those my age and older. I find that my friend has a completely different mindset than me and my other friends (my age and older). There were several psychological articles on the Millennial set (using 1982 as the starting point), which talked about how they are different from previous generations. I believe I posted that link a while back.


 * While I agree that we're all individuals, and that generational labels are general at best, I still think that the media hype regarding the Millennials and society's big fuss over those born in 1982 created a bit of a cultural split. The media and society really does have an impact - example, articles showing how marketers targeted Millennias for years. I agree with the research that Millennials grew up more protected (whether because of parents or society) and that they have more of a sense of civic duty compared to Generation X. My friends and I are more like nomads, individualistic, and very idealistic. My younger friends (1982, 1983), on the other hand, are more concerned about the community and the betterment of society - more so than your average person. It's like night and day when you get a whole bunch of us together - you can usually see the split in two groups. It's funny, really.


 * My friends (my age) and I rarely texted a few years ago, and just started to join the younger ones who have been texting for a while (1982, 1983, 1984). I hate texting. (Argh. Text is not a verb! I hate that I use the term in such a fashion) I rarely send text messages unless I need to tell someone something important and I can't talk on the phone, or the other person is in a meeting, etc. I'd rather leave a voice message or SMS voice message. I used to chat on the computer off an on, but only when I was bored and had nothing to do. I even made friends. But "chatting" became cool back in 1989 and 1990 (albeit using older software). You can talk to family members around the world, and people of all ages were chatting with the start of the Internet. But, sending text messages is just lame and impersonal. It's too much trouble. It's usually easier, under most circumstances, to just call someone.


 * However, the new technology isn't really the main divider. The division is between Generation Xers, who are ideological and generally have more traditional values, and the "open-minded" and more "socially conscious" Millennials. Again, all generalizations, but they are based on statistics gathered and reported by different media. I believe those born in 1982 and 1983 have more in common ideologically than do 1981 and 1982. It's probably true also that 1976-1981 have more in common with each other than older Generation Xers; we tend to be right in the middle, while still having more in common with our older cohorts than our younger peers. Again, everyone's experience is different, but the media (and numerous researchers) tends to refer to Generation Y as first being born in 1982 - though of course, that doesn't mean everyone uses this starting date. That's already a given.


 * With the exception of minor change, that I will be bringing up soon with the help of another editor, the wording is fine the way it is. I already provided numerous reliable sources to back up my claims. We need to move on from the generation date range topic. I think Educatedlady and others want to move on as well. I'm off to study now. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

'''I agree with Creative I am ready to move on. I''' just wanted to comment about technology and texting etc. as well. It seems like researchers are forgetting that persons born in 1982 and 1983 grew up with an emerging technology (VCR's, some even had personal computers in the home, anyone remember Doogie Howser M.D.? where Neil Patrick Harris used a computer at the end of each episode?) but we did not grow up with texting, cell phones and Internet. I used a payphone up until 2004 when I just didn't see them as much anymore. And I didn't know anything about Facebook until 2005 or 2006 myself, when I was in my last year in college. I know I have been over and over this, but I just think its wrong to lump persons born in 1982 with a generation we obviously have very little cultural ties to, just because people born that year graduated in 2000. And by the way I hate texting to. I actually have it blocked on my 4 year old cell phone. And the only reason why I got a cell phone is so my sister can get in touch with me in case of an emergency. I still have my landline in my house. BUT according to researchers I am supposed to be so technologically advanced because I was born in 1982. Go figure. Hope you all are having a happy new year! Educatedlady (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You can move on, but he is still wrong and so is Strauss and Howe! There is no difference between people born in 1981 and 1982 other than a year. CreativeSoul is more interested in keeping 1981 as the "great grandparents" of those born a year later in 1982. I came of age with the internet and cell phones just like you. I am not going to re-edit anything on the wiki articles, but I am not going to give in to CreativeSoul like he wants me to. NO WAY! He can delete me from this site if he wants, won't change my mind, and it is not like many people take wikipedia seriously anyway. This is just more proof that those people who bash wiki are right. I have been texting and using cell phones for ages and me and my friends(also born in 81) have never had any problems with them. I don't care what CreativeSoul and his friends experience was. People of all ages have been using this technology since around the turn of the century. Also, stuff like Ipods and Ipads have came out in the last few years, almost a decade after people born in 1982 and 83 greaduated high school. Me and my friends were doted on and called future leaders all of our lives too. What, will it become where someone born in 1981 won't be able to run for public office in the future?? I mean be reasonable! The media pretty much paid as much attention to the classes of 1998 and 1999, as they did 2000. I mean how much of the 20th century was left when these classes graduated high school? The media was starting to focus on the new millennium starting about 1997. Pretty much eveyrone from about the class of 1996 on was mostly prepared for the new millennium since they would become the new leaders, those coming of age, graduating college, and starting their careers and stuff in the new millennium(don't forget many go to college right after high school). Be reasonable! Concerned with the betterment of society?? I think older people are more concerned with that. Most young people of any generation are usually more concerned with themselves until they get older and wiser. There are few who really care that much. Regardless, EVERYONE should be interested in the betterment of society! This shouldn't be a generational thing. Also so many people born in 1981 and 1982 are good friends with one another and many are couples born on those two dates and many get married, etc. Again, it is all common sense!

'''On top of that if CreativeSoul is going to be 100% technical then you can't have the articles on wiki on the millenniums and centuries having 2000 listed as the last year of the 2nd millennium and 20th century and 2001 as the start of the new 3rd millennium and 21st century and then call people born in 1982 the first year of the millennials. That is contradictory, but like I said, who takes wikipedia too seriously anyway? BTW, I have all of these news articles I have gathered from big media outlets, that CreativeSoul is also citing, on my My Talk page now, and they do not put 1982 as the start date. They are from the last few years too. He is one person and he is wrong. I mean people born in 1981 and 1982 all went to school together for the most part. Heck, there are people born in 1981 who graduated in 2000. He ignores these facts and the articles I provide, but maybe you won't.

I agree Bjoh. However we are coming to an agreement on this article, which is why I suggested moving on to other things in terms of the article. Strauss and Howe are wrong on so many levels. However for some reason many sources reference to them. Probably because there has been few researchers to fiercly dispute their findings and tell the truth, which is what I hope to accomplish. Also they were among the first to research Generations in depth in the 1990s. My suggestion to you is to conduct your own study, and present your findings to a peer review team and attempt to have it published and distribute it to media outlets. Make sure you leave little room for dispute. We as persons born in 1981 and 1982 have more reason than anyone else to study our generation and identify it, rather than a couple of guys I am not trying to disrespect these men, but their research is almost borderline fiction and appears to be more promotional than accurate. But this is just my opinion, which cannot be included in Wikipedia articles. We have to include sources that dispute their findings. However, there are a number of emerging researchers that are using different dates now. To me its not about wanting to be part of Generation X, but rather telling the truth. I was fine with being a member of Generation Y, until I discovered the reasons why 1982 was said to be part of this generation. Much of the information is false. Feel free to email me at genxstudy@ymail.com to discuss your findings, as I have been working on my research study for almost a year now. I encourage you to do the same. Educatedlady (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I already have several recent articles on my "My Talk" page from respectable news sources, like CBS News, that include 1981 in Generation Y. Plus all you have to do is google Generation Y 1980 or Generation Y 1977 or put millennials in front of those years and you get a lot of articles from various sources that use those years as the start of Gen Y. I am studying this right now and I will e-mail you in the future. Thanks Bjoh249 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)