Talk:Generation X/Archive 3

Sociology's Focus
I felt I should make a point here in that sociology is about generalizations of human groups and is not intended to describe individual personalities, no matter what group they belong to. Jordan

This seems to be based on the American Generations as defined by Neil Howe and William Strauss who set forth the whole American Generations cycles and to whom advertisers and the like refer to when marketing or looking to define groups in a part of American Time. If this is the case the table needs to be correct and all the sub generations removed. Generation X, if defined by the studies of Neil Howe and William Strauss, is set at 1961 - 1981. Those at the beginning of the Generation (early 60's) and those at the end of the Generation ('77, '78, '79, 80, 81) may or may not feel that they belong to this generation as those that grew up as childern in the 70's, Teens in the 80's and young adults in the 90's.

Generation Discussion
As a member of Gen X, I am shocked by the glaring omissions on this page of some of its more salient characteristics. The cynical attitude which is commonly seen as the hallmark of our generation is, I submit, attributable largely to two factors. First, we are the AIDS generation. We came of age, and began to explore sexuality (or many of us did, anyway) in the early years of the epidemic and thus have equated love and death in a way that is unique to us (see also the goth movement). Second, we were kids before society cared so much (far too much) about kids. We were not over-parented and over-protected. We did not wear bicycle helmets and were not taught to see a pedophile behind every corner. Our mothers were encouraged to leave us at home alone and seek fulfilment outside the home. Much of our cynicism stems from our sense of having been deprived our fair share of society's attention and resources; the senior citizens get their social security and our younger siblings, nieces/nephews receive attention and concern that we never did. RLC


 * I have to concur on the first factor here and I'll try to do a little research to add good information into the entry. I recall clearly the moment I first heard about AIDS from the mom who was fortunate enough to supervise the favorite swimming pool in the neighborhood.  That was during the summer following my freshman year in high school and there were many irrational rumors about becoming infected with AIDS through sexual contact.  I remember grim breaking news flashes on the new Mtv (Music Television) channel about early discoveries concerning this new disease, much of those reports containing very little information.  Having been exposed to our parents and their hippie-love influences, the debauchery of the disco lifestyle through television and motion pictures (many of us were able to see Saturday Night Fever on BetaMax!) and the often overt sexuality of the New Wave and New Romantics music movements (Adam and the Ants had a slogan 'Ant Music for Sex People'), much of what our hormones and culture had been telling us about how to enjoy life was suddenly recast as 'risky behavior'.  In that Reagan-era atmosphere, I don't recall anyone explaining that it was impossible for young virgin lovers to contract AIDS from each other.  Instead, I remember it being clearly said that when you had sex with someone you were essentially having sex with everyone they had ever had sex with, magnifying the fear of the risk exponentially.  (Of course, this was moderated once the fury died down over use of the word 'condom' in public!)  If you're looking for a source for "lack of optimism for the future, nihilism, cynicism and lack of beliefs and trust in traditional values", I'd suggest that it was this early information about AIDS that took much of the wind out of those young sails. Economy1 12:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why some of the stuff I've read is considered absolute in the origin and timeframe of Generation X. Back in 1990 my economic classes clearly explained it in a manufacturing timeframe model. Every 15 years a generation appears in this model. It goes "Recovery", "Prosperity", "Recession", and "Depression (and new innovation)". Generation X is the category of "Recession from 1961 to 1975" while Generation Y is the Depression from 1976 to 1990. Generation Z is the Recovery from 1991 to 2005... It started primarily from the cotton mill industry but not specifically clarified until Kondratieff's model (1935). Because of current hostilities within the world, I do question the idea that the world is economically in the time of "prosperity" but this model shows a pattern for 300+ years (which you could somewhat say goes back to Generation A when the cotton mill industry first began). QuintusCinna 9:33, July 30 2006 (UTC)


 * yeah,but, we havnt had a real depression since the 1930s, and the 1980s was boom- prosperity time. Like the nice clear cut defention tho. it works (?)if we skip depression - boomers obvioulsy prosperity, x recession, y recovery, z prosperity (most economies in growth now,)??. 58.178.233.241 13:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

And "Silents" is misplaced; should be up one level acto Strauss & Howe. Kitode 22:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)kitode

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

The whole outlook section needs to be dumped and compleatly redone. WAY too much personal bias in this section, no actual research on generation attitudes is presented. Ace-o-aces 15:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Upload
Uploaded Brad X comic to History section as a further support to a late 80s origin. It is pretty evident that, starting from the late 80s, there was a widespread percieved "division" between those in their 30s and those in their 20s, thirtysomething v. twentysomething intergenerational conflict. The Wikipedia "Baby Buster" makes a good case. I personally know people born in the late 50s that have no affinity to Boomers. At least this cohort, now roughly 42-48, are "cuspers" if you will, the bridge between Boom and X. Ledboots 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, we do not need all that whitespace. Also, "Vista Magazine, 1988" is not a proper MLA citation. And it's worth noting that the current state of the Notes section, along with the cramped situation made by your photos justify keeping the clean-up warning. No offense meant by all this, but it has added to the workload for clean up. -- LGagnon 00:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


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

Still Needs Work--Two Suggestions: Bullet List? Postmodernism?
Maybe we can think about a bulleted list of some of the major defining characteristics and keywords of Gen x. Fragmentation on many levels, multifacetation, subjectivity, individualistic pride, general lack of religious faith, high education, multiple jobs, multiple life partners, divorce. . . that's just a brainstorm for suggestion; these would have to be organized grouped/editied, and so on. I also think Postmodernism should be mentioned--Generation X is basically the postmodern generation. Paris May '68, Berkeley, etc might be worked in. (Unless I missed it in the article.) Apeman 06:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a great table in the Strauss and Howe book that I think does a fine job of defining the concept of a generational culture -- vis a vis, some other type of cultura (p. 365, _Generations_) parental attachment in youth, coming of age experience, principal focus at coming of age, how perceived at coming of age, preoccupation in rising adulthood, attitude transition in midlife, preoccupation in elderhood, how perceived by elders, style of leadership, "God is...", how it nurtures, how it is nurtured, positive/negative attributes. Though some of this is excessively stereotypical in terms of how the authors fill in the blanks, I think the parameterization is useful.


 * I'd love to see a timeline that relates generational attributes to other "functional" cultures as well (e.g. art, design, business, politics). Kitode 23:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Kitode

1985
I'm twenty now (almost twenty-one), and was born in 1985... From what I've read on Wikipedia as-so-far, there is no generation that I belong to...

The latest Generation-X seems to end is 1984 (which is a fairly good novel, by the way), however Generation-X is superceded by Generation-Y, which apparently starts 1986 at the earliest...

I'll guarantee you that I'm not part of the MTV Generation for several reasons: I've never watched MTV, I rarely watched MuchMusic (a Canadian version of MTV), although for a short period in my preteens I watched it quite a bit. Since the age of around fifteen I haven't been able to stand it at all.

I'm a lost child of an Unknown Generation... To be honest, I think what truly makes one a Gen-Xer is the anonymous feeling we all seem to have been given by the other generations.

I know many from the MTV Generation, and they're all between a year, and four years younger than me... I know many from Generation-Y, and they're all either annoying idiot-kids, or super-genius-kids...

I have no Generation...

- A Vigilante


 * According to Strauss & Howe, you'd be part of the Millenial Generation (not Generation Y, which is about as content-free as "Baby Busters" was). Characteristics would be all about trend turnarounds:  an increasing preference (and willingness to affiliate) with groups, an increasingly polarized gender role structure, and a general "no negativity!" way of dealing with hardship all come to mind.


 * Keep in mind that generations are only one way to identify with a specific culture, and in many peoples' cases -- particularly those who don't partake of popular culture and/or live in a tradition-based community -- it might not be a dominating characteristic.


 * And all that said, at 20, you're just beginning to find your way as a member of "adult society" and determine what that might mean. Hang in there, and by the time you're 28 it will have snapped into place when you weren't looking, whether or not you'll still feel that you have a generational affinity or not. - a mom Kitode 23:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)kitode

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

I think the POV of this article is very rightwing and regan-esqe. Like it was written by the same guy that wrote the lines for Alex P. Keaton of the Family Ties fame. Seriously, the patriotic tone of this bit was puke inducing.

Children of Generation X
Generation_X states:
 * Generation X's children will be or have been born in the late 1980s and into the1990s, forming Generation X and the following generation (Generation Z). Assuming the average person has their children somewhere in his or her 20's, this means Generation X's children will be born between 1984 and 2004. Its typical grandchildren will be born from 2005 to about 2025.

We are past 2004 - has this assumption of the average age of generation X's giving birth proven accurate or does it seem to be a bit young? In Australia it is noted that there seems to have been a larger problem with Generation X having children very young, but the same generation is also being reported as having "waited too long to have kids". I'm not sure what happened to the average age at time of childbirth if you combine "a lot of teen mothers" with "a lot of women becoming mothers for the first time at 30-35 or 40". This means, a lot of Gen X'ers children are still being born. If the same thing happens with my kids - that is I'm a gen x'er with 3 kids between 0 and 3 years right now - my grandkids won't be born till AT LEAST 2035 (10 years later that what is suggested above). Mind you, if my daugher has kids at 14 then it will only be 2016 ;).

Also, can Gereration X's children, really' be part of Generation X? I guess it depends on how young the mother is and how close to the start of Generation X she was born? BTW this article seems very US-centric. I guess it needs some sectioning for regionalised variation or given it's length "Gen X in the "... {USA, Australia, UK etc} Garrie 00:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The average age for motherhood (in the US) c1970 was ~25 and today it is ~27; the average age for fatherhood today is ~29. So, typically people have children from their late teens to late 30s, with the median in the late 20s. About 15% of children born are to mothers 15-19. Is fifteen percent a lot? I suppose that's subjective. But, it is a strong argument for "birth cohorts" in favor of a "generation" when considering demographics. Twenty or twenty-two years is too long in a modern "accelerated culture". Fifteen years or so is probably better in that regard.
 * I agree with the US-centric observation, and the first thing to be removed should be the "American Generation" edit-proof table. Ledboots 20:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why there's a problem with American Generation table? Why not put up other generational groups in other countries? The original Strauss/Howe book was about the US -- initiated when they compared raising a GenX child to raising what they called a Millenial (the generation after GenX), and imho lost a lot when they tried to generalize the cultures' interplay across countries.  I would be very interested, though to see more rigorously what other countries think of as their cultural generation groupings and compare them to the US.  Further, in the US the coasts lead the middle of the country in terms of trendiness, so I see faster generational changes as well as more "amplitude" in terms of degree to which attributes are exhibited. I can't imagine that's NOT true if you compare California to Mississippi to the UK to Australia to Japan.


 * As for the "children-of" question, in most cultures peer grouping has a lot of influence on identification, so even if one's parents are in one generation or another, there is a lot of "overwriting" that goes on as people live the other five (or so) decades of their lives. So in the US, if a 1964-born (I'm avoiding the dispute!) girl gets pregnant at 13 and has a 1977-born child, that's probably going to be a GenX mom raising a GenX child (or the Silent grandparent raising both of them).  Typically though, there are one or two generational oscillations between generations.  In other words, Silents and Boomers both parents GenX;  Boomers and GenX both parent Millenials.  Again, I'm looking almost exclusively through Strauss and Howe, highly-US-oriented filters, so please excuse me if you're more educated in this area and just point out where I've missed the boat. Kitode 23:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)kitode
 * I don't think the sum of all childred born in Generation-N are born from parents of Generations N1+N2, is quite the same as a parent and child relationship being of the same supposed generation. That's a hard concept to wrap your brain around for a lot of people. But the simple solution is that it happens at such a small frequency to early teens, that maybe cohort recognition may be more advantageous, at least in that regard, from simply a reproductive point of view. Ledboots 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Generational Discussions Are Useless Banter
I'm sorry, but this needs to be said. Any attempts to label generations of human beings are both misleading and pointless. The entire endeavor would make any serious social scientist cringe. There are no such things as objective "generations." Any attempt to qualify all of a large amount of human behavior according to the current state of popular "culture" is just infantile. Here are just a few reasons why:

1) Gross generalization; For every time someone comes up with a name of a generation and applies arbitary attributes to those people, there are an overwhelming amount of individuals who do not fit into this. Neither is America or the entire Western world a large vaccumm in which the human being floats; people and their behavior vary greatly according to place, socioeconomic status, and personal narratives among many other things.  Above all, people have human agency and make real-life behavioral choices, which defeats any attempts at generalized macro-descriptions outright.  Macro-level analyses are best left to quatitative data, if anything at all, not detailed "cultural description."

2) No object of analysis; What exactly is being described by attempting to name a generation? Nothing. It seems the project is trying to ascribe behavioral attributes to an unimaginably large cohort of individuals, yet all is does is equate the current images of popular media institutions and trends to those people. This is misguided, accomplishes nothing, and has no descriptive power.

3) Misuse of the concept of culture; Contrary to common usage, culture is not a collection of fads, foods, and ways of spending free time. Culture is a serious concept of the social sciences which describes how people (ultimately individuals, not entire countries or swarms of people) make sense of their world through narrative frames and symbolic understanding. It is a much more fundamental and psychological term and MTV, clothing, and fast food are not culture.

4) Lack of serious thinking; The people who are coming up with these terms and descriptions are not academics and they are not responsible for knowing what they're talking about.  They are journalists, novelists, and random writers who appear on television and make lots of money for saying this stuff.  They have no basis for analysis and no data to present, aside from perhaps grossly misleading statistics. I would imagine most of it is just terribly limited personal observation and their own interpretation of the images of a place or country that the media displays to them.

Speaking as a sociologist, unless this generational banter is done strictly for fun, then I would say give it up. However, I know that it is a quite common trend, pervading many influential forms of communication and journalism; and this saddens me greatly. It is even more disturbing to me to think that many influential people form real political opinions based on such mythology. It would seem to me that the majority of the conversation is carried on by ammaturish, wannabe intellectuals, hippster young people vainly attempting to indentify with something, pundits, and political commentators who actually have no idea what they're talking about.

Thank you. 168.122.248.176 22:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Michael Paone (mpaone@bu.edu)


 * It's just a label for some people who are about the same age. And it's a well-established label. If this article wasn't here, people would come looking for it and wonder why it was missing.  I came here trying to find out when the media frenzy over GenX ended -- which is harder to trace back than when it started, which was about 1992-1993.  It's true the article could use more detachment.  It should describe the media blitz rather than repeating the nonsense as facts.


 * Oh, and social scientists didn't invent the word "culture." Make up a new word if you want to control how people use it. 67.168.216.176 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think people that are born in an age group have similar shared life experiences in common that is foreign to other age groups and recognizable amongst themselves. You can label them anything you like...that is irrelevant. Not only do age groups relate to themselves (in fashion, the arts, etc), but collectively may distinguish themselves from others. And this goes beyond a social construct. Let's take so-called "Generation X": the early 90s twentysomethings were labeled with pejoratives such as slacker and other similar terms by their predecessors, the powers to be. Expressions such as "last hired, first fired" were thus born in the worplace. Those types of attitides probably had a profound effect, on employment for example, as those in their twenties, although highly educated, were viewed somewhat as impotent and floundered in their careers. Any respectable sociologist only has to look at (census/bls) unemployment, underemployment and wage statistics, for 1990s mathematical models. Sociology, being a social science, no doubt uses models to prove theories, correct? I also think most people here, are only interested in making a positive contribution to an article, and with the talk page, attempt to refine the contents assembled there with reasonable intellect. Your objective only appears to be to insult people and be condescending. My suggestion to someone who is terribly at odds with an article's contents is make your own contribution, or start a new one. And be sure to spell out the fundamentals of culture, because probably most people have a pop-culture mentality...but your going to have to show them the err of their ways. Ledboots 04:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that labelling is useless but we have to just make people aware that in the late 1980s the term Gen X was used to described twentysomethings [at that time with years of birth by implication in the late 1950s to mid/late 1960s, subtract 20 to 29 from the year 1987], and then the X in Gen X became like an variable in math algebrra and kept meaning twentysomethings because writers wanted a generic or nothing label for young adults. So naturally writers and pop culture folks kept using the X to mean people in their twenties for maybe a decade [this shifting the year of birth up say5,8, 15 years] so that we don't have agreement what this generation includes.  So as a term it is 'useless but to make someone unaware of this term, an article would introduce the idea of folks born after or at the tale end of the post WWII baby boom, it serves as a starting point, however misleading. John wesley 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then again, Coupland has said "Let X = X" (c.1994) in response to the shifting your referring to. Ledboots 12:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the sentiments of this particular thread. Generation X is at best a vague social stereotype for people who were born around the 70's. I find it hard to believe that this term has generated such a long article. I recommend deleting the "outlook" section. It's chock full of such unreferenced claims and takes up 30% (along with the "American Generations" table) of the space of the article. For some examples:


 * "This is one example of a new Gen X paradigm: individual competitiveness yet loyalty as compatible and healthy societal concepts."


 * "What values Gen X internalized politically may become discernable about 2008; after enough four-year Presidential elections for values to solidify and enough non-incumbent elections for issue patterns to finally (potentially) become identifiable."


 * "Interestingly, however, while Generation Xers are often considered to be 'non-ideological' politically, the generation has given birth to some extremely persuasive and decidedly ideological political thinkers and writers of many different kinds." [No such examples have been given.]


 * The "American Generations" table shouldn't be here. As I understand it, it's derived from a single source and isn't really relevant anyway since it only focuses on US culture.


 * Ultimately, though "generation X" is a label and doesn't warrant the level of analysis in this article. I think the article is worth paring (with some effort) to a quarter of its present size. -- KarlHallowell 03:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In terms of sociological rigor: There is plenty of literature in this area, and according to the back cover of Generations, Strauss was at the time a "faculty fellow at the University of Notre Dame" while Howe is a "historian and economist." Kitode 23:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to see cites for the serious work, not the coffee table decoration. The book, Generations just isn't relevant here. I see that the US Census bureau has weighed in at a tenative 1968-1979 date. That seems reasonable to me. -- KarlHallowell 07:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No matter whether there are citations or not, Generation X is real. I was born in 1966, and growing up we felt inferior because we were smaller than the 60s generation and had nothing comparable to their collective action and activism. But when I saw a play called Generation X, it suddenly made sense. We are diverse and all do different things but that's OK, that is our characteristic. Now that I'm older I see that the 60s weren't really all hippies and activists, that was just a small part. And the "evil" 50s weren't so square -- Philip K Dick wrote during that time. So maybe they were as diverse as GenX is, but for whatever reason, this diversity is what my generation identified with. Maybe because of the unease and economic uncertainty that followed the 60s, "where is our society headed?", and we each coped with it in different ways. Maybe it's an American thing too, but it's still significant. And I like the generations chart, it's a good addition. Whether the labels are definitive or not, it helps to provide a vague framework. Better to say "The Silent Generation" (my parents) than to not have a word for it. I would have just lumped them together with the WWII generation, but of course they were in elementary school then. -- Sluggoster 00:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The analysis is strongly limited, but not useless. Entire generations have been subjected to booms, busts, wars, peace, and other strong influences.  The comments regarding global point of view are hard to resolve, but it is clear that the post-WWII timeframe involved upheaval and rapid change for much of the world.  I grew up with the Cold War and living with Mutual Assured Destruction and listening to the refueling craft that kept the bombers going as the departed the coast for targets over The Pond, so my point of view is shaped by all the cold war goings on and technological change of that time.  My parents had their lives totally changed by Sputnik, and everything before that was totally different.  -- M0llusk 01:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are still following this, I would disagree with your limitations on the word "culture" from a social science point of view. In anthropology, "culture" means ideas, behaviors, and artifact models that are transmitted socially.  Whether they are deep, coherent, superficial, authentic, tasteful, important, integrating, meaningless,  or anything like that are value judgements, and make discussion of them less objective, not more so.  That also would force theoretical models onto the data.  If life in fads and superfical meaningless elements is not culture, than millions of people are living without human culture, which is impossible by the definition of the word. --Sukkoth 06:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested to see this discussion is still going on. I would like to make a few brief comments if I may. Firstly, it seems that there has been some dissent with my use of the word culture. Sukkoth suggests, more or less, the "way of life" definition, and someone wrote that social scientists didn't invent the word culture. The latter of course is true, and culture is one of the most varied and obfuscated words in the English language. (See Eagleton's book The Idea of Culture.) Definitions differ depending on time period, region, and academic discipline. Undoubtedly, the classical anthropologists (particularly Edward Tylor, Franz Boas, later, Geertz as well) were the first to popularize its usage, albeit, crudely and in somewhat racist terms. Often it was coupled with the term civilization. The conception favored commonly was that of a "way of life" or "worldview", which is a quite general description. The definition I'm using is that of modern sociology, which is a much more cognitive view. It can be seen in terms of "individual narratives", Irving Goffman's "frames", and Ann Swidler's "tool-kit", to name a few. The main gist of these sociological theories is that culture is a symbolic and open system, through which human beings filter even the most fundamental understanding of the world. In this way, (and in contrast to what Ledboots said above), everything we as humans understand is a social construction. (See Peter Berger's work on The Social Construction of Reality or his book The Sacred Canopy, particularly his three processes of externalization, objectification, and internalization). It's a quite general definition of culture, but it is specific in its application. For instance, tattered jeans, bands/shows on MTV, or other general trends are indeed cultural creations, however, more accurately they are cultural artifacts, which are then interpreted symbolically by individuals, often differently. The lifeblood of culture is this interpretive process, as culture is itself a cognitive process which occurs in time.

However, more important than definition in this case of Generational discussion is methodology. It has occured to me that underlying this discussion there are very little, if any, questions being asked. Rather than asking what, objectively, is culture.. a better question would be: what concept of culture helps us to best understand the questions about generations being asked? Though, I find myself at loss, as I don't really see any coherent, researchable question behind the discussion.

I could, perhaps, after the fact, try to speculate on what leads people to discuss generational trends or come up with stereotypes/lables. I'm going to assume that the motivation behind it is to ask something like: What, if anything, do the entirety of people, born in the United States during a certain time frame, have in common? When spelled out like this (and I think it is the accurate question behind these attempts), I can't help but to realize how futile it seems. Aside from citizenship, being subject to national law, and perhaps reactions to various large-scale events (which could vary indefinitely per individual), I see very little which can be objectively established. To be fair though, it also occured to me, after elucidating the above question, that these generational concerns are actually very similar to those of historians. In this sense, it seems to me that, yes, of course large-scale events/trends are worthy of recording and understanding (as such is the work of historians), however, generational stereotypes are hardly the medium through which to do so. The work of the historian is to record and synthesize the roles and events of influential individuals, organizations, government policies, economic trends, etc., not the creation of labels which have no explanatory power and offer no better understanding of reality. -- Mpaone 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Older than they appear
There are a few places where people attempt to argue for certain dates because cultural icons were born then. However, I think it's common for such people to be older than their audience. For example,


 * "But since many notable people who are normally thought of as clearly Gen-X, such as Courtney Love, Janeane Garofalo and Eddie Vedder, were born in 1964, this year is often cited as the beginning of Generation X."

We can't use this to "prove" that 1964 belonged because some Gen X icons were born then. Note that all three of the above had their public careers kick off in the early 90's. At 26 or older, they probably would have had at least four years on most of their audience (assuming that people still graduate at 22 on average). Incidentally, the above quote comes from the "Beginings" section, which probably can be deleted wholesale without hurting the article, since it's either a plug for that "Generations" book or idle speculation. -- KarlHallowell 04:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The way Strauss and Howe define the beginning of what they call the 13th generation (1961) is by looking at sociological trends and their turnover. This is in contrast to how people had defined the beginning of the generation after the Baby Boom (originally called "Baby Bust") which was solely based on when the birth rates began declining (1964).  People who cite artists are certainly not doing the idea of rigorous proof any favors.


 * Please read "that Generations book" before you think of it as a plug. It was written in 1991 and it's been shockingly predictive, actually. I have nothing to do with the book, btw, other than liking it a whole bunch. One of the reasons I like it is because pgs 468-519 are all notes on sources: it's full of facts, and the facts are actually documented. Its popularity was because it was very well-argued. I would also say that I don't much care for their other books, which are not written in the same way. Kitode 23:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)kitode
 * Vedder and Love got their careers started in the 80's though, and their audience then were entirely people their age who related to what they were expressing. Grunge (not to be confused with post-Grunge) musicians from Seattle were born throughout the 1960's, and a few in the late 50's and early 1970's. I agree that traditionally music has been performed by musicians to a younger audience. But, since the 80's, so many music genres have sprung up, at such a pace, that tradition no longer applies in many examples. You can't fake being an icon of music, being part of a particular culture, when you were there when it started and are identifed as a founder. Ledboots 23:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that it's relevant to this topic, but I really don't see why you can't fake "being an icon of music". The US music industry seems a strong counterexample to your last claim. And if I were doing it, having role models slightly older and more mature than the target audience would be the way to go. And, of course, backed by ample marketing dollars.


 * Second (to Kitode), why should I read this "Generations" book? The fact that this book unscienfically divides US history into a number of arbitrary "generations" is a warning sign to me that I shouldn't spend the time. I think proponents should really give better reasons for why they think "Generations" is relevant to this article. -- KarlHallowell 10:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What are the models?
I would like to inject some sociological rigor into this, also. The overarching question is whether people form cultural norms based on peer groups and cohorts. I'd love to see that researched and discussed.

Then the second point, assuming it all hasn't been disproven!, would be to make an inventory of all the available models and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. Presumably the models have different parameters by which they differentiate the cultures; the parameters may or may not be related to geography, political system, etc. I would also expect there to be a wide variety in the descriptors of the generational cultures as well as what ages they encompass.

The third point, as someone (scroll up!) said, is relating these cultural groupings to other ones, such as "movements" in arts and politics.

Kitode 23:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)kitode

I think the subject of the Gulf War was played wrong by the writer of the article. I knew at age 10, at the beginning of the gulf war that it was a freaking joke. I knew that our response to 9/11 was going to be more of a problem than a solution. The military DOES NOT have my support. I do not support the ROTC and would never support the flag or consider myself a patriot. The disgust for the imperalist politics of this country I have for this country that was fostered by Regan was not washed away by Bush. It was only made stronger. I love the American people, but our leaders are the stupidest people on earth and I'm not going to start waving a flag or supporting a bloodletting on their account.

Who wrote this...
I'm sorry for my language but, who wrote this SHIT?!?! Or maybe it's just the shitty attitude the generation gets from the "powers-that-be!" And a PS to that comment: who in their right mind would put everyone in a 20 year time span of post WWII modernity in the same generation in the first place?!?!!... I feel that people just five (+/-) years of my birth year are vastly different from me. I think whoever makes up this piffle about generational description needs to realize that one, not everyone is going to be the same, and more importantly, two, our cultures change so much more rapidly in modernity than they did (let's say--pre-WWI/WWII times) that the generations will change much more rapidly as well. I don't agree that the outcome will be the same, but everyone must come to realize that the theories of such as Ray Kurzweil are reality. Everything, including cultures, experience exponential growth.


 * Who wrote that (because you didn't stamp it)?
 * 1) You obviouly have selective reading habits because it was mentioned above that cohorts, rather than generations, are more predictive, and that "accelerated culture" is evident today.
 * 2) No one is claiming every member of a so-called generation is a clone, if you will, but age groups undeniably share certain realities in common.
 * 3) No, your expletives aren't condoned.
 * 4) Your discussion about Kurzweil is better suited for a science fiction discussion, not this. Ledboots 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?
There seems to be an overgeneralization in here. Do all Gen-Xers feel this way?

> Using socio-utility and economic compassion, so-called gen-xers world wide will bring a new understanding to formal neo-feudalist tactics to control geo-economy. Of any generation since, this example population trusts only themselves, and as such, will rein in their effort to rid the world of those who whould rather swindle than compromise a traditionally and delicately debilitating American anti-progressive ethos worldwide.User: 19:15 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

must present stupid contradictions ... not resolve them
1940–1959 = boom · 1960–1979 = X · 1980–1999 = Y

Too bad anything simple and clear is original research. 67.168.216.176 08:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Globalise?
Since when was Generation X a purely (North) American phenomenon? It may have been coined by Coupland, but it is a form of provincialism to suggest this. Please American editors, there's about five billion non-Americans out here, will you please take note? --MacRusgail 21:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's an international section in the article ... interestingly devoid of coherence or source citations ... in order for the summary at the top of the article to include more international material, such material has to exist ... how is the term "Generation X" used in Germany or Russia or India or China? can anybody provide a single example that the term ever has been used in any of these places? at all? and especially in a manner distinct from the North American usage? 67.168.216.176 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the person who put in the "globalize" tag. What's the first thing you see when you view the article? It's that table of "American Generations" that I've complained so long and bitterly about. Virtually all of the example baby boomers (with the notable exception of the European rock bands) are US or Canadian. And the Oxford dictionary link is the only external link which isn't US or Canadian. -- KarlHallowell 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The tag doesn't solve anything, or belong there regardless. GenX, as a label for people born in the '60s, is a concept created in Canada, to describe North Americans, and it's got no obligation to be relevant to anybody else.  If it HAPPENS to be relevant to somebody else, then great.  If it doesn't, that's OK too.  The onus is on people outside North America to add material relevant to them, if there really is any. 67.168.216.176 21:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article or section may deal primarily with the U.S. and may not present a worldwide view. (What ???!!!!)::

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

I'd like to see more contributions from cohorts in other parts of the world. In North America and the U.S. in particular a good deal of the cohort experience forms around the shared absence of memories of (depending on one's dating system) either the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the Vietnam War. Gen X'ers spent their childhoods in the shadows of these events, and particularly in the case of the war were often bewildered both by the emotional scars they had left on people just a few years older than us and at our elders' inability to explain these events in coherent terms. Perhaps something we in North America share with others overseas is that we were the first generation to spend adolescence with a computer in the home - although the degree to which this happened is economically slanted and probably less prevalent in parts of the world where computers were less affordable. Another specifically North American cohort experience is growing up in the shadow of the Baby Boom. Their numbers and economic power were staggering, and until the early Gen X'ers reached our twenties mass culture generally ignored the generation (with a few exceptions such as the electronic gaming industry and MTV). It was disconcerting to see countless advertisements attempt to recall nostalgia for the 1950s - an era we had never known - and present an idealized golden era we had missed out on by not being born in time. By the time we stepped into the world things had changed: the war had worn out national idealism, too many assassinations and riots had happened, too many terrorist hijackings were taking place. We knew that the 1970s were a golden age of hedonism, but before we were old enough to join the fun the party ended: AIDS, rising drinking ages, the war on drugs...even the cost of sensible pursuits such as higher education and housing skyrocketed. Although I've traveled to Europe, Central America, and East Asia, I haven't really spent enough time in these places to get a sense for how much of this is international. Perhaps cohort experiences in other parts of the world form around different events. In Eastern Europe, for example, 1989 must be a much more important watershed year than it is in North America. Durova 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The "globalize" tag is ridiculous. Generation X is a concept specific to the United States and possibly only to a few other English speaking countries where books by Douglas Coupland or Strauss & Howe may have made a splash. How can this article ever represent a "worldwide view", and why should it? This usage here is a good example why the "globalize" tag is a problem itself. It needs to either be changed so its use is limited only to those articles where it would truly be appropriate, or deleted. I would say the latter since the very existance of that tag is pushing a pro-globalization POV on Wikipedia. At least get rid of it from this article. 70.108.81.219 11:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


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

Taking back our generational label
Baby boomers were not the parents of Generation X. (The Silent generation, and WWII vets were.) Personally, my grandparents were of the Lost Generation. Coupland originally meant Gen X as those born in the early sixties, in the shadow of their older baby boom siblings. We were the younger baby boomers. (eg. 1964 was hardly a "bust year". Over 4 million births (U.S.) occurred, which is more than any year in the late forties though the early fifties. This didn't happen again until 1990!)

We were the generation stripped of identification with our older siblings, simply because we didn't remember the Kennedy administration, although we remember Nixon and Kissinger well enough.

Then, we were the generation stripped of our Gen X identity - (the original "twenty-somethings" of the 1980s, when the phrase was first popularized as a riposte to boomers in their thirties.) Somehow (mainly corporate marketing) it was co-opted by those younger than us, who really wouldn't remember the 1970s. Personally, I didn't like the term Gen X, but the ideas of being lost and forgotten in the crush of humanity prior to us, is accurate. And, oddly enough, once a term is stolen, it becomes more precious.

As for the use of Generation Jones? First time I heard of it was on this wiki. I'm Canadian. Is it only an American term? The only memorable reference, to me, is "keeping up with the Jones'". I am curious.


 * "Generation Jones" is a gimmick invented and promoted by one guy. It may meet the definition of a "hoax" at Wikipedia. 67.168.216.176 13:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One definition of "baby bust" refers to the decline in births following an incline. Although there are relatively a large number of births, the birth rate is trending downwards, the trailing ege of a normal distribution curve. This is in contrast to those who take the whole curve including leading and trailing edge to define a cohort. Which interpretation is correct? The latter example, a "pig in a python" representation of baby boomers, implies a baseline is present. I'm not sure how possible that is for something that is in constant flux. Both seem to be justified, though. What you have to watch out for is the nomenclature, however. The echo boomers, born from 1977 to 1994, span the years that boomers would normally be having children. But the generations mentioned in babybusters.org don't seem to fall in line with the parental groups. For example, the baby boomers would have to give rise to at least the latter post-busters, and there is only 9 years of echo boomers. Ledboots 18:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dividing the generations
The following is my opinion on the matter.

Although the generations are largely grouped under Baby Boomers, Xers, Yers, there are distinct subcatergories in each generation. Since the Baby Boom generation, the following generations have become fragmented, affected by major events, such as political, economic, cultural and etc. I agree in theory the term Generation X and Y covers a long period, but even as short as four years, there is a difference in generational tone. I believe you should categorize according to the period in which a person is born under, not after the environment they grew up in. Therefore, I propose the following.

Baby Boomers Post WW2 & Korean War Generation 1946-1953 "the Fifties Generation" 1954-1959 The Kennedy Generation 1960-1963

Generation X Vietnam & Civil Rights 1964-1968 Woodstock, Moon Landing, & Watergate Generation 1969-1974 Post Watergate & Bicentennial Generation 1975-1980 The Reagan Generation 1981-1988

Generation Y End of Cold War/Gulf War Generation 1989-1992 The Clinton Generation 1993-2000 The 9/11 Generation 2001-2009 ?

This is how I categorize the current dominant generations. The years always start Jan. 1 19** and end Dec. 31 19**.

Culturally the divide is the following.

Baby Boomers Start: End of WW2 Finish: Kennedy's Assaination

Generation X Start:  Introduction of the Mustang Finish: The end of Reagan's 2nd Term.

Generation Y Start:  The Fall of the Berlin Wall Finish: ? (presently) possibly the end of G.W. Bush's 2nd Term or end of the Iraq War.

Also, you can break Generation X into two subcategories, Gen X Version 1.0 would be from 1964 to 1974. Then Gen X Version 2.0 would be from 1975 to 1988. These are two distinct, but closely related subgenerations within one category. They both relate better with each other than with the Baby Boomers or Gen Yers.

I have the cut off date for Gen X at 1988/9 because those born at that year are most likely to be significantly aware of or remember best New Year's 2000 and the Election of 2000.

There is a significant argument to support the idea of a new generation now after 9/11. Until further data is collected to support that argument, I will personally continue to classify it under Generation Y. If there is enough evidence or consensus, Generation Z or 9/11 will start in 2001 and continue into the foreseeable future till another dramatic shift in society. Generation Y shall then end with Clinton's 2nd term.

Again this is my personal opinionated definition of the dividing the generations.

Thank you.


 * First, this is original research and Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Second, it doesn't make sense to classify a generation by what happened when they were born. The "Kennedy generation" wasn't old enough for the most part to remember events from that era. It makes more sense to classify them by events that occured later on, eg, Nixon's impeachment, disco, or the release of Star Wars. -- KarlHallowell 01:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like your take on it, about as relevant as any others attempt to define the genereations, an interesting exercise but oh so purely academic. I really like the introduction of the mustang as a defining moment, I wonder if it would ever fly in a university text.

Should American Generations table be removed?
I don't see a reason to keep this table. First, it is a US-centric point of view and should properly be called "United States Generations" not "American Generations" since the US is the only country in the Americas covered by this table. Second, the divisions are arbitrary, subjective, and uninformative. As far as I know, demographers don't even bother to categorize historical populations into cohorts especially to this level of detail. The book, Generations is worthy of some remark, but I don't see the table as notable.

Given that these complaints reappear through the discussion on this article and never are addressed, I think it's time to just remove the table. -- KarlHallowell 16:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue has been expressed before. Then, the two options are to edit the article or delete the template (which I'm surprised dosn't appear to have been edited). After all, the table only appears to support this and other similar articles, probably none of which are really justifiable. Ledboots 00:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually liked the table. I'd advise you to put it back. it may not be greatly relevant to all, but it is good for some! The article was started by an American, so it seems okay to me--Read-write-services 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But the table doesn't reflect the demographic history of Americans, just that supposedly of US residents. Even Canadians and Mexicans have different histories. And that's before we consider the rest of the Americas. I think an appropriate place for it would be in the discussion of the book that it comes from. -- KarlHallowell 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


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

This is really a mess
This author is way too centered on the 1980's

I have said it before but the 1980s and early 90s are relative to the MTV Generation, not Gen X. People who were part of Gen X were adults by then. Piecraft 17:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean. Adults still exist and have shared experiences. Further, even with the earliest cutoffs mentioned in the article, someone born in 1975 or so would qualify as Generation X and not be adult till 1993. -- KarlHallowell 16:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you consider this such a mess-then fix it, after all, that's what Wikipedia is about.
 * Cheers! --Read-write-services 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No point for me to fix it, because I have attempted to before and instead got a lot of flack for it, you people need to stop arguing over the details and remember what someone said above, there is no use in trying to pint point exact dates or whatnot and instead just put forth the general idea and concept of this generation and the facts that are available, otherwise it ends up being a ping pong game. Also as to the comment by KarlHallowell, what on Earth are you on about? I kn ow adults exist I'm not on about that, but the fact remains that generations are according to the births of a people within a particular time and the effects of that period upon people growing up and living during those times. And believe it or not people born in 75 possess more qualities of an MTV Generationalist than that of X, because X has ostracised so many people from its generation, due to their blatant arrogance. Piecraft 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you're confusing generation X with the babyboomers which is considered by the US Census to be people born in the US between 1948 and 1964 (IIRC). Certainly the accusation of "arrogance" is traditionally directed towards the babyboomers. And MTV makes a poor choice for categorizing a generation. There was a lot more going on than a single cable TV channel. -- KarlHallowell 00:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The US Census Bureau defines the American Baby Boom from 1946 to 1964. They are not the final word on the matter. As per the article, Coupland defined the group as those born from the late 50s to early 70s when GX:TFAAC came out in '91. Demographers other than the Census Bureau take birth rates a step further (like Foot) and statistically show those at the back-end of the boom have faced economic and employment disadvantages as the large cohort before them swamped the the job market and influenced supply and demand ecomomics (rose prices). Ledboots 17:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am aware of those demographic differences between early and late babyboomers. Usually when someone directs accusations of "arrogance" towards a generation, they aren't that particular. -- KarlHallowell 16:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. Cheers!--Read-write-services 22:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In australia we never had a MTv gen,,.. i had hardly heard about it besides here. We didnt even get MTv till the 90s, and still no more than 20% of population have pay tv- ie cable. HOwever.. . we do have a problem of the inbetween ppl not quite X and definatly not Y. Im born in 1975, and i think i'm more X than gap/MTv.... but im only one (perhaps individauls of this group fit more into X or Y)... So two points, we have to remember that wiki is international, so needs to be a bit vauge, and broad. ANd point two for this reason i think the table is a good idea., it shows the context that we're talking And the links to the other gens are vital- it even has gen MTV... Perhaps its worth noteing through out body that various points are contested, and perhaps there is even references for that.Cilstr 08:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead section
There is way too much text in the lead section! This should be a concise overview of the article. It should be able to be easily scanned by a reader and certainly should not be pushing the Table of contents off the viewable part of the page. It would be really good if someone could pull out the revelant points to create a summary of the info in the article and move the rest of the content into the body of the article. I'd do it myself but I don't know enough about the topic to know what the most important points are. Cheers. JenLouise 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly the last paragraph should go elsewhere (intergenerational conflict?), it's not very introductory. Also, the new "common denominator" section is a good addition to the article. Ledboots 01:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Where the boomers are defined by events such as the Beatles arrival in America and Woodstock, the lead article attempts to define Gen X by the cult movie "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," new wave music, and Proposition 13. Seems like pretty weak examples to begin with. Is Gen X supposed to be a cult generation? It seems that at the very least there could be references to greater measuers of X's cultural significance, such as Nirvana's Nevermind topping the album charts in early 1992. When considering what actually was popular in the early 80's (Gen X posterboy Michael Jackson?) the lead article seems pretty odd. I think I think the problems here may be 1. An eighties-centric viewpoint on the part of the author, possibly due to 2. closer adherence than to Douglas Copland's novel than time's passage ultimately merited. A change or at least an explaination is deserved as to why the lead apparently disregards the US Census definition of Gen X, those born between 1968-1979, which by that definition the oldest X'er would be only beginning their teens in the early 80's. --Molybdenumtop 01:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


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


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

Is all this correct?
I looked over the gen X page and see things that may not be correct. Have you looked at the american generations page? http://www.timepage.org/time.html Are you talking about American Generations? It seems as if you are putting all generations from everywhere under your titles. While I do like the sub generation names (baby buster, gen X, MTV) I do not think I saw where you got this information. Also, I see that you do mention Strauss and Howe, but you seem to vary from their information.

Keep up the good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.53.220 (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Very little is correct. For example, the dates for the Lost Generation are totally wrong - too early. 70.53.111.236 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why write about these things at all--answer
Several of the comments about this article can be grouped into a general class of, “Why write about this? What is this all about?”

Here are some observations that might be helpful:

There can be no question that over a time scale of decades, societies experience changes in fashions, attitudes, and the arts (not only styles, but beliefs about the place of the arts and their contexts). We can also safely say, that these trends tend to cluster in waves, if only inchoately, that they can overlap, split, spurn reactions, and so forth. Furthermore, we can say that generally, they are more pronounced in dynamic societies than in static ones, affect big cities more than isolated places, affect curious, creative, leisured, and younger people more than their opposites. And, that they are more similar between societies as societies are more related. Finally, we can add that trends may spread with decreasing or at least changing understandings, seguing for example from creativity to imitations to poses.

There is no reasonable doubt, for a prime example, that there was a sudden burst of cultural change in the Anglophone world and beyond from around 1965 to 1969, universally felt and noticed at the time, that affected appearances, music, sexual roles, opinions about pleasure, freedom, policics, religion, and race, and that was reflected in all arts and in the personal lives of many people, directly, partially, or in reaction, and that this boom both gradually diffused into the general culture and lost momentum in the early seventies.

These waves of change directly affect people’s lives in various ways, and they are constantly referred to in literature, social writng, and conversation, often with accepted, if imprecise labels. These labels (“The Jazz Age”, “Punk”, etc) and what is thought to have been behind them are part of the knowledge of a literate person. However, any person who has followed all of these movements and their offshoots and counter-movements within living memory would probably be too exhausted to function. Anyone else needs some filling in, and therefore articles such as this one serve a purpose. If someone forgets the difference between “The Lost Generation” and “The Silent Generation”, it should be nice to have an encyclopedia to help.

However there are several problems in trying to write about these things. First, these labels apply to complex, overlapping, non-discrete, varied, and plural trends of many sorts over many dimensions. Even to write well about them is like trying to put a hurricane in a filing cabinet. Secondly, people are affected by these matters to differing degrees, some people almost not at all, relatively few people totally, and some people negatively, that is, by moving in an opposite direction. Therefore, describing social trends like these might give a false impression of people massively and uniformly adopting certain politcal views or fashions, which is totally false. Example: This article describes the American “Generation X” as being against religion. But that would mean that, as defined in the article by dates, people who are now in their thirties and early forties in America are mostly anti-religious. Obviously not the case at all!

The third problem is that consideration of these matters can be emotional, eliciting resentment toward the go-befores, disdain toward the come-latelies, and envy, of both the “I missed it” and “I lost it” varieties.

There is also a problem of modality of the terms that are used. The terms are not co-ordinate: Some represent fairly coherent movements, some with people consciously identifying, some are media inventions, or literary labels after the fact, etc.

Given all these problems, it seems any writing about these things would be almost insurmountably difficult, even before the task is delivered to a shifting committee of people of varying skills who don’t know each other. A topic such as this surely stretches to capabilities of the Wikipedia to its limits. However, the topic is too significant and intriguing to leave out of the encyclopedia. I would recommend just being especially careful with citations, definitions, origins and scope of terms and so forth.--Sukkoth 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

reasonable for an encyclopedia?
"Generation X has been left in a state of instability due to social problems such as high crime rates, divorce, children born out of wedlock, and lack of a father figure in many families."

how can things like this pass? this hardly seems like a reasonable statement to find on a more or less informative page. especially the two last phrases are oozing political commitment, of a kind that seems horrifying

Jonquiliser 11:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)6.2.2007.

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

Religion
I think the religion paragraph ("The attitudes of Gen X towards religion can be best described as indifferent to downright hostile. They view Christianity as having nothing to offer them in the church sense, however many of them still believe in God or at least "a higher power". Many, if not most Xers, are completely secularized and abandoned traditional churches...") might be a bit of an over-generalization... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.36 (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I'd agree with this. Many of my peers were swept into the very public and influential evangelical movement of the day.  Christian rock basically emerged around that time as an answer to the desire of those young people to have a Christian musical form they could relate to and enjoy.  Economy1 12:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I modified the paragraph earlier this week to be more neutral in its presentation of religion. Plurality of religious attitudes is an important hallmark of Gen X, so therefore the article should reflect as much as possible which members of which religions had what types of reactions to their own practices. Embellishment of trends in Protestant Christianity during the 80s and 90s, including the emergence of Christian rock music, church efforts to establish groups, camps and programming for young people, and the mega-church-ization and right-leaning politicization of many congregations are significant factors in how GenXers raised in Protestant Christian churches have reacted to or incorporated religion in their lives. This section of the article will become more interesting if perspectives of GenXers raised in other religious traditions were included. Were similar or different reactions happening for Muslim, Jewish, Bhuddist, Bahai, Mormon, Scientologist (etc.) GenXers during the 80s and 90s?  75.72.151.235 21:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * The term is also used in most of the anglosphere to some extent. It is not a purely American term. --MacRusgail 03:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re "baby busters"
I would love to see that cohort of people born between 1961 and 1967 treated as distinct from the boomers and the xers. We (I'm 1966) have little in common with either group. Given the fact that the U.S. Census  chooses not to include us as xers, why would wiki? Also, some discussion of rap music, school desegregation, and other non-white topics seems warranted. Some of us were listening to Public Enemy, not Nirvana. Identity politics were as important as gender politics in our formative years. Remember the Black Panthers? Well, some of them are our parents. I view my generation as a NOT generation: not the boomers and not the xers. Our childhood took place during war and recssion. Schools were closed wholesale because of our small numbers, and white, middle-class woman suddenly found themselves raising children on their own. All told, it's interesting how influential we manage to be, given what we went through and how few of us there are.Optiaine 18:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is one of the problems with writing about generations on Wikipedia, everyone has their own ideas about what is right or best in terms of dates and characteristics - this is contrary to the WP:OR policy. These articles need to be heavily sourced, more so than most, and they are, currently, exactly the opposite. I don't have the time and energy to clean them up but they are really a mess of original research. -- Stbalbach 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're not up to the task. You definately got my points. I send you wishes for more time and energy!Optiaine 18:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Alby 11:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Misguided verbal wizardry
"to rid the world of those who whould rather swindle than compromise a traditionally and delicately debilitating American anti-progressive ethos worldwide."

I particularly found this sentence rather amatuerish to a point of distaste. Wikis, in my opinion need to be more user-friendly than being vehicles for showcasing one's faculty for language! The above sentence was either copy-pasted from some book/article or worse yet, painfully constructed by someone 'writing to impress' rather than 'express'.

I vote to change the wording on this one. I do think that the point it's trying to make does make sense, but it certainly needs better expression. The final part of the sentence isn't even meaningful!

Sincerely,

Ashay

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

Generation X and pop culture (also a note on other generation articles)
I wrote several months ago regarding this topic, but I remember only reading a response from Educatedlady. Have any of you noticed that several pop culture "interests" (can't think of a word to encompass icons, movies, video games, etc.) that can be attributed to more than one generation is added to the list? It's early morning, and I don't think I am wording this question well at all. What I mean is (and I see this a lot on the Generation Y page) that I know that icons such as Madonna, Bon Jovi, Michael Jackson, and Van Halen (just a few examples) reached their star power in the 1980s. So, I don't think anyone would argue that they are associated with Generation X (their music, I guess - seeing as how both Madonna and Michael Jackson are themselves "Boomers"). But, people are adding Harry Potter or anime to Generation Y and making it seem as if the phenomena is only attributed to one generation. Again, dang it, I don't think I am making sense. I think music or famous trilogies can have their "start" or "rise" so-to-speak attributed to a specific generation, but when it comes to "interests" or "fans," we need to be careful in our wording in these articles? Educatedlady - do you remember we talked about this? I am proposing a discussion (though maybe this would be better on the Generation Y board?) on how we can better write the Pop Culture section of these generation pages. I also think we need to make sure people don't add "Famous Baby Boomers," or "Famous Generation Xers," etc. This is not only because of the various date ranges, but in my opinion, though generation labels may partly define who we are, they are not labels (or titles) such as "doctor," "catholic" or "philanthropist." Every now and then I see these lists pop up, and a few of us go and delete them. I don't think they are necessary to these articles. There aren't even categories for them on Wikipedia anyway. Wikipedia administrators have already deleted categories such as "1980s musicians" (this might not be the exact name) because (I'm assuming) such musicians might belong to several categories (1980s, 1990s, and 2000s for instance). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should be careful with the lists, because I myself personally identify as an XY Cusp (defintely need a better name). Artists such as Madonna Bon Jovi Michael Jackson and Van Halen we all popular not just in the 80s but their popularity continued through at least the mid 1990s. Vogue by Madonna was released in 1990 for example. Michael was still pouring out hits with the album Dangerous in 1991. Also Michael and Van Halen gained popularity in the late 1960s and 1970s respectively. What it sounds like you're doing here is creating an article about the 1980s. Generation X is not solely confined to the 1980s as the culture really begin after the Vietnam War (i.e. Baby Boomers) and the rise of Disco music in the 1970s. However the term Generation X was not coined until the 1990s when the grunge era was at its peak. So in order to describe the music of this generation it has to extend outside of artists strictly from the 1980s into the Nirvana, Pearl Jam an New Jack Swing era of the 90s. However again we have to conduct research to find reliable sources on the matter as well, which I have found but most consists of the grunge/alternative era. I am not on my normal computer right now, but when I am I can post resources I have pertaining. I hope you guys can assist as well. Thanks! Edu Lady - Researcher 01:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)
 * Right. I am not a fan of such lists because of the overlapping categories. I do not see a problem with mentioning the "rise" of artists, movements, etc. in the pop culture section of a generation article. I agree with you on Michael Jackson's Dangerous album. I am not sure, but it may have been his biggest seller since Thriller. Don't quote me on that, because I am too lazy to check the stats, but I remember buying the cassette tape when it first came out. The videos, the award shows . . . lots of buzz surrounding the album and concert tours. I also agree with you that Generation X not being confined to the 1980s. I was just referring to the musicians and other artists during that time, possibly because there was a real boom in the music industry with Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Bon Jovi (among others) during this time, just as there was a music boom in the 1960s. I just wanted to bounce ideas on how we can improve the pop culture sections. I think we can find a way to differentiate between a pop icon's rise in popularity (which can be associated with a particular generation) and that icon's continued popularity on later generations. Another good example would be David Bowie. He was a progressive rock star in the 1960s (and rose to popularity then), so he can be included on the Baby Boom page and Generation X (where he he had new rock/pop albums), but is still popular among older Generation Y members (in my opinion those born in 1982-1989, or to others 1984-1992 for instance - - just theorizing here). I like your ideas regarding research perimeters. We are on the same page. I think for earlier Generation Xers (such as those born in the early 1960s (according to some sources) or mid-1960s, we are going to have to find sources that mention the Vietnam War in some capacity. There is that generation book I mentioned back in 2010 and last year on the Generation X talk page. I need to find the book and the appropriate pages. I think we will find something. I am only a little concerned with all the stuff added and deleted on a regular basis in this section. It's like a revolving door for the hottest interests (music, movies, video games, etc.) of "the times." I am half expecting to see Tickle Me Elmo and Beanie Babies added to the section. I'm not saying these toys weren't popular among Generation Y. But even older generations might have these items. My dad's secretaries bought him a Tickle Me Elmo for Christmas years ago, and I and I'm sure other Xers and even older people have a couple of Beanie Babies. I never "collected" them, but I do have the Irish one and the one honoring Pope John Paul II; and my best friend's mother (a Boomer) was obsessed with them (for her kids I suppose?) and had I think all of them, including the McDonald's ones.Allowing everyone to add everything that was popular during a particular decade would be crazy. I think it's all in the wording. Good discussion.

The vietnam war is culturally more associated with the Baby Boomers, however again with research errors a lot of Gen X were children during this time. For example my sister born in 1971 was 3 years old when the war ended, and then again there are those like Barack Obama who was 14 when the war ended. While they may have not been old enough to enlist or even do major protesting during that time, it was part of the environment in which they grew up in for a certain point.

The article in my opinion currently focuses a lot on the 1980s, great but its not an decade article, its a generational article. And a generation can last for multiple decades. So lets focus on improving the information we have about the 1980s but also expand on portions of the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s as well. I think that is our Gen X target. Also if we look at some of the other Wikipedia pages about "grunge" there is info on fashion we can take and apply it to this article. So I'll be back on later with more info. Edu Lady - Researcher 20:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)

Introduction
Please stop changing the date range in the introductory paragraph. I have provided several sources showing that 1981 is a more common end date for Generation X, but also included 1982, because some sources do use 1982 as an end date. This has been argued to death, and you can search the archive talk pages to see all the sources. I have sources starting from late 1980s or early 1990s to today using 1982 as the start date for the Millennials, and 1981 as the last birth year used for Generation X. That is why I feel it is important to include the phrase "1981 or 1982" in the introduction. There is no confusion because "1981 or 1982" is clarified further down in the article by other sources that I provided. I reverted back to a previous version by Educatedlady. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.60.233 (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The OVERWHELMING amount of sources that use 1981 over 1982 is unquestioned. This entire 1981 or 1982 was started and created by Educatedlady someone who was born in 1982 and saw how 1981 was normally the most common end date for gen x so she went on a mission to find sources that used 1982 so she would be able to change the date range to fit into her own personal mindset of being a genxer. If I was to guess she randomly brings up genx to people talking about how gen x she is. The whole thing is just sad. Once again the amount of sources that use 1981 to 1982 are 10 to 1. You could changed ANY article on wiki if you used the same criteria, it should be kept at 1981 end of story just for the fact that it starts to mess with the millennials. Educatedlady should be banned and never allowed to come here again. I don't see how you allow one person to change the history of a generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.189.216 (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong, wrong, wrong.You should really re-read the article if you truly believe what you write, because you're 100% wrong. All of the citations that define the 1981 end-date are from the same author: Strauss and Howe. Reports and articles that cite Strauss and Howe are not separate sources, they're merely different articles citing the same author. That does not account as an "overwhelming" amount of sources. Stop pushing WP:undue weight into the article. --Danteferno (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Banned?? For telling the truth?? If I was the only person who said Gen X ended in 1982 then I would have no basis or merit for questioning the validity of the article. I am a sociology researcher and I have a Master's in Education, with over 500 pages of research under my belt on this very topic, in addition to a slew of speaking engagements in relation. I found accurate and reliable sources and have not included original research. I am not a Gen Xer, nor am I a Gen Yer. Plus you don't know what year I was born in so maybe you should get a life (and a Wikipedia account) before you go posting garbage about who should be banned. Personally I know who you are by your IP address, also with your capitalization of words and style of writing, and I think its a shame that you are "sockpuppeting" in order to validate yourself with the 1981 end year, yet again. What the heck are your credentials? Edu Lady - Researcher 09:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)


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

I agree with Peregrine in regards to the early 1960s, early 1980s intro. I have found discrepancies in the 1961 start year and many other sources use the 1965 start year for Gen X as opposed. But no one wants to talk about the early - mid 1960s because you now why, the ones fighting for this 1981 end year were born in 1981 themselves.. completely biased. In addition when talking about Barack Obama who was born in 1961 his characteristics do not fit Gen X nor the Baby Boom generation, and it has been difficult for researchers to identify him to either generation, further proving that specific dates for any generation can and always will be disputed. That's why with this article since there are various sources that use differing years the early 1960s through early 1980s allows leeway in either direction and is less specific and calls for less debate. Edu Lady - Researcher 19:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)

--

Hugely confused text. "young adults during the late 1980s" have nada to do with mods and rockers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Gen X population numbers in the U.S.
Regarding the removal of the gen x population cited by Strauss and Howe: Just because something is cited does not mean it automatically merits inclusion. I have several reasons for removing what I did: Peregrine981 (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The specific citation is from Generations, which is 20 years old, and therefore quite possibly out of date at this point.
 * The construction here is quite awkward... it makes it seem as if Strauss & Howe are arguing that Gen X was in fact NOT a "baby bust", which isn't really their point.
 * The whole construction is rather awkwardly worded, in addition to being US centric
 * For such a basic fact it would be preferable to have a link to a simple online source


 * Hi there Peregrine, sorry it has taken me a while to respond, I read the contents mentioned and I agree with the exclusion on it. I have the book "Generations" at home and therefore I may be able to find a better statement to replace or just leave it out completely like you did. Edu Lady - Researcher (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * EducatedLady, In your copy of "Generations", please look at page 318. The authors have Gen Xers pegged at 93 million people in the U.S. Media67 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

digital technology
Hi, I'm really not trying to be difficult about the digital technology. But as it stands I cannot accept it. First of all, it needs to be reliably sourced. Also, it should say something specifically about Gen X and "digital technology". At the moment every generation from X to Z says that they were heavily influenced by digital technology, but something should be said to differentiate them IMO, otherwise its pretty banal. Everyone alive is pretty much influenced by digital technology at this point. Also, I think that there is no reason to limit our discussion to "digital" technology, since Xers lived for many years without digital tech, and could be said to be influenced at least equally by other non-digital techs. Also, we should try to keep the approach global, and not mentioning major technological innovations such as the green revolution would be a mistake. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please look for sources and add them instead of just removing content you don't like. Add the green revolution stuff with sources too Media67 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" WP:BURDEN. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're selectively attempting to enforce this policy. The sources are there -- as links to other articles. Please stop edit-warring.  You've reverted three times in 24 hours. Media67 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How am I being selective? It's quite straight forward: I think the passage as it stands is completely banal, it isn't sourced, so I removed it. If you want to put it back in find a source and re-phrase. There is no source, unless you count another wikipedia article as a source. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay then you've got alot of work to do on Wikipedia removing all the content like this. Why focus on this page? Btw, it's sourced by other Wikipedia pages. I'll look for more outside sources when I can get to it.  Removing content is less productive than finding new sources to add.  Why dont you add something vaulable like you did on the Strauss and Howe page? Media67 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


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

Without the risk of incorporating original research, it seems to me that each Generation like Peregrine stated has been identified as being heavily influenced by technology. It is from my own experiences and research that Generation X are probably pioneers of advancing technology, versus existing in a world where advanced technology surrounds. I did not obtain a home computer myself until the year 2000, when I was 18. I have been writing a study about this for this last 3 years and here is some of the info I have:

The United States Bureau of the Census says 7 million Americans owned a PC in 1984. 30 % children between the ages of 3-17 either used a computer at home or at school in 1984. However that number has vastly increased since that time. Edu Lady - Researcher (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Needs clarification
These sentences do not make sense when read together (under the Australia and New Zealand section):

"One author, and professor at the University of Toronto, David Foot, divides the generation born after the baby boomers into two groups in his book Boom Bust & Echo: How to Profit from the Coming Demographic Shift:[46] Generation X, born between 1960 and 1966; and the "Bust Generation", born between 1967 and 1979.[47] In his opinion, those born between the periods of 1947-1966 were the Baby Boomers, where in Canada they were the largest boom of the industrialized world (relative to population).[48] This large boom complicated the job market for the upcoming generation, Generation X.[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.245.188.68 (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been reading the sentence, I am trying to determine the discrepancy. Perhaps it would be best if you wrote a corrected sentence to clarify your position? Thanks! Edu Lady - Researcher (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Notice of Sources Saying Generation X are People between 1965 and 1983
Hey folks, I added some strong sources which say Gen X are anybody born between 1965 and 1983. The sources appear to be legitimate. If they are not good or legit, or should these sources get removed, please contact me through the talk page with a reason for removal. Angela Maureen/September 1988 16:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by September 1988 (talk • contribs)
 * I've removed one per Talk:Millennials. -- Neil N  talk to me  16:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you post your sources here for easy access I would like to read them. Not that I am trying to scrutinize I actually would like to see for my own research. Edu Lady - Researcher (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * References 19 and 20 in this version. -- Neil N  talk to me  22:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This makes no sense. The opening line of this page states that generation X has birth dates from the early 1980s to 1999. Those years are almost identical to the birth dates that define Millenials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.231.83.118 (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

usage of the term gen x
An anon keeps removing sourced, relevant information about the usage of the term generation x. If we have a page about "generation x" and discuss in detail the origins of the term, it is entirely relevant to discuss the continued usage of the term. The source is reliable, it is secondary source, discussing primary research on the term's usage. What's the problem? It seems to me a no brainer that inclusion is interesting, relevant, sourced, and important. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Should we also mention that interest in the term "Millennials" peaked on Wikipedia too? What about the term peaking on other sites? Should that be included on that page?  The information you added to Gen X isn't all that relevant.  Wired magazine isn't known for generational research.  It's about computer technology.  The author wrote 5 articles on Wired and 1 book about technology. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "on wikipedia"? Other sites? Quoting from the wired article in question "Check the data. If you plug “Generation X” into Google’s Ngram search engine—which tracks the occurrence of words and phrases in books—you find that the term exploded in use around 1989, climbing steeply throughout the ’90s. But in 2000 it peaked and began declining just as rapidly. You see a similar pattern in major newspapers, where the term boomed to more than 2,000 in 1995, then declined to just over 800 last year. It’s been years since I’ve heard it used as an insult." (emphasis mine) It doesn't say anything about wikipedia or any other sites for that matter (this being the 1990s), rather "books". So I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Wired writes about the intersection of culture and technology, so it is certainly a relevant source. And if it is to be disqualified for not "being known for generational research" we will have to eliminate half of the sources we use in this article (The Guardian, New Zealand Herald, Sydney Morning Herald, etc...)
 * This information is a good indicator of interest in the concept of "generation X". It was a hot topic in the 90s, and has been cooling off since. Various possible conclusions can be drawn from that, as discussed in the Wired article, and I think that inclusion of the information is at least as interesting and important as info on the detailed eytmology of the term itself, and frankly more interesting than some of the trivia included in this article. I'm open to rewording the section if something is unclear, but inclusion is thoroughly justified IMO. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You're stating an obvious statistic. Once a new generation is identified there will be media attention on it. Then as time goes by, a newer generation is identified and there will be more media attention on them than the previous one.  Then the process repeats.  Including this information in the article is called "exposition" -- or simply put "stating the obvious".  In screenwriting and literature it's generally frowned upon to use this technique.  The article is rated a C (out of A thru F) by Wikipedia.  Could we find information that improves the quality like you did on the other articles?172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, you could say that it's stating the obvious, if you view "a generation" as being only interesting while it is young, but there's no particular reason that interest in a generation should die down once the members hit adulthood/middle age. In fact their "true" characteristics should begin to show around that time. If you read the Wired article his thesis is basically that generational theory, at least its pop-culture variant is over-hyped. As such I think it's a useful bit of information to help people get a grasp on the validity of the of the term 'generation X'. This isn't screenwriting or literature, it's an encyclopedia which is supposed to lay out basic information in a straightforward way.
 * As far as getting better quality information in general, I'd be all in favour. However, this is a rather hard topic to wade through the reems and reems of pop-sociology, and get some real, quality info in without it getting swamped, and without offending everybody who has their own pet thesis about what Generation X "really is". So, I'm reluctant to commit too wholeheartedly, given many other pressures on my time. But if I see some other people committed to the idea I would be happy to join in. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement you included is out of context for an encyclopedia. I don't know of any encyclopedia that would say that. You're quoting from a weak source on the subject. Wired is about technology -- generational research is not a topic they cover. The author isn't widely known for his journalistic expertise on generations. Do you know what expositional writing is? Because the statement doesn't improve the article. Thank you.172.250.31.151 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I seriously don't understand what your problem is. The statement said that use of the term has peaked, and is dropping. That shows something pretty fundamental either about interest in the topic, or the topic itself. Either the utility of "generation X" as a category is seen as less valuable, or everything that there is to say about the topic has been said. Either way it's useful. If you want we could include more of the author's views on why generational categories as a whole aren't that useful, if you're worried it is too banal. Wired is a pretty well regarded magazine. If you're going to say that we can only use publications that specialize in the topic they're writing about, about 90% of wiki citations will have to be removed. That's maybe a valid POV, but just is not the case on wikipedia at the moment. Just in this article we cite several mass distribution generalist newspapers (The Guardian, Telegraph, SMH, THe Independent, CBC, etc..) I presume you will apply the same standard and remove them? We also have numerous dubious "consultancy" reports pop-sociology books. A thorough review probably is in order, I can't vouch for all of those sources, obviously, but neither do I think they should all be removed immediately. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Like I said, should we do an analysis about every term on Wikipedia using Google's Ngram Viewer? It doesn't improve the quality of the article. At all. Do you know what exposition is? You still haven't answered. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand why you are so worried about "exposition". This isn't a play, or even an essay that we are writing where we need to worry about overly-expository writing. It's an encyclopedia article, which more or less by definition is entirely expository. It is here to give people the most basic facts about a concept. I think Ngram analysis, while limited, has some utility and interest for a reader. We're talking about a single line here. It's not taking up the whole article. The writer of the secondary source clearly thought that it was a relevant piece of information, and I think it is useful when discussing many terms to see during which times they were most discussed and used. In fact I think this kind of information would be quite interesting in many articles, to show the times that they were relevant, and their rise and fall in a quantitative way. Bearing in mind that it is only one way to analyse a topic, it could be useful. Many historical concepts or terms have come and gone, and the modern reader might find it interesting in order to pursue further research. For example, the term "generation gap" has fallen out of fashion, but was common at one time. That might be interesting for a user. Of course, you'd have to find an article discussing that in order to include in Wikipedia. But please, explain to me why it is so important to avoid "exposition" in an encyclopedia. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We need to make this article about the generation, what it is, and not about what the term is or has become.172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not to get too "meta" on you, but our use of the term is inextricably linked with our understanding of what the generation is. "Generation X" is an abstract, "artificial" construct (not to say it isn't real), and a discussion of our terms of reference is absolutely essential for a true understanding of what it is, and what people are talking about when they use the term. The way that we use the term can show a lot about what the understanding of it is, so I disagree fundamentally with you there. A discussion of the label itself will add a lot to the article. Go ahead and discuss everything else as well, but cutting this is detrimental to a full discussion of the topic. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is about a generation of living people. It's not about a label and how many times it's being used in the media.  Please include information that describes the generation rather than information about the label attached to the group. There are separate pages that list how many times a Wikipedia term is being used etc.  We don't need a list here.172.250.31.151 (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is about a label. "Generation X" is a sociological construct that we have somewhat arbitrarily assigned to people based on chosen criteria, which may or may not have validity in reflecting "reality". The "label" is entirely relevant here. This isn't some sort of objective criteria, like sex, eye colour, language, or skin colour. Nor is it about usage on wikipedia, and the fact that you think that's what is relevant makes me question your understanding of the topic at hand. Why would wikipedia ranking be at all relevant here? Do you even understand what Ngrams are? Do you understand the difference between a secondary source and primary research? Do you still think Wired is irrelevant as a source? Why haven't you removed The Guardian's citations from the article? What happened to your complaint about "expository writing"? Are you just enjoying being obstructive? Why does this matter? Peregrine981 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It still doesn't change the fact that the information you've added isn't relevant to what the generation is. You're adding information that belongs somewhere else like "most viewed articles". We don't need a bunch of lists of media usage on each Wikipedia page. Wikipedia avoids listing a bunch of facts on every page that can easily be found elsewhere.  We should stick to describing what the generation is. The Gen X label may be a sociological construct but the spirit of the encyclopedia is too describe what the generation is -- not to provide facts about the term's usage in all media.  If that was the case, why doesn't every Wikipedia article list how many times each term is used in all media?  They don't -- because it's not important.


 * The statement you added is expository writing which goes like this -- a person walks through a door and a narrator says in the background "a person just walked through the door". I've already explained that the information is expository writing because you're stating the obvious. It doesn't improve the article. You may add something but other editor's can challenge it's validity. It's not my job to remove the Guardian article.  If you think it's bad quality then please remove it yourself.


 * Could you describe/explain why you care about this information and it's important for the readers of the article? Thank you. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with a "most viewed articles" list. It's a list of how relatively frequently used the term was across different media over time. That's rather different. Your conflation of the ngrams with wikipedia article views is a total red herring and a waste of our time.


 * The spirit of the encyclopedia is to reflect what secondary sources say about the generation, including all the facets that they deem important, given due emphasis. The Wired article considers the change in usage of the term over time to be important, so it's worth inclusion by wikipedia standards, unless you can show that this characterisation is widely rejected by other commentators.


 * It isn't necessarily "obvious" that use of the term has peaked and is in constant decline. You might well imagine that usage would have levelled off rather than declining. The fact that it continues to decline shows something important about the media's/academics' attention to this topic. What conclusions you may draw from that fact could vary. But it is an important, basic fact to consider when researching the subject. The fact that interest has dropped has important implications for potential research on the subject. Maybe people don't consider it to be a useful explanatory category anymore. Maybe another concept has replaced it. Maybe people just got bored. We don't know, but we shouldn't cover up this basic fact. This kind of research into the usage of terms over time is being used more and more in social science, so not sure why you are so opposed to it. I would, as I explained above, like to see much more use of this type of concept on wikipedia. It isn't any more simply expository than to say "X event happened during the formative years of GenX, so is an important influence." Or to discuss the possible dates of birth, or where Gen x is from. But in the end, it doesn't matter what you think, the writer of a reliable secondary source, commenting directly on this topic thought it was worth discussing, and that is the standard for inclusion, not your opinion of its interest. You would have to demonstrate wide spread rejection of the concept to completely omit it from the article.


 * As far as the Guardian article, you were the one who was just complaining that we shouldn't have generalist sources in the article. YOU! Not me, that is why I asked, YOU why you hadn't removed it. I wasn't commmenting on the quality. You had already said that such generalist articles were inherently not good enough for inclusion. So, I ask again, if Wired isn't good enough, why are the other generalist publications ok? Do you consider the Sydney Morning Herald to be an authority on generational studies? Peregrine981 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wired and the author are not reliable sources here. Wired isn't even close to being a place where people seek out generational research. You can find any article to say almost anything you want to say.  It doesn't merit inclusion though 172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So why do we include articles from CBC? From the Guardian? The Independent? Those publications aren't known for their generational research. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, good point. We need better sources.  Look at this, the term didn't drop all that much anyway https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Generation+X&year_start=1982&year_end=2014&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CGeneration%20X%3B%2Cc0
 * 172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, we certainly need better sources. These generation articles need more rigorous academic sourcing, and less pop-sociology, that I'll totally agree with you on. That said, we need to be careful not to go overboard. WP specifically DOES allow non-academic sources. I think that Wired is still an acceptable source in this case. Have a look at wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. Wired is a fairly well respected magazine, published and with clear editorial oversight, employing professional journalists. According to the WP article, it "reports on how emerging technologies affect culture, the economy and politics." That seems entirely relevant to a modern generation, and a discussion of google ngrams. In fact it seems right in their wheelhouse. So, considering the fairly specific nature of this claim, and especially its technological basis, I think that the source easily meets wiki's standards. In any case, you aren't, I think, objecting to the accuracy of the claim, but its importance. If you want we could couch in more in terms of Thompson's real argument: "The real pattern here isn’t any big cultural shift. It’s a much more venerable algo­rithm: How middle-aged folks freak out over niggling cultural differences between themselves and twentysomethings. In the ’50s, senators fretted that comic books would “offer courses in murder, mayhem, [and] robbery” for youth. In the ’80s, parents worried that Dungeons and Dragons would “pollute and destroy our chil­dren’s minds”—and that the Walkman would turn them into antisocial drones. This pattern is as old as the hills. As Chaucer noted in The Canterbury Tales, “Youth and elde are often at debaat.”" Peregrine981 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, did you have a chance to look at the NGram yet?172.250.31.151 (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. But it doesn't really matter in this context. That would count as original research, or at the very least a primary source. Please see WP:PRIMARY. We should not be using primary sources, which is why the Wired article is a good source for this kind of thing. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the weaknesses of wikipedia is that it doesn't really matter, unless you can find another reliable source addressing the issue. Did you read the link I provided above? But, for the sake of argument, he doesn't specifically say what search he ran through Ngrams. There are various different possible searches, depending on what source group you use, and what level of "smoothing". Some show exactly what he says, some show an eratic trend, some show stablisation. So, there may be more nuance needed in a discussion of the term's use. We could qualify the statement by saying "Thompson, writing in Wired, claimed xyz". The general argument still holds, even if the drop may not be "as precipitous" as the rise. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you post the link that shows "exactly what he says", thanks. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? It's all in the article. What more do you need? Peregrine981 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well the NGram doesn't appear to "show what he says". Unless I'm missing something. Did you visit the link? He wrote "climbing steeply throughout the ’90s. But in 2000 it peaked and began declining just as rapidly".  Based on the NGram it doesn't appear to show that it "began declining just as rapidly".  See https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Generation+X&year_start=1982&year_end=2014&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CGeneration%20X%3B%2Cc0 172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you read what I write? I quote directly from what I wrote immediately above: "for the sake of argument, he doesn't specifically say what search he ran through Ngrams. There are various different possible searches, depending on what source group you use, and what level of "smoothing". Some show exactly what he says, some show an eratic trend, some show stablisation. So, there may be more nuance needed in a discussion of the term's use. We could qualify the statement by saying "Thompson, writing in Wired, claimed xyz". The general argument still holds, even if the drop may not be "as precipitous" as the rise. " But also note, as I already said, that it isn't our role to critique the argument, rather to find others have done so. Please see WP:PRIMARY. 23:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Show me any NGram that "shows what he says". You still haven't done that. Please post the link.  You wrote that "Some (NGrams) show exactly what he says"....okay then WHERE is that NGram link please?  I don't think it exists. In fact, he very clearly wrote in the article "if you plug “Generation X” into Google’s Ngram search engine—which tracks the occurrence of words and phrases in books".  So anyone can check Google NGram for themselves, I dont think there is any "smoothing" of the data as you say. Here's the link I'm referring to https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Generation+X&year_start=1982&year_end=2014&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CGeneration%20X%3B%2Cc0


 * Also it would be within policy to list the NGram that "doesn't show what he wrote" (at the link I provided) and briefly explain that too. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is one that more or less shows what he says: . But I'll concede that as things stand, most of the NGrams don't really support what he says, as worded. But, at the same time we are not, or at least I am not, an expert in the field. We don't know exactly what he meant. We don't know if Ngrams has changed the database or algorithm somehow. It isn't our place to say he was wrong without supporting sources. That would be the very definition of WP:original research. However, in the interest of collegiality, and because it wasn't meant to be a huge issue, I'll let it drop, on the condition that you are equally rigorous with the existing sources in the article, and that we perhaps incorporate some of Thompson's argument, but leave out the specific reference to ngrams. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding stuff back in
There seems to be a lot that has been deleted? I am going through this article and adding back in the sources I references, while at the same time making sure the other legitimate sources are left alone. I seem to remember larger paragraphs. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been away for a while due to family issues (surgeries, losing family members) and other commitments. I seem to remember a discussion on Generation X and divorce. I also remember a list of famous people. I am only bringing that up because I discussed this with EducatedLady? (I think) and I remember talking about how children of divorce could be applied to Millennials as well as the youngest generation. I think I have the article on my laptop somewhere, but I don't know where it is. I think nowadays (unfortunately), many older people are getting divorced as well. Other than one article that was referenced here at one point, I do not think I have come across the term "divorced generation" or something like it to refer to this generation. Any thoughts? I think a term like that is possibly something coined by one author, but it wasn't used enough in the media to warrant an edit to his page. Also, in regards to famous people belonging to a specific generation: I think due to different sources using a variety of date ranges ,(despite a common date range being widely used) it wouldn't make sense to have such a list on the generation pages. I am glad someone removed the lists on the Baby Boomer and Greatest Generation pages. I think at one point the list was almost a page long (I might be exaggerating here). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * IMO, it would be more constructive to find new information rather than adding deleted paragraphs.172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just added new references (updated from recent years to February 2014). But, there are several things missing. I am going through the edits slowly, so I am not going to just add and delete chunks from this article.

Divorce

This is one article I found on the subject that was mentioned a few years ago. Children of a divorced generation, but again, the name can apply to Millennials now, too. I was just curious about this topic, but I am not fond of adding it to either Generaiton X or Generation Y/Millennial pages.CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, re: divorce. It's an interesting topic that has been much discussed, so probably worthy of inclusion as long as context is provided. I have no problem with reinstating old info, as long as it is worthy. Might be worth checking article history+talk to see if there was a reason for removal. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't agree and I'm not sure why you would include a blog called GenNyu as your source. Please add high quality information to the page.  Also, I noticed that in the past you have (for some reason) been pushing the year 1983 into these articles. Could you explain why? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything, but rather trying to find articles that are credible for posting here which has been somewhat of a challenge specifically for Gen X. It seems there are more articles about the Baby Boomers still that are more reliable so I've been researching the "old fashioned way" at the library. But I remember that Gen X has been coined the generation of divorced parents. A lot of the articles I have come across are actually blogs which would not be deemed as reliable. But I will see what I have in my list of articles surrounding the subject and see if we can post here. Edu Lady - Researcher (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

References for Douglas Copland attributing the title to Billy Idol erroneously
Citations 4 and 5 are youtube videos of billy idol songs, not evidence of the statement made. Where is the original quote of Douglas Coupland mistakenly attributing the original name to somewhere else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.178.157 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Look at ref. #3 for the answer to your question.104.173.225.10 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Average bracketing birth years
With all of the multitudes of professed beginning and ending birth years, I can't understand why some sociologist hasn't taken an average of the more credible publications such as Tulgan, Strauss & Howe, Foot, etc. For example, Carla Patalano (A Study of the Relationship Between Generational Group Identification and Organizational Commitment: Generation X Vs. Generation Y, 2008) cites 30 different publications; with equal consideration given the average for beginning birth year is 1964 and ending birth year 1978. To me, that ends the argument altogether. Ledboots (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Why would one generation be a 14 year span and another one is a 22 year span? Even the dictionary says a cultural generation is at least 20 to 30 years each.104.173.225.10 (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't consider a dictionary the final word with such a broad definition. Up until the late 1980's, Baby Boomers were widely believed to encompass an 18 year span. Ledboots (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The article already gives a range of birth dates. This information was debated over a long period of time. Based on your talk page -- you already know that. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Why are you being adversarial? Just because there is a range, doesn't make it necessarily correct. I'm only trying to improve the article, and it's ok if it doesn't. Ledboots (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Generation X People are Born between 1965 and 1983
There is evidence Generation X consist of people whose births were between 1965 and 1983. How could I gather proper evidence of that? How could I prove Generation X are between 1965 and 1983 in the United States? Angela Maureen (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The article already gives a range of birth dates. This information was debated over a long period of time. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The birth ranges are based upon multiple sources who use different beginning and end year birth years. Elwood Carlson wrote a book "The Lucky Few" that cited 1965-1983 as years for Generation X. This has been noted in the article. I would suggest if you have additional reliable sources than what is already posted to add them to the article as citations. Edu Lady - Researcher (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

How many times do I continue adding the same source? I can't keep adding the same thing, `cause I might get caught in an edit war! Angela Maureen (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

And what about those who live in the big wide world outside the US?81.130.80.62 (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Asking to include Spain
Estimado amigo:

He leido su página sobre la Generation X y creo que es un buen trabajo, bien estructurado y realizado. Vi que había metido a España, lo me resulta importante para entender el movimiento, y que luego lo borró. También me falta Francia. Por supuesto, sin pretender darle ninguna clase y consciente de su sabiduría me limito a aclarar ciertos puntos. Creo que es importante meter un apartado de Francia. Los Padres Fundadores americanos tienen procedencia inglesa (por eso considero sustancial que usted haya introducido a Inglaterra), en lo que se refiere a la tradición. A mi humilde entender, la segregación racial de los americanos no es una contradicción, es una evolución lógica de su historia, pues los colonos ingleses, mientras hacían crecer Ámerica en lo que se ha llamado “las fronteras expansivas”, venían de un país donde la esclavitud era un hecho normal. En consecuencia, se dedicaron a aplicar lo que ocurría en su país de origen. Pero también, en lo intelectual, el motor que sugirió a los Padres Fundadores la guerra de independencia y Constitución, fue La Enciclopedia, la francesa, ya que la la mayoría de ellos la había estudiado o había estado en Francia con los enciclopedistas, añadiendo a ello que la revolución americana también ganó la guerra a Inglaterra por la ayuda esencial del ejercito francés.

Caso aparte, importante también, es España. Entiendo, y repito, sin ánimo de menoscabar su buen hacer, sería importante introducirla en su página. Nosotros, como ustedes, tuvimos una cuenta guerra ciivil. Por desgracia para nosotros perdió la República. Ustedes tuvieron la suerte de contar con el honesto Abe (Oh, Capitán, mi capitán). Tras cuarenta años de dictadura, en lo que se refiere a la literatura, apareció un grupo de escritores en la veintena que eran los primeros narradores españoles no contaminados por la cultura, y que por ello narraban sus propias peripecias. Ha sido una generación, al cabo, que ha contribuido de manera exponencial a la narrativa española, cosa que se ha reconocido hace poco, algo que ocurre con todas las generaciones pasados los años. Le propongo que introduzca por ello la frase que borró y que era, según recuerdo, ya que hay una parecida en la Generación X, de la wikipedia en español.


 * Mire, hay poca tolerancia en Wikipedia para este tipo de juego, cambiando de cuenta para evitar bloqueos y hacer parecer que se trata de otra persona. No digo que Ud. no tenga razón acerca de Generación X en España y Francia, seguramente valdría la pena incluire esa información en el artículo, pero este comportamiento poco sincero tiene que parar. Para leventar un bloqueo, el usuario tiene que pedirlo en la página de dicusión de la cuenta bloqueada.  Se considera el uso de cuentas títeres una transgresión tan grave que se sugiere esperar 6 meses antes de pedir un desbloqueo.  Gracias por su comprensión. Vrac (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hola, Vrac. Desconozco a qué se refiere, la verdad. Por mi nombre de usuario puede buscarme en la red e incluso en mi blog, con el domino del mismo nombre y extensión .com. No pongo directamente el enlace porque desconozco si ello incumple algún tipo de norma de Wikipedia para evitar el spam o la autopromoción. Lo digo simplemente para que compruebe que no soy una "cuenta títere" sino un usuario real. A partir de ahí, queda en sus manos la decisión de qué hacer con la información, evidentemente. Sea usted quien sea, yo no voy a entrar en una "guerra wikipedica" por el contenido de un artículo. Pero si le ruego que tenga en cuenta que en mi caso soy un usuario real y comprobable que hace la solicitud de inclusión de una información.

Como le digo, queda a partir de ahí a su juicio qué hacer con dicha información. Gracias por su atención y me despido porque viendo el tono que toma la conversación, me mantendré al margen de esta y otras posibles participaciones en este medio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voylinux (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Huyyy, por favor. "Oh, Capitán, mi capitán" . Se acabó la farsa. Vrac (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Vrac, me llamo |David de Ugarte y vengo solo a dar fe de que mi amigo |Voylinux es quien dice ser. Tanto él como yo tenemos trayectorias y biografías fácilmente comprobables, así que le rogaría que no descalifique sin leer 47.62.93.153 (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sí, descalifico. Vino para decirme qué exactamente, que la persona que escribió el análisis arriba no comparte código genético con la persona que escribió esto? Y luego querrá venderme unas estampillas de la República de Weimar? Yo estoy aquí para construir una enciclopedia, no para jugar al "darle al topo" con su hormiguero de cuentas a propósito particular. Vrac (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sr. Vrac. Soy Daniel Múgica, la persona a la que está dañando. No conozco de nada a las dos personas arriba mencionadas. Por cierto, si es capaz de entenderlo, ponga en wikipedia Daniel Múgica escritor o Daniel Múgica Bienvenido a la Tormenta o Daniel Múgica compromiso o lo que se le ocurra. En mi país me tienen por una persona seria que pertenece a una familia seria. Le pedí disculpas por la incomprensión de esta herramienta en las cartas arriba escritas. No pienso hacerlo más. Creo que se está comportando de una manera que roza la grosería y que no se corresponde con alguien que tenga una cultura aceptable. Deseo equivocarme al respecto. No entiendo su encono contra mi ni alcanzo a imaginar que le impulsa a ello. Y añado, escribir la repúbilca de Weimar con un enlace que lleva a una estafa podría interpretarse como un antisemitismo solapado, pues Weimar, como bien sabe, entregó a Hitler la Alemania que asesinó a mi pueblo. Espero que se retracte y le pido, que no ruego, que me desbloqueé. Se dedica a insultar, aunque le parezca que no, en sus reiteradas respuestas. Para un momento, reflexione, estúdieme en internet y dígame con sinceridad si tengo derecho a estar en wikipedia por mi trayectoria profesional. Por cierto, me gustaría saber a qué se dedica usted. ¿Es artista, historiador o profesor universitario? Sospecho que profesor. Respeto los comportamientos democráticos y he dedicado mi vida a defenderlos. Me tengo y me tienen por una persona educada. Ahora, la última pregunta: ¿Por qué me machaca? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.202.52 (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Primero: no le estoy machacando. De hecho yo rescaté su artículo de la basura dos veces: primera vez en es.wikipedia donde ya lo habían borrado: solicitud, segunda vez en en.wikipedia donde lo iban a borrar: consulta de borrado. Así que no me acuse de dañarle.  Ahora me arrepiento de haberlos rescatado.
 * Segundo: interpretar un enlace hacía una película argentina como antisemitismo es ridículo. Seguramente es capaz de entender la referencia a una estafa: ustedes se están burlando de Wikipedia.
 * Tercero: Ud ya me trató de terrorista y cobarde, ahora me cree antisemita?
 * Cuarto: como ya le expliqué aquí, Ud y sus amigos, familia, mascotas, y no sé quien más no pueden andar por acá haciendo lo que se les dé la gana. Hasta la fecha ustedes han:
 * ...borrado contenido, por ejemplo:
 * ...participado en guerras de ediciones, por ejemplo:
 * ...usado cuentas títeres, (y no me diga que no, ya tenemos pruebas técnicas)
 * ...editado con propósito particular en contra de es:WP:CPP
 * ...coordinado sus actividades en contra de Canvassing
 * ...violado la política de conflicto de intereses: WP:COI
 * ...sequido editando Wikipedia, a pesar de bloqueos, en contra de WP:BLOCKEVASION
 * ...agregado contenido promocional, por ejemplo: en contra de WP:EL y WP:NOTPROMOTION
 * ...ignorado totalmente los avisos que les hemos dada, las políticas que les hemos explicado, etcétera....


 * Quinto: mi profesión no es importante aquí. En Wikipedia todos somos iguales, que seamos reyes o basureros. Lo que hace funcionar la comunidad no es reputaciones y cualificaciones, es el respeto de unas normas sencillas, y Ud se ha burlado de ellas.
 * Hay más pero ya me cansé. Es una lista muy larga de conducta infantil, irrespetuosa, y poco sincera. Si quiere que se le tome en serio, hay que comportarse de una manera seria.  Así de simple.  Decir que no entiende esta herramienta es una excusa también infantil, Ud ya la entiende lo suficiente como para echar caos. Vrac (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ignoraba que me había rescatado, así que se lo agradezco. No entiendo los puntos referidos, ya que estoy intentando saber cómo funciona la wikipedia. Uno sí. En efecto, algunos amigos míos escribieron sobre mi, a los otros los desconozco, en la wikipedia en inglés. En la española, por ejemplo, me llevé una grata sorpresa cuando vi referencias que no sabia de donde venían, aunque calculo que de alguno de mis lectores. Pedí perdón al autor de Generation X por haber editado sin consultarlo primero, algo que desconocía. Le acusé de terrorista porque no es la primera vez que me atacan. Pegaron a mi tío un tiro en la nuca y, como no me escondo, siempre les he respondido, así que ellos tienden a hacerme la vida imposible. Lo acepto como es, sin más. Así que también le pido disculpas por ello. No será antisemita, se lo puedo reconocer, pero no me acuse de infantil ya que, aunque no lo crea, esa es una forma típica de actuar de los antisemitas solapados. Lo tengo bien estudiado. Doy clases sobre ello. Cuando dice lo hemos comprobado habla plural como si fueran una especie de secta fantasma. Me temo que conmigo se está equivocando. Le he pedido que mire mis referencias en google. Por una cuestión de respeto, ya que me está machacando, lo debería hacer, para saber al menos con quien trata. Respecto a las reputaciones y las reglas, no me he burlado en absoluto. Me he equivocado como comprobará si lee la carta de disculpas que le mandé al creador de Generation X. Y sí, me está machacando si razón pues no acude a las fuentes que le indico. Eso habla, en cierto sentido, de falta de respeto hacia mi persona y sobre todo hacia mi trabajo, reconocido en España. No creo que a usted, señor mío, le gustará que atacarán a su trabajo, así que, por una cuestión de honestidad profesional, un wikipedista, lo mínimo que debería hacer es estudiar las fuentes, mi nombre en internet, que es exactamente lo que hacen los periodistas y los investigadores en cualquier campo. Y los wikipedistas son investigadores. No alcanza a entender el tremendo daño que me está produciendo. Espero que sepa rectificar y que sea tan humilde como yo. Ser humilde no es ser tonto. Y tenga la sensatez de desbloquearme. Yo no le hecho ningún mal a usted. Sólo me he equivocado con la herramienta y he pedido reiteradas disculpas por ello. Por cierto, no sé quién borró mis páginas ni sé cómo se tiene tan poco control en este aspecto. De acuerdo con usted en algo, un basurero, en mi opinión, tiene la misma validez que un doctor, ambos cumplen cometido para la sociedad que tienen el mismo valor. Creo que es usted demasiado tozudo, lo que puede ser malo o bueno. Investígueme en internet y contésteme, si le place, desde una racionalidad no solo ceñida a wikipedia, sin ofender por favor. El mundo es más ancho que esta magnifica herramienta. Y no me llame irrespetuso. Yo jamás me atrevería a decir que descalifico, lo que no hago. Suyo, esperando su respuesta, desde cierta cordialidad, Daniel Múgica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.202.52 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough is enough, I never should have fed the trolls. This is English-language Wikipedia after all.  It's gone to ANI. Vrac (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No es sufuciente Sr. Vrac, ni yo un trol, desde luego, aunque aparecen en mi última novela. Me expreso en español porque lo cierto es que mi inglés no es bueno para expresar lo que es mi legítimo derecho expresar. Le voy a explicar los puntos que me refiró en su último corrreo pues es usted un hombre obcecado, lo que repito, puede ser malo o bueno. Sigo sin entender porque se niega a ver mi perfil en google.es, lo que a fin de cuentas es un trabajo de campo que debería hacer cualquier investigador antes de destrozar a alguien. 1. Borrar contenido. Tuve la mala fortuna de entrar en esta herrmienta sin estudiar antes lo que se debía hacer y sin tener ni idea de ella. En efecto, borré una frase, pero fue por puro despiste. Hace años perdí una novela en un taxi mientras iba a entregarsela a mi editor (no existían los avances digitales). Incluso, en la novela que estoy acabando ahora, he borrado sin querer y sin saber cómo 30 páginas. Esta es la verdad, simple y llanamente. Luego le di a salvar página pensando que todo vovería a estar como antes. Y no ocurrió. 2. No sé lo que son las guerras de ediciones ni sé en que manera he participado en ellas. Si ha sido así como usted dice, pido disculpas. 3. No he usado cuentas títeres, salvo en una ocasión. Como un nombre no me permitía realizar cambios, me invente otro. Los demás nombres no son míos, y además, ignoro de quien son. Lo hice también porque desconocía esta norma, que está bien por cierto. Hay gente que ha hablado en mi favor. He ledio sus perfiles. Son hombres con trayectorias importantes en el mundo de las redes. No les conozco de nada. Ellos a mi seguro que sí. Seguro que me han leido. De lo contrario no lo entendería. Ya me ocurrió con gente que trabajó en mi página en español. 4. No sé qué significa editado con propósito particular en contra. Si lo hice, que lo dezconozco, le pido disculpas por ello. 5. Coordinado sus políticas en contra. Idem de lo anterior. 6. Violado la politíca de conflicto de intereses. Idem de lo anterior. 7. Seguido editando en wikipedia, a pesar de bloqueos. Esto me resulta curioso. No tenía ni idea que no se podía editar después de un bloqueo. La explicación es simple. Si una sola persona te bloquea y uno cree que esa persona se equivoca, pensaba que podía seguir editando. Se trata de democracia, Sr.Vrac. Si me hubieran bloqueado cien personas, no hubiera intentado editar más, ya que reconocería que el error es mío. Espero que esté usted de acuerdo conmigo en lo siguiente, que una sola persona le bloquee a otra, fastidiándola su trabajo sin más fitros, le da demasiado poder a esa persona, con lo que cualquiera, por razones personales, que no son las suyas, podrían hace la vida imposible a alguien. Creo que sería interesante que usted, que conoce la herramienta, abriera este debate. 8. Agregando contenido promocional. Otra cosa que desconocía, como casi todo. Es cierto que lo hice en Ausiàs March, el mejor poeta en catalán, no en valenciano, que es un dialecto del catalán casi calcado a él, de la edad media. Le recomiendo que lo lea en alguna traducción al inglés. Le gustará. Si, desde luego, puede llamarse autopromoción. Así que creo que en este punto también debo pedir disculpas. Como le he explicado, todo ha sido debido a mi ignorancia o torpeza antes de leerme las normas. Lo que me preocupa es que usted no sepa perdonar tamaño error. Usted, como todo el mundo, habrá cometido errores sin saberlo. Le pido entonces que obre en consecuencia, que acepte mis disculpas y que me quité de la lista negra. Lo contrario me parecería extraño. Lo quiera o no, está dañando mis intereses. Espero que reflexione al respecto y por favor, Sr. Vrac, lea mis referencias en google.es tal y cómo le indiqué o como crea conveniente. Comprobará que no soy un trol. Verá, sin embargo, que toda mi obra artística y la trayectoria de mi familia solo tiene y ha tenido un fin: la defensa cerrada de la libertad. Acuda a las fuentes. No haga como yo, que he entrado en Wikipedia sin conocer las fuentes, las normas, por lo que he metido la pata. Haga lo contrario que yo, ser diligente en el trabajo, al menos en este, que en el otro que tenga, dada su minuciosidad, supongongo que lo será. Suyo, atentamente, Daniel Múgica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.202.52 (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Generation X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130701155250/http://www.notterconsulting.com/Articles/generationaldive.html to http://www.notterconsulting.com/Articles/generationaldive.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Gen X "causing" unemployment, labor devaluation, and cultural erosion
I removed the extremely conclusory (and unsupported) paragraph about Gen X "causing" poverty due to lack of work ethic. There's no cite provided showing Gen X is somehow linked to causing unemployment, cultural decline, or loss of the value of labor in the United States. That kind of editorializing has no place in this article - especially a blanket statement like that without a cite.

Spain
In Spain, it is one of the most prepared generation of the history of that country. Born in 65-76, they are university and they know languages, the majority. But low salaries, the overabundance of undergraduate and social changes have prevented them from getting where they thought. Among the writers he was called Generation X Spanish include Ray Loriga, José Angel Mañas and Daniel Múgica, being the first to start posting. Over the years they have earned the respect of critics and the public and they have varied in theme from the personal to the social.Link:https://books.google.es/books?id=jQpeAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT22&lpg=PT22&dq=Daniel+M%C3%BAgica+ray+Loriga+Jos%C3%A9+Angel+Ma%C3%B1as.&source=bl&ots=qjPcbGONTO&sig=J12XB0nkpHrQYjOGNofR3xYLE6c&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBmoVChMI2bmhm-CKxwIVybIUCh3iOQOC#v=onepage&q=Daniel%20M%C3%BAgica%20ray%20Loriga%20Jos%C3%A9%20Angel%20Ma%C3%B1as.&f=false. Link:http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/portal/nec/ptercernivel.jsp?conten=historia&pagina=historia0.jsp&tit3=Bibliograf%EDa

junk quote
"Gen Xers will join the “idealist generation” in encouraging the celebration of individual effort and business risk-taking"

as generations before and since have done.

"As a result, Xers will spark a renaissance of entrepreneurship in economic life"

entrepreneurship never went away anywhere.

"Customers, and their needs and wants (including Millennials) will become the North Star for an entire new generation of entrepreneurs".

no more or less than any other genegration. Yet more cobblers

Just because someone writes something doesn't make it of any value. 86.10.62.169 (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is reliable and they have written books on the generations subject. 2606:6000:610A:9000:5DA0:7E4:1677:8A5A (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Generation X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722215457/http://www.bc.anglican.ca/pages/news/garynicolosimarch08.html to http://www.bc.anglican.ca/pages/news/garynicolosimarch08.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"micro-generations", such as Xennials, Generation Catalano, The Lucky Ones, Inclusion & self-identification debate
The addition of this section is intended to very briefly and generally broach the issue concerning thousands of Gen X. Chiefly, that many of the year ranges given often fail to include, or over-include, those born the in the late-70s and early-80s, for both the Gen X and Millennial generations. The section consists of a mere two sentences; it is not an attempt to start an article or topic that isn't germane to Generation X. It contains ample citiations. I'd be happy to rework or change the section or content as desired, but baring any superseding policy considerations, I don't think this otherwise unaddressed topic should be entirely censored out of the article. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

We have a page about Generation Catalano, why do we need to include this on Gen X? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwwma (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. We have an article regarding Lewis and Clark Expedition. You wouldn't normally ask why its also briefly addressed on the Oregon trail page. Why do you seemingly have such a vendetta against broaching this topic? Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, please tell us why Generation Catalano should be included on a page about Generation X? Wwwma (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If you will please take a moment to look, the content is only mentions that page and topic as it's simply one idea/name for the larger issue I'm raising. How about this, we remove any mention of generation Catalano. Would that make you more comfortable with the edit? Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have submitted an AfD on Generation Catalano, as I do not feel a one-off Slate article on the name merits an article, when other terms have not been given their own articles (and in fact, some of them have been deleted. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not an article I would have felt comfortable creating (in regard to inclusional acceptance in Wiki). I don't have any association with it, but I do appreciate the name it gives to the hundreds of thousands of late 70s/early 80s kids that are caught in the wonky area covered (and equally not) by many Gen X and Millennial definitions. If the whole abovementioned kerfuffle was centered entirely upon "generation catalano", than I must admit I had no idea for most of it. Thank ya Justin. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Most vs often...sigh
User talk:Wwwma - you know I heart you and all your passion for the topic, so I'm trying to avoid the kurfluffle that occurred last time (and in that respect, thank you for solely using your user account this time). Any chance you could link to the consensus convo you are citing for the terminology of the the intro? I will then duly shut my mouth :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We'll if you look back through the archives you'll see all the discussions over a long period of time (many years in fact). It doesn't seem productive to relitigate the dates over and over again.  If you want to remove "most" and "often" then it could read like this "Demographers and commentators use birth dates ranging from the early 1960s to the early 1980s". Wwwma (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough my friend, perhaps it is unfair of me to bring up the contention and then necessitate you to find the sections in question when doing so appears to be cumbersome. In truth, I only asked as your mention of it made it sound like something you may have quickly had at hand. No big deal. I should say however, that while I'm no master of searching the archives, it would appear that the debate on dates (insofar as I could find) revolved most often about which dates should be the more or less conventional and the like. I think in this way, there is far little (if any) disagreement between our positions. My main concern is regarding whether or not "most" is a weasel word, that doesn't get a pass on its use in the intro as the dates we do formally cite so often appear outside a nice, clean "early-60s to early-80s" range. I will be the first to admit it could be wrong on this issue, and I appreciate your conciliatory candor, so how about this? I'll post it up for a neutral, third opinion and see what some fresh eyes might think. In all honestly, it was only just recently that I learned just how much synthesis could be allowably used in the intro, so perhaps there is a similarly vast clearance on weasely sounding words there as well? :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay. Wwwma (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Restructuring to be similar to other generation articles
I think this article should be restructured to be similar to other generation articles. It seems this article should have a separate section for “date and age range defining”, similar to the millennials and generation z articles. Currently, that info is mixed in with other details in the “characteristics” section, but this seems hard to read. Also, I don’t think it’s good to have separate sections for “Canada”, “UK” and “Austrailia”. Structuring the article this way seems to suggest the U.S. is the default, which seems contrary to Wikipedia. Also, perhaps to make it so the characteristics section is easier to read, it could be split into separate sub-sections for characteristics as children, characteristics as adolescents, characteristics as adults, considering this is an older cohort.

I was planning on starting to work on such changes, to try to make this article more readable and informative, but since it would constitute a significant change to the status quo, wanted to open discussion first.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great idea. Generations, something which seemingly should be well-defined, with understandable parameters and definitions, always seem to be all over the place. Bringing some uniformity to the articles is a good step in that direction. One of the big reasons why this occurs might be because no one entity can really claim to be the definitive authority on these constructs. Wikipedia might be the closest thing to such, and all the more reason to bring more consistency. Buddy23Lee (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Dates
User:SolomonSalem, the lead has said researchers and demographers use birth dates ranging from the early 1960s to the early 1980s for a long time. This has been the wording at least for months (and I think for years). Per WP:BRD, please attain talk page consensus for your desired changes to the lead instead of continuing to change these dates. The dates in the body of the article show about half the demographers/researchers use 1961 as starting date while about half use 1965, and the reason for the debate is explained. We could mention the debate in the lead as well, but I think it's probably unnecessary because both dates fall in the WP:STATUSQUO text which is "ranging from the early 1960s to the early 1980s". However, your repeated changing of the lead to say this generation starts in mid 60s leaves out what about half the demographers/researchers say.

For the date range and defining section, please limit sources to those from demographers/researchers. This is an old cohort and we have so many quality sources to chose from that we don't need to rely on random non-notable staff writers or news-bloggers writing articles such as "Generation X has less Sex" for dates. Relying on such sources, especially for unusually late dates such as your desired end date of 1985 for Generation X is wp:undue. Of the sources you recently added for a 1985 end date, only this one appears to maybe be from a credible researcher/demographer: http://www.craigweiland.com/thesis/lit.php. You attribute this to the University of Missouri. I left that in the article for now, but do you have a source that links craigweiland.com to the University of Missouri? It doesn't say that anywhere on the website and it's not clear at this point if this is from notable researcher/demographer or student or just someone's random website. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the http://www.craigweiland.com/thesis/lit.php ref. No evidence that this website is connected to a notable researcher from the University of Missouri has been provided. Considering the link has "thesis" in the title, it seems probable even if it tied to University of Missouri, it's student research. On top of this, the link no longer seems to work. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are so many marketing and advertising companies used in citing the birth years of generations? What an awful world we live in today. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably because much of the research on generations is done by various ad agencies hoping to better target demographic cohorts in order to sell them things. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that the 1964/1965 split in the generations was based more on birth rates whereas the 1960/1961 split was based more on cultural identity, most people (myself included) prefer to use the later definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:99FA:284D:2C1D:1380 (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

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

US Centric
Either this article needs re-introducing as a purely or largely US term referring to US citizens or it needs extensive rewriting. I couldn't even start to edit it to remove the bias. There are some things which were international issues: AIDS, birth control and so on, but 'post-integration', 'crack epidemic', cult of the adult... they don't resonate with me as a Gen X Brit and I doubt they would if I were from anywhere else. Btljs (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm currently collecting references to add a section on GenX music/entertainment and a lot of it UK Centric. Also, I don't think answer would be major rewrite or removing the US content, but rather adding more content from the UK, Canada, etc. Are there political/cultural examples from the UK that you recall as a GenX'er from the UK that you can suggest to expand the article? The article currently contains recent employment research from UK, content from France, as well as dates from Australia and Canada.  The article previously contained separate sections for Australia, Canada etc, but it was mostly just dates with little in the way of characteristics to flesh out the rest of the article after the creation of the separate date range and defining section.  --DynaGirl (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Numerous multinational examples have recently been added to the article. Does anyone object to the removal of the Globalize tag? --DynaGirl (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You have to remember that most of these Generational names are used primarily in the US (and not much in other countries) so of course the articles will be US-Centric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:449:263C:ADBA:5675 (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I notice the content in young adult section has been recently split into sections for "United State" and "Other Countries". I think this is a bad idea as it seems too US centric and also a lot of the stuff placed in the US section is not limited to the U.S. For example, music videos, grunge, alternative rock and hip hop were not limited to the United States.--DynaGirl (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead
I noticed the previously very brief lead was recently expanded. This seems like a great idea, as the previous lead didn't give much info beyond dates, but a lot of the new lead seemed copied and pasted from body of article. I summarized the recently expanded lead in order to avoid repeating text in body of article and attempted to provide an overall summary of the article. I also removed the references, because if I understand correctly, repeating these references in the lead section isn't necessary. --DynaGirl (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your editing there are many dates to chose from so it would be better to provide a range of dates. By using specific dates like you are you are restricting the dates from other sources. There dates past 1981 and there are others who believe it starts in the mid 1960s. It was decided before to not use specific dates in the introduction to avoid this type of conflict. It just leads to edit warring about dates used. Please see talk page for past consensus on the issue. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Aaroneditor1, I didn't add the specific dates/ages. That was done by various IPs. Now that the article is locked down, hopefully such edit warring will be reduced.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I should have looked through the edits more. Hopefully we can focus on other parts of the article and not so much the specific dates being used with it. There was plenty of discussion about that before. Thanks. Aaroneditor1 (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for restoring earlier version with the various date ranges used. I can see the argument for more succinct dates, if they can accurately reflect the various ranges, but I tend to agree that it's best to use the various ranges, even if it's longer, because it leads to less conflict and better summarizes the date range and defining section of the article. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Exact dates should definitely be avoided, especially since there is now really only about a 10 year period that nearly everyone agrees is part of the Generation (from about 65-75). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:6CDB:E0:970E:5FBA (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Generation X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160703075922/http://booknotes.org/Watch/17548-1/William+Strauss.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/17548-1/William+Strauss.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160808195038/https://www.angelo.edu/events/university_symposium/97_Strauss.php to https://www.angelo.edu/events/university_symposium/97_Strauss.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116084906/http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov:80/rankings/States/Generation-X-Volunteer-Rates/2011 to http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/rankings/States/Generation-X-Volunteer-Rates/2011
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529155632/http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/sawhill/200705.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/sawhill/200705.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Lede
DynaGirl and any other editors who want to comment, could you please review this sentence in the lead "Generation X is a relatively smaller demographic cohort “sandwiched” between two larger demographic cohorts, the Baby boomers and the Millennials."?

There are several problems with it:

It's a duplicate sentence already found under the "Characteristics" section below and the words "sandwiched between" and "relatively smaller" are awkward.

In the second paragraph, Jon D. Miller's research/words are used like this "research describes Gen X adults as active, happy, and as achieving a work-life balance" (someone removed the ref.) But in that report, Miller says that Gen X is a large generation at "84 million Americans". See http://home.isr.umich.edu/files/2011/10/GenX_Report_Fall2011.pdf

Further down the Gen X page Strauss and Howe are used as experts. However, in a recent Forbes article, Neil Howe "estimates that today Gen X comprises roughly 87 million adults". See http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2014/08/27/generation-x-once-xtreme-now-exhausted-part-5-of-7/#3f6960f85d2a

Additionly, down the page it says "in a 2012 article for the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, George Masnick wrote that the "Census counted 82.1 million" Gen Xers in the U.S." http://housingperspectives.blogspot.com/2012/11/defining-generations.html

And if you add up the numbers in this U.S. Census report there are approximately 83-84 million Gen Xers in the U.S. See page four http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf The words "sandwiched between" is awkward. Its not used that way on any other the other generation pages.

DynaGirl I noticed that you've improved the page and care about the integrity of the generation pages in general so I thought I would ask you. Thank you.128.125.252.192 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is that many people in that number aren't always included in Generation X, the upper bound are sometimes lumped with Baby Boomers and the lower bound with Millennials, and in fact the years with the highest birth rates are the ones not always included with the Generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:99FA:284D:2C1D:1380 (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Recent changes
Template:Edit semiprotected

I propose to remove this wording below in quotes from the lead because it's already covered in the body of the article. We should avoid making endless lists of things that may or may not describe an entire generation. For example, we could add 10,000 different things positive and negative that occurred from 1980 until 1999.

Today, Gen X is not associated with the grunge genre that was popular in the early 1990s. That statement is clearly not very accurate (should we add The Boy Band era in the late 90s in the lead too?).

"As adolescents and young adults, they were dubbed the “MTV Generation” and characterized as slackers and as cynical and disaffected; at the same time, they saw the emergence of AIDS. Gen X is associated with the loud, nihilistic, introspective music genre called grunge and with the rap of the golden age of hip hop, which raised social issues". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.42 (talk • contribs)


 * I removed the recent changes to the lead. They didn't seem to flow and I agree that Gen X is not really currently associated with grunge music. I left the part about being characterized as slackers and disaffected as young adults in. This has been in the lead a long time and seems to provide context, as leaving it in provides text regarding the cohort in childhood, adolescence and adulthood --DynaGirl (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Generation X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/17548-1/William%2BStrauss.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/rankings/States/Generation-X-Volunteer-Rates/2011
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081123092309/http://citypages.com/databank/18/854/article3420.asp to http://citypages.com/databank/18/854/article3420.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Lede
DynaGirl and any other editors who want to comment, could you please review this sentence in the lead "Generation X is a relatively smaller demographic cohort “sandwiched” between two larger demographic cohorts, the Baby boomers and the Millennials."?

There are several problems with it:

It's a duplicate sentence already found under the "Characteristics" section below and the words "sandwiched between" and "relatively smaller" are awkward.

In the second paragraph, Jon D. Miller's research/words are used like this "research describes Gen X adults as active, happy, and as achieving a work-life balance" (someone removed the ref.) But in that report, Miller says that Gen X is a large generation at "84 million Americans". See http://home.isr.umich.edu/files/2011/10/GenX_Report_Fall2011.pdf

Further down the Gen X page Strauss and Howe are used as experts. However, in a recent Forbes article, Neil Howe "estimates that today Gen X comprises roughly 87 million adults". See http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2014/08/27/generation-x-once-xtreme-now-exhausted-part-5-of-7/#3f6960f85d2a

Additionly, down the page it says "in a 2012 article for the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, George Masnick wrote that the "Census counted 82.1 million" Gen Xers in the U.S." http://housingperspectives.blogspot.com/2012/11/defining-generations.html

And if you add up the numbers in this U.S. Census report there are approximately 83-84 million Gen Xers in the U.S. See page four http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf The words "sandwiched between" is awkward. Its not used that way on any other the other generation pages.

DynaGirl I noticed that you've improved the page and care about the integrity of the generation pages in general so I thought I would ask you. Thank you.128.125.252.192 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is that many people in that number aren't always included in Generation X, the upper bound are sometimes lumped with Baby Boomers and the lower bound with Millennials, and in fact the years with the highest birth rates are the ones not always included with the Generation.


 * Any other users want to comment?128.125.252.192 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2017
They found much of the cultural identity of the baby boomer generation is associated with the "older boomers", while half of the "younger boomers" were averse to being associated with the baby boomer cohort and a third of those born between 1956 and 1964 actively identified as members of Generation X. This gave rise to the creation of a "Tweener" Generation called Generation Jones, described by the author Jonathan Pontell as those born from approximately 1954 to 1967. TRCIII (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , Please see above talk page section. You've yet to address that there's no reference for "Tweener" etc. The sentence you are requesting to be added appears to be original research. Also, the source you listed for Jonathan Pontrell does not use dates 1954-1967. It uses 1965. --DynaGirl (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Generation Jones
This article (and the other "Generation" articles listed) ignore the fact that there is a widely-accepted "Tweener" Generation sandwiched between The Baby Boomers and the Gen X'ers. It was first posited by the author Jonathan Pontell to describe those born from approximately 1954 to 1967, although other sources state it did not start until 1956. Generation Jones was the name given to the half of the "late boomers" that did not associate themselves with the values of the boomer generation (and did not reap its benefits, because they were born too late), but were too old to be generally affiliated or self-identify with Gen Xers. There's a handy Wikipedia article with many more references describing Generation Jones and there are other articles and discussions all over the net about them. They are an accepted target demographic for marketing, as well as being considered a rough voting bloc with a propensity for making up the "swing vote".

I have proposed adding a single line to this article, including an internal link to the "Generation Jones" Wikipedia article, at the end of the following paragraph:

They found much of the cultural identity of the baby boomer generation is associated with the "older boomers", while half of the "younger boomers" were averse to being associated with the baby boomer cohort and a third of those born between 1956 and 1964 actively identified as members of Generation X.

This gave rise to the creation of a "Tweener" Generation called Generation Jones, described by the author Jonathan Pontell as those born from approximately 1954 to 1967.

Please consider this addition to the overall discussion.


 * We would need a reference for your proposed sentence: "This gave rise to the creation of a "Tweener" Generation called Generation Jones, described by the author Jonathan Pontell as those born from approximately 1954 to 1967" before including it in the article, otherwise it's original research. I'm not aware of any reliable sources calling Generation Jones a "Tweener" generation. It's not really in between, as it often includes a large portion of the Baby Boomers and a small portion of Gen X, depending on which dates are used. 1967 seems to be a late end date. Generation Jones is often described as ending earlier than this.  It is listed in See Also section, so Generation Jones is already currently linked in the article. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/23/salzman.trends/index.html?iref=nextin "They've been called tweeners or cuspers because they straddle the divide between Boomers and Gen X." I don't know how reliable you consider CNN as a source, but they are generally accepted as having been called Tweeners and Cuspers, and--only since Pontell came along--Generation Jones. No problem if you don't want to recognize them as a valid Generation, but it seemed to follow on very clearly from the previous paragraph that many did NOT identify as either Boomer or Gen X-er. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRCIII (talk • contribs) 22:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Generation Jones is a valid term and has a wikipage. My point is it's not typically described as "in between" baby boomers and Gen X but more as the latter half of the Baby Boomers and a small portion of Gen X, depending on dates used. Also it's not clear where you are getting 1967. The sources you've linked use 1965.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Generation X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070129055856/http://www.footwork.com/book.html to http://www.footwork.com/book.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Macintosh for Gen Xers ???
To whoever put in the Macintosh photo with the silly caption about it being the computer of the Gen Xers (I don't have time right now to dig into the edit history):

You've got to be kidding...A computer in Jan. 1984 that sold for $2500. The CPI inflation calculator indicates that in today's money that's $6004. For this small fortune you got 128 KB RAM and one 400 KB floppy drive...and monochrome monitor. Think on that for a minute. What Gen Xers could afford that? The Mac may have looked cool in Hollyweird movies but in real life normal people did not get Macs.

Anyone who lived during this time will tell you that ordinary people got Atari 800s or Commodore 64s. We were a little better off and had a TRS-80. But a Mac? The computer that almost sank Apple (unfortunately, did not). I am contemplating removing this rubbish from the page. Objections?

Oh yeah, One More Thing: how about a reference. Considering the audacity of the supposition, two or more. After all, Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof. Wikkileaker (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Photos should have sources and/or at least context. Someone born in 1979 would have used a number of advanced computer systems to play video games, including the Macintosh photo that was removed. It's probably better to leave out a photo unless you have references that enhance the readers understanding and explain that there are a range of systems that were used because there is a range of birth dates in the article. Thanks. Catcomm89 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The caption for the Odyssey photo had a wikilink to the article which is chock full of sources and context.Wikkileaker (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Generation X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120731004847/http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/trenton.htmL to http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/trenton.htmL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Suggested additions
Being a 1965 baby, I suggest the Hip Hop section of this article include additional rappers who contributed greatly to the growth of the Rap Music genre: Whodini, Kurtis Blow & The Sugar Hill Gang. These three entertainers (groups) helped to mold and define this industry with major contributions to the music industry at that time, as well as enjoyed a large group of followers. Those of us who enjoyed this genre during this era, enjoyed the FUN of it. In the beginning, it didn't proparate social reform. It didn't highlight on the injustices of America: it was simply entertainment. Rapper's Delight, the all time, most known rap song that everyone who follows hip hop ever, was just talk. Rap about music, the beat and bad chicken for dinner. Funny and fun. Whodini's song, Friends, talked about life and the struggles within friendships. Kurtis Blow's song Basketball, talked about just that. Playing basketball. All major songs that were played at most nightclubs and were the songs that would pack the dance floor, but also just entertained. Whodini and Kurtis Blow would be the headliners in concert tours with the Fat Boys being part of their tour. To truly describe the foundation of hip hop and to exclude these particular entertainers is nearly sanctimonious to the roots of this genre.

In the next section, under Indie Films, I suggest that the Hughes Brothers (Albert & Allen) are included in editing along with Spike Lee. The Hughes Brothers movies Menace II Society & Dead Presidents are still movies worth watching, portraying Black America and the American plight associated with it, along with societal revelations of a subculture of pain, struggle and survival. Menace II Society is as profound as Boyz in the Hood, depicting Southern California's inner city battles in the urban areas. Dead Presidents portrays a similar display of Black America, after the Vietnam War, and one man's struggle and failure to re assimilate into American society as a Black veteran. The documentary American Pimp is a powerful movie about the underworld of prostitution, opening this world of pain and misery up to those of us who have never experienced the effects of it. The Hughes Brothers contribution as Indie filmmakers deserve to be recognized and included respectively.

Spike Lee's name speaks daring success. He dared to open the door to sensitive topics, such as color-ism in the African American culture with the movie School Daze. He exposed racism that exists outside of the associated territories of the South with Do The Right Thing: a movie that addressed racism and violence in NYC, during a time that incidents such as Howard Beach were headlines in major newspapers. His movie She's Gotta Have It explored female sexuality in the black culture, which was an undiscussed subject in the black community during this era. The list is commendable regarding his contribution to the Indie industry during the 80s and 90s. Because the timeline for Gen X is varied and stretched with no definitive start date, he is worthy of consideration in my opinion. His contributions have been recognized and rewarded, thus making him a worthy candidate to be included.

DMPRLP1265

DMPRLP1265 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC) 05:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMPRLP1265 (talk • contribs)

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

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

Punk Rock
I removed the recently added section on Punk Rock because it was completely unsourced. I have no opposition to a subsection on Punk Rock but it needs to be sourced and the sources should link the music to Generation X. DynaGirl (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there a connection between the two topics? Punk rock emerged in the early 1970s, when the oldest Generation X members were about 10-years-old. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The connection is the influence of the genre on Gen X as the consumers and adolecent immitators in their teen years, followed by success as creators. This is similar to the films of John Hughes recognized elsewhere in the article re: his influence. Here is the content of the removed section, which already included references to the connection to Gen X:

"A new generation of bands such as the Ramones, Johnny Thunders and the Heartbreakers, Richard Hell and the Voidoids in New York City, the Sex Pistols, the Clash, the Damned and, Buzzcocks in the UK, and the Saints in Brisbane—by late-1976 these acts were generally recognized as forming its vanguard. While at first the bands were not Gen Xers themselves, the fan base for the early bands was increasingly Gen X and it therefore made a significant imprint on the cohort. As 1977 approached and the first Gen Xers were solidly in their teens, punk rock became a major and highly controversial cultural phenomenon in the United Kingdom.  It spawned a punk subculture expressing youthful rebellion characterized by distinctive styles of clothing and adornment (ranging from deliberately offensive T-shirts, leather jackets, studded or spiked bands and jewelry, as well as bondage and S&M clothes) and a variety of anti-authoritarian ideologies that have since been associated with the form. −	By 1977 the influence of punk rock music and subculture became more pervasive, spreading throughout various countries worldwide. It generally took root in local scenes that tended to reject affiliation with the mainstream. In the late 1970s punk experienced its second wave in which acts that were not active during its formative years adopted the style, and Gen Xers were becoming the creators as well as the consumers. By the early 1980s, faster and more aggressive subgenres such as hardcore punk (e.g. Minor Threat), street punk (e.g. the Exploited, NOFX) and anarcho-punk (e.g. Subhumans) became the predominant modes of punk rock. Musicians identifying with or inspired by punk often later pursued other musical directions, resulting in a broad range of spinoffs, giving rise to genres such as post-punk, new wave and later indie pop, alternative rock, and noise rock. By the 1990s punk rock re-emerged in the mainstream, as punk rock and pop punk bands such as Green Day, Rancid, The Offspring, and Blink-182 brought the genre widespread popularity." --Shoreranger (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue is that any text regarding Gen X and punk rock needs WP:reliable sources connecting these two topics. No reliable sources were cited. As written, it appears to be WP:Original Research which goes against Wikipedia policy.  DynaGirl (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The section has been restored, new and improved with citations. --Shoreranger (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Why is this section so big compared to the article? 2606:6000:6111:8E00:7D25:984F:ACFC:9F5D (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Globalize tag
I removed the recently added Globalize tag at the top of the article per WP:DETAG. There was no discussion started on talk page and article as a whole seems fairly global with info from South Africa, Australia, Russia, Canada, US, UK etc. However, I notice somewhere along the line someone has added “United States” subheadings. I’m not sure this is helpful. If info in a certain section seems too U.S centric, it seems preferable to add a "globalize section" tag to encourages editors to add more multinational content to that section, instead of adding a header which limits the info in that section to only one country. I removed the United States subheading in the Economy section (the section actually contains info from the U.S and Canada) and added a globalize section tag instead. DynaGirl (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we need a globalize tag because we could theoretically put a globalize tag on every section in the article if it doesn't discuss other countries. Does this makes sense or should we leave it?Aboutbo2000 (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Aboutbo2000, the entire article does not need a globalization tag. It contains info from from South Africa, Australia, Russia, Canada, US, France, UK etc. The economy section needs globalization, which is why tag was added to that section and also User:Dimadick helpfully added the tag requesting an expert on economy assist with that sub-section, which you've been repeatedly removing without explanation or discussion. Please respect WP:BRD and do not continue to add a U.S subsection header to the economy section and please do not continue to remove the tag requesting an expert in economy without attaining talk page consensus. DynaGirl (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2019
Please add citation https://www.workfront.com/campaigns/state-of-work after this sentence to cite the state of work report: In the United Kingdom, a 2016 study of over 2,500 office workers conducted by Workfront. Samanthaleo (talk)
 * The page contains links to multiple PDFs. The closest match I could find is this report from 2016, but it's a U.S. report. Do you have the URL to the report itself? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 15:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom - here is the direct URL to the UK PDF version of the report referenced: https://www.workfront.com/sites/default/files/2019-04/uk-state-of-work-report-nonmarketing.pdf (Samanthaleo (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC))
 * RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 15:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 15:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019
Change the 24th Citation link Masnick, George (28 November 2012). "Defining the Generations". Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. Retrieved 29 May 2013 . to it is the same article, but the housing perspectives website has changed, therefore the original link redirects you to the jchs home page. Scpruett (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done NiciVampire<b style="color:black">Heart</b> 22:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

First use of the term Generation X
, the source actually does state that "Robert Capa employed 'Generation X' as the moniker for a global generation" (p. 31) and at the end of page 32 states "Capa's use of the term 'Generation X'. It's not clear that the editors used it first. I am not confident that your edit was correct.  Hopefully we can find other sources which are more clear.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Ok, more pages in the book are viewable.  Page 3 states Capa first used the term.   Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Birth Dates- Undue Weight
Over half of this section seems set up to give weight to Strauss & Howe's birth dates. The Baby Boomer self-identification section is unrelated to Gen X birth dates and only serves to validate Strauss & Howe's birth dates. The relevant text is below. I propose the following changes: A 2009 study from MetLife examining the boomers split their cohort into "older boomers", which they defined as born between 1946 and 1955, and "younger boomers", which they defined as born between 1956 and 1964. They found that most of the "older boomers" embraced the term "baby boomers" to describe themselves. Half of the "younger boomers" were averse to being associated with the baby-boomer cohort, they overwhelmingly rejected the label "Generation Jones", and a third actively identified as members of Generation X.[17] In a 2015 survey, the Pew Research Center found that 79% of all boomers embraced the term.[18]

Demographers William Strauss and Neil Howe define Generation X as those born between 1961 and 1981. They argue that those born between 1961 and 1964 are part of Generation X rather than the Baby Boomers because they are distinct from the Boomers in terms of cultural identity and shared historical experiences.

Demographers William Strauss and Neil Howe rejected the frequently used 1964 end-date of the baby-boomer cohort (which results in a 1965 start-year), saying that a majority of those born between 1961 and 1964 do not self-identify as boomers, and that they are culturally distinct from boomers in terms of shared historical experiences. Howe says that while many demographers use 1965 as a start date for Generation X, this is a statement about fertility in the population (birth-rates which began declining in 1957, declined more sharply following 1964) and fails to take into consideration the shared history and cultural identity of the individuals. Strauss and Howe define Generation X as those born between 1961 and 1981. [19][20][21][22]

Some researchers use dates similar to Strauss and Howe's such as the University of Michigan's Generation X Report, a quarterly research report from The Longitudinal Study of American Youth, which defines Generation X as those born between 1961 and 1981.[23] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the inserted paragraph still cite the sources [19][20][21][22]? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 15:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the books were referencing, but the link to the interview seems to cover that information so I deleted them. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My edit was reverted "pursuant to Wikipedia policy". Any idea what that means?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why you reverted 's edit? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 03:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources used to always say GenX ended in 1978. The first time that I ever heard a source extended GenX out to "early eighties" is here on Wikipedia. But, GenY was never mentioned as starting in popular media until after 1982. I truly remember this, because I was born in mid 1978. I always felt excluded somehow, because I never fit into the timeframes that the "reputable" media would use. This age range was never given a name by "reputable" media (remember when there was a scare quotes article on Wikipedia; yeah; it's been gone for what must be ten years now). Seriously. One can absolutely research this in a library. Look at how the generations were defined in the '90's. I see online some using the term Xennials for people between '77 and '83. Here's a Daily Mail article from 2011 that uses the dates that were always used ('65-'78). Source snobbery aside, everyone used those dates for GenX, throughout the '90's until, IDK, this is the first time I've ever heard of GenX'ers born in the '90's. I was in eight grade when I first saw the Nevermind poster and album; not quite of age then. This article is suggesting that people who were in second grade when Nervana released there album are GenXers? Give me a break. Boomer George Masnick doesn't get to re-define millions of people, because his boomer mind thinks that things have to be in a 20 year period. Just because he went to Harvard and wrote boomer-tier tripe instead of doing real work, doesn't allow him to rewrite history, and it's absurd to use this one person as a source. He's simply picking stats (number of births in a year) to support his once already failed argument. Does anyone else argue that number of people born define a generation. Just because it's what's unique of his generation, doesn't mean that it applies to any other generation, or that it will be the defining characteristic of any future generation. It's just that he's a boomer, and he's not going to do any real work, so he blogs about bs. But, that he published a blog in 2017, doesn't define a people that defined themselves forty years prior. In 2004 [the Federal Consulting Group defined "Millennials [...] as those born in 1982 and approximately the 20 years thereafter." And, it not just some boomer with a blog that has to do something not prove he's not goofing off all day. These people wrote multiple books on it, and they reference multiple other sources. There's a case to be made for redefining boomers as "the most trash generation ever" and "actual death of civilization," but let them keep "the greatest ever," simply because, nothing that we trying to coin would quite get the level of narcism this generation exhibits. The original boomer definition of boomer is fine. The original definition of GenXers is fine. And, there's a few year in-between where people exhibit the characteristics of both, but don't fit in with either. Generation X didn't extend until the mid-eighties, and "demographers and researchers" don't generally suggest that they did; it's just one dude with a blog, and a few clickbait news articles that patriot it without contributing any substance. There's a group of people between generations, that get the best and worst of both generations, and that's fine. I, born in '78, get some of the slacker ethos of GenXer's and I get excluded from Millennials jobs. But, I was shitposting on the Usenet Newsgroups when I was in sixth and seventh grade, trolling chat forums at the same time, started my own business and got a college degree like a millennial. There's half a decade of people who don't fit in with either group, and those two groups (x & y), exclude those people. And, that's how it was always published in every source, ever, until boomer from Harvard writes a blog and calls it research. It was always written that the last GenXer was before '78, and the first Millennial wasn't until '84. I don't know when this group was first given a name. But, now to redefine GenX and to lump in half a decade of people who have nothing to do with GenX at all as GenXers is absolutely ridiculous. Do more research. Just because you can edit a wiki page, and perhaps you are a bit OCD, doesn't mean you can rewrite history. It's on its face absurd. There's a distinct group of people between the two generations; it's a small group in comparison to the others; but, this group is nothing like the other two larger generations. You can continue to ignore them, but it's both ignorant and incorrect to lump them together because of a Harvard boomer or the government surveys that may follow it. Reality doesn't follow some Harvard boomer and the government studies that may follow it. Reality is what everyone has always known to be true forever, and published over and over. It doesn't mold just because some bureaucrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.6.188 (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ranting aside, point is (78 to 82) was never considered GenX by anyone but some bean counters in 2017. And, millions of sources for over thirty years will back this up.  Is this a government reference guid, or is it information based on reality.  Reality is that '78-'82 never was GenX or GenY, and beancounters don't make reality.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.6.188 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Dead link needs restoring
The Generation Map linked in footnote 41 is incorrect. I can't edit the notes section myself, but here's the correct link if an editor can replace it:

https://2qean3b1jjd1s87812ool5ji-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/McCrindle-Research_ABC-03_The-Generation-Map_Mark-McCrindle.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswba (talk • contribs) 10:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Done! Jimj wpg (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Gen X Cynicism
"Stereotypes of Gen X young adults also included that they were 'bleak, cynical, and disaffected'. Such stereotypes prompted sociological research at Stanford University to study the accuracy of the characterization of Gen X young adults as cynical and disaffected. Using the national General Social Survey, the researchers compared answers to identical survey questions asked of 18–29-year-olds in three different time periods. Additionally, they compared how older adults answered the same survey questions over time. The surveys showed 18–29-year-old Gen Xers did exhibit higher levels of cynicism and disaffection than previous cohorts of 18–29-year-olds surveyed; however, they also found that cynicism and disaffection had increased among all age groups surveyed over time, not just young adults, making this a period effect, not a cohort effect. In other words, adults of all ages were more cynical and disaffected in the 1990s, not just Generation X."

Really? Not everyone is/was cynical. Maybe it's because I have Aspergers (we tend to be happy go lucky types) or something. Does that mean virtually all of my classmates back in the 70s and 80s were "cynical" and they bullied me because I was NOT? Is this (cynycism) why there are so many crazy, psychotic 40-50 year olds roaming the streets nowadays? They were just cynical? This section should be written in such a way that it doesn't paint all of us Gen Xers the same. I certainly wasn't cynical in the 80s. Jimj wpg (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Informed Research
The article gives too much weight to the largely debunked Pew 1965+ hypothesis (and obvious parroting of this by Bloomberg, Washington Post, etc). The well researched and scholarly work by Strauss & Howe ought surely form part of the lede since the book gives clear and obvious examples of how this cohort dates from at least 1961, if not as early as 1960.

Someone born in 1961 was 16 or so when Punk Rock emerged. The notion that these Individuals could remotely be categorised as Baby Boomers is clearly ridiculous.

Wiki reports facts, but also applies judgements of such facts, where necessary. Time to analyse? Hanoi Road (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your opinions are not supported by the sources.  The dates have been extensively discussed in this talk page.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Which sources are you referring to? The principal sources appears to be Strauss & Howe, who after all produced a book in the subject. The source issue is my point. I've read the extensive discussions here. Not sure they've solved anything. Hanoi Road (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No.  Strauss & Howe's mythology has historical significance, but that is all.  Gen X begins after the Baby boomers, who end in 1964.  You are welcome to argue here that Baby boomers don't end in 1964, but I'm not going to legitimize this debate by participating anymore.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you're problem is, or why you've adopted this ridiculous tone. Not many would agree that the Strauss & Howe thesis is "mythology". Since when has well researched material constituted "mythology"? As for your problem with "legimitizing" a reasoned discussion, I think you overestimate your significance. This is a "Talk" page, not your personal "Haughty" page. Make reasoned points, or move on. Hanoi Road (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

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

I know. That's the point. The citation of the source will of course be properly referenced. The question was asked in general terms as a matter of courtesy, and not with reference to obvious procedure. You need to calm down - seriously. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Re-write Needed. RfC.
The generational parameters issue is at best subjective and nebulous; at worst a petri-dish for proprietary views. The worst of it is on display here. The Strauss & Howe conjecture should be mentioned in the lede. It is the go-to source for students of the generational timescales issue. There is no other. Pew has "stated" (?) that the start-date is 1965. Most other sources listed in support are undoubtedly derivative. I'm not aware of Bloomberg, for example,  having engaged in specific research on the topic; rather parroting something that has been parroted ad-nauseam elsewhere; as with all the others. Forbes go with 1961, which suggests that someone there has at least taken the trouble to read Strauss & Howe and share a conclusion based on hard research and sound statistical models.

There is no "right" answer to this. It's essentially 1961+ versus 1965+. All Wiki can do is present the evidence in a balanced fashion. Entrenched, absolutist positions will not help. Strauss & Howe would seem to have the strongest case. If there is a stronger one, let's hear it. (I will not entertain uninformed trashing of that conjecture. It is rarely disputed and has certainly never been discredited, so please make counter - arguments/comments as objective as possible - Butternut, take note).

At the very least, I think the opposing 1961/1965 conjectures ought be mentioned in the lede,  with particular reference to Strauss & Howe.

Please chip in. Hanoi Road (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you've provided no secondary sources to support your opinion.  Books and articles written by Strauss and Howe are primary sources.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no shortage whatsoever of reputable sources which dispute the premise in the lede - and they would not be 'secondary'. As you correctly note, Strauss & Howe is indeed a primary source, and as such ought appear in the lede, together with a reference to the lack of uniform concensus regarding start dates for Gen X. Secondly, this is an RfC. Protocol dictated that we wait for comment - and not just from you, which is the same response repeated endlessly. Let's hear some other views and take it from there. OK? Great. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not an RfC, and an RfC is not the appropriate next step.  Please see the WP:Teahouse for help on how to build consensus.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this is an RfC since I have initiated oene, and I consider it to be an appropriate next step given proprietary rancour. Hanoi Road (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Agreed. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Forbes Contradiction in article
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2014/08/27/generaiton-x-once-xtreme-now-exhausted-part-5of-7/

Not sure if this link will work, but Googling "Gen x Forbes 1961" will bring it up. Clearly written by Howe, but in Forbes magazine, which by implication sanctions the article as Forbes output.

Have just run across a Harvard Business Review which also uses the 1961 model. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles written by Neil Howe do not represent the opinions of Forbes; they represent the opinions of Neil Howe; see WP:RSPRIMARY. Forbes more recently and more frequently cites 1965 to 1980 as the birth dates for Gen X.  Compare:  to   Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Forbes does not, per se, have institutional opinions. It employs and publicises those who express informed opinion on Forbes behalf. Sorry, but your argument is tantamount to saying that a journalist writing for The NYT is expressing his own views, and not those of the paper. Not disputing your Forbes sources, but if anything, this just makes stronger the argument that there is no definitive answer to the Gen X dates. There does however appear to be a 61/65 split. That ought surely be mentioned in the lede, if just lightly. I don't want to get into a pissing contest over this, but the lede is unbalanced. If '65 is "generally accepted" (by whom, btw?), why does the piece later contradict itself on this point - and several times. I appreciate the work you've obviously put into this, but be reasonable. Hanoi Road (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead must reflect the body of the article. The article does not give equal weight between 1961 and 1965.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

One tends to say lede, and it's obvious that the article does not give weight to both hypotheses, which it ought to. That is surely the point. In fact the 1965 hypothesis has virtually no credible sources; and by credible I mean scholarly research. Bloomberg? Seriously? You cannot relegate Strauss & Howe, far less Harvard to page 88 in favour of something as risible as a TV station. I also question "widely accepted". Such is not the case at all. Perhaps it was before the Strauss & Howe generational theory, but the tide has shifted since then. Almost all of the sources you list in the lede are frivolous. I assert again that there appears to be a conflict, but that conflict must be adjudicated by credible sources. I don't see any in the lede. In a separate topic, you describe Strauss/Howe as "mythology". As opposed to what? A guy at Bloomberg selecting a year from thin air? Where's the research there? Where's the work? Where's the BOOK? You need to reason this through, rather than typing defensive, knee-jerk reactions to other people's input. It's this kind of obstinate "it's MY baby" approach that makes Wikipedia seen as increasingly unreliable. Wiki is NOT a personal forum. And I am NOT taking issue with you personally. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. For starters you are not indenting your talk page comments per WP:INDENT.  Secondly, the lead section of a Wikipedia article is "not a news-style lead or 'lede' paragraph."  As for the content, please note that the article discusses both the popular and academic definitions of Generation X.  I have found a source which states that "birth year boundaries of Gen X are debated but settle somewhere around 1965–1980."  Lots of people write well-researched books; it doesn't make them relevant.  Strauss and Howe are not as influential as they once were, and their birth ranges are rarely used.  If you disagree the onus is on you to provide evidence.  Please note the existence of Cuspers.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Indenting pages? Is that really the best you can come up with? "Lots of people write well-researched books. It doesn't make them relevant". Dude, I think we're done. Hanoi Road (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

my take
yes, we need reliable sources, but in my town everyone agrees that Baby Boomer is 1946-1959, Gen X 1960-1979, Millennial 1980-1999, Gen Z 2000-2019. perhaps contributors here should pin my dates as comparison or in finding sources. im assuming good faith, so good luck folks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.94.194 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Most people broadly agree with those dates. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The previous statement is inconsistent with current consensus, especially at the current version of Baby boomers.. See WP: Verifiability. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

For a guy who wasn't going to "dignify" any further discussion with comment, you comment a lot. Excellent indentation, btw. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)