Talk:Generation X

Canada: David Foot's book

I noticed that an anonymous user changed the date from 1966 to 1976. Author David Foot actually ends Generation X in 1979, he never uses the date 1976. However, he divides Generation X into two groups. I have included both the original source another editor previously added (that links to the author's website), as well as a link to an article on the Canadian Journal of Sociology website. The author of that article, Thomas Norman Trenton, cited pages 18-22 of Foot's 1996 book Boom, Bust & Echo. I found the following quote from that article: "In Boom, Bust & Echo, Foot (1996: 18-22) divides youth into two groups: "Generation X" born between 1960 and 1966 and the "Bust Generation" born between 1967 and 1979."

I will double check David Foot's book to make sure I have the correct pages, and perhaps his 2000 book as well (Boom, Bust & Echo 2000). If anyone has any questions regarding David Foot's books, please let me know. I could not find previews of his books online, so I will have to track down a copy of his book or purchase one before I can verify the page numbers. I might not be able to do so for several weeks.

Please do not change dates from sourced material or remove these sources. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Introduction sources

There are enough sources to support the various start and end dates in the introduction, which has been decided by a consensus. Also, the about.com website is not the problem. The recent source added only shows a list of generations and various time frames. It is only a guide and not an article about generations or Generation X, nor is it a research article written by a reputable demographer. Also, the article by the UK's The Observer is mostly about Generation Y. The Generation Y article already has some UK sources, but thanks for contributing all the same.

I would ask that Peregrine981 weigh in on the discussion since he helped organize the sources, and the other editors involved in the consensus. We already have plenty of sources, especially in the introduction. Please do not add any more without discussion with others involved in the consensus. I have a list of recent sources that can be used for both pages, but will not add them until I can expand the articles a bit. Some of these sources (newspaper articles, research, etc.) are from 2010 and 2010, a couple from May and June 2011. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You either ignored or completely side-stepped what I brought up on your talk page: Where (page #, paragraph) does it state in the current sources that 1982 is the latest year cited? That's not mentioned anywhere in those sources; therefore, it makes the 1982 statement susceptible to reversion, whether consensus supports the information or not. I don't deny that 1982 would be an appropriate date. However, there is nothing in the existing sources that support it. As I already told you, the About.com citation is reliable in that it also cites a reputable think tank. If you actually read The Observer article, you will see that there was a section describing the Generation X years and mentioning 1982 as the last year. Your rationale for reverting these sources thus seems to be misguided and unfounded. Please put the sources I included back into the article; I don't want to request Wikipedia administrator intervention for what is clearly a non-issue: 3 sources that don't support a statement is NOT "enough sources". --Danteferno (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We had a consensus regarding this issue. Several pages worth, including several pages of various sources. I think that 1981 is a more common end year for Generation X, but some sources use 1982, including Elwood Carlson's book that is listed as a source. You can weight for Peregrine981 and EducatedLady to join the discussion as they are the two who wanted to include 1982. I do not agree with Educatedlady, but the Elwood Carlson source (as well as a few other sources) is the main source to 1982 as the last birth year and those born in 1983 who started attending college in 2001 as the first members of Generation Y. I know that The Observer article mentions Generation X, however it mostly concentrates on Generation Y. I believe I adequately explained why the about.com source was removed. It is only a list of generations, and there is no real article. There are plenty of sources already supporting the introduction. My reasoning, therefore, is not unfounded. The sources were not necessary and did not add vital information to the article. I am sure Peregrine981, Educatedlady, and other editors will agree. They can help me better explain the conclusion reached, and Peregrine981 was the one who helped cut down the sources and reorganize them. Also, the Generation Y article already has enough sources, including UK sources, to support the current information on that page. Please do not add the sources back without discussion with the other editors. Thank you. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem we run into here is that we have not been able to find one or two concise sources that discuss the issue of overlapping years in an authoritative and comprehensive way. So we run the risk of overwhelming the introduction with sources which makes it harder to edit. If you want to add sources I would suggest that you follow the style of Generation Y, where articles are "bundled" into a single citation, and a quote is provided from the article to make it more transparent. I won't object to adding the articles if you follow that style, as no changes of substance are being made. Thanks. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Considering there is one lone source that uses 1982, shouldn't the sentence read. "usually no latter than 1981, although some sources go as late as 1982"? As it looks atm it sounds like 1982 is the common cut off date which all but one agree that it's 1981, except on e lone source that chooses to be different. The way it looks, it sounds like someone born in 1982 can delude themselves that they're generation X not generation Y. Also "usually not later than 1982"? It is NEVER past 1982. It's USUALLY not past 1981.60.224.2.240 (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Actually I was being kind. I said some sources go as far as 1982. Correctly it should be ONE source goes back as far as 1982. Since the vast majority goes back to 1981 and there is one lone source that goes back as 1982, I personally think it should be ignored. The source should be counted as wrong as no other source agrees that it ends in 19812. 60.224.2.240 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is more than once source that cites 1982 as being the last Gen-X birthyear. The problem is the POV-pushing of a small minority here who says "there are already enough sources for the 1982 date". --Danteferno (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe how much time we waste on these date issues. Look through the reems, and reems of dicussion on this topic, and you will see why I continue to advocate for a very loose wording in these articles. There are plenty of sources that use dates other than 1981, see below. It isn't a complete outlier. However, I am personally not convinced of the utility of naming particular years. If you go through the lengthy discussions, you will see that the current wording is a compromise. I would rather say early 1960s to early 1980s to avoid having to rehash the debate every few months, and to give a frankly more accurate view of what a generation "is". There are no hard and fast cut off dates, these are amorphous cultural concepts (and increasingly so with every generation since WWII).

fx: http://www.prb.org/pdf09/64.1generations.pdf http://generationaladvisor.com/2009/03/generational-primer-gen-x/

Commerce Concepts”: Market Updates, Asset Allocation and Investment Education for Plan Participants and Individuals. Volume 12, issue 2, 2nd quarter; 2008. Generation X: Born Years 1965-1982. “Generations at Work”; Andrew Schwartz; April 22, 2009. Generation X: Born 1965-1982. “Tools for Effective Teaching”; Judy Campbell ARNP: Ed.D. Christine Brooks MSN, FNP-BC; Palm Beach Atlantic University School of Nursing; November 10, 2008. Generation X Born 1965-1980 (1982), Generational Classroom Implications Chart: Gen X (1965-1982).

“Recruiting Ideas for a New Generation” Sharon Cureton, IPMA-CP Human Resources Director City of Daphne; (Year Published Unknown): Generation X (1965-1982).

“The Organizational Generation Gap”; Pharmafocus July 2008; Wiley-Blackwell Publications; Generation X 1965-1982.

“NJPS 2000: Jewish Baby Boomers”; NORTH AMERICAN JEWISH DATA BANK; Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz; Director, Research and Analysis United Jewish Communities; June 5, 2006. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Opinion: American Generations and the Happiness Index”; Samantha A. Torrence; July 1, 2008; Digital Journal; Generation X 1965-1982. “Facilitating the Career Development of Today’s and Tomorrow’s Academic Rheumatologists”; Janet Bickel: Career and Leadership Development Coach and Instructor; March 14, 2009. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Steadfastly Forward”; Timothy R. B. Johnson, MD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI Received for publication February 24, 2005; revised May 5, 2005; accepted August 1, 2005. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Maximizing Return on Your Training Investment: A Reference Guide for Managers”; Michael Polowy, Andrew Reitz, and Floyd Alwon: (Year of publication unknown). Generation X 1965-1982.

“Generations X and Y in Law School: Practical Strategies for Teaching the 'MTV/Google' Generation” Joan Catherine Bohl Stetson University - College of Law Loyola Law Review, Vol. 54, p. 1, Winter 2009 Stetson University College of Law Research Paper No. 2009-21 . Generation X 1965-1982.

“Sizing Up Tomorrow’s Customer”; Floral Trend Tracker; Glen Hiemstra; Winter, 2005; Generation X 1965-1982.

The Nielsen Company; Client Communication: Final 2009-2010 National Universe Estimates. “Compared to last year, the 2009-2010 UEs for persons 18-49 showed a small decrease, which was driven largely by declines for persons age 35-49, an age group that is comprised largely of the smaller Generation X cohort (born 1965 - 1982).”

“Generation X and the Millennials Will Have Major Effects In the Future”; Kim Ehlers, Holly Sisson, Paula Theilen, Marcy Kratochvil, Nathan Jantzi and Jason Love. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Factoring for X: An Empirical Study of Generation X’s Materialistic Attributes” Nora M. Martin: University of South Carolina and Diane Prince: Clayton State University; Year of Publication Unknown; Journal of Management and Marketing Research. Generation X 1960-1982.

Caroline Perkins; “Don't lose all the best Gen-X talent.” (Generation X, born between 1964 and 1982) (Editorial) ID: The Voice of Foodservice Distribution, May 1, 1998, Vol. 34, Issue 5, p15.

Peregrine981 (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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

I agree this date issue has been beaten to death, this proves that hardly no one wants to improve the article as a whole, just keep debating dates back and forth, what about the rest of the page? If we are only going to discuss dates then why don't we just remove everything else from the article and rename it "Dates of Generation X"? I personally believe that people born from around 1977-1983 are part of an XY Cusp like those born from about 1958-1964 are Generation Jones. As we can see no one can really acccurately place Barack Obama with the Baby Boomers or Generation X. He has charactertics of both. However, there has not been enough research published on the XY Cusp. Therefore again there are a number of sources that use 1982 as an end date for X and a start date for Y. People can ignore these sources, or act like they are not good enough, they are legitimate. I agree with using an introductory line that says early 1980s, however that was not the previous consensus , which is fine, but are we going to keep debating this or are we going to improved this article in terms of sociological aspects?Educatedlady (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I think that "early 1980s" is a bit vague, and it's more common to see 1981 than 1982. I think the distinction should be made, and I think the wording I use is better without removing the 1982 date. I already mentioned that we can discuss this with administrators. Enough users have also brought up the fact that many people see 1982 as a common start date for Generation Y/Millennials, and I think it is less confusing overall when people see 1982 dates associated with GenY. I don't see why the new wording would be a problem. We can link to the previous discussion if necessary, but I think several administrators have already read those discussions. I will be adding the various sources in those discussions later tonight. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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

What "users" are you referring to Creative? Yourself and "genxkidforlife" who I believe was a fake user? I have always agreed that yes many sources use 1981 as an end date, but there are some that use 1982 which I have posted several times here, that you continue to ignore, or insinuate are not resourceful enough. The early 60s-early 80s timeframe is not necessariy "vauge", its a more accurate reflection of all the researchers who have coined the generation. We already have "people born in the 1960s" in the article, how is adding early 1980s harming it? I'm not saying to change the current wording, but there is always room for improvement. But again I would like to focus on other areas in the article.

Can I ask you something Creative? Do you really know anything about cultural generations? Because you have made no effort to improve this article to bring it from a C rated page to a featured article. Also I have not seen you post on the discussion page for the Baby Boomer article. Just here and Generation Y, not even the MTV Generation page. Why is that? Are you really interested in generational studies, or are you just here to because of the end dates? No offense, because I have also been guilty in continuing this fierce debate about dates. However, there is so much more to generations than this. Has anyone noticed that many of the statements in the article have no citations. How are we working on improving this? Educatedlady (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I see 1982 as part of Generation Y/Millennials. But, other editors decided in a consensus that 1982 was common enough to be included. Finally, I agreed. But I and another editor, and more recently, an anonymous user, think that 1981 is more common. So that's at least 3 editors. Even Peregrine981 agrees that 1981 is a more common end date than 1981. Not only in the United States, but in Germany, Canada, U.K., New Zealand, and Australia: 1965-1981, and sometimes 1961-1981 are the date ranges most often used (in newspapers, studies, official Millennial Conferences around the world). I'd say that it shows that 1981 is in fact, more commonly used as an end date for Generation X than 1982. However, author Elwood Carlson has published a book sometime in the past few years using 1982 as the end of Generation X and 1983 as the start of Generation Y. I will be adding the Carlson quote to the source, and add as many sources as I can to support the 1981 end date. I have no problem keeping 1982, but I would like the clarification added to the statement. I thought having another person agree with me was enough to edit the wording. However, I am going to wait for more editors who agree with me before I make any changes, and even then, I will wait and request that administrators look at the numerous sources (see this discussion page's archives) before deciding on my wording, perhaps even get a committee to look at the issue. I also have plenty of recent sources to support my edit. If more than one administrator thinks the previous wording will suffice, then we leave the wording as decided by consensus. I think that's only fair, as I've tried to include both dates on the article pages, and even added more sources when necessary. So, until further discussion, no reverts from me.

I will update the 1981 sources later (including U.S., Canada, and other sources from the list). I will also add a quote from the Elwood Carlson book to the reference listed. I found the quote using Google Books. Educatedlady: Since you have the book, you can make any corrections or add an additional quotes. If you don't get this message, I will check them again when I get a copy.

• • I mentioned this earlier: Does anyone else agree with me and Educatedlady regarding the pop culture section of the generation articles? I always thought these sections referred to musicians, fads, movies, etc. that reached their peak during a generation's time frame. Many rock bands, musicians, and popular franchises are still around or "active" (e.g. Bon Jovi, Madonna, the new Star Wars trilogy) during the time frame that represents the next generation. I hope I am making sense. Any ideas? There must be a better way to word these sections. I don't like how Star Wars is only included on the Generation Y page. And there must be a way to mention the Harry Potter franchise on the Generation Y page without making it seem as if the books and movies are only popular with that Generation. I know plenty of Generation X, Baby Boomers, and even older people who love Harry Potter. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Educatedlady,I know a lot about cultural generations. I have studied many subjects at university: cultural generations just one of the topics. I have also extensively studied literature, history (medieval and renaissance, Celtic, American, and Ancient history just a few of the topics), several languages, music, theatre, and the arts, and was an honors student. I have written several papers, and am currently working on publishing fiction. I have been studying the subject of generations since I was in the ninth grade, more so after leaving high school. I have actually been editing these articles and others for several years now. And I have brought up several discussion topics, like the one above, at least a few times. Please see the above post. I was trying to post this when you submitted your edit. So, what is your view on the pop culture section? The Generation Y page seems to refer to mainly one source. Thanks. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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

I'm okay with the wording now, but leave it open to revisit the discussion if there are more editors who may prefer my wording. I am not trying to start up an edit war - just to be clear. It is a nice change when everyone can be pleasant. I would prefer this wording over the vague "early 1980s".

So, Peregrine981, what do you think about the pop culture section? I would like to start a new section for a new discussion. Please see my above post regarding possible discussion points. Would you also be interested in tweaking this section? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well thank goodness we can move on to other things. Just let it be for the record Creative since you have studied generations, then you should know much about Generation Jones and the XY Cusp. According to more accuracy persons born from the late 1950s to the mid 1960s are in the Jones cohort. There is a Wikipedia page about this. Also those born in the late 1970s - early 1980s are in a XY Cusp. However again this does not describe everyone's experiences in relation to any generation. What you don't seem to quite grasp, or accept is that our experiences are highly similar, placing us in this Cusper period. For example I recently went to a New Kids on the Block/Backstreet Boys concert, and I could sense I was one of few who attended the concert, that had nostalgic connections with both bands, because I attended school while they were both popular.

Moving further on to pop culture, I found this article with the NY Times. However I really don't agree with it, because its associating persons born in the early 80s with Harry Potter and I swear I have no connection to this, like Creative said, and I barely no anything about it. However the article does associate the pop culture with Gen Y, Harry Potter Is Their Peter Pan which should be helpful for citations here. I really wish more research would be conducted on the XY cusp, then these uneducated researchers would see many persons born from about 1977-1983 have common characteristics of both generations. I have nostalgic memories of Peter Pan. Harry Potter...hmmm not so much. When I was a kid I couldn't wait until the new Sweet Valley High or Goosebumps book came out. Check out some of the comments from the article, they mirror much of what is being discussed here. But Creative you are so right on the money with older people liking Harry Potter. My friend who was born in 1982 and I discussed this a few days ago how we have no knowledge of the franchise, but their boyfriend who was born in 1958 loves it. But it does seem pop culture is associated with generations in terms of childhood/adolescence and early adulthood. For example, my first experience with national tragedy was the Challenger explosion (early childhood/Gen X), then Columbine (teen/gen y), and then 9/11 (My birthday is September 12, so I was a day shy of 19, early adulthood).

Let me know what you guys think about the article. I think it will helping establishing the culture of Generation Y. Thanks!Educatedlady (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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

To Danteferno. I agree with you, however the information about the new millennium has not been connected to studies in regards to generations. So therefore it can be considered "original" work, unless you have found a source that discusses it. Also I was born in 1982 and graduated HS in 2001 because of the Kindergarten cutoff date implemented by the state of Texas and many other states as well. However again, this has not been used in any generational studies that I have come across, so again original work. Can you post the article that described Gen X as graduating high school during Reagan, Bush and Clinton terms? This would be a great addition to the article. Thanks! Educatedlady (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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

To Danteferno. Im sorry I guess I should have been more clear. Of course the new millennium has been connected to Gen Y ("Millennials, duh!). What I meant was the true millennium which started in 2001 I haven't found any sources that connect to generations. If you have come across one please post. Thanks!Educatedlady (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone had the chance to look at the article I post. I know we're all busy, just wanted to stay on track.Educatedlady (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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

I am still working on responding to previous posts. I just lost my train of thought. This hasn't been a very good week or so since my cousin's wife passed away from Leukemia and other complications, and my mother got in a car accident (nothing serious), injuring her elbow and getting a concussion. We've had CT scans and MRIs, and thankfully, everything is fine; nothing is broken. Just a sling for her left arm.

Since another editor disagrees with the 1982 date, that makes 3 total including me and another editor. I reverted the last edit, and included both the 1981 and 1982 dates. I think this is fair to both parties and reflects the majority of sources out there.

I will be adding a few more sources to the United Kingdom section showcasing a couple of different date ranges. But other than that, I would like to work with others on the pop culture section and the newly proposed "divorced" topic. I think I mentioned this somewhere else, but maybe we can list some sources like EducatedLady has done, and compare notes. I'll try to include links to web pages in addition to pdf files if some people can't open them. Have a good weekend, everyone. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been reading all this stuff for a while and i think this whole thing is ridiculous, Educatedlady was born in 1982 and since i guess it's cooler to be called GENX she has been on a mission to change it to 1982 as the last date for gen x. I think it's very simple you take a poll and the amount of sources and books that say 1981 is the end date for GENX far outweighs the sources that use 1982. That should be enough right there to simply use 1981 as the cut off date send all the information to the admins and be done with it. I mean do you have any idea how many wiki articles you can change if you start using sources that are outweighed by there counterpart. I mean out 100 sources 85 of them use 1981 and 15 use 1982. That should be enough info to simply send to admins to have it permanently changed to 1981 as the end. I mean my god Educatedlady even tries to control the generation y page because that interferes with the gen x. The admins have to stop this madness. It's extremely simple the sources that use 1981 over 1982 are 10 to 1 maybe even more. I wish the admins would finally step in and stop this insanity and use 1981 as the cut and dry cut off date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.189.216 (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Pop Culture

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

Peregrine were you able to take a look at the article I posted from the New York Times regarding Harry Potter? It should help with the pop culture section. Thanks! Educatedlady (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could certainly use it as a source to say that Harry Potter was popular amongst "Gen Y" since that is basically what the article says, and has some fact to back it up. My own comments are:

• In general this article seems pretty shallow, and doesn't look much beyond the obvious cliches.
• It doesn't make any real attempt to separate out different components of Gen Y. It says that they are now 6-28! This is a massive age range for this type of article. What does a 28 year old have to do with a 6 year old as far as pop culture preferences? A 6 year old can barely read, whereas a 28 year old was probably too old for Harry Potter "mania".
• It focuses only on the US. There is no discussion of regional or class differences, which immediately makes me suspcious that this is just a lazy puff piece.
• There seem to be no real dissenting opinions presented, and a lot of pop psychology is presented more or less as fact, ie September 11 represents an age of innocence, etc... That may well be true for many people, but it doesn't seem substantiated in any way, other that Howe's say so. I would want further sources, preferably peer reviewed, to substantiate most of these claims if we are to present them as fact. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree Peregrine. In attempting to find sources in regards to pop culture of Generation Y, it has been few and far between in terms of reliable sources. Many are message boards that cannot be used here. I know Millennials Rising references to "Pokeman" for Gen Y, that may be construed as a bit more reliable. Educatedlady (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Divorced Generation

Gen X has been referred to the generation with parents divorcing in record numbers. While this is mentioned in the article there is no citation for the quote. I found a recent article on the subject, very informative that discussing the subject entailed. Before I add it to the article I wanted to post the link here for you all to read. I know we are all busy, I am just wanted to reach out to everyone in hopes of gaining some support/assistance with finding other articles that describe the generation in hopes of improving the article. Thanks all!

--Educatedlady (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576430341393583056.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read The Divorce Generation

Looks like a good article. I would encourage you to be bold! and just add it to the article. The best way to move this article forward is to make changes to the article itself, so I would greatly encourage you to do so, and maybe that will encourage users to do so as well. Personally I have to admit to a certain amount of "generation fatigue" at the moment, but initiatives like this give me some hope for the future of these articles. Thanks.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree Peregrine. I understand the "generation fatigue" myself, which is why sometimes I take a break from the Wikipedia articles, and other entities as well like my own study. Thank you for the encouragement as well. I know you are in support of improving the article as a whole, and not so much about solely focusing on the dates. I will add the citation to the article. Thank you again. Educatedlady (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to catch up with articles I'm working on, and a little frustrated that I lost some comments. I guess I should have saved my work. In regards to the article, I agree that many Generation X members watched their parents get divorced, but I don't think this article would be a good source to add mainly because it seems to be an excerpt from the author's memoir. We can probably use some of the statistics and track down the author's references (I have the Strauss and Howe book she mentions). Let's see if we can pull anything from it. However, I have come across other newspaper articles (I have to search for them) that discusses the issue, and I think that even Strauss and Howe write about the subject in their books. Psychologists/psychiatrists have written many studies about divorce rate in relation to cohabitation rates rising. So, this phenomenon can also affect Generation Y (though I've seen articles making it seem as if Millennial children don't have divorced parents).

I'd like to also mention that despite having some friends whose parents divorced, I was a Generation Xer whose parents have been married for over 40 years (Dad is part of the Silent Generation and Mom is a boomer). Also, two of my fellow Gen Xer friends' parents divorced in the late 1990s, 2000. I would hope to add some balance to this section. Funny, I had been thinking about this subject a couple of months ago. I think this is a great topic to add to this article, but we should be careful with statistics. We can post articles and quotes here. Can everyone read pdf? I'll try to post links to articles and books on this topic, or post the quotes and page numbers if links and files don't work. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree with you Creative but we kind of have to be careful in incorporating Original Research here. While my parents (who were both boomers) divorced, in cases like with you some Gen Xers (or XY Cuspers) may have had parents that are still married. Just like I have many characteristics of Generation X (and Generation Y) demographers such as Strauss and Howe, have ignored the XY Cusp, therefore in complying with Wikipedia guidelines I have done my best to reply on sources. I think what the research is saying is Gen X is the first generation where parents divorced in larger numbers, as opposed to the Baby Boom generation, who's parents typically stayed married for the most part. While I think the article is informative, there is no harm in adding other sources as long as we are not oversaturating the wikipedia article. So please post what you have, I can open a PDF file on my computer. Thanks! Educatedlady (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Generation X was preceding Lost Generation II

GenerationD (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done, no reliable source was given, and that article is up for proposed deletion.

Please ensure you give references to support edit requests in future. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  05:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

N Not done

Long-term University of Michigan study on Gen X

I believe the following study is relevant to this Generation X Wikipedia article:

According to the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY), a long-term University of Michigan Institute for Social Research survey, despite being stereotyped as a bunch of insecure underachievers, most members of Generation X are leading active, balanced, and happy lives. The study, funded by the National Science Foundation since 1986, includes responses from approximately 4,000 Gen Xers – those born between 1961 and 1981. A report of the study was released today, 10/25/2011.

Sources: 1- http://www.sampler.isr.umich.edu/2011/research/xplaining-generation-x-u-m-survey-paints-a-surprisingly-positive-portrait/ 2- http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=122088&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click 3- http://www.lsay.org/ 4- http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/10/study-of-the-day-as-it-happens-the-gen-xers-turned-out-all-right/247152/ 5- http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2011-10-24/Generation-X-a-bunch-of-slackers-Not-so-says-new-study/50896198/1

--Emenezes (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)