From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Generation X article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

WikiProject Sociology		SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Sociology portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
through 17 November 2005 through 06 April 2006 April 2006 to July 2007 August 2007 to August 2008

Contents 1 Generation X Culture 2 BE Accurate: 61-81 or 1964-81 Get it right" 3 X Saves the World 4 Reinsertion of "multiple issues tag 5 Sources 6 Inconsistency in two conjoining wiki articles regarding Gen X Birth Years 7 Barack Obama (and U.S. presidents listed in other generations' articles) 8 Strauss and Howe Removed, other edits 9 looks good! 10 Time magazine reference 11 1965 is clearly the most widely-used beginning birth year for Generation X 12 This is Dumb 13 Citation for 1965 14 Evolving use of the term GenXwent from 20-29 year olds in 1990 after Coupland book to birth year 15 Generation Succession Box 16 edits 17 commonly recognized first birth year 18 undue weight on the year 1965 19 Explain the 1965 versus 1961 controversy 19.1 In lieu of fighting about 1961, 1964, 1965, 1960s let us leave it out of the lead 19.2 Baby Busters are NOT Generation Xers 19.3 How to define Gen X... 19.4 minor/major edit 19.5 Isn't this just nonsense? 19.6 From the source 19.7 Slackers 19.8 List of members 19.9 Adding of dispute tages 19.10 Question of Dictatorship 19.11 Last year of Generation X

[edit] Generation X Culture

come on lazy and self serving douche bags!!!! Everyone knows that Genx culture was influenced more by stuff the spilled over into the 80's for the 70's, Like Punk, Hiphop and Classic Rock rather than Grunge. Musically, individuals are culturally influenced by the time they are in their mid teens. I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.138.233 (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Grunge didn't influence Generation X it's a product of Gen X. Just like the genres of music you mentioned were influenced by the generation and music that came before it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephlet (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BE Accurate: 61-81 or 1964-81 Get it right"

Dont let Boomers alter their aging process, it is anyone born after Kennedy and up to Reagan. Conservative is 61-81 whcih actually comes fromthe first book whcih delt with the notion. But really 64-81 is th most the accepted. Basically if you graduated in the 80's you are not a Boomer. Is anyone understanding that this political move regarding republicans is a generational position too? I hope people get this..... X'ers are more likely to support McCain's generation (Greatest or Korean war) than Dems boomer ticket. Xers are in many ways anti boomer or rather alternate to the Boomer worldview. For those raised or born after Civil rights and Vietnam are more capitalist in approach albeit more world market savvy. But one must realize the pragmatic nature of those in there 30's and early 40's given our consumerist upbringing under 12 years of Reagan and Bush 1; not that they as leaders were perfect but we as a voting block hold national security and economic issues in common with elder generations. This is the case where we agree with our grandparents over our parents world view. Granted we are more worldly in ethos but the first generation to be raised with computers still carry a distinct difference in values than Boomers. Please note that even Obama is not really a boomer technically (this may be debated) but he is the eldest of a new generation his whole life is a multicultural one much like those born during or after the civil right movement. Gov Palin graduated HS in the 80' she is no boomer but X 29-46 this will matter in that the boomer perspective in the market place, philosophy and politically positions are on there way out. Boomers are already on their way out, the Clintons were their last hope. Sorry. M.Cline 09/02/08

[edit] X Saves the World

I recently acquired “X Saves the World (2008)” from Amazon, and Jeff Gordiner states on page 22 how the “experts” still can’t agree on when X starts and ends. He says maybe it’s 1965-1978, 1960-1980, 1961-1981, 1963-1981 or 1960-1977. He goes on to state that he thinks it’s 1960-1977 based on the G-zat. So my question is this: Why is this article quoting some unknown Time Magazine author, interjecting what they believe the birth years are, rather than what the author they are writing about believes? It amounts to their personal opinion when the book author often has done some analysis. This scenario has been repeated a million times over in a million articles, thus distorting reality. In fact, I easily found two more articles about this book on the web and those authors defined the birth years as 1964-1977, and 1964-1980. Ledboots (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh for God's sakes, you put that reference there and you have been the one to insist we cite it. Are you just trolling at this point or what are you really trying to prove here? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is quite evident; the opinion of the Time article author is being reproduced here, not a quote from the book. Although the article and the book are equally reliable (tertiary) sources, being a review, the magazine article should be quoting the book author whose analysis presumably takes precedent. Instead, we are left with the magazine authors pov. And once again, without checking historically, you're making false claims my editing. It should be fairly easy to deduce that it's not my reference if I'm taking this much time and trouble to make a point. Ledboots (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• You were the one who insisted that we use it for the citations on the dates. Now you're insising on some other source. Provide me with 1 source that is academic and verifiable, if it's a book give me the scanned page the information is coming out of and then we will use that one source to cite one set of dates in this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you are so concerned about getting your own point across that you miss others. First of all, I insisted on citing correctly before I obtained the book. Is that point really necessary to repeat? It seems obvious to me. Second, one primary peer-reviewed source probably does not even exist; secondary academic textbooks may exist, but probably have varying disagreeance. The latter is the best-case scenario, and what should be strived for, followed by the tertiary type (excluding the review-type I previously mentioned) most often cited, and anyone who insists on otherwise (i.e. that one set of dates is absolutely correct) is basically dense. After over two years of editing this article, that's the one point I mostly tried to convey. Of course, that's all gone now. Ledboots (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• How do you expect to write an encyclopedia article that says "Generation X is defined as an ever fluctuating set of dates by multiple unrelated sources." That would be pointless and would not communicate anything. We have random IPs and new users freely editing the dates (referenced or not) to fit whatever previously held ideas they had about how the peer group is defined so we end up having a disjointed, unsourced and speculative entry that boils down to little else but a never ending edit war from all parties over two meaningless numbers. That strikes me as an enormous waste of time and resources. We need one strong source to define one set of dates, then have those dates fixed permanently to those sources. Otherwise this article needs to be deleted or merged somewhere else since it can't be defined within the framework of the given sources. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly the merriam-webster.com definition works best, "the generation of Americans born in the 1960s and 1970s". Or maybe just the "sandwich generation" with no dates. I think it's a natural tendency to ask "When were these people born?” and because there's so much disagreeance, a large sample of expert analysis shows least bias. Ledboots (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. A dictionary (which gives only a definition) does not supersede a published source that more fully covers a subject. Identifying one source is best so that we can more narrowly pursue that definition of this topic without having to make allowances every step of the way for all the other definitions of this term that exist in the world. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And who decides what one publication is to be used? By appearances you seem to have taken ownership of this article, and the Wikipedia administrators seem to have ok'd it (which is why I won't contribute to any more articles or make a cash donation), but are you also going to decide what dates to use? Then what; lock the article down so the dates are not vandalised (and you know it will be; you yourself had to correct the first one in the past few days), or so that no additional dates are inserted (and you know they will be)? Wikipedia (good, bad or indifferent) is probably the most read encyclopedia online, so I don't agree with this approach at all. Good luck finding a peer-reviewed definition. As far as college texts (secondary publications), I had at least two included in this article that were deleted! David Foot a Canadian educator and author of #1 national best "Boom, Bust and Echo", used in college campuses, defines Generation X as "post-peak" Boomers (1958-1964 US, 1960-1966 Canadians). Another reference that was deleted, "Generations at Work" by Claire Raines et al is being used as the textbook in University of Wisconsin Milwaukee MBA class. They define it as 1960-1980. And not only were the dates in this article deleted, but whatever was included in this article associated with those publications that were germane to the article. Ledboots (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• If a reference (including your own) is added to a reliable third party source, it can stay in the article. You added the three date sets and sourced them and they're still there. My job has been to remove any adjustments to those dates since they're fixed to the references. Now you're saying that the references you added are inadequate and you want them thrown out. If this is the way you want to make edits on this encyclopedia, I'm not sure we need your help. There is no indication that the references you mentioned were either a) removed from this article or b) were ever used "in college campuses." Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and when did I say that? Please, point out exactly when. The references I recently added I had added before, in the bulleted end section that was removed from the article. It wouldn't make any sense that I would bother to add something - again, if I didn't think it was adequate. And there you go again trying to discredit me with weak or false arguments. All you have to do is go back in the article history to discover that they were referenced in the past. And here we have the great "adjustment master" insisting on referencing a Time magazine article author, with their POV what constitutes Gen-X birth years, over, say a PhD in economics and expert in demographics like David Foot. What does that say about your credibility? To me, it says you are doing everything to influence this article with your own agenda. I guess Wikipedia doesn't mind because you speak the same language, or whatever. Btw; did someone hire you make adjustments, or were you specially appointed? Are you getting paid, have bennies, and vacation days, too? Ledboots (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• And what could the agenda possibly be? If you consider reference work to be an agenda, then yes I am a member of that evil empire. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reinsertion of "multiple issues tag

For many moons a "multiple issues" tag has been on this article. When I looked at it more closely, I could see little evidence of the problems listed. I removed the tag. However, Cumulus Clouds restored it. I'm unclear as to why he did that. The issues are listed as follows:

• Its references would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking. Tagged since April 2008.
• It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since April 2008.
• Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since February 2008.
• It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since February 2008.
• It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Tagged since February 2008.
• It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since December 2007.

Placing tags on articles seems to be a way of off-loading problems onto other editors. Those of us who would attempt to fix problems in articles need facts to be able to do that. What references need clarifying? What is the neutrality concern? What paragraphs contain original research or synthesis? What needs cleaning up?

CC: Would you be able to identify the specific problems that need attention or remove those "issues" from the tag? Sunray (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes I can, but the tag is pretty succint in outlining the problems with this article. All the references need to be made inline and each in accordance with WP:CITE and WP:MOS in a consistent fashion. All references need to be checked to ensure they support the statements they're cited to. There is a great deal of text which is cited to a reference which only mentions the term "generation x" in passing and does not elaborate on the term in any way. This is unverifiable synthesis. There is also some disagreement about which time period the term encompasses and who coined it. This problem could be solved with several reliable sources and better writing, but so far the only attention given there is to simply change the dates and ignore the references. Beyond those concerns, the article is poorly written and major pieces need to be checked for grammar. I have spent a great deal of time resolving many of the issues here so I object to the insinuation that I was passing those concerns off on other editors. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

These issues have been tagged for over five months. That doesn't seem to be a great deal of progress to me. I think that we do need specifics in order to make some progress here. Earlier today an editor tried to enliven the article by pointing out that the term was popularized by Douglas Coupland. This is undeniably true. Yet, because he didn't use the right reference, you reverted him. Likewise, when I tried to reinstate some earlier text on the same theme you reverted me. I was actually checking sources when you did that—hardly collaborative editing. So it appears to me that this article is not progressing because people are not trying to build on what others are doing. Would you be willing to try to turn that around? Sunray (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that people should agree to disagree on this one, and include different references to different dates. However, as the Slate authors continually point out these days, mass media articles and "demographic experts" writing about cultural trends have an enormous tendency to create things out of thin air, get facts completely wrong even when they are directly referencing sources, and apparently write about these thigs to have somethign to do, rather than try to get things accurate, if that's even possible. It is COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS for anyone to claim there is any sort of consensus about these dates, given that some of the early commentators didn't even set any dates, and given that dates for Boomers and Gen-Y are all over the map as well. I, personally, as I note in my edits, do not see the logic in saying that Gen X does not start until '64 or '65 when Douglas Coupland, writing about his observations of his own cohort, was born in 1961. Then th British sources included in the Wikipedia article (which I hadn't known about, being a Yank), set 1961 as the start (and the term itself, referencing kids then alive, was coined in 1964). Ar any rate, what's important about the cohorot is a grouping of pop-culture icons, things like the fact that it was the last genration of vinyl listeners yet saw the birth of post-punk (U2 and the Talking Heads) instead of the Beatles or the Ramones), experienced global politics differently because they were not as hopeful and yet did not experience the Cold War as adults. When you start talking about those things, exact dates are not that important, though some occurrences can be pinpointed that have cultural significance to the envionrment in which children were raised (like from the Kennedy assassination to Reagan's election). Prosandcons (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Prosandcons discussion almost to a point, but can't see the point to his edits in the article. "it defies logic that some set the opening date after the early 1960s..."? We can't write that! And the mentions of Copland seem like the editor's opinions, WP:OR. It seems good faith, s I won't undo it, but I fail to see the improvement. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of confusion in these recent comments. For example, the 1964 Generation X UK book was, of course, not written about those we today call GenX, it's an absurd comment to say otherwise. Equally misinformed is the Coupland reference. Yes, Coupland was born in 1961, but Coupland has specifically stated publicly that he was describing a fringe sensibility of his own generation, which he acknowledges is Generation Jones, which then became the mainstream sensibility of the next generation...ie. Generation X. You don't see the logic in saying GenX starts in the mid-1950s? How about the logic that that remains definitely the most commonly used defintion for this generation. Was 17 years ago when it first was introduced, still is today in 2008. I've changed article back to much more accurate version. And I agree with Ledboots' comment that we should try to become more collaborative with this article.TreadingWater (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

• If you have sources for the statements you're making in the article, be sure you include them with your edits. This article has seen an overwhelming amount of original research inserted and reinserted over the course of its lifetime and, in order to prevent that, we must require reliable, verifiable sources for anything that's put in. This will solve virtually every problem with the article and you will find that I won't object to anything properly sourced within this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy that says one must remove all material that is unsourced. The more common practice is to tag it with a "citation needed tag," unless you know it to be false and are challenging it. Here's the relevant section from WP:VER on this:

"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page."

I am suggesting this as a more collaborative way to work with other editors. That way the article might get improved faster. Just a thought. Sunray (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• With the speed at which original research is added to this article, it would seriously jeopardize our ability to present encyclopedic content if editors weren't allowed to remove unsourced content. Further still, it would reduce the reader's ability to differentiate between fact and subjective opinion and would unnecessarily clutter this article with a bunch of fact tags. This article was trimmed down from 33k to 8k by removing unsourced OR and I would strongly oppose any lenience in allowing the reintroduction of primary research under the auspices of "collaborative editing." Verifiability is a policy that must be adhered to and it is incumbent upon all editors to cite sources for any information they add to an article. If any editors want to collaborate on this one, I would invite them to cite their sources first. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Editorial decisions are made by consensus. If it is the consensus of the editors who edit this article to automatically remove all non-sourced material, then that is what we will do, of course. Comments? Sunray (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure there's a project-wide consensus on using reliable, verifiable sources in citations. If you want to include something, why don't you cite a source and move on? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. Perhaps others will comment. Sunray (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We are definitely sourced now, with what remains in the article. POV seems much improved as well. I removed those notes from the template.--Knulclunk (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency in two conjoining wiki articles regarding Gen X Birth Years

on the Gen x wiki page it states within the table of generations that Gen X birth years are (1961–1981) and when you click main heading of the featured table of contents it bring you to a wiki page that list all the generations and birth years. That page says that gen X birth years are (1965-1979).

Also, from my personal understand on this subject through media, books & word of mouth, gen X birth years are only (1965-1981). So each page would be partially correct. (Unopposed98 (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC))

---

I have re-edited the introduction to this article to include 1981 as the cut off point because it is universally accepted as being the end birth year of Generation X. While people born in 1981 do fall between X and Y, they are considered the END of Generation X. Millenials, those born in 1982 (Class of 2000) are considered to be the start of Generation Y. This is universally accepted because Class of 2000 graduates are those who make their "start" in the beginning of the 21st century. Also, Strauss and Howe defined the birth years as 1961 to 1981 NOT 1980. Please block further changes to this date. Please stop changing the cut off date to 1979, 1980 or 1982. 1982 is definitely NOT Generation X.

I put my source back up but someone keeps removing it. Also, I'd like to reiterate that Millenials refers to those of class of 2000 NOT 1999. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama (and U.S. presidents listed in other generations' articles)

Other generations' pages have lists of US presidents included in the cohort. Assuming the 61/64 thing is settled, I think Barack Obama deserves a mention in this article.Originalname37 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. We do not need a list of people who were born within certain years. That does expand anybody's understanding of the topic because none of those people, by themselves, are representative of the group. Nor would a collection of names provide that information; it would be inherently biased towards the editors who included them. We avoid that entire mess by just skipping the entire process and leaving the section out. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a random list of names is a waste of time. My point is about consistency between this and the other generations' articles. Are you saying that it's not appropriate to mention U.S. presidents in the other generations' articles (specifically Greatest Generation and Baby Boom Generation) either?

I guess you are in the case of the Baby Boom Generation since you just deleted the mentions Bill Clinton and George W Bush, but not in the case of the Greatest Generation? Originalname37 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am opposed to any list of names in any generation article because it will immediately turn that article into a linkfarm for every biography we have on Wikipedia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, but I think you're being (and making these articles) inconsistent. You've deleted the names of all of the U.S. presidents in the articles about generations, but there are still plenty of names listed. For example, the Silent Generation article still includes Paul McCartney, John Lennon and Bob Dylan. Are singers OK but not presidents? Originalname37 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Names are absolutely appropriate and SHOULD be included in a "generation" articles, but only if there is a mainstream source linking the public figure to that generation. Adding Obama to the Gen X page would be both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, until we have a good source that links him and his presidency to Generation X. There have been many sources that have linked Bill Clinton to the Baby Boom Generation as well as the other mentioned public figures.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, though I think that the inconsistency is a bigger problem, I agree with Knulclunk on all counts. Removing all names from the articles is not the solution that I would have chosen. What is a "generation" article about if not the people in that generation?

Not adding Obama on the grounds that Knulclunk has listed also seems perfectly sensible. Originalname37 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we should probably not include individuals in this article, but if we do, than it should be accurate. While many commentators have spoken of Barack Obama as “post-Boomer”. far more of them have specifically said that he is part of Generation Jones than Generation X. So it is clearly misleading to write this in a way that suggests that there is any significant segment of pundits or experts arguing that Obama is an Xer—that is clearly not true. Henry hanging around (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as Obama, almost no prominent individuals or publications or broadcast networks have said that he is an Xer. Many have said that he is “post-Boomer”:, and many have said he is part of Generation Jones, but almost none have said that he’s an Xer. I was impressed by the Generation Jones video used as a reference here with so many credible pundits specifically saying that Obama is not a Boomer or Xer, but is a GenJoneser, along with the columns by people like Jonathan Alter in Newsweek and Clarence Page in the Chicago Tribune arguing Obama is a Joneser. I think it is obvious we are part of this distinct generation between the Boomers and Xers, and the fact that this whole GenJones thing seems to be gaining so much traction suggests that many in our age group are relating to it.Henry hanging around (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hammer's edit attempts to again create the false impression that the media is calling Obama an Xer; they are not generally. The claim that Chuck Todd said Obama is an Xer is flat out wrong, he referred to Obama as "post-Boomer". And then to quote an article by someone with no cred as a generation expert who basically implies that Obama is really a GenYer shows the lack of sophistication of that writer with generational issues. I'm changing it back to what is fair and accurate...that Obama is generally being referred to as GenJones, not GenX.Henry hanging around (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is factually correct. It was election night and NBC had lots of air time to fill. Todd said both that he was an Xer and later and earlier had said that he was a post-Boomer. Well the Boomer years extend to 1964. While Todd said that Obama is a post-Boomer, Todd is wrong. Obama may be a Gen Xer, but he would also be a Boomer. The problem with this debate is that most people erroneously assumed that if you are a Boomer you cannot be called as part of any other cohort. In the loose logic and thinking of journalists like Chuck Todd people sometimes assume the logic of the false dichotomy. In the early days of the late 1980s, a show called Thirtysomething appeared which described classic boomers who by simple subtraction would make them born in the 1950s. At the same time Douglas Coupland was writing about people around his age. He was born in 1961. Although he did not coin the phrase Gen X, he mnassively help popularize it. That made Gen Xers twentysomethings at the same time the show Thirtysomething was popular. At the same time a cover article on the free alternative weekly the New York Press did a cover piece called "Twentysomething" which made fun of the self obssessed characteres portrayed by Timonthy Busfield and Melanie Mayron. The term became popular but it was initially used in articles to refer to "twentysomethings". Over time this made the associated birth years later and later until it coincided with the end of the boomers. Then it became easy to use the variable "X" as in algebra to have a fixed value... start it in 1965. This is why the initial year in the birth year cohort for this term "GenX" has become so confused. It is NOT the fault of any individual editor here in wikipedia. Rather it was the confluence of several pop culture factors as well as the laziness and innumeracy of most writers and journalists during the period from 1989 to 1995 which caused this slippage and confusion. Bit now it has reached consensus, rather there are twop or three major consensuses. It is more difficult to pin down the years than withe the baby boom years. This is because we have a demographic wave of births whichcan focus our attention. We could correct the years if the birth rates dropped earlier or later.

Hammer of the year (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strauss and Howe Removed, other edits

I’ve removed the Strauss and Howe chart, which belongs only on the Strauss and Howe page. By putting that chart on each generation page, it gives a false impression to readers that that chart represents an official or widely-accepted list of generations, which is certainly not the case. While Strauss and Howe have contributed to our knowledge about generations, their theories are still very controversial, and have become very discredited in some circles. Many generations experts, for example, strongly disagree with the long length of their generational constructs. In any event, it was very misleading to put that chart on other pages than theirs.

I’ve removed the David Foot reference because his views are very obscure and don’t reflect current mainstream thinking. If the opinions of several other experts (preferably more mainstream thinkers) were also presented here, than I suppose it might be appropriate to include Foot, but to present only his views, given how not widely-accepted they are, is misleading to readers.

I’ve also added the reference to Generation Jones, since so many experts and publications have argued that Obama is part of Generation Jones. Wendy 2012 (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no mention of Strauss and Howe being "very controversial" on their page. Who are the "generation experts"? --Knulclunk (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream thinking; what does that mean? There is no one athority on the matter and no final word. There are however, collective opinions by by experts such as best-selling author like David Foot who Statistics Canada often references in defining Generation X. Strauss and Howe are not in the least bit "controviersial" to the point that they are or should be discredited with their analysis and are widely held in their expertise. There has never been analysis performed that concludes 1965 as the "dominant and most widely-used first birth year" although it is undoubtedly one the most common. By all means, feel free to add to this page; don't remove credible sources, it's against Wikipedia guidelines. Ledboots (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Wendy. There are many of us who study generations who do not agree with most of Strauss and Howe's conclusions, yet fans of S&H sometimes try to bully others with their views. What S&H fans need to remember is that S&H's views do not at all represent what most experts believe. The defintion for Boomers which is still definitely the most used is 1946-1964. I personally think these birth years are dead wrong, but I have to admit that they are still the primary defintion used. Likewise, 1965 is definitely the most used first year for Generation X. It's not hard to determine that these are the most used, just spend 10 miuntes googling, and you will quickly see this is true.

I understand that there are S&H fans who are passionate about their views, but Wikipedia is meant to determine what the consensus of thought is on any given topic, and S&H's work isn't even close to reflecting anything close to a consensus. The truth is that S&H have a small but very passionate following. It is unequivocally wrong for them to push their views as if they are some kind of accepted norm by putting a chart on every generations page that gives the impression that these are the accepted generational definitions. I remember in the past that people used to put charts of generations like that on generations pages, which led to lots of edit fights. Eventually, those charts were pulled down with the realization that the nature of thinking about generations is such that consensus is difficult to achieve, and that until we are able to arrive at a consensus, we should avoid these controversial charts. I would like to put up a chart reflecting my views of the correct generation names and years, but again, I realize how inappropriate that is.

Similarily, if we cite specific experts and views, they should be ones that reflect the current reality. David Foot's views are extremely obscure. Very few experts, publications, organizations or everyday people use his propsed birth years for Generation X. Again, you simply need to spend only a little time googling to see the truth of this. So to present the obscure opinions of this one expert, as one of the only experts cited in the entire article, creates a clearly false impression. Let's honor Wikipedia by remembering that this an encyclopedia and try our best to represent what really is the real main thiking on topics we edit.TreadingWater (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I study generations in the United States which is what Strauss and Howe also study and I teach in my History class. I use to not be a fan of "sub" generations like "Jones", "Beat", etc. However I have warmed up to it. Personaly I do not think Gen X starts in 1961 and 1964 or 65 are better placements for gen X. But the Jones Generation which can fall in both end of Boom and begining of 13 seems to work. I biggest complaint is people who site S&H and the place the years wrong! If you site something be correct.

I think the claim that Strauss and Howe are “wildly” controversial is overstated, but they are certainly controversial, and increasingly so. I agree with others who have pointed to the rigidity of their generational length as a key problem. This again goes back to the idea that things are happening so quickly now that generations are getting shorter; people on opposite ends of generations have less and less in common if you still use the old 20 year model for generation length (Interestingly, as you may recall, even Coupland’s book’s subtitle was “Tales for an accelerated culture”). I don’t get why some think the concept of generations experts is silly; of course there are sociologists, anthropologists, etc. who specialize in generations, and have developed expertise on the topic. And in those circles, as far as I can gather, S & H just don’t have the same respect they used to, partly because so many experts now see generations as around 10 to 15 years.Henry hanging around (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] looks good!

I have not been to this page in a long time mainly because it was really bad and no one could agree on what was what! HATS OFF TO THE WAY THIS PAGE LOOKS! Great read and sums up everything really nice! Mickeyp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time magazine reference

As previously discussed, the Time magazine reference specifically states "roughly" 1965 to 1980. Added two more definitions; one from a mainstream newspaper (USA Today, widest national circulation) and the other from a university-level textbook, both Wikipedia "reliable sources". Ledboots (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand you have a "reliable" source, however there are far too many years listed. Lets sum it up. Basicly most people know that a Gen Xer was born sometime between early to mid 60's (say 1964) to late 70's or 1981. Also the previous revision staed "people born "roughly" between 1964 and (I believe) 1980. "Roughly" covers it as does stating something like "while there are many sources as to when GenX starts and stops they are a group of people born roughly between 1964 and 1981." Then we could place list all of the citations. It looked good as it was. --Mickey 15:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be simple, and maybe preferable, to state that the span of birth is from "the 1960's and 1970's" or "early 1960's to late 1970's" like some online dictionaries do. But there is always someone who insists on editing this article to reflect their own point of view, like the recent wave of 1965 fans have been doing. Wikipedia guidelines are specific about verifiability and (non) pov. So then, who decides where to sum up the span of birth years? There is a multiplicity of view points what constitutes this so-called generation and someone is surely going to get their feathers ruffled by one relatively narrow definition not to mention a degree of inaccuracy. If you say "roughly" 1964, that starting point is fairly exclusionary of someone born in say, 1959, about where Douglas Coupland (who gave the generation it's name) thought it started. Besides, even the Census Bureau is ambiguous about a starting point saying, "only in hindsight will the boundary be more clearly defined". I don't think that point has been reached yet, do you? It really might not ever. Therefore, varying conclusions that the "experts" came up are the best representation. Ledboots (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL! "1965 Fans". Yeah I see what you mean. And notice I did not edit before talking it over! LOL! Keep up the good work on our Generation. --Mickey 15:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs)

The Time reference shows gender bias by only considering the male income when stating that Gen X makes less than the Boomers. The article leaves out the female contributions to the household income with this statement, but the article does recognize that household incomes have increased. Slow or not, household income that rises shows an increase in money made by one generation to the next. In short, this reference is useless for this section, and the section irrelevant for the understanding of the cultural difference in the Baby Boomer generation, Gen X, and the generations that follow. The section should be removed. Michael (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be irrelevant?--Knulclunk (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not gender bias, that's logic. You can't add two incomes, compare them to one income and claim that income is rising. If it now takes two incomes to equal or better what one income could buy in the past, workers are earning less money. People aren't living better than their parents, as was once true. Generation X is the first generation that won't exceed the standard of living of their parents generation. That's very important and necessary to include in the article. Men a generation or two ago didn't rely on their wives to financially support them or help support the family. (Not meaning men force women to work for them like a pimp would, and not saying men directed the female exodus into the labor pool.) The woman could venture into the labor pool if she had to. Rosie the Riveter kept the country going as a sort of emergency labor force. These days, (this is a generalization) both couples work to pay the bills, and the lifestyle stretches to meet the two paychecks. If either one of them loses a job or gets ill, it will be as (if not more) catastrophic for the family because they've often accumulated more debt that either income can possibly maintain without the other. Two car payments, perhaps they stretched for the home with a monthly mortgage exceeding 25% of the income. Rosie the Riveter couldn't save the country today if WWIII came- she'd already have a job and probably not want to give up whatever seniority she'd earned.

Perhaps you mean that a working-class couple with two incomes combined might raise the household income into the middle class. That is correct, however it is not the same thing as earning more money than earlier generations. Finally, the sentiment that a female's contributions to the family are derived from the wages she brings in from working outside the home smacks of gender-bias. It implies that the traditional female role in the home is not valuable. Raising children is harder than toting a lunch bucket off to a 9-5, and ignoring that belittles generations of women just because their contributions didn't have a dollar amount attached. The fact that any of us are alive at all is significantly because of the unpaid, and clearly undervalued work of countless generations of women. What is more demeaning than reducing the worth of the person to their ability to put money in the household kitty? If a woman leaves her job, she is replaced without a second thought. Is that the case if she left her home and family? Can they replace her without a second thought? NO! Just because we are raised to think that a job is the only way to status and equality, doesn't mean that it's true. No matter what the job is, the worker can always be replaced. Lots of us were latchkey kids, and children from divorced homes. No supervision leads to trouble and/or loneliness. My Baby Boomer mother thinks that a job means power. So work came first, I came second, Dad came last. (Then the divorce.) I'll bet there's LOTS of people my age that had selfish parents too busy power-tripping to put the time or love in that children need. I see so many women my age who do not need the money, hand over their tiny infant babies to strangers at a day care- because the baby gets in the way of the selfish desire for a career. I am not talking about poor single mothers. These are married, educated women. (Proof that education doesn't equal intelligence.) Why does anyone have a child, when they don't want to raise one? A baby is a person, not a pet or an accessory to flaunt. So monstrously selfish to deprive a two or three month-old baby of the constant love a mother is supposed to provide. A hired helper cannot realistically be expected to love the baby. They are so deluded they call day care SCHOOL, and they think that babies will be enriched by the company of other babies. They believe their baby will be smart and outgoing because they had "playmates." Babies learn from adults, not other babies; and usually the mother is the teacher. Babies don't want to play with peers until around age three. In fairness, I know no latchkey kids who do this to their kids; because they know how it feels. They mother their kids or they don't have them. The selfish "mothers" I know are all from intact homes and their own mothers were home with them until they were at least in kindergarten- and then the mother still only worked part-time and they were home when the kid was not in school. Evidently, they didn't appreciate their own mother's role in their life. I hope their poor little babies will grow up and dump mom in a nursing home when the time comes- and only visit once a year on her birthday.

Sorry for the rant, but I hope someone reads this and thinks twice about what it means to take on the responsibility of raising a child. So many of the women, born at the tail end of Generation X, in the mid to late 1970s, do this. I think they are too selfish and deluded to care about anyone's needs but their own. I feel so sad for the babies, they will grow up feeling empty and unworthy of love. A latchkey kid had it great in comparison.Gotmywaderson (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1965 is clearly the most widely-used beginning birth year for Generation X

1965 is definitely, without doubt, the most widely-used starting point for Generation X. It is fine to acknowledge that there is controversy about the Gen X birth years, but entirely misleading to not acknowledge that 1965 is overwhelmingly the usual beginning year. And especially inaccurate to begin this Wikipedia article using the late 1950s as a beginning point for Gen X, when in reality the late 1950s is almost never used as a starting point for Gen X. Further, Doug Coupland never said that Generation X started in the late 50s or 1960 or 1961 or any other date; in fact, Coupland has been insistent that what he was referring to as Generation X was a state of mind, not a chronological age. The main reason that 1965 is so commonly used as the first birth year for Gen X is because of the long-time dominance of the 1946-1964 definition of Baby Boomers. Henry hanging around (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I just searched for recent articles about Generation X; here are the ones that came back from just the last few weeks, almost all of them start GenX in 1965:

http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2181&Itemid=42 http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=29512 http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=17821&SectionID=4 http://www.southtownstar.com/business/harmening/1279898,111608harmeningcol.article http://www.thepaypers.com/news/article.aspx?cid=736048 http://cornellsun.com/section/opinion/content/2008/11/12/it%E2%80%99s-hip-be-patriot http://www.spokanejournal.com/spokane_id=article&sub=3793 http://www.nt2099.com/J-ENT/news/book-reviews/plugged-in-the-generation-y-guide-to-thriving-at-work-a-j-ent-book-review/ http://www.facebakersfield.com/?p=661 http://adtips.cn/generation-gap-cleaning-company/ http://www.tamingthebeast.net/blog/ecommerce/generation-x-shopping-0811.htm http://www.emarketer.com/Report.aspx?code=emarketer_2000517 http://www.kikabink.com/news/596/how-to-target-generation-x-online/ http://freeadcandy.com/2008/11/24/market-segmentation-millennials/ http://littlebytesnews.blogspot.com/2008/11/generation-next-savvy-parents-guide-to.html http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2008/10/generation-x-is-just-as-dopey-and-loud.html http://blog.mywebgrocer.com/index.php/2008/11/04/generation-x-y-and-the-boomers/

Then I searched for recent books about Generation X; again, almost all of them start it in 1965:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lGAtHAAACAAJ&dq=%22generation+x%22+1965&client=news http://books.google.com/books?id=WkKg4wbdD1gC&pg=PA32&dq=%22generation+x%22+1965&client=news http://books.google.com/books?id=BvktIzJRpFMC&pg=PA4&dq=%22generation+x%22+1965&client=news http://books.google.com/books?id=f_YQTzWUy8IC&pg=PA8&dq=%22generation+x%22+1965&client=news http://books.google.com/books?id=oI-aAAAAIAAJ&q=%22generation+x%22+1965&dq=%22generation+x%22+1965&client=news&pgis=1 http://books.google.com/books?id=VAx077a_LoMC&pg=PT53&dq=%22generation+x%22+1965&client=news http://books.google.com/books?id=lQ3Z-3X9zkkC&pg=PA111&dq=%22generation+x%22+1965&client=news http://books.google.com/books?id=nqi5uXYDr08C&pg=PA83&dq=%22generation+x%22+1965&client=news http://books.google.com/books?id=PMjjC8XD5y4C&pg=RA1-PA197&dq=%22generation+x%22+1965&client=news http://books.google.com/books?id=wOnGofjH8BkC&pg=PA87&dq=%22generation+x%22+1965&client=news http://books.google.com/books?id=VvoeekyaR3cC&pg=PA20&dq=%22generation+x%22+1965&lr=&client=news Henry hanging around (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am about to revert Henry's edits for several reasons:

1. He has broken the three revert rule, designed specifically for edit wars like this one.
2. A list of Google links like the one provided really is original research. No sources have been provided stating that the birth dates for Gen-X are "controversial", but sources HAVE been provided showing the range of dates.
3. The page version that Henry keeps reverting is not incorrect or misleading. It simply states that SOME sourced commentators have anointed Obama the first Gen-X president, but OTHER sourced commentators have called him the Generation Jones president. There is also a handy wikilink for all the people who have never heard of the term Generation Jones until now.
4. The tone of the edits is VERY pejorative, less neutral and fairly destructive. I would be happy to discuss what he wants to see change here on this page though.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry, your edits are somewhat factually correct, but the seem to mischaracterize the facts. There doesn't seem to be a wide spread scholarly divide on the subject. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

First, I genuinely apologize if my tone was pejorative or if my edits in any way were inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. I'm new to Wikipedia, and love the concept of it, and want to work within the spirit of Wikipedia's goals. My main problems with the way this article reads now are:

1) It doesn't represent what is commonly the begining point for GenX--1965. I understand the desire to include all possible birth year ranges, but that seems to confuse more than clarify the issue. There will never be an indisputed birth year range, so the best we can do is to try to represent a general consensus. I particularly object to starting this article with the late-50's start point because that is almost never used currently. I believe any fair analysis and research conclusion on this point is that the consensus is that genX starts in 1965.

2) I believe the primary subtext for this current debate is Obama. Because of his current immense popularity, many people want to claim him for their own, so we are seeing this in many contexts, including generationally. So all of a sudden, some people are trying to make earlier the beginning of GenX, so they can claim him as a GenXer, even though the clear common usage for many years has been starting GenX at 1965.

3) An extension of this above point is genXers trying to exaggerate expert claims of Obama as an Xer. The truth is that very few media outlets and prominent commentators have said that Obama is an Xer. Many, though, have said that he is a GenJoneser. Some Xers try to play this down in a way that misrepresents this reality; an encyclopedia like wikipedia should be all about trying to reflect reality, not distort it.Henry hanging around (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I follow Strauss and Howe in my studies on generations. It is clear cut and to the point. However they call Gen X the Thirteenth Generation. That is why I have NOT done any editing on this article as the term Generation X seems to have a life of its own. To me it is easy to place Gen X. If you were a child in the 70's a teen in the 80's and a 20 something in the 90's...chances are you are GenX. Good research by the way.--Mickey 15:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

When Coupland's book was published in 1991, it was meant to include what may be referred to by some as the "tail end" of the baby boom, and those referred to as "twentysomething". He came up with the term "Generation X" in 1987 first published in Vancouver Magazine. All of these details were in this article incidentally, until it was subsequently hacked up by one or two, and Wikipedia was totally indifferent. What Coupland tried to emphasize in the early 90's is that media and marketers basically bastardized the term throughout the 90's. I'm sure there are plenty of brand new articles out and about today stating Generation X = twentysomethings! Generation X is an idea, yes, but it is also a shared experience by people, such as those who have had to deal with "last hired, first fired" and such realities after the 1987 stock market crash, or labeled as "slackers". The deal is, Henry, that those born in the early 60's are tired of people referring to them as being part of a "generation" that they clearly are not a part of. Strauss and Howe referred to it as "Hippie cum Yuppie" garbage. And the boomers themselves, when it served their purpose, created a generational conflict with those born in the early 60's, say in the early 1990's (as exemplified in the infamous 1990 Time magazine article), yet from the late 1990’s onward wanted to include them to bolster their ranks, amongst other things. Ledboots (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The main debate here seems to be about the birth ranges. With all the edits, I can't seem to get a fix on who claims which. Here are some of our current Mainstream Sources. Feel free to add more, but please let them be from mainstream sources where the topic is Gen-X or generation study, not just some blog ripping it from the sources below.

Gen-X Bith years

Author	Range	Date Published	Publication	notes
Coupland	1959-1969	1991	Generation X	First use to describe this cohort
Strauss & Howe	1961-1981	1992	Generations, 13th Gen, etc	Second major work to describe this cohort.
M.J. Stephey	1965-1980	2008	Time, Gen-X: The Ignored Generation?	"Steve Gillon, author of "Boomer Nations," believes that people born between 1946 and 1964 will be the last to really experience national culture in such a unified way". Notice that just because an author supports Gen-X starting in 1964, he may not acknowledge the "Generation Jones" concept.
Rose M. Kundanis	1968-1979	1992	Children, Teens, Families, and Mass Media
Jeff Gordinier	1964-1980	2008	X Saves the World

Other media names given: Regan Generation, MTV generation and/Spoiled Generation

Another note about original research:

When you Google Booksearch "generation x"+1965" as Henry did, you will get many hits, about 653.

When you Google Booksearch "generation x"+1961" as Henry failed to do, you get 731.

This would be a statistical dead-heat.

I don't have a problem with 1965 being the "most common and recognized" start year, but that statement must be sourced. And I'm still not convinced that Strauss & Howe are wildly controversial and have been dismissed by "generational experts", a term that seems ridiculous, unless you are in marketing... also ridiculous. --Knulclunk (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And when it is all said and done I think it comes down to market research folks not people that study the ebb and flow of how groups of people move through time. I too am not convinced that Strauss and Howe are "widly controversial". I believe people that say they are are upset because they are the norm and they did not come up with it first. And just how are Strauss and Howe controversial? Regardless we are all talking about it and that is what this is all about. Good job to all!--Mickey 14:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs)

I’ve read through a bunch of what’s written here to get a sense of the background to this article, and with an eye toward summarizing some main points; please excuse me if there is some paraphrasing and echoing of earlier comments on this page by other editors over time.

Doug Coupland never defined GenX with specific birth years. His publisher put a comment in the blurb on the book’s cover about the book being dedicated to a certain age group, but Coupland distanced himself from that comment. Ledboots, you’re right that the GenX term was bastardized by clueless media and marketers who kept ridiculously referring to GenXers as twentysomethings for many years. Coupland ridiculed this exact point in an essay in Details Magazine in 1995 when he wrote: "The media refers to anyone 13-39 as Xers". In that same essay, he again made clear that he was not referring to a specific set of birth years when he coined and used the term Generation X.

The three protagonists in the book, as well as Coupland himself, are actually part of Generation Jones, but not typical Jonesers. They are part of a small subculture of Jonesers who were alienated and cynical and snarky…personality traits which became part of the stereotypic reputation of Xers generally. As Coupland put it: My book 'Generation X' was about the fringe of Generation Jones which became the mainstream of Generation X. There is a generation between the Boomers and Xers, and 'Generation Jones' - what a great name for it!" Even though his book’s characters were Jonesers, it wasn’t popular with Jonesers, but became a big word-of-mouth sensation with Xers, because Xers related to it personally.

Ledboots, I wholeheartedly agree with you about many of those born in the early-60s not relating to the idea of being Boomers. I personally was born in the early-60s, and I can assure you that there is no way that I’m part of the Baby Boom Generation, even though I was told I was most of my life. I think it’s craziness to call us Boomers. But I also strongly feel that that I, and those my age, are not GenXers either. To me it is obvious that we are part of that generation between the Boomers and Xers, which has gotten ignored most of our lives.

But again, as others have noted here, the question isn’t whether those of us who happen to be interested in this Wikipedia article personally feel like we are Boomers, Jonesers, or Xers. The point is, whether we like it or not, the 1946-1964 definition of Boomers became so entrenched over time, that 1965 became the clear starting point for Generation X. Again, I agree with you that it’s ridiculous to stretch Boomers to 1964, but it is what it is. Maybe, hopefully, some day that will change, but for now 1965 is still clearly the first year most often used for GenX.

I’ve made changes in the article today which seem reasonable based on the thoughts expressed recently on this talk page by several editors. I’ve also added a couple of 2008 cites from Newsweek and the Washington Post starting GenX in 1965. If this isn’t enough, I’m fine with adding more recent cites from credible sources that GenX is commonly seen as starting in 1965, there are many such cites. Henry hanging around (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Coupland did state birth years: http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/5560/genx9.html Regarding these changes: 1. It is vandialsim to delete verified information 2. Your "most common and recognized" claim still isn't referenced and you simply move previous references over (after deleting birth years) that do not support the claim. If you want to make a point about Generation Jones, here is where to di it: Generation_Jones. Ledboots (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ledboots, I have clearly put time into a good faith effort to improve this article, with detailed thoughts and analysis put in this talk section. You immediately revert my changes, seemingly without even reading my comments, and then have the nerve to claim I am vandalizing this article, when it is increasingly obvious that you are the one who is acting in bad faith.

1) Quoting from the Wikipedia:Vandalism page: “Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia… Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism”. Whether you happen to agree with my changes, Ledboots, they were obviously made in good faith, so quit blowing smoke with your vandalism nonsense. It is you who is teetering on the edge of vandalism if you haven’t already completely crossed that line.

2) Any researcher of Coupland would know that the the quote you attribute to him is a misquote, since he has clearly repeatedly said that he does not attach specific dates to GenX. Even if that somehow isn’t a misquote, it has certainly been negated by his many subsequent statements since 1992. And regardless, you are fully aware that it is very rare for GenX to be defined starting it in the late-1950s. Rare in the sense of virtually never. You would like those to be the birth years for X, but they are not. You are deliberatley trying to misrepresent what is commonly used for the GenX birth years. Other dates you give, like 1968-1979, are also only very rarely, if ever, used, and do not belong here. You are fighting a losing battle, Ledboots…even though you don’t want 1965 to to be the commonly used start point, it is, and you know it, and you just need to deal with that honestly, rather than dealing with it through bad faith efforts intended to obscure the truth.

3) On what basis did you immediately revert the section about what commentators are saying about Obama’s generational identity? If you can produce prominent sources making the claim that Obama is a GenXer, then produce them. Otherwise, quit vandalizing this article.Henry hanging around (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done some more research, which has confirmed my, and others', argument that 1965 is far and away the most widely-used first birth year for Generation X. When you research this specific question, it becomes obvious prettty quickly. To indulge Ledboots, rather than citing endless new credible media sources who cite this 1965 start point, I'm adding reference sources: dictionary.com, about.com, and urbandictionary.com--all three are very popular reference sites...I use them frequently for a variety of uses, and find them very credible, and all three have received much independent commendation for objectivity and credibility. All start Genx in 1965.Henry hanging around (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to get this off my chest, it seems to me that "Generational Jones" proponents are rightly embarrassed by Boomer behavior and decided to make up their own sub-cohort. It also seems that Jonsers seem especially tickled that the media, always eager for a new buzzword, have latched onto the term when describing Obama. Lastly, only a Boomer would care that Obama was one of their generation and use their social clout to get their way. As always, Gen-Xers couldn't give a rat's ass because we'll still be cleaning up the Boomer's mistakes anyway. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just come back to this article, and seen a couple of changes that are appropriate. Depending on the source, Gen X'ers are seen as following the Boomers or the Jonesers, so for now, it seems best to stick with birth years, rather than saying which generation they follow, which just adds more controversy to this already troubled page. And I've reverted the text to reflect that far fewer commentators have said Obama is an X'er than have said he is a Joneser. If that changes, we can change the text, but for now, almost no commentators have said that he is an X'er.Wendy 2012 (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the new reference to Strauss and Howe because it feels like their theories about The 13th Generation are best discussed on that page, and other of the S&H pages rather than here. And given the recent controversy here about Coupland's actual views about Generation X, it seems like that reference is likely to only confuse this article and create new edit wars. Seems best to keep it clean and straightforward, with the consensus which seems to be emerging here.Wendy 2012 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is Dumb

I'm so sick of being labeled, and this comments here and the article forthwith show we're just dumb people aided by technology that trudge along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee4binky (talk • contribs) 11:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for 1965

The references provided DO NOT support 1965 as being the "most common and recognized first birth year". Ledboots (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a persuasive opinion article. This is an encyclopedia entry and it cannot be used to try to influence the discussion about what year is more important as a birth year over others. Any discussion about 1965 being the most common birth year needs to removed. This would violate WP:NPOV. I also take great issue with including Barack Obama's identification as Generation X since that's completely irrelevant to the subject and does not at all inform about what Generation X is. The length of that section also violates WP:UNDUE, since it occupies now about a quarter of the article about one person and the year they were born is. It should be completely removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed the latter section as trivia. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly--this is an encyclopedia entry. It's not a question of which birth year is most "important", it's a question of trying to accurately portray what experts generally view as the first birth year, to guide users of this encyclopedia, so it is clearly appropriate. Including a discussion of Obama's generation identification is also clearly appropriate, although I've shortened this section to comply with WP:UNDUE TreadingWater (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Per [1], RHD says: "Generation X  –noun the generation born in the United States after 1965. Origin: after the novel of the same name (1991) by Doug Coupland" Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. Collect (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A dictionary is NOT a reliable source. Furthermore, that reference did not support the claim in any way, shape or form. The burden of proof is to provide a reliable source that states, "1965 is the most common birth year" and "all other birth years are rarely used". Because it’s unlikely it will be found, I've removed it entirely. Regarding the president elect inclusion, you need to read about news reorts; this article is NOT an indiscriminant collection of information. Furthermore, what makes a news anchor an expert? We don't need to entrench this article in irrelevance. If you want to write about Obama being a great Generation Joneser, write about it in that article, don't try to make an argument in this one. Ledboots (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You're acting in an unreasonable way, Ledboots; feels like you're on the edge of vandalism. I've put back the section you removed about 1965 being first GenX birth year, you asked that new cites be found, which may or may not be reasonable, but you clearly have not allowed for a reasonable period for those cites to be found. You know that 1965 is the commonly used first birth year, but you're trying to avoid that truth in this article by looking for a technicality. I'm sure one of us can find new cites to meet your technicality, but a reasonable period needs to be allowed. Likewise, you know that almost nobody in the media has said that Obama is an Xer, and many have said he is a Joneser, yet you remove almost all those Joneser supporters to again create a false impression. I, reasonably, have put back what is true and accurate.TreadingWater (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And so are you! There are lots of viewpoints about this cohorts timeline, and the more credible ones should be represented here. You are steering this article with undue influence, and irrelevance, and editing with total disregard for Wikipedia guidelines. I wouldn't mind leaving the first "citation needed" out there for a while, but you keep deleting it (again, against Wikipedia policy) and putting irrelevant references in it's place. The ridiculous and rambling Obama/Generation Jones edit is clearly improper; news commentators are not a reliable source. Any more attempts to make the article improper will warrant administrator intervention. Lastly, the comment that "alternatives are rarely if ever used" is just a plain falsehood. Possibly 1961-1981 is the most freqently used range, and if 1965 is the most frequent first year, 1961 surely rivals it. Besides, because so many do consider 1961 as the starting year, in addition to 1962, 1963 or 1964, the year 1965 misrepresents those earlier years by a very wide margin. In other words, more consider 1965 as the correct starting year, but collectively most consider prior to 1965 (1961-1964) as being correct. Ledboots (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus opposes the inclusion of the Obama material and the 1965 reference. If it gets reverted again, either go to WP:3O, seek mediation or just revert it back. Other editors on this page will support your move. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolving use of the term GenXwent from 20-29 year olds in 1990 after Coupland book to birth year

If you look at the Time quote and the year 1990, the early references implied a 1961 birth year. There were probably some explicit references to 1959 or 1961 in 1990 or 1987 the two Coupland dates. But as time elapses, the use of birth years logically becomes the correct way of looking at any generation concept because if we keep 20-29 as age frames, the birth year creeps up one year for each year of time progression. Finally we see a coinciding with the end of one so-call generation 1964 with 1965 (in calendar year 1994). If we can find 1994 references to cohort in lieu oof age great. More likely, it was in 1995 where the logical inconsistenc must be revealed. LaidOff (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this new section as needing a source. Conclusions are being made that don't have references. --Knulclunk (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of changes to this article in just the day since I last here--this article does generate a lot of heat. The people who keep trying to improperly change this article need to stop it, it doesn't do anybody good. I guess I'm more or less OK with the latest compromises.TreadingWater (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generation Succession Box

We have no sources for the succession box that is not WP:SYNTH, original research or worse. Please do not re-add as WP:3RR until consensus is reached.--Knulclunk (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is getting far off track. This obsession with the history of Generation X’s birth years is merely adding confusion and irrelevance. We will never agree on the history anyway, we should concentrate on the usage today. I concur with all the editors who have said that 1965 is clearly the main year used as the beginning of Generation X. I concur also that the Strauss and Howe theory of the 13th Generation, born 1961-1981 has a significant following, but it is not nearly as big as that for 1965, and is best addressed primarily on the Strauss and Howe pages; their work is extensively represented on their Wikipedia pages, including detailed descriptions of their 13th Generation. That really doesn’t belong on this Generation X page, although to be compromising, I’m leaving a whole section about it in this article for now. The Maxim W. Furek addition doesn’t belong here either…he is an unknown researcher, without any meaningful following, and that addition just adds more confusion. In a similar way, the obsessing about what Time meant in a 1990 article just adds more confusion and irrelevance and doesn’t belong here. The Obama material does belong here, but was too wordy. There is going to be endless fighting over this article unless a spirit of compromise is adopted. Unfortunately, there isn’t anything close to consensus about the sticky issues in this article. I’ve made some changes based on my observations in this paragraph, reading through others’ views on this talk page, in an attempt to find compromising language that works.MindyJohnson (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been around long enough to know, but deleting an edit with the reason: disputed succession box without providing additional information in the talk page, doesn't seem to be enough of a reason for the deletion of the box. I reverted back, but should someone revert it again with some-odd 10-20 hours, they would violate WP:3RR, so be careful. My main contention is that I wasn't able to find a reason for its deletion on this talk page... I can understand the dates are still in dispute, but that doesn't mean we can't round up or down, or average them for purposes of the box. Succession boxes, while I couldn't find the proper template page, do represent links in a chain... thus, given the nature of the topic (generations and labeling), I fail to see what's wrong with having the box, and of course welcome discussion. CaptainMorgan (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The identity of the preceding generation is disputed. I have no objection to Generation Y following Generation X, but whether GenJones is a "real" generation seems sufficiently disputed that a succession box is questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, this is what I was looking for. CaptainMorgan (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to be implicated in an edit war. In fact, this is my first edit in about a week. The succession box I deleted showed a GenX start date of 1968, which is not mirrored on this or any other page. As you may be aware, there seems to be some debate over mentioning specific dates. The latest, reliable source staring birth date I've see has been 1965, and this has only been from the recent, Generation Jones promoters. Most sources place it even earlier; Strauss and Howe at 1961.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of the utility of the Generation succession box. It will be subject to constant edit warring about exactly what counts as a "real" generation (see Gen. Jones, MTV Generation, etc...). Plus, it will be unable to address global trends. Several of the generations listed are arguably uniquely American phenomena. I would suggest that we get rid of it, but am open to argument. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] edits

The dictionary.com reference is now deleted because: 1. It is not accepted by Wikipedia as a proper reference 2. The first definition states generation born "after 1965" and therefore, doesn't even support the claim to which it is associated. Besides, the same reference also defines the generation as:

• generation x - 3 dictionary results
• "the generation born in the United States after 1965 (meaning 1966 and later)."
• "The generation following the post-World War II baby boom, especially people born in the United States and Canada from the early 1960s to the late 1970s."
• "the generation following the baby boom (especially Americans and Canadians born in the 1960s and 1970s)"

Can you say "selective editing" (not to mention evidently the inability to read correctly)?

Furthermore, two out of three definitions, "early 1960s" and "in the 1960s", might imply, now let's see ... a 1961 start?!?!

Also, generationjones.com is not an appropriate reference, and no-where does the Time Magazine "Ignored Generation" article state "1965 remains a commonly recognized first birth year for Generation X". If this dialog is to remain, it must be found and referenced properly. The burden of proof is on the editor per Wikipedia policy. Ledboots (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I took off addition today saying birth years for GenX are the 60's and 70's...ie. 1960-1979, since those are not, of course, birth years for GenX which are used with any regularityTreadingWater (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite from book now given defining it as 1965 to 1976. I trust this answers the issues involved, which verged on the unimportant <g>. Collect (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only did JordanBrothers reference not even mention 1965, or Gen X, but a dictionary is unacceptable reference by Wikipedia standards, as mentioned, oh, about a thousand times now. If more consideration isn't applied to this, either page protect will be sought or the citations removed prematurely. Ledboots (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Again note that a book cite is given for the 1965 date. No need to keep fact-tagging it now <g>. Collect (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

== 1962-1981 ==Martin writes: [[THIS IS NOT A HARD TOPIC; IF YOU HAVE TO ASK IF YOU ARE X YOUR NOT X 46-29 To all those persons who do not understand birth rates and geo-political realities that this generation was birthed in lets start from the top. A generation is roughly a 10-14 year spead most often, I suppose 18 or 20 but that is too long of a span of years to be used. Generations are a Anthropologist's realm and really has set markers and has to do with child bearing ability world wide. The best way to make a distinction is to just say that anyone born after Kennedy assasination into the dawn of Regan's election, is an X. OKAY, there are a myriad of reasons why, still people get confused about generation Jones (look it up) there are the last of the boomer's and were in school at the end of the 70's the movie Dazed and Confused dealth with them (again look it up); Given this if you were 18. 19 in 80 or 81 it is somewhat debated which line or group you belong in, thats why Obama really could be either one, still his election marks the beginning of X rule. But just use Brad Pitt (45) as the cut off point he is an X, the elder of the group but XXXXXX all the way. This subject is not a hard subject. If you are confused about being a Xer then you are NOT ONE, we know what we grew up with. Prince not Led Zeplin, Madonna not Jopplin,Generational markers....transition points and icons. GET IT" Timelines are not set by media but by historical and birth rate markers and a collective concious. It is more a sociological reality. As for generational characteristics it is marked by entering the school system on or after title 9 these are the little children of the 70's and the teens of the 80' and college populations of the 90's. Regan generation and republican (largley) political reign is another charateristic on an X. That means Xers are 30'-40' now a decade ago they were 20'(something) but NO MORE. Jennifer Anniston is 40 in February...hello. Again if anyone is still confused, just think if you were in highschool or junior high (even elementary school) anytime in the in the 80's then consider yourself the kings and queens on X, all those movies were for a certain generation. Martin Tacoma WA (39) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.84.239 (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You have to be careful not to use trivia when editing Wikipedia, though. Of course, following the assassination of JFK is commonly thought of as the start of Gen-X. Possibly it is better to recognize "cusps" like Bruce Tulgan proposed. But one thing that should be avoided is to incorporate one idea into another. For example, those that decry that Generation Jones exists also acknowledge 1946-1964 as the baby boom. Yet, Jonathan Pontell placed the boom 1942-1953. So, was he right about that too? A model is either wholly right or wrong. Ledboots (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My Response: Whether 1964-81/62-82/61-81=Average it out if you need too but Xers' are not confused; I would present that you dont let marketing dictate your generational knowlegde. Even if Generation Jones, which is a subset or tail end of boomers may or may not ascribe as either X or boomer the reality is it began at the early part of the 60's, but births began to decline after 1960. And I agree about Statistical or Group Models' as being set concepts, still Models are in fact often 'working models' or rather applied and adjusted given other criteria, data and/or facts that elucidate other facts/data. Granted you are right about triva, but you also might be reminded that trivia is also a form of facts and/or a base of shared knowledge about a given place or time as shared by groups or a group of peoples. But even if i were to not cite my funny trivia, one only need to cite birth rates, geo political truths and shared institutional structures/systems that Xer's were born into, under and matured in. In 1960 the birth rate peaked to it's highest and then began to decline steadily. I think the steadily part is the disputed year. So if you mark the peak as the end which Coupland did initially (61)then you can understand his thesis. If you mark the decline to the year it actually matched the 1946 birth rate and then lessoned then you have the more conservative year of 64. Again it would be like not counting children born in 1943, 44 or 45 in the baby boom. When in reality the US entered the War in 1942 so I think people are being too literal or not recognizing the fluidity of the first couple years of any generation that does enter into the subsequent generation, this happens in any decade shift. Anyway it is a acculturation issue as well as birth and others. The easiest way to think about it is those in their 30's and early to mid 40's if that is hard to grasp then the issue is you may or may not be an Xer or your ambivalence about the aging process may be an issue, not sure but this issue is not a huge one. Especially since boomers have already entered their 60's and most are in their 50's. 1962-81 larger context or the 1964-1979 as the more conservative range (model), relax it's all good.Martin WA

LedBoots: The baby boom peak in the US was 1957 and 1959 in Canada. Some believe the baby bust began in 1958 and ended in 1969 in the US. In 1961, birth control pills became available and skewed the birth rate. Peer personality, or as you put it shared knowledge, is the basic premise that Strauss and Howe go by saying that fertility trends of parents don't define their offspring. The trivia I refer to is Wikipedia policy, in other words, verifiable facts, nothing more. Part of why there is a lot of disagreement today is because the media were calling twentysomethings Gen-X from the early 90's almost to the present, not getting it that every year we get one year older. The two terms were only interchangeable at the start. Ledboots (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin response to LedBoots: I totally agree, actually they (media or boomer) finally have realized we all are in our 30's and 40's it is okay though. If they accept that we are oldr that means that they have to accept that they are older. Yikes...that is the tension. My guess is when Brittney Spears turns 30 in 3 ytears it will be all over, so in that way time pushes on. I think media are taking sides already as to whom they will serve, that means dollars. Fox, CNN and Bravo, VH1 all have decided to move to X where CBS, NBC and CNBC have held to Boomer ville. What is funny is that Y and younger kids are not concerned like X and Boomers with this discussion, I think mainly becuase their world view is so large their is no institutions or local community it is a new world so this topic should die hopefully soon as well. It is just us two (B/X)that are arguing. I get why Boomers want to argue given they are aging and with age comes loss of significance and their narrative is going bye, bye...it is just last gasps. That is why for almost a decade (much of our 30's) media has not really commented they dont want to make that leap it will cause a back lash but it may be worth it as those under 50 really have much income and are spenders by nature. But with the end of old media (ie papers, main news media stations) the institutions boomers cling too a natural end is in site. But I totally agree we grew up a long time ago, I think the 20'something is a characticure not real just a beer commercial. Air head's kind of like clue-less girl. Non of these were so much real to a great extent but thise digs makes Boomers feel good? The more we move as a group into the controling of media and it's images it should improve. I'm 39 and I think Hello, every major actor in our generation Kidman, H.Berry, W.Smith they all are turning 40' or are already 40. Hello'...my God we will be talkingabout this for a few more years until there is a bloody winner. Lets move on the day that Brooke Shields turned 42 should have been a clue that this is such an insipid discussion. We have aged and are well established as a cultural shift. martin

[edit] commonly recognized first birth year

New Strategist Publications is not a third-party publication. Because you found it on the internet, and it says "1965" and was published, doesn't make it a reliable source. And, it would be real surprising if it actually contained that quote. Ledboots (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I found a "reliable source" which you diss because I found it on the Internet? [ http://books.google.com/books?id=WkKg4wbdD1gC] page 32 specifically dates "Generation X" as 1965 to 1981. Solid cite. [2] dates it to 1965 to 1979. [3] 1965 to 1978. [4] 1965 to 1978. [5] 1965 to 1976. [6] 1965 to 1983. Lots of differing end years. All the same start year. Do you wish me to place all six hundred cites inline or will you accept one of them? <g> Collect (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read what a reliable source is on this website, which the one you cited is most definitely not. For as many references, reliable or not, that you can cite with 1965 as a start year, a comparable number can be found for at least 1961. This article is already violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. NO credible published analysis has ever been performed by anyone that concludes 1965 is the starting year for Generation X! Even the US Census Bureau admits there is no clear starting point, and also mentions 1961 (amongst other years) may be a starting point. Because you happen to think that 1965 is the starting point, does not make it so. In lieu of that, in order for this article to be valid, varying reasonable/credible points of view need to be presented. Ledboots (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:V then. You deleted a reliable source repeatedly, and did not give a reliable source for any other date. In point of fact, 1965 is the MOST COMMON date I found. 1961 came in second. Seems to me that since both dates are otherwise included in the lede, that the cite for 1965 should properly be included. There is NO absolute starting date -- which is already made clear in the lede. The only question is whether 1965 is the most common date cited, (the claim made) which happens to be true. Clear now? Collect (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Anything I deleted was not a reliable source, which is why it was subject to deletion. You obviously have me confused with someone else. Original research, conducting a tally on the internet by Google-ing "Generation X 1965 or 1961", is not valid material to include in this article! In order to include the "commonly recognized" reference as it is, it must come, verbatim, from a reliable source. Otherwise, it is original research and not acceptable in the article. Are you clear now? Outstanding! Ledboots (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of "reliable source" with regard to WP is errant. All that is needed is for the source cited to make the claim which it is used as a cite for. If the source makes the claim that 1965 was the start of "Generation X" then it is not WP:OR to use the cite for that claim. As the cites furnished ALL make the same claim, it is errant to insist that using such sources in improper. As for them being RS, the WP standards for RS suggest that any book written by a specialist in a field is presumed reliable ab initio. The cites given are from people who have sufficient c.v. to make the claims in their books. There is, moreover, no need to cite sources "verbatim" as you seem to think. Normal English usage is accepted on WP. That said, it appears that no source in the known universe will satisfy some editors that anyone sets a starting date for "Generation X" and obviously then no dates should be mentioned at all as a consequence. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about two separate things here. I have no problem with a reliable source stating 1965 as the starting year; I do have problem with that entire sentence which most definitely is not neutral. I'm not sure where you read about reliable sources, but you might try reading reliable sources as your interpretation is quite errant; it depends on the source, doesn't it? And yes, any information in this or any other article can be challenged. The burden of proof is on the editor who states "1965 remains a commonly recognized first birth year for Generation X". Prove it, i.e., come up with a reliable source stating as such, or it gets deleted because it is OR. Yes, "post Baby Boom generation" may work best. Ledboots (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Current cites in the lede state dates for the start as early as 1960 and end dates as late as 1985. Changing the lede when the cites are there is silly. And the claim that teenagers interviewed in 1964 are part of a generation which was not born until 1965 does not quite make any sense at all (sigh). Collect (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Gee, another act of vandalism? How unusual in this article. Those references should cite 1965 as the starting year. However, I believe in those (5) references there is no consensus on the end year and one reference mentions 1966 as the starting year. Five references are probably too many; one should suffice. It may well be another attempt to unduly influence the article and therefore violate article neutrality. Ledboots (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This 1960-1985 nonesense borders on vandalism. How about doing research on a topic and actually knowing what you're talking about before editing an article on Wikipedia? Virtually no one uses the birth years 1960-1985. Completely obscure. Those dates are so obscure and not used, that they don't even deserve to be on a list of alternative birth years, let alone being implied in the lead of this article as most commonly used! Outrageous. It's not a matter of my personal opinion, it's a matter of the unequivocal truth of what birth years are commonly used by millions of people. 1965-1980 is a far more commonly-used birth year range. As in a zillion miles more commonly-used. There is no way anyone could research this point and walk away beleiving that 1960-1985 is remotely close to 1965-1980 in common usage. Stop vandalizing this encyclopedia with obviously untrue statements.TreadingWater (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you can find a few cites for something doesn't make it true. We can find cites that say Barack Obama is a muslim. Does that make him a muslim? No, he's a christian. And even though we can find a few cites that he's a muslim, we would find far more that he's a christian and that is what should be in his Wiki article, not that he's muslim because we found a few cites saying that. Same with 1960-1985 vs. 1965-1980. Sure, we can find a few cites saying GenX is 1960-1985. We could also find a few cites saying GenX is 20 other sets of birth dates. But we'd find far far more cites saying 1965-1980, and that is what should go in the lead of an article. I have little patience with vandalism like this. I am nicely asking you to do the research and stop changing this article to what is clearly not true.TreadingWater (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

a "zillion"? --Knulclunk (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Um -- try WP:AGF before accusing anyone of "vandalism." Second, read WP:RS and WP:V for what is considered a "reliable source" as these cites are. Third, the sentence purpots to give a RANGE of dates, and when a reliable source gives dates outside the range, it is rational to state that the range was too narrowly defined. Fourth, how can a person born after 1965 be a teenager in 1964? Seems to me that your "Generation X" is far from a well-defined set at the very least, and trying to refuse reliable cources does not make it any better defined. This is not about a contentious statement in a bLP which is refutable, there is no reason to state that "Generation X" has ANY specific range at this point at all. Or that it has any relationship from nation to nation. As for rresearch, I daresay I have done sufficient to write using verifiable sources on the topic. WP is not a place where asserting that one has more expertise than another has any relevance. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am trying for compromise on the lede here ... simple reverts without trying to meet in the middle on what is a basically unimportant point does not make sense. Collect (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] undue weight on the year 1965

The neutrality of this article is violated and puts undue weight on the year 1965. The numerous references is an attempt to imply it is more frequently the case and the line “1965 is a commonly recognized first birth year” also favors that year. In the former case, are some references used not acceptable by Wikipedia standards, but the fact is, we can tally up numerous references for many birth range scenarios. One or two should suffice. The latter has not been referenced (although the citation needed request continually deleted), and therefore is subject to removal. Besides, other birth years would also qualify in that subjective sense. Ledboots (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The reality is, seperate from agendas held by any editors, that 1965 is without question the most commonly used first birth year for Generation X. I don't believe anybody who really researches this point could conclude that isn't true. The alternative birth ranges that are rarely used only confuse readers of this article. When I get a chance soon, I'll put up even more references that make this obvious point.TreadingWater (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been thoroughly discussed, and because you are unable to provide a reference, it has been removed ... again. Please don't repeat putting it back up, we are trying to move forward with this article and be as democratic about it as possible. Probably most people conceptualize 1965 anyway with "mid-1960's" so some compromise has been met. Ledboots (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What you don't understand is to simply state it is most common is original research, period, end of story! Until you do come up with some reference, it stands as is. I'm not sure you or anyone else can really say for sure what is confusing or not. In this case contrasting points of view may well work best. Ledboots (talk)

I completely agree with the others here who say that '65 is clearly the year by far most used for Gen X. It's not a question of original research, it's a question of how the vast majority of people and writers and sources view the beginning of Gen X. I thought we all went through this awhile agao and came to some kind of at least temporary compromise. Don't understand why this is being pushed again, but I know there are many of us who feel strongly about '65 being the first year that is commonly used.Wendy 2012 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees. Currently it says "roughly 1965", while acknowledging the other dates.--Knulclunk (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to maintain that 1965 is the most common year quoted by people and writers, that point has to be proved. If you can't, it's original research and can't stay. How many times does that have to be reiterated? There are many of us who feel 1961 is the first year! But either way, in order to include it in the article, it has to be verified. Do I need to point out that there is way too much contention to imply a starting birth year without backing it up? Ledboots (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, by putting the other dates there, it gives the incorrect impression that there are several alternative dates to choose from. The average reader would be left with the impression that there are several different birth ranges commonly used. The truth is that '65 is certainly the most commonly used first year, and this article should reflect that.Wendy 2012 (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

But there are no sources saying that 1965 is the "most commonly used" or "preferred". I'll leave it for now, but I will restore the Strauss & Howe citation. --Knulclunk (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not incorrect to say there are other dates to choose from, because there ARE! Let the reader decide what is correct to them, not what is force fed. Wendy2012, your motivation is to impose your point of view in the article, without credible references to back it up, instead of including various credible points of view. That is simply intolerable. Ledboots (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(Seeking to end what is likely unimportant) Why not just say that there is NO specific date range generally in use? Collect (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I Totally agree! Probably born in the 60s and 70s works best, with references. Maybe you can persuade those who think they're so damn right. With your last edit however, you are referencing sources that do not state "roughly 1965 - 1980" and that is not acceptable. Ledboots (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that I removed that specific range <g>. Now we have to face the claim that a "Generation Jones" exists, which I kind of think would only muddy whatever consensus we can have on this. Collect (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we try to resolve this issue on this talk page, rather than going back and forth with edit wars? I believe a specific age range should be in the lead, and there seems to be more or less a concensus that 1965 is the most used first year. I don't think there is any ambiguity about this...whether we agree or not (and I don't happen to agree that 1965 is the first year), I don't think there is any question that 1965 is the most widely used beginning yr for X. Also, Generation Jones is certainly relevant to this. It's not that Wiki editors have to "face the claim that a Generation Jones exists", as you say. There is no question that many credible sources do believe that Generation Jones does exist, and especially with its accelerated emergence recently, it should be included in any discussion of the birth years of GenX, since it is directly relevant.TreadingWater (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And Generation Jones according to Jonathan Pontell extends from 1954-1965, so why aren't you insisting Generation X start in 1966? And if he's right about that, he must be right about the Baby Boom Generation extending from 1942-1953, right? Or not? Ledboots (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think my comments above were? We already know that NO specific date range is accepted, so trying to specify one is like nailing Jell-o to the wall. Secondly, since this is not an article on "Generation Jones" there is no reason to comment on it in this article. Thirdly, it appears you are more anxious to revert than to consider the attempts to find a middle ground. Now -- if you are done, let's use a lede which does not pin Jell-o to the wall. Note my original appearance here was to support 1965 as a common first year, and I am now convinced that it would be wrong to assign that title to 1965. In other words, you have moved me from partial support for your position to a belief that your position should not be the focus of the article. Thanks! And next time in an edit summary do not tell people who are already discussing something that they need to discuss it <g>. It is unnecessary. Collect (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Don't mind me. I mean, don't let me interrupt; I'd just like to warn against edit-warring (I'm not talking three revert-rule here, I'm talking just plain old reverting each other) on the article. An editor has already raised some concerns about this, so let's not give me cause to protect this r block someone. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's very clear that a description of "roughly the mid 1960's" is about the best definition for this contentious subject. It seems to be a middle ground, yet there are those who insist on one particular year, 1965, despite other years that are generally as common, like 1961 or 1964. And language such as "roughly 1965" is clearly biased, we all know that and it isn't fooling anybody. There has been no analysis performed what year is most often published, yet we can infer that a multitude of years are frequent, like the ones mentioned. We can leave the article where it was while we settle this dispute. Ledboots (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I came in here to support 1965, and became convinced that this is a Jell-o issue when I tried to propose middle-ground answers. So far this is actually civil <g>. Collect (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Explain the 1965 versus 1961 controversy

Both 1965 and 1961 have strong arguments, but recently more journalists have used 1965. But if you subtract 29 or 30 from the 1990 year of the Time Article you get 1960 or 1961 as birth year. The Gen X term when popularized by Douglas Coupland stood for people Coupland's age. Coupland was born in 1961. Someone age 29 in July of 1990 was either born in 1960 or 1961. Coupland was age 28 when that Time Magazine article came out. But Coupland wrote a Vancouver Magazine article a year earlier to describe twentysomethings with McJobs. But journalists persisted using the term twentysomething (a play on words upon the then hit TV show Thirtysomething (TV series) as synonymous with Gen X. This applied in 1988, 1989 but you keep doing this equating and come 1996, twenty something meant birth year 1965. Well journalist don't usually like doing arithmetic. They also know that a Boom in birth rates appearred after WWII. Add 9 months gestation and 1946 is the first year. Journalists like transposing years... 1946,,, 46 to 64. This gives 19 years of high birth rates. But the fertility rate, births per female dropped by the 1960s. Still journalists like transposing. The Boomers signal events were evading the draft and doing drugs. If you were born in 1956 you would turn 18 in 1974. The draft was over and Nixon was out! Someone born after the mid 1950s was not a "cultural boomer." But if the 1946-64 period is boomer generation, then the next year is 1965 and journalists started to tack 1965 to Gen X ... LaidOff (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also note that teenagers interviewed in England in 1964 are unlikely to have been born in 1960 even. Can we possibly end up agreeing that no generation has precise dates attached to it at all? Collect (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Another note. Coupland's 1991 Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture was a fictional novel written for and about his generation. The first major non-fiction work about this cohort, also published in 1991, was the very popular Generations by William Strauss and Neil Howe. They also set the start year as 1961. They have many specific reasons why, including the amusing: The show Thirtysomthing was canceled when the first of this cohort turned thirty. Strauss and Howe go on to say that start and end years, cusp years, CAN have overlap and that not everyone will necessarily feel they have all the typical traits of a certain generation. Still, their description of GenX in Generations and their follow-up book, 13th Gen, pretty much nail it. Especially interesting is the accuracy of their "crystal balling" at the end of the book. BTW, I agree with Collect on almost all points, we just need to find language that everyone is comfortable with.--Knulclunk (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Were I king: Generation X refers to the attitudes and customs attributed to the post Baby Boom period in North America and Europe. Some of these attitudes were ascribed to British teenagers as early as the mid-60s, and include a strong emphasis on repudiation of traditional values and mores. The term is also used to refer to the demographic groups represented as having these attitudes, although with no precision as to any date ranges for the generation. Collect (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the term appeared in Britain in 1964, Coupland put it on the map. Btw, the Vancouver Magazine article is from 1987, but the novel popularized it. Very interesting observations by LaidOff and probably a lot of merit. I wonder how accurate the Census Bureau data is, based on state-supplied data part of the year. And, we're only using birth rates from 48 states when the boom started. At any rate, the peer personality of those born in the early to mid 60's is discordant with those before, studies show. And give a break: "cultural boomer" vs. "non-cultural boomers"? That's like saying "no, it doesn't walk, look or quack like it duck, but yes, it's still a duck." Ledboots (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Being a "cultural" vs. "non-cultural" boomer is a very valid point. The "boom" lasted until a given year (lets say 64), but the people born in those years might be culturally different from other members of the boom. What's so hard about that? Also, there is a LOT of effort beign expended on a useless debate here. A generation cannot have a specific cut-off date. 1961 and 64 are both correct. How can you possibly say that someone born in 1961 is, absolutely a boomer, while someone born months later in 1962 is absolutely different, a Gen Xer. It's absurd... there cannot possibly be a hard and fast border. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What's so hard about it? There are two types that define a generation: demographics (i.e. birth rates) and psychometrics (i.e. peer personality), and the foundations of the latter are built on cultural differences. Ledboots (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence the suggestion that we eliminate the dates which get warred over. The lede is supposed to be short and simple -- and not have twenty three cites for sets of dates <g>. Collect (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That is logical and what is there now, or possibly "early to mid 1960's" may work best. Ledboots (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This back and forth about the start point of GenX is ridiculous. Wouldn't we all be better off to find a commpromise than going back and forth with these edit wars? The current article is obviously incorrect with the lead saying that GenXers are those born in the 1960s (among several reasons that is incorrect is that most Xers were born in the 1970s). I believe strongly that 1965 is the most commomly used first year, I actually don't even think that is ambiguous. The 1961 start date has never developed nearly as big a following. Personally, I don't think that either year is correct, I believe that 1966 is the first year. But I have fought for 1965 because while I don't agree with it, I recognize that it is clearly what this article should say to be accurate.

So...looking for a compromise: the stuff in the lead about GenX beginning after the demographic boom in births seems to not be controversial since it has survived many edits. I don't know of any ambiguity about when that birth boom ended: 1964. So I'm going to write the lead now amplifying the apparent consensus about the demographic birth boom. In the service of looking for compromise, I won't put back 1965 for now, even though I feel strongly that it should be there. I also believe that Generation Jones has developed a big enough following that it is too relevant to the question of when GenX starts to not be included here, but for the moment I won't put that back here either. Again, I'm trying to find compromise to avoid these constant edit wars, because these wars are not good for Wikipedia, and in the end, we should all be prioritizing what is good for Wikipedia...we wouldn't be here if we didn't believe in Wikipedia, and it's incumbent upon us to maintain its credibility if we are to maintain its survival. So why don't we leave a compromise in the article for now, and try to reach consensus on this talk page, so we can avoid these constant edit wars?TreadingWater (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Shorter is better. Jell-o does not nail easily. Eliminate all the trivial argument about any dates or date ranges. It is post Baby Boom is sufficient, IMHO. Short. Simple. No "cusps" or "exact dates" needed. Especially since it is not even a world-wide issue in the first place. Collect (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yo Treading, it is cooler to talk BEFORE editing.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am really impressed by the great efforts to both be exact and be non exclusionary. I vote for ompromise whenever there is much dispute over the actual dating. Then with some type of explanation which would help say a grade school student doing research. Some hint that the term used to mean someone born in the late 1950s to early 1960s who were the slackers of the time in 1987 when Douggie Coupland first started to bitch and moan about havcing McJobs. Once Coupland cashed in and sold out and became a success, he wanted to shed any sl;acker image and refused to have Gen X. Also the idea that there is now a sequence of names that pop culture has adopted since the boomers. I don't know if this existed before the boomers. I think we now have at least Depression Babies, War time babies, Boomers, Buster/Gen X, then a list of ALGEBRA-type variable names: GenY, GenZ etc. It would be difficult writing to make this explanation

1) short enough to not be disproportionate in relation to the rest of the article

2) non biased without taking a view of 1965, 1961 or late 1950s

3) Yet still tell people that as of 2009, [most] a plurality pop writers and marketing professionals use 1965.

Good Luck, Buena Suerte, Bon Chance... LaidOff (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with #3. Can you say with certainty that is the case? Surely it is one of the most common. But remember, doing a quick and dirty Google search is not a reliable means to reach any valid conclusions. Probably the most popular contemporary book on Gen-X, "X Saves the World", has 1960 as a starting point (and 1977 ending point) by author Jeff Gordinier! Yet any internet search for a review of the book (including the one referenced in this article) has the book reviewer stating some other range with no two reviews alike. I mean, did they read the book? Ledboots (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Shoot me, so I made typo,... plurality not majority... it's like the bickering in Canada over whether Steven Harper has A MAJORITY government, plurality or minority... LaidOff (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are right on the edge of vandalism, knulclunk; maybe you've already crossed that line. Vandalism on Wikipedia is based on the idea of good faith vs. bad faith. It is obvious from previous comments that you've made here that you are fully aware that defining GenX as people born in the 1960s is incorrect. No experts anywhere believe that. There are no credible sources anywhere who have said that. Yet you reverted this article to say exactly that today. Hard to see how that is a good faith edit. You have over and over chosen edit wars over compromise. I will continue to try to seek compromise for this article. Good faith and compromise will win over bad faith and edit wars, knulclunk, no matter how much you enjoy being disruptive and vandalizing of this article.TreadingWater (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

hunh?--Knulclunk (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point one editor, and only one editor, is saying a date needs to be given at all. And kindly read WP:AGF. We have a simple lede now. Collect (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

One editor only? What are you talkng about? There are many of us who have repeatedly and emphatically said that the most popular first birth year for generation x is 1965. Further, many have said that this fact belongs in the lead. I like simple too, but just because the lead is simple doesn't make it accurate. To say that generation x was born in the 1960's is to say it was born from 1960 to 1969. Do you know any sources who say that? I don't. There isn't anything remotely close to a consensus on this point, since it is unequivocally untrue and not supportable. I agree with those who are trying to find a compromise rather than those who try to bully their way in this article. So I'll try a new attempt at compromise now, but rest assured there are many here that care about this article being accurate and who strongly believe that gen x is most commonly begun in 1965.Wendy 2012 (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I started off on your side - remember. Alas - the more I read the less I am convinced that "Generation X" has any specific birth years. As for the claim that the Baby Boom ended in 1964 and there fore the next generation started in 1965 -- that argument is quite iffy. First -- "generations" tend to overlap. Second, the baby boom did not "end in 1964" in any case. Third, the claim that any "generation jones" exists is not supported by RS in general. Hence the use of general terms only. The term "baby boom" generally refers to the bounce after WWII ascribable to the returning servicemen. Note the language does not say only born in the 60s -- just that the generation x started after the baby boom ended. Collect (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is hard for me to understand how you could conclude that generation x doesn't have a commonly used set of birth years, but that of course is your right. to me it is really obvious that generation x is usually started after that very entrenched baby boom defintion ending in 64. that is far and away the usual starting point used by most writers, analysts, etc. of course this isnt universal, it never is, but 1965 is very commonly used... also...generations certainly don't overlap. when you read books about generations, you find that virtually always there are birth years given for each generation and they definitely don't overlap. in fact, if they did overlap, it would undermine the basic logic of generations. of course there is blurryness on the cusps of generations, so in that sense they overlap, but the actaul birth year ranges never overlap as far as ive ever seen. also...of course the demographic baby boom ended in 64, that has never been the subject of dispute...also, generation jones's existence is certainly supported by many RS, and increasingly so. every day there seems to be new articles about generation jones, like this long one from the ap today which when i looked on google awhile ago showed that tons of newspapaers have already carried it today: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6zDrAG-SF2CBSzmktIHP44XPLbgD95KVA5O0 also...when the language says that a generation was born in the 1960s the clear implication is that it was not born in the 1950s or 1970s, and none of the analysts say that generation x was born from 1960 to 1969 which is how people would interpret born in the 1960s. i think the compromise ive proposed here is a reasonable one because the part about generation x starting after the demographic boom seems to be ok with multiple editors here.Wendy 2012 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That link to the AP article is another example of bad reporting that spreads misinformation, and has been repeated a million times since the 90's. Here is what's wrong with it:

• Pontell states that no Xer would in fact include "hope" in the title of a book they wrote (meaning Obama). But there is an irony to the title "audacity of hope", like "X Saves the World" by Jeff Gordinier, something that resonates with Gen-X but something a Boomer like Pontell doesn't understand. Besides, again, we have the boom mentioned as 1946-1964, and Pontell thinks it's 1942-1953 creating a hodgepodge of facts.
• The author mentions 13th Generation for Obama. Being synonymous with Gen-X that's a total contradiction!
• Actually, the "cusper" (or "tweener") comment has been explored with some credible research by Bruce Tulgan, Yankelovich Partners and others to back it up. Ledboots (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The post WWII baby boom is not counted as lasting to 1964, (typo corrected) so that would be disputable. Second, the first article dealt with people who were teenagers in 1964 -- hence born before 1951 even. The edges do overlap -- sometimes by years, especially since this is not a worldwide issue in the first place <g>. "And Pontell, also a political consultant in Los Angeles, has gained some fame coining a new category: Generation Jones, as in the slang word 'jonesing,' or craving, and as in a generation that's lost in the shuffle." does not count as a statement that the term is generally used at all. So much for "generation jones." And since different countries experienced quite different demographic results, what would be needed is a specific date range by country -- which I suggest is impracticable. Collect (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In lieu of fighting about 1961, 1964, 1965, 1960s let us leave it out of the lead

It will be in the article and links to other generations. Readers are smart. LaidOff (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)/

I think that is my position. Collect (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That may be the best option. Any insistence that one particular year is absolutely the start is convoluted and not worth engaging in any dialog with. How about now focusing on improving the article? Ledboots (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Busters are NOT Generation Xers

In the Art and Science of Leadership by Afsaneh Nahavandi (2009) Baby Busters are classified as a separte generation between Baby Boomers and Generation Xers. The distinction draws from stark differences in "key social and historical influences" as well as the value systems dominant for each. This makes perfect sense. Baby Busters were born from mid the 1960's (1965 would be a good cut off) and the early 1970's (1973 or 1974). This covers the hippie and Civil Rights movement as well as the Vietnam war and means that these children were in high school and college during the height of the materialistic '80s and "Reganomics." This give birth to Yuppies and the "Me" generation labels. To collapse this group with the generation born as late as 1980 would merge very different dominant ideologies. For example, a child born in 1980 entered college during the Clinton era which was decidedly post-Regan. Baby Busters are NOT Generation Xers and vice-versa.

Indigospirit (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)IndigoSpirit Nahavandi, A (2009) The Art and Science of Leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall

No, the only debate is whether GenXers start around 1961 or around 1965 (hardly a range worth all this fuss!) GenXers always end at 1980. Different theories do have different names, and there are overlaps, tho.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are those who define Baby_Busters as those on the trailing edge of the birth rate curve. For the Baby Boom pig-in-a-python, that would be 1958 (1957 being the peak birth year in the US) to 1968. As far as merging the two: the article does mention "baby bust", and the latter mentions both definitions. If merged, it might open a can of worms again with edit wars. Ledboots (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for a merge (!) Obviously, definition can overlap and most of this comes down to popular nomenclature at best.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to see this old discussion for the first time; even though this is not being discussed anymore, I'll throw my two cents in for the record: The term Baby Buster is absolutely used interchangably with the term Generation X almost always. Do a Google search and you'll find that easily more than 95% of the many references to Busters use it as a synonym for Xers (born approximately 1965-1980). The two references here are very obscure. The babybusters.org reference is a site put up by one guy who has tried for at least 10 years to get people to use the Buster term differently, and has never been able to get anyone in the media to use the term that way. As in not even the smallest article in the smallest publication anywhere. The other reference is to a writer--Afsaneh Nahavandi--who is very obscure, and only has a tiny audience. Part of the role of Wikipedia is to present common usage to readers and screen out usage which is obscure. Finding a couple of obscure exceptions to common usage doesn't change the facts. Baby Busters = Generation X.TreadingWater (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The mention in the article about the term originally being referred to as Baby Bust is not quite correct. Baby Bust is a demographic term, defined by the Census Bureau as 1965 to 1976, and Generation X has other associations to it. Not to say they are mutually exclusive, but collectively exhaustive more or less. Besides, regarding the reference given, the author Jeff Gordinier defines Generation X as 1960 - 1977 which is here nor there. But like the term Generation X, you will find a tremendous number of definitions for it without any real social science backing, just the author's notion of what it happens to be. After all, the media is a big reason why the term(s) mutated from the start. Ledboots (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How to define Gen X...

On the Generation Y page it lists the distinguish between generations Y and Z by saying that Generation Y can remember how life was like before the 9-11 attacks. How about we say that Generation X can remember how the world was before the fall of the Soviet Union (which occured in 1991). This puts the youngest members of Generation X being born in the early to mid 80s... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.66.130 (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's original research and has no place on either page. Ledboots (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There really should be some meeting of the most notable minds to come to a consensus on what make up a time period for a generation. Is it time? Is it characteristics that could be variable? Is it something else? It should not be some political compromise though. Someone(s) need to make it less of an inexact science to decide and just do it. Enough with the ambiguity! Hand down! Time to make a decision! All of this being in true Gen-X form of ending the impracticality of multiple solutions and someone(s) come up with something. For example, is Obama Gen-X, Baby Boom, or even that hybrid Generation Jones, or should there even be a Generation Jones. That is only for example. Maybe William Strauss and Neil Howe, being the forerunners of the soft science just come up with something (something correct in a more exact science-like) and the rest thrown out already. Pwalker1972 (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] minor/major edit

I made an edit where I added the word "Canadian author" before Douglas Coupland's name and mistakenly checked minor edit. I then went back and changed nothing but didn't check it. Apologies all around. Leomirani (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't this just nonsense?

"Coming of age after the Vietnam War had ended, they witnessed historic and political events, including the end of the cold war and the fall of the Berlin wall. This generation saw the inception of the home computer, the rise of videogames, and the Internet as a tool for social and commercial purposes."

Every generation who was alive at the time also witnessed that stuff. In fact, the fall of the Berlin Wall would have meant a lot more to the older generations who had lived through a longer stretch of the cold war. I get the feeling people who were in college at the time didn't think much of it, because you rarely see them writing much about it. And those first home computers were purchased and used by the parents of generation X. The whole article gives me the impression that the concept of generation x is not well defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.173.161 (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The earliest GenXer's were learning BASIC in High School, and many had seen or used a home computer. Remember, just a few years prior, computers were the size of a gymnasium and programming was done with punch cards. The difference is huge. As far as the Berlin Wall, Xer's never knew the Cold War as adults. Because they never lived though it (as responsible adults) Xer's will never understand the Cold War mindset of older generations.

Why on earth does it matter that they learned BASIC in high school? Has any person ever claimed that his life was formatively shaped by that? Is that anything other than a piece of trivia? 76.236.153.232 (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised the article doesn't discuss the impact of divorce rate on GenXer's. Most books or articles also cite that as a factor.--Knulclunk (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the climbing divorce rate from the late 60's definitely had a major social impact and deserves mention. However, regarding the unsigned comments above, older Xers were well into their adulthood while living with communism. The Berlin wall fell in 1989; those born in the 1960's were in their 20's and well past the formative years. The Soviets in Afghanistan was a major world news item. Ledboots (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that goes back to the 1960 - 1965 question. An X'er born is 1964 would be see Watergate on the news as a 9-year-old, know the release of the Iranian hostages and the election of Reagan in 8th grade, WarGames in 10th grade and see the Berlin Wall come down at 24. So, technically, they were adults for the end. But the serious stuff: McCarthyism, Cuba, Afghanistan were long before their time. All they had was Sting's 1985 Russians (song) hoping they loved their children too. Gorbachev was in power and the writing was on the wall.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Besides, as a 21-year-old in 1985, AIDS was a much closer threat than nuclear war.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Xers born in the 60's were late teens or early adults when Perestroika led to sweeping changes. Free love ended with the boomers and college students went to safe-sex parties in the late 80's (like the Kyra Sedgwick scene in the movie "singles"). Ledboots (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Singles was a great movie. I'm afraid we've devolved into a discussion here. If there is any debate, important events for GenXers can be sourced. 13th Gen by Strauss and Howe is quite good, and I'm sure there are others. It's not like advertising hasn't marketed to them for the last 15 years. Divorce + AIDS + multiculturalism + hiphop + .com = pragmatic + cynical + local + worldly + nostalgic. Read Generations again. It's a trip, now 20 years later. They had the Xers pegged.

There is zero evidence that those things characterize an entire generation of people. This is just a new form of astrology: "if you were born at this time, this is the type of person you are." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.224.163 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How typical for the Boomers to move the posts and claim Obama as one of their own (GenJones). Just watch, when he isn't the savior, they'll toss him back to the Xers and elect a Gen-Y. Just sayin'. Knulclunk (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hah! You are so right. The boomer press will probably refer to him as a slacker-president, too. Ledboots (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] From the source

I'm a GenX'er. I was borne in 1972 and was in my early 20's when the term started becoming popular. In my sphere, the term arose from the term eXtreme, and the extreme games, or X/Games. This was when flying motorcycles, bikes and skateboards etc. came about. I would even associate the developement of kite boarding to ideas coming from this generation. Although todays and tomorrows ideas of extreme are always extending, in the face of the "big hair" posers and their ilk, GenX became quite different then what had become the pansy norm, and thus was catchy. Of course, we called the next generation none other then "Generation Next", I think MTV caught on to that one for a couple minutes, then with all the prozac and happy pills going around, it was GenRx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.130.43 (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Slackers

From memory the Gen X time was also the time of the "Slacker" - where I came from was used almost interchangeably. So good to include something about that? There is a page on slackers already ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacker with Gen X a reference at the bottom. Somazza (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of members

Each should have a reference that he/she is notable, and that he/she an Xer (not by matching birthdate to date range). I think the section is completely inappropriate, but, at the very least, references are needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree after communicating with Mr. Rubin. I am the one that thought the list to be a good idea to add content to a page that would suggest to be bias and/or a negative tone not including the lack of data/information compared to Baby Boomers and Generation Y. I have added sub categorizes to promote content to compare and contrast Generation X, but will let others add the content in the data/information market. I do think a list of notable members should not only not be included in Generation X, but in the issue of maintaining constancy, not be used in "labeling" people to be of other generations. Pwalker1972 (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Adding of dispute tages

Comparing and contrasting generations, both Generation X and The Silent Generation appear to be lacking in contact. The neutrality of Generation X is something I question. It takes a negative tone, without suprise that reactive generations are as a matter of science and history are looked down upon by the other three in the cycle and the lack of interest of the reactive generation to make amends. Pwalker1972 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question of Dictatorship

Is it just me or is this page a dictatorship? Pwalker1972 (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you going to such great efforts to violate section naming conventions? I wouldn't have reverted your text additions if they hadn't violated section naming guidelines, which you seemed to be making an effort to violate. Section titles are sentence case, rather than title case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are sentence guidelines, why are they not enforced on the other pages? I just want the pages to be enforced the same. I went to great lengths to make in unbias by using the same as Gen Ys to bridge the gap in information. Please note Gen Y's page and the previous Gen X page. Nothing changed in content. Isn't that what it is all about? I will read the guidelines even though they are not enforced on other pages outside of generations for any other attempts to make sure there is no bias and can be compared and contrasted better. I give up trying on this directly and let others fight the loosing battle. Pwalker1972 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines? Enforced? You've got to be kidding. On the other hand, please change the section headings to sentence case in other articles. (And there was some content change, or at least paragraph break change.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Still washing my hands. Been checking up just if there is a response, but I will let whoever else have the last word. I only edited a couple of things over time and that was nothing more than a comma or adding something like "hair band", but there is two important points that my sad experience over the past week have taught me and I think for prosperities sake and try to help someone if they want (the whole lead the horse to water thing). First point, the environment is taking away from its origion purpose. This would be a great place to combine info but there is a lack of integrity and lack of content over personal wars taking away from prosperity. I talked to a few people in the business world about what is going on here and they were surprised I did not know about the issues outside of the integrity. I heard of Edit Wars. Lovely. There is a lot of Darwinistic battles going on skewed to hot button topics such as generations. A lot in the business world do not use it for those now 2 reasons. The attitudes in working with each other from "every" side would not last past lunch on their first day in the real world. There needs to be a "fundamental" change to keep Wiki alive or funding will go away from both the public and private sector.

But most importantly is a person to person plea to not get too involved. Over the past week, I got snappy with my attitude throughout my day because of the war on here. Its not worth all of that. If you put a frog in boiling water, he jumps out. But if you put a frog in water then turn on the heat, he boils to death. There is wars over neutrality, delusions of grandure over cleaing up dates though they are not the experts in the field, political tricks, and who knows what ever else. I jumped in boiling water, saw that it is hot and am jumping out. Outside of any selfishness, I would encourage anyone doing this too much to take a break. Do something you like outside the cyber world. Drink a beer or something then take a look at what has been going on. It might scare you what you see. It did me. I am washing my hands of all the generations pages and will likely go back to not editing. I actually looked into devolving to CD encyclopedias since I do not have room for print. lol. But like I said, my involvement is over. Anyone else can have the last word. I do not want it. Pwalker1972 (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

While I am not exactly certain of the reasons behind your edit wars, and don't want to comment on the specifics, I would urge you not to abandon all hope of improvement in the future. If there are things that you think are wrong with the article, and others are reverting, please discuss them in more detail on the talk page, rather than giving up as soon as you encounter resistance. Please explain in detail what changes you think need to be made, and why. I am open minded and sympathetic. However, remember that everything we add should be properly sourced. You need to stay determined. Just because you encounter resistance does not mean you have nothing to contribute, and these conflicts can be used as a learning experience. Wikipedia does have certain rules, and is not perfect, but it is remarkably open to fresh opinions if you are willing to follow some very basic rules. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Last year of Generation X

According to the Time Magazine article "Great Xpectations of So-Called Slackers" http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986481-1,00.html, Generation X is from 1965-1977. This makes more sense than using 1981 as the cut-off year. Kurt Cobain was already dead by the time someone born in 1981 started high school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.130.11 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Generation Y/Millennials starts with those graduating high school in 2000; those born in 1981. I graduated high school in 1999, and we were called the Last of our Generation, Generation X. One of my friends graduated in 2000 and she was born in 1982, and she was a Millennial. They made a huge deal out of those graduating in 2000. Howe and Strauss are the most notable researchers, and they have defined Generation X as ending in 1981. There have been numerous other articles in newsweek, etc. that have Generation Y as starting in 1982. Most current articles have that as the start date.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)