Talk:Generation X

Gen X "causing" unemployment, labor devaluation, and cultural erosion

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

Notice of Sources Saying Generation X are People between 1965 and 1983

Hey folks, I added some strong sources which say Gen X are anybody born between 1965 and 1983. The sources appear to be legitimate. If they are not good or legit, or should these sources get removed, please contact me through the talk page with a reason for removal. Angela Maureen/September 1988 16:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by September 1988 (talk • contribs)

I've removed one per Talk:Millennials#Notice_of_Sources_Saying_Millennials_are_between_1984_and_either_1999_or_2000. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you post your sources here for easy access I would like to read them. Not that I am trying to scrutinize I actually would like to see for my own research. Edu Lady - Researcher (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

References 19 and 20 in this version. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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

usage of the term gen x

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

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

What do you mean "on wikipedia"? Other sites? Quoting from the wired article in question "Check the data. If you plug “Generation X” into Google’s Ngram search engine—which tracks the occurrence of words and phrases in books—you find that the term exploded in use around 1989, climbing steeply throughout the ’90s. But in 2000 it peaked and began declining just as rapidly. You see a similar pattern in major newspapers, where the term boomed to more than 2,000 in 1995, then declined to just over 800 last year. It’s been years since I’ve heard it used as an insult." (emphasis mine) It doesn't say anything about wikipedia or any other sites for that matter (this being the 1990s), rather "books". So I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Wired writes about the intersection of culture and technology, so it is certainly a relevant source. And if it is to be disqualified for not "being known for generational research" we will have to eliminate half of the sources we use in this article (The Guardian, New Zealand Herald, Sydney Morning Herald, etc...)

This information is a good indicator of interest in the concept of "generation X". It was a hot topic in the 90s, and has been cooling off since. Various possible conclusions can be drawn from that, as discussed in the Wired article, and I think that inclusion of the information is at least as interesting and important as info on the detailed eytmology of the term itself, and frankly more interesting than some of the trivia included in this article. I'm open to rewording the section if something is unclear, but inclusion is thoroughly justified IMO. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Well, you could say that it's stating the obvious, if you view "a generation" as being only interesting while it is young, but there's no particular reason that interest in a generation should die down once the members hit adulthood/middle age. In fact their "true" characteristics should begin to show around that time. If you read the Wired article his thesis is basically that generational theory, at least its pop-culture variant is over-hyped. As such I think it's a useful bit of information to help people get a grasp on the validity of the of the term 'generation X'. This isn't screenwriting or literature, it's an encyclopedia which is supposed to lay out basic information in a straightforward way.

As far as getting better quality information in general, I'd be all in favour. However, this is a rather hard topic to wade through the reems and reems of pop-sociology, and get some real, quality info in without it getting swamped, and without offending everybody who has their own pet thesis about what Generation X "really is". So, I'm reluctant to commit too wholeheartedly, given many other pressures on my time. But if I see some other people committed to the idea I would be happy to join in. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is one that more or less shows what he says: [1]. But I'll concede that as things stand, most of the NGrams don't really support what he says, as worded. But, at the same time we are not, or at least I am not, an expert in the field. We don't know exactly what he meant. We don't know if Ngrams has changed the database or algorithm somehow. It isn't our place to say he was wrong without supporting sources. That would be the very definition of WP:original research. However, in the interest of collegiality, and because it wasn't meant to be a huge issue, I'll let it drop, on the condition that you are equally rigorous with the existing sources in the article, and that we perhaps incorporate some of Thompson's argument, but leave out the specific reference to ngrams. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding stuff back in

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

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

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

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

Divorce

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

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

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

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

Single Event that Separates Boomers from Gen X'ers

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

References for Douglas Copland attributing the title to Billy Idol erroneously

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

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

Average bracketing birth years

With all of the multitudes of professed beginning and ending birth years, I can't understand why some sociologist hasn't taken an average of the more credible publications such as Tulgan, Strauss & Howe, Foot etc. For example, Carla Patalano cites 30 different publications; with equal consideration given the average for beginning birth years is 1964 and ending birth years 1978. T me, the ends the argument all together. Ledboots (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)