Talk:Generation X

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.

If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:
Archive 1 (through 17 November 2005)
Archive 2 (through 06 April 2006)

Generation Discussion

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

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

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

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

American Generations table is misleading

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

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

Outlook

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

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

Upload

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

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

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

Still Needs Work--Two Suggestions: Bullet List? Postmodernism?

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

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

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

1985

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

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

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

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

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

I have no Generation...

- A Vigilante

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

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

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

Clean up / neutral POV

Anyone know what these 2 tags are referring to specifically? Since Jan, this article now has uploads (a previous tag), lot's of personal POVs removed, and additional international references. Just curious... 4.239.159.150 17:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I took it off. Let's see if anyone disagrees. John wesley 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Children of Generation X

Generation_X#Beginnings states:

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

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

Also, can Gereration X's children, really' be part of Generation X? I guess it depends on how young the mother is and how close to the start of Generation X she was born? BTW this article seems very US-centric. I guess it needs some sectioning for regionalised variation or given it's length "Gen X in the "... {USA, Australia, UK etc} Garrie 00:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The average age for motherhood (in the US) c1970 was ~25 and today it is ~27; the average age for fatherhood today is ~29. So, typically people have children from their late teens to late 30s, with the median in the late 20s. About 15% of children born are to mothers 15-19. Is fifteen percent a lot? I suppose that's subjective. But, it is a strong argument for "birth cohorts" in favor of a "generation" when considering demographics. Twenty or twenty-two years is too long in a modern "accelerated culture". Fifteen years or so is probably better in that regard.

I agree with the US-centric observation, and the first thing to be removed should be the "American Generation" edit-proof table. Ledboots 20:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

As for the "children-of" question, in most cultures peer grouping has a lot of influence on identification, so even if one's parents are in one generation or another, there is a lot of "overwriting" that goes on as people live the other five (or so) decades of their lives. So in the US, if a 1964-born (I'm avoiding the dispute!) girl gets pregnant at 13 and has a 1977-born child, that's probably going to be a GenX mom raising a GenX child (or the Silent grandparent raising both of them). Typically though, there are one or two generational oscillations between generations. In other words, Silents and Boomers both parents GenX; Boomers and GenX both parent Millenials. Again, I'm looking almost exclusively through Strauss and Howe, highly-US-oriented filters, so please excuse me if you're more educated in this area and just point out where I've missed the boat. Kitode 23:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)kitode

I don't think the sum of all childred born in Generation-N are born from parents of Generations N1+N2, is quite the same as a parent and child relationship being of the same supposed generation. That's a hard concept to wrap your brain around for a lot of people. But the simple solution is that it happens at such a small frequency to early teens, that maybe cohort recognition may be more advantageous, at least in that regard, from simply a reproductive point of view. Ledboots 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Generational Discussions Are Useless Banter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then again, Coupland has said "Let X = X" (c.1994) in response to the shifting your referring to. Ledboots 12:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Older than they appear

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

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

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

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

Please read "that Generations book" before you think of it as a plug. It was written in 1991 and it's been shockingly predictive, actually. I have nothing to do with the book, btw, other than liking it a whole bunch. One of the reasons I like it is because pgs 468-519 are all notes on sources: it's full of facts, and the facts are actually documented. Its popularity was because it was very well-argued. I would also say that I don't much care for their other books, which are not written in the same way. Kitode 23:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)kitode

Vedder and Love got their careers started in the 80's though, and their audience then were entirely people their age who related to what they were expressing. Grunge (not to be confused with post-Grunge) musicians from Seattle were born throughout the 1960's, and a few in the late 50's and early 1970's. I agree that traditionally music has been performed by musicians to a younger audience. But, since the 80's, so many music genres have sprung up, at such a pace, that tradition no longer applies in many examples. You can't fake being an icon of music, being part of a particular culture, when you were there when it started and are identifed as a founder. Ledboots 23:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

What are the models?

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

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

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

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

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

Who wrote this...

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

Who wrote that (because you didn't stamp it)?

1) You obviouly have selective reading habits because it was mentioned above that cohorts, rather than generations, are more predictive, and that "accelerated culture" is evident today.

2) No one is claiming every member of a so-called generation is a clone, if you will, but age groups undeniably share certain realities in common.

3) No, your expletives aren't condoned.

4) Your discussion about Kurzweil is better suited for a science fiction discussion, not this. Ledboots 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all children of boomers

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

Good point. Me too. 67.168.216.176 08:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

must present stupid contradictions ... not resolve them

1940–1959 = boom · 1960–1979 = X · 1980–1999 = Y

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

Globalise?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking back our generational label

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dividing the generations

The following is my opinion on the matter.

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

Baby Boomers

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

Generation X

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

Generation Y

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

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

Culturally the divide is the following.

Baby Boomers

 Start: End of WW2
 Finish:  Kennedy's Assaination

Generation X

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

Generation Y

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

Should American Generations table be removed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is really a mess

This author is way too centered on the 1980's

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

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

If you consider this such a mess-then fix it, after all, that's what Wikipedia is about.

Cheers! --Read-write-services 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead section

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

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

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

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

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

Is all this correct?

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

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

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

Why write about these things at all--answer

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

Here are some observations that might be helpful:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best-selling authors

This section was returned. Are there any sources more credible than a respected author regarding a particular subject? Not really.4.234.156.125 16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The section that looks very out of place. Most of the books seem to be how-to guides rather than impartial studies or discussions. 'Best-selling' is an pretty unusual way of describing sources in a wikipedia article. It's advert-like language, and being a best-seller or not isn't a good way of deciding on the reliability of a source.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The authors mentioned have written about topics that have a sociologic theme. At least some are formally educated a social science, which demonstrates their qualification as an author on the subject. David Foot has a PhD in economics for example. They have all presumably used some criterea that can be supported demographically or by peer personality, and have left an impression with their (large body of) respective readers. Some of these concepts are actually put into use, like Tulgan's concepts for effective management (he personally interviewed thousands of people in the mid 90's to formulate his peer group characteristics). So, this section shows the gulf of differences that various credible people define as bracketing birth years. There is far from any unified concept of Generation X; this section demonstrates that amongst the even so-called "experts". The fact is, there probably never will be a unified concept, just general terms and a general lack of agreement. Ledboots 14:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it does seem to concentrate almost exclusively on GenX from a marketing or business persepctive. Where are the references for broader sociological or cultural perspectives? Lokicarbis 23:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but the point is that they are best-selling authors and have expressed their ideas to a large collective conscious. Their best-selling status gives them some credibility. If you are aware of any in the genres you mentioned, feel free to update. Ledboots 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

reasonable for an encyclopedia?

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

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

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

Baby Busters

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

Religion

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

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

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

discuss the UK a bit?

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

Worldwide view tag

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

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

Re "baby busters"

I would love to see that cohort of people born between 1961 and 1967 treated as distinct from the boomers and the xers. We (I'm 1966) have little in common with either group. Given the fact that the U.S. Census [1] chooses not to include us as xers, why would wiki?
Also, some discussion of rap music, school desegregation, and other non-white topics seems warranted. Some of us were listening to Public Enemy, not Nirvana. Identity politics were as important as gender politics in our formative years. Remember the Black Panthers? Well, some of them are our parents.
I view my generation as a NOT generation: not the boomers and not the xers. Our childhood took place during war and recssion. Schools were closed wholesale because of our small numbers, and white, middle-class woman suddenly found themselves raising children on their own.
All told, it's interesting how influential we manage to be, given what we went through and how few of us there are.Optiaine 18:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Hooray!

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

The Sandwich Generation

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

Alby 11:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Improvement needed

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

Newer names

The list of names and exemplars should be updated to include more recent activity. I'm surprised to see neither Jon Stewart nor Stephen Colbert. These guys epitomize Gen X irony. They, not Cobain, may wind up being remembered as the voice of Gen X in its time.