Talk:Generation X

Continuation of discussion- Generation X and Generation Y

I'd like to first address the previous points you made:

"As these generations are often international phenomena, the time span may be slightly different for different countries."

:Well, actually, most of the generational terms were coined by Americans and later adapted by other countries. I acknowledge that various date ranges are used (as in the United States), but (as I have previously posted) I have shown even many Canadian, British, Irish, Australian, and German sources (reputable ones) citing 1982 as the starting birth year for Millennials. This indicates a wide and common usage.

• The Lost Generation - coined by writer Gertrude Stein and popularized by fellow writer Ernest Hemingway.
• The Greatest Generaton - coined by journalist Tom Brokaw (Strauss and Howe use G.I. Generation).
• The Silent Generation - created by Time magazine in 1951.
• The Baby Boom Generation - used to describe those born after WWII, first printed in 1948 by both Time and Newsweek magazines.
• Generation X - though the term was coined by Robert Capa, and used by British author Jane Deverson, most people reference the term to American author, Douglas Copeland. Today, the term is very rarely used to describe those who were teenagers in the 1960s.
• Generation Y/Millennials - the term "Generation Y" was first used in the 1993 article by Ad Age, and they ended the birth year at 1980. However, the magazine itself in recent years has used 1982 as the new starting year for Generation Y/Millennials. I spoke with someone there, and when they wrote the article in 1993, they wanted to distinguish between the teenagers from those 12 and under. Had they written the article in 1990 (about marketing to teens in the '90s), they would have used 1978 as the starting year for the new generation. I will discuss the Millennial term later in the discussion.

"I just don't see why it is so important to be so specific as to say that it starts precisely on January 1, 1982. People from 1981 are not so different from 1982 that a stark difference can be drawn. I don't see how the article loses anything in just saying Gen Y are people born roughly from the late 1970s through early 2000s depending on your definition."

Washington Post article from July 5, 2008

This article is basically about those on the cusp of two different generations. We all can agree that the same can be said about those at the end and beginning of other consecutive generations. It also mentions 1970s birth years to 1980s for Millennials. Nothing new here. The birth year 1982 is still generally used as the starting year for Millennials - not only because they would come of age (turn 18 in 2000) at the start of the new Millennium, but because of the expectations put on them by their parents and society (including media). They were the "new generation" that would change the world. I will discuss this further later.

USA Today article from November 8, 2005

I recognize sources use dates from the mid-1970s for the start of Generation Y. However, recent articles by both newspapers cite 1982 for the start of Generation Y/Milennials.

From a February 3, 2008 article printed in The Washington Post, The Boomers Had Their Day. Make Way for the Millennials, by Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais:

This year, the civic-minded millennials, born between 1982 and 2003, are coming of age and promising to turn the political landscape, currently defined by idealist baby boomers such as Clinton and George W. Bush, upside down.

Morley Winograd, a former adviser to Vice President Al Gore, and Michael D. Hais are co-authors of "Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics," published March 2009.

From a April 19, 2009 USA Today article, Civic Generation' Rolls up Sleeves in Record Numbers by Andrea Stone:

"Community service is part of their DNA. It's part of this generation to care about something larger than themselves," says Michael Brown, co-founder and CEO of City Year, which places young mentors in urban schools. "It's no longer keeping up with the Joneses. It's helping the Joneses." Surveys show people born between 1982 and 2000 are the most civic-minded since the generation of the 1930s and 1940s, say Morley Winograd and Michael Hais, co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics. Unlike culturally polarized Baby Boomers or cynical Gen-Xers, this is "a generation of activist doers," they write. "Other generations were reared to be more individualistic," Hais says. "This civic generation has a willingness to put aside some of their own personal advancement to improve society."

These authors are also highly respected and recently spoke at Harvard University about the Millennial Generation. They run the Millennial Makeover Project in the United States (as I previously mentioned). But the Americans are not the only ones who devote a special conference to this generation. The Canadians run the Millennial Conference, an ongoing research project on Millennials, with guest speakers (including professors, technological experts, CEOS, marketers, analysts,etc.) from not only Canada and the United States, but Australia, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands (I think Prof. Andre Nollkaemper is the one from the Netherlands). The Conference uses 1982 as the starting birth year. From what I've heard, they are planning another conference, but here is the link to their website with the 2008 Conference itinerary (not sure if the registration page will still open).

I think more and more sources will be using 1982 as the starting year, despite some sources starting the generation in 1970s. The point that I have been making is that 1981 is generally accepted as the last acceptable birth year for Generation Xers. It makes no sense that sources use 1978 as a starting year, since culturally and psychologically, there is not a lot of difference between those born in 1978 and 1981. The gap is either between 1975 and 1976 or 1981 and 1982. But, we all agree, sources just use a variety of birth ranges. That is why I do not have an issue with a disclaimer in these articles. But, I think that it should be mentioned that Generation X usually ends in 1981 - as it is currently written. That is the truth, and what is widely and commonly accepted. And, although I think 1965 is used a lot as the starting birth year for Generation X, 1961 is the earliest birth year used. The Ronald L. Jackson source added by Educatedlady herself acknowledges that despite no definite birth range for Generation X, 1961 and 1981 are the widely accepted starting and ending years. Most sources (and people) do not (and have never) considered those born in 1982 to be Generation Xers, but Millennials because of the fact that they would (and did) come of age at the start of the new Millennium.

As I mentioned previously on the Talk:Generation X page (and can be found in Strauss and Howe's Millennial Rising: The Next Generation), Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw are just a few of the journalists who reported on the Class of 2000. I will get into this discussion later, but I have already provided several sources citing the Class of 2000 as the first of the Millennials (mostly made up of those born in 1982). Back in 1997, the late Peter Jennings held a poll on ABC News about what the name for the new generation (Class of 2000 graduates) should be. One of the names was Generation 2000 and the other "Millennials."

I don't have links to news clips from back in 1997, but as I was a senior graduating in 1999, we were called the "last of our generation," making way for the "Millennial Class." I will collect the sources I previously provided and add them back here later. For now, I will add more sources ranging from the late 1990s to early 2000s.

I remember, when I was a junior in high school, we had several guest speakers talking about Drugs, Alcohol (practically an all-day event for all high schoolers), and Drinking & Driving. It was sponsored by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD). They had a pamphlet about the new generation making better decisions. This website is sponsored by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA):

The 1997 Conference of the National Commission Against Drunk Driving (NCADD) introduced information on effective ways to reach the "Millennial Generation", those born 1982 and after, whose numbers will reach 78 million. The messages which will resonate with this group will be very different than those which were effective with the youth of the past 20 years.

From the journal titled "Exploring the Future: Seven Strategic Conversations That Could Transform Your Association," American Society of Association Executives Foundation, page 7, published in 2001:

The 2000 U.S. Census recorded the advent of the Millennial Generation, an age cohort born between 1982 and 1999 and similar in both size and attitude to the Baby Boomers.

Mark McCrindle (The Australian Leadership Foundation), an Australian social researcher and generational expert who speaks internationally to corporations involved in training, managing or marketing to "Generation X" (VetNetwork2000 Biennial Conference), published on October 14, 2000 the following statistics:

From the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census: Generation X 1965-1981, Generation Y 1982-2000.

From a February 2, 2001 Trinity Christian University article, Faculty Senate Looks for Ways to Reach Out: Presentation on Generation Y Targets Interaction with Students by Jillanne Johnson:

Learning to understand the values and attitudes of the next generation is key to reaching students as individuals, said Don Mills, vice chancellor for student affairs, Thursday during a Faculty Senate meeting. Mills presented a study of Generation Y, those students who were born in 1982 or later, to the faculty representatives. His presentation included an analysis of the personalities and behaviors of the newest students on campus. 'Generation Y is socially responsible, finds it important to stay connected to others and is tolerant and accepting of difference,' Mills said during his presentation.

From HR magazine and BNET (a CBS Interactive News Network, an article titled Unleash the Creativity in Your Organization published June 1999, by Tina DeSalvo:

As Generation X (born between 1965 and 1981) and Generation Y (born between 1982 and 1998) employees flood the market, they will not even consider working for an employer who does not allow them to challenge the status quo. This thought process is not going anywhere.

Another article, Managing Generation X by Brien Smith, was published November 2000 both by BNET (a CBS Interactive News Network and USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education):

EACH GENERATION has its own concern with the behavior of the youths that follow it. Seemingly every teenager has endured the inevitable "kids these days" remark. Still, the comparisons made between the baby boomers (those born between 1943 and 1960) and Generation X (those born between 1961 and 1981) have drawn a great deal of media attention. Disgruntled managers complain that these selfish Xers are unmotivated, self-absorbed slackers who have little to add to Corporate America.

From a February 1, 2001 study by James Bernard, published by Rice University's Macrocosm magazine, page 3 of the pdf, titled Baby Boomers: The Last Real Generation? (Trouble reading the pdf file? You can also read the article here:

Generation Y (as in “why,” get it?) started arriving in 1982, the children of the Baby Boomers, and they’re taking over.

Author's Credentials James Bernard continues to shape the world of hip-hop in more ways than one. He is the founding editor of “XXL” as well as founding editor and partner of “The Source Magazine.” In addition to being a music critic for “Entertainment Weekly,” a columnist for “Request,” a member of the Advisory Board of the National Voting Rights Institute, a trustee of the Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation, Commissioner of the National Criminal Justice Commission, and a consultant for the Rockefeller foundation, Mr. Bernard has been published in numerous national magazines and newspapers including the New York Times, Village Voice and the San Francisco Chronicle. He has made television appearances and featured his work on “Good Morning America,” “CBS This Morning,” “Today,” “BET Our Voices,” “CNN Entertainment News,” “New York One,” “Larry King Live,” “ABC News Tonight,” “FOX Year in Review,” “MTV News,” and PBS. Mr. Bernard graduated Juris Doctor cum laude from Harvard Law School in March, 1992. He received his Bachelor of Arts (Honors), at Brown University, where he concentrated in Public Policy and American Institutions.

From a recent article published by the Examiner on June 10, 2010 , What grades will history give Boomers as parents?, by Dena Kouremetis (I can e-mail the article):

Generation Y: These are the children of Boomers that began populating the earth in the year of our Lord, 1982...For members of Generation Y, social atomization seems to be their selling point, as noted in a Rice University study by famous hip-hop author James Bernard. “Their one collective experience has been the techno-media explosion, which is the very thing denying them a collective experience.”

From a June 1, 2000 article by Camilo Smith-Montealegre, Hispanics and Higher Education: Numbers Tell Conflicting Stories, published in the Puerto Rico Herald:

In 2015, California, Texas, Florida and New York will account for two-thirds of the nationwide increase in college-age Hispanics. This is due, in large part, to a continued surge in immigration and to the number of "Generation Y" births between 1982 and 1996.

The American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF), a nonprofit, nonpartisan professional development organization based in Washington, DC, provides learning opportunities for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers working on youth and education issues at the national, state, and local levels. The About page and list of funders:

From a forum titled The Future of Education, Employment and Training Policy: A Conversation with Tony Carnevale, presented July 27, 2001. Carnevale is the author of The American Mosaic: An In-depth Report on the Future of Diversity at Work and America and the New Economy: How New Competitive Standards are Radically Changing American Workplaces:

The final trend reversal that Carnevale suggests will be especially important for education policymakers to consider in the coming decades will be the shift from the relatively small Generation X (born 1965-1981) to the much larger Generation Y (born 1982-1996) in the 16-24 year old population.

An article published February 2003 (scroll down to see the publishing date and read the article here by The HR Consulting Group, authors Rob J. Thurston & Vince Ceriello:

The forces to consider include changes in employee population demographics from baby boomers to GenX employees and growth in the number of GenY kids who increasingly use advanced technology via Web, touchtone phones and other forms of computerization. Think wireless again!...GenX members, those persons born between roughly 1965 and 1981, now include 79 million people...Members of GenX are characterized as being more likely to prefer to work alone, less suited as team players, reluctant to participate in meetings and more inclined to make up their own minds than wanting or needing others' opinions...But look out for the GenY emergence, those born beginning around 1982 and just reaching the legal age to enter the work force. They are almost totally computer literate. The Internet is how they communicate, gather information and interact. They will quickly adapt to the newer technologies.

Company Profile Who is Human Resources Consulting Group, Inc.? Human Resources Consulting Group, Inc. (HRCG) is an international Human Resources and Benefits Consulting Firm listed as one of the Top 25 Largest Consulting Firms by Employee Benefit News.

Your other comments are archived now, but I will address your other points and post a reply to them as soon as I can. You do not need to re-post your arguments, I will get to them. I am aware I haven't covered everything yet (Strauss and Howe, Elwood Carlson, etc.), but I thought it best to start with your earlier comments. Things are crazy around here, but I will respond to the posts on the Generation talk pages after I have finished here. I am having some issues with the Internet (or computer), and pages are loading a bit slowly. If you'd like to wait and respond after I address more points, that would fine with me. I will probably have one more Neil Howe book to come through the mail, so I will wait and see what's changed. Except for the end date of the Millennials (since they are one of the newer generations), from what I've read of the Strauss and Howe books, and Neil Howe's own works, there is no inconsistency in terms of birth years. The book on Millennials and the workforce doesn't contradict his previous research. The newer books are more of an update, since the first Millennials have not been out of university or graduate school for very long. The older books concentrated on the childhood and teenage years. I will discuss this in greater detail. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Boy, you look away for two seconds and suddenly this place is a hive of activity... The reason that I had moved the discussion to CS's talk was that it was getting completely out of hand on this talk page, with large unwieldy discussions on very detailed points. I simply moved it there to have a calmer discussion of the points we disagreed about in order to come to some form of mutual understanding before proceeding here. If I recall correctly there was some complaint that the talk page was "WP:TLDR." I didn't realise there was a policy against private discussions. It seems that we can't help but break some wikipedia policy or other.

At any rate, I have also been somewhat busy, so am inclined to let CS present their case in total before responding, as I think that our disagreement is more philosophical than factual. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

Due to the long-running content dispute that has resulted in ongoing disruption for several months, I've fully protected the article. When consensus is reached, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus - Date changed after the fact

Any type of discussion or consensus involving changes needs to made on THIS talk page. I just went to your page CreativeSoul and I read that you asked another editor to tell me to stop posting on this page. You all have been conversing for weeks on this matter on your talk page, but I had no knowledge of it. In order to fair so everyone has a chance to contribute, discussions need to be kept here. The guidelines of Wikipedia are to have discussions and consensus on talk pages. While I agree with the intro wording. I don't think 1981 or 1982 should be used in the introduction since a beginning year is not used. The intro states early 1960s which can include 1960 even though it is not referenced by a number of sources. So its only fair to include early 1980s at the end of the introduction as opposed to using 1981 or 1982. These years need to be referenced later in the article.Educatedlady (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I asked that you stop posting so quickly on this page, I did not prohibit you from posting here. I would try to respond to a post, but found myself not being able to because you had updated so quickly. I asked Peregrine981 to let you know so that I could answer his older posts before coming back here. I was very sick, and have also been helping my mother pack to travel overseas to take care of an ill relative. I wasn't ignoring you. Nor was I trying to block you from posting, as some editor claimed on my page. Why are you painting me as some kind of mastermind? Peregrine981 has been very nice about being patient. I thought it only fair to respond to all his previous posts.

Like I have said before, having the phrase "no exact time frames" is fine, because it is a true statement. However, people read the generation pages and want a general idea of when a generation roughly ends, not just a vague time frame. The original wording after your "consensus" was "usually no later than 1981". I thought that was a good compromise because there were no exact dates, but it happens to be true that 1981 is "usually" the latest year used. I am not making any false claims here. Even Peregrine981 has previously said that the majority of popular sources cite 1981. Shouldn't Wikipedia articles reflect common and widespread information?

Elwood Carlson's book (published in 2008) says the MIllennials were first born in 1983 - citing the fact that they were greatly affected by the September 11 tragedy. He is the only author to mark the generation by this event. When he published his book, Generation X was already defined and the eldest Millennials were already out of college. The Columbine tragedy occurred before September 11, and most sources discuss this horrific event as one that greatly affected Millennials (those 17 and under at the time). Other books published between 2008 and 2010 cite 1981 as the end of Generation X, and 1982 as the start of the Millennials (included in my sources).

And contrary to your own opinions, Strauss and Howe are the two most frequently cited authors on the subject of generations (and the most respected - Judy Woodruff's words, not mine), with Neil Howe continuing his research and publishing several works (most recently in 2010) on the subject. He is also a regular consultant (PBS, CBS, other news organizations). It is important to note that the same cannot be said for Mr. Carlson. In addition to Strauss and Howe, authors Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are also frequently referenced (not only in the U.S.) by journalists and other researchers. They were guest speakers at Harvard University on the subject, and run a Millennial Conference. Mr. Winograd served as senior policy advisor to Vice President Al Gore. I've provided numerous sources proving what I say to be true, including articles from the mid to late 1990s discussing the Millennials being born in 1982 or graduating in 2000. Moreover, when those of us were graduating in 1999, several media outlets were describing the Class of 1999 as the last of its generation. The Class of 2000 was called the Millennials. I provided several sources (some by universities like Emory) showing those born in 1982 who graduated in 2000 as the First Millennials. Whether you agree or not, this is in fact true.

Peter Jennings was just one well-known journalist reporting on the change in generations. Viewers were asked to vote for the New Generation - referring to those graduating in 2000. The majority of those born in 1981 are part of the Class of 1999. Those born in 1982 are part of the Class of 2000. This is according to the majority of research, books, media, and academic standards set, and guidelines used most frequently. These are not my guidelines. I am only citing what is most frequently used by most media, authors, researchers, etc. 1982 and 1983 (some say is part of Gen X) are not common enough or reported by major media to warrant the phrase "usually no later than 1982." The media tends to use 1981 as the end date for Generation X, because they are using the Class of 2000 as the start of the Millennials (see my sources for article on the first Millennials going to college).

If you're going to include the Elwood Carlson source on this page, then since it holds a view not supported by the majority of sources, it should not be used to define the end of this generation (violating Wikipedia's own rules about minority views). Instead, the phrase should read "usually no later than 1981," with the Carlson source as reference to support that statement (being the usual end date, but not necessarily definitive). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying to allow Carlsons book to define the WHOLE page. I am just saying to reference it. And I agree many sources use 1981, but other years before and after 1981 are used to. We are not using years for the 1960s so we should not use specific years for the 1980s either, whether it be 1981 or 1982. Since there are a number of authors, that reference one or the other or both, THEN ALL REFERENCES TO YEARS NEED TO BE REFERENCED IN THE ARTICLE, not the intro. Furthermore I believe that you indirectly prohibited me from participating in the discussions because I repeatedly asked you where was this discussion and YOU DID NOT ANSWER me, so that leaves me with the impression that I was purposely left out. Again generation X is not defined to just 1981 or 1982., its an ENTIRE generation! It begins technically in the early 1960s even though many sources begin at the mid 1960s. We cannot ignore the 1960s in favor of our time of being born. If we are not using a date for the 1960s then no date should be used for the 1980s. Educatedlady (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion I am referring to is the one you and others held on the introduction. After I was told by another editor that a consensus had been reached for the article, I checked the page, and the phrase "usually no later than 1981" was included in the introduction. I was not the person who inserted this phrase, so I can't pinpoint who said what. I was told that there would be a compromise and comments indicated that a disclaimer would be included about "no exact time frames".

How am I prohibiting you from participating in the discussion? I only ask that you hold of on the references to the comments you made to me. I can respond to other topics discussed more quickly in a shorter amount of time, but responding to all your posts will take a while. I am also responding to Peregrine981. I never asked you to stay off this talk page. I acknowledge that other sources use the mid to late 1970s as the end date for Generation X, but I've stated that it is more common today to see 1981 used as the latest end date - and very few popular sources by journalists, researchers, etc. use 1982 or later years. That is just fact. By changing the statement to read "usually no later than 1982," you are claiming that there are just as many sources citing 1982 as the end date for Generation X as 1981 - that is FALSE. Someone can make the same claim for 1983 that you are making for 1982, but there are infinitely more sources citing 1981. Either sources generally use 1976 or 1981. By your logic, 1983 and 1984 should be included since there are sources using those years for the end of Generation X.

I can bet that most people have heard of 1981 and the Class of 1999 being referenced as part of Generation X and those born in 1982 and the graduating Class of 2000 as Millennials. What I've proposed is what is reflected by most sources not only in the United States, but in Canada, Europe, and Australia (where the Australian Census Bureau defines Generation X as being born between 1965-1981). They start the Millennials at 1982. How can a person coming of age in (regardless of your arguments about the start of the Real Millennium - that society doesn't even use) 2000 be a Generation Xer? 1981 is a significant ending year (that is in fact the end year "usually" used) for all the reasons I have stated previously, chiefly, those born in 1982 would graduate in the New Millennium - 2000 - and would represent a New Generation (as reported by Peter Jennings back in 1997) who would change the world. That is one of the reasons why it should be included in the otherwise vague introduction. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC). AND HERE IS WHAT IS SAID ABOUT CANADA ON THIS OWN WIKIPEDIA PAGE: in Canada Generation X in Canada has been defined by Canadian economist and demographer David Foot in his book Boom Bust & Echo: How to Profit from the Coming Demographic Shift as those born 1961-1966 [22]. Those born between the periods of 1947-1966 were the Baby Boomers, where in Canada they were the largest boom of the industrialized world (relative to population)[23]. This large boom complicated the job market for the upcoming generation, Generation X.[24]

Response may be slow due to the holidays and personal matters. I will do my best. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Again you're wrong. The class of 2000 is not just comprised on people born in 1982, but 1981 as well. First of all persons born in 1982 grew up in the 20th century. Millennials should be referenced to persons BORN in 2000 and after. How in the heck are we millennials and our entire adolescence took place in the 20th century? Explain how we are millennials? Graduation does not define our lives. Both persons born in 1981 and 1982 turned 21 in the new millennium, you cannot deny that. I have posted various sources that use 1982 as an end year. But you continue to ignore or lie and say its not a good enough source. Get over yourself. Now why don't you take a survey and ask people born in 1981 and 1982 what generation they feel they belong to. Because one of very close friends born in 1981 feels she belongs to Y while I feel I belong to X AND Y. I am sure most people would consider 1961 as part of the Baby Boom era. If you look up most articles regarding Barack Obama's generation (who happened to be born in 1961) the MAJORITY of sources place him with the Baby Boomers. Again we should not be just focusing on the end of the generation. What about the beginning? A generation is defined to at least 20-25 years. Here we are focusing on two years! Frankly I am not being nice and patient with you anymore. I am tired of you trying to define an ENTIRE generation based upon your desires to be the last of Generation X. This is personal with you, and its now personal to me. You never once admitted your wrong doing in this debate. You had no right to attack me in the beginning because you feel that 1981 and 1982 are worlds apart. Wake up! They are not.

Here are videos from the class of 1999. Not one video mentions this being the last class of Generation X. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjywZz4pJUI (this is a 25 part video, I watched the entire 25 parts, not one time they mention being the last class of generation x)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=class+of+1999+commencement&aq=f

Educatedlady (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And it doesn't matter Creative, new research is beginning to surface changing and disputing the dates set by Strauss and Howe. I am one of those people who are vigrously communicating with media outlets informing them that the research of Strauss and Howe should be respected but it is indeed wrong. Do you have a video of your graduation Creative? Does it say anywhere that you guys were the last class of gen x? Do you have any senior memorabilia that suggests this? Because I attended high school with the class of 1999, at a diverse high school. Not one student I can recall White, Black, Yellow or Brown, claimed to be the last of a generation. We all assumed we were the same generation because we were in high school together. In regards to Columbine having an affect on the class of 2000. I think this event had an affect on everyone who was in high school during this time. Particularly the class of 1999 because this happened one month before their graduation. I have found an article that states this, and I will post once I find it again. As a matter of fact the class of 1999 paid tribute to the Columbine victims at my schools graduation. Not one time generation X was mentioned or "last class of the century". Again you are believing inaccuate research by two men who know nothing about our generation. In fact I believe its Howe who has a daugther born in 1983, he is probably basing most of his research on her experiences. And as for other countries here is what is said about Generation X in Canada. I got this from the Gen X page here: "In Canada Generation X in Canada has been defined by Canadian economist and demographer David Foot in his book Boom Bust & Echo: How to Profit from the Coming Demographic Shift as those born 1961-1966 [22]. Those born between the periods of 1947-1966 were the Baby Boomers, where in Canada they were the largest boom of the industrialized world (relative to population)[23]. This large boom complicated the job market for the upcoming generation, Generation X." Educatedlady (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think anyone born after about 1978 can be considered a millennial. We have a lot of differences from those born prior. We became full adults and finised college in the new millennium. We started families in the new millennium, we started our careers in the new millennium, we came of age with the internet, and so on. We had a lot of life firsts in the new millennium. But if you really want to be PC and technical with it, then I would say the class of 2001 and those born from 1983 on are the official start of the millennial generation. I mean the first millennium started on 1 AD, not 0 AD. Bjoh249 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

End date sources

I have found some other sources that use early 1980s end date including 1982. I think the article should have an end in the early 1980s. I also think the article should try to avoid using exact date in the introduction. The other generation articles just use ranges in the article without precise dates.

Here is a realty.org article. It uses 1965-1982 as a date range for generation x. It was published in 2010.

http://www.realtor.org/wps/wcm/connect/0aa8258042b1f82d8103b5d4db880d7c/cpa_smartgrowth_ocg_summer2010_1.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=0aa8258042b1f82d8103b5d4db880d7c

Here is an article from a publication. It uses 1965-1982 date range. It was published in 2008.

http://www.rsajobs.com/publications/The%20organisational%20generation%20gap.pdf

Here is an article from sale manager magazine. It uses a 1965-1982 date range for generation x.

http://www.salesmanagermag.com/Art-Mark_McCrindle-ManagingNewGeneration_07.html

64.3.217.154 (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of sources use 1980 as the start of the millennial generation as well, some even use 1977 as the start year. I think the early 1980s would be a better way to say it. Heck, some even use 1983 as the start of Gen Y. I mean technically 2001 was the start of the new millennium since the first millennium didn't start with 0 AD, it started off with 1 AD. So in some disputes those born in 1982 are the last of Generation X. I mean there are so many disputes out there that it is hard to know what is what, and it would be fair if the early 1980s was just used. I was born in april 1981 but I don't feel much connection with those born in the 60s and 70s(especially those born in the early 70s). Most people born after 1977 feels more of a connection with the new millenium since they became full blown adults after 2001, finished college, started a family, etc.Bjoh249 (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bjoh249 great comments. I noticed a comment on your page from CreativeSoul about Baby on Board signs: "Further down, quote: 'In 1982, when the first Millennials were born, we saw the appearance of baby-on-board bumper stickers all across America.' SEE? It is more likely that there is an error in your reference. I have the same date of the special with the transcript and it clearly quotes 1982." Same moderator - Judy Woodruff.

Just a note; Baby on Board signs WERE NOT released until 1984 and not popular until 1985. My mother DID NOT have a baby on board sign in our car when I was a baby simply because they did not exist in 1982. Here is a quote from the baby on board page on Wikipedia: "First marketed in September 1984 by Safety 1st Corporation, the sign became a ubiquitous fad, flourishing in 1985. Its use in the US rapidly declined by 1986" Educatedlady (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I would just like to add that originally the label Generation Y was used in 1993 by Ad Age to describe those who were thirteen and older (I think). However, I checked with the advertising magazine itself, and years since then, they have used 1982 as the start date for Generation Y, (I will add the source later to the Generation Y page). If they had written the article in 1990 or 1991, then Generation Y would refer to those born in either 1977 or 1978 respectively. Moreover, the term Milennial was already used by Strauss and Howe back in 1990 or 1991, before the Ad Age article, and journalists had already been using the term. I have sources from early to mid-1990s using the term Millennials that references 1982. Peter Jennings also did a special report back in 1997 about Millennials and the Class of 2000 as the New Generation. It is most common to use 1982 as the starting date for Generation Y or Millennials - not saying everyone uses this start date. To Bjoh249, I should also mention that I have come across several realty websites that use 1982 as the start of the Millennials and 1981 as the end of Generation X. Your source, Sales Manager Magazine, also quotes Mark McCrindle incorrectly. The Australian researcher uses 1965-1981 and 1982-2000 for Generation Y/Millennials. They are using the wrong date. I have a copy of McCrindle's original report that is filed with the Australian Parliament, as well as 2008 update reported by the Australian Press Council. Those are the dates used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Also, most reliable and popular (well-known) sources (covering a variety of topics - sociology, government, marketing, financial, education, psychological, entertainment, etc.) from the U.S., Canada, Ireland, Germany, and Australia; that I have previously provided, use 1982 for Millennials/Generation Y. I though I mentioned baby on board signs as just being associated with Milennials (According to Strauss and Howe, who were the first to use this term, the first group of Millennials were born between 1982 and 1986.). And the baby on board signs were first sold in 1984 - that is between 1982 and 1986. I might have mentioned the baby boom and those baby on board signs in the same sentence, but I don't recall saying the baby on board signs being invented in 1982. I said the next "baby boom" occurred in 1982 - when the birth rates really went up. Births may have increased a little in the late 1970s, but the "real boom" hit in 1982. That is what researchers and journalists have reported.

I'd like to request that the introduction read "usually no later than 1981, sometimes even as late as 1982," because, like I've said before, 1981 is the usual end date for Generation X. Granted, some sources use 1982, but there are few (and rare) compared to 1981. Peregrine981 and you yourself, Educatedlady, have previously acknowledged that 1981 is used much more often than 1982. The statement that I'm proposing is much more accurate and a good compromise. I'll come back after the holidays to respond to your sources that you put up a while back, but I thought I'd mention that one of your sources was quoted wrong (I think it actually mentioned 1982 later in the book - can't remember if it was a book or article right now), and another one of your sources used 1983 (for Generation Y) only in the title - there was no list of sources to back up the claim, nor was the date even mentioned in the article. However, few sources use 1982, so why don't we just word the introduction like I've proposed?

Oh, and I wasn't sure if you've checked, but the Elwood Carlson google book source sometimes doesn't come up. I mean, sometimes when you link to a book on google (where you can preview the book's contents), it doesn't link properly to the page number with the quoted material. I don't know, maybe the server was down at the time. Personally, I just do a search for a keyword in the search box, but the easier we can make it on readers, the better. I also like likes to google books more than amazon, when necessary, because amazon doesn't always allow previews. Let me know on here if you can access the page. I will try again later. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Creative I like the proposal of "usually no later than 1981, but sometimes even as late as 1982". I think that gives the impression that many sources use the 1981 end date, but other sources use 82 as well. The sources aren't rare that use 82 as an end date though, if you google generation x 1965-1982 a lot of sources appear, and not just one line sources, or blogs. However I think you have a great idea! Let's see what the other editors involved here think. I hope they agree so we can work together and improve other parts of the article. By the way the Carlson link populates for me. Let me know if you are still having trouble accessing it. Happy Holidays! Educatedlady (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi all I found this article recently on the Seattle Times website and thought it was very interesting. It reads" "First, a disclaimer. Howe acknowledges that dividing lines are inexact. It's hard to say with certainty that every 28-year-old is a Millennial and every 29-year-old is a Gen-Xer." Seattle TimesThis would be interesting to add as a source to the article. What do you guys think? Educatedlady (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Educatedlady, I would say, "No." The quote from the article (not Howe) is: "First, a disclaimer. Howe acknowledges that dividing lines are inexact. It's hard to say with certainty that every 28-year-old is a Millennial and every 29-year-old is a Gen-Xer. But research — from Pew and Gallup polls to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — show how key events and common characteristics link generational cohorts, creating a collective identity for them." Howe acknowledges (as do most people) that there are no exact dates for generations. However, sources tend to use certain date ranges. Just like your source Ronald Jackson mentions in his encyclopedia volume. This article says, "It's hard to say with certainty that every 28-year-old is a Millennial and every 29-year-old is a Gen-Xer." It does NOT say after that sentence, "Howe, says," like you would see in an article. This is Bob Young's own words, not Neil Howe's. I know this, because I am a writer and used to write for the school newspaper. There is no direct quote from Neil Howe. Neil Howe and William Strauss have always said that though there are no exact dates, they tend to use certain date ranges to define generations. Every book written by Neil Howe uses 1982 as the starting year for Generation Y, and in interviews, he talks about Generation Y/Millennials being born in 1982. Several times he (and Strauss in some cases) uses "1982-". The dash indicates starting from 1982 onwards, or 1982-2002 (or sometimes 200?). He doesn't add a disclaimer every time he is interviewed on the subject. You might as well say that about every author writing about Millennials or any other generation, including Elwood Carlson. The only thing that is a true statement regarding Howe is: "Howe acknowledges that dividing lines are inexact". We have already mentioned in the article that there are no exact date ranges. Everyone is well aware of this disclaimer regarding generations in general. We should leave things as they are. Regarding some criticism for Strauss and Howe, that can already be found on the authors' respective pages.

None of the sources using 1965-1982 are major newspapers or reliable sources. Most are personal websites, blogs, student paper, etc. I found several realty and housing groups that used 1982. And one Australian website even misquotes Mark McCrindle (Australian researcher). As I've said before, I have a copy of the original research that was sent to the Australian Parliament. On the other hand, there are hundreds of sources using either 1965-1981 for Generation X or just using 1982 for the starting year of the Millennials. Peregrine981 has also acknowledged that 1981 is more common. I have also provided higher quality sources (government, marketing, psychological, medical/psychological associations, NASA, etc.) from around the world, not just the United States. I don't agree with your interpretation of the proposed statement. What I propose would be a true statement indicating that 1981 is usually the latest date used, but that 1982 is also sometimes used. 1982 is not a common end date for Generation X, but it is sometimes used. Nothing but the truth, and less confusing for readers. I had others read it, and they thought it made sense. They didn't interpret it the way you did at all. I think that would be the most fair statement as a compromise, and I would be willing to support it.

I should mention that Harvard University (recent guest speakers Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais), Emory University (dating back 2000 to current), and Tufts University (recently updated December 18, 2010) all mention the Millennials as being born in 1982. Emory University even specifically mentions those students born in 1982 who are the "first Millennials" to go to college. Tufts Career Services uses the approximate range 1982-2002. Like other sources, despite acknowledging an approximate range, Tufts still uses 1982. And I know I've already mentioned this before, but two famous conferences devoted to Millennials also use 1982. Both conferences have speakers from around the word, and from a variety of fields. I really think my proposed statement is fair based on the evidence, but if you don't agree, then I will ask a mediator/administrator to decide after the holidays. It's not something that needs to be taken care of today.

The Elwood Carson source works for me now. I think the site was down. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make HOW I interpret the proposed introduction???? I think you misunderstood my "interpretation". The intro would use 1981 as a common end year, but leaves room for those sources that use 1982 as an end year as well. Again Wikipedia does allow for minority sources to be included as well. I am not disputing the more common end year. And I recently attended an event at RICE University in regards to this subject and again there was discrepancy amongst the dates, and persons in attendance born in various ends rejected the 1981 end date. I will post the transcript as soon as available. Again researchers like Howe are refering to a "marketable generation". Using 1982 as the start of a generation is perfect in terms of marketing because many persons born in 1982 (in the United States) graduated in 2000, which is the "marketable" (not accurate) new millennium. They are forgetting those born in 1981 who graduated in 2000 as well, which account for about 35-40 percent of graduates in 2000. Using 1982 as the start of the millennial generation is a perfect promotional tool. However its faulty, inaccurate and does not speak for everyone born in 82. They are forgetting those who completed school in the UK complete school at the age of 16. So therefore a person born in 1982 left school (unless they stayed to attend a sixth form college) in 1998! How is this accurate??? Educatedlady (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What I proposed is perfectly reasonable and fair to both parties: "usually no later than 1981, but sometimes even as late as 1982". I added a "but" to make it more clear. I would like to bring this subject up with an administrator later. As I've said, it is more common and popular for 1981 to be the end date for Generation X, but some (fewer) sources use 1982 (even Peregrine981 acknowledges this). I think it's only fair that you compromise a little, as well. So far, I'm the only one who has made a concession. Regarding your views on Strauss and Howe: I have already shown that they are not the only proponents of 1982 being the starting year. You are making it seem as they are highly criticized, when in fact, I have shown how well-respected they are by the quotes and references I provided. Criticism of their theories are on the authors' theory page. It should also be noted that their pages don't need to be littered with criticism. It's already there. The generation pages all mention rough dates, so I don't know why you are pushing the issue. There is even an unnecessary separate section that is a disclaimer on the Generation X page, even though the introduction already says there are no exact dates. It's overkill. Your opinion on Strauss and Howe is just an opinion. Opinion does not belong on Wikipedia. It is not my opinion that Strauss and Howe are well-respected - it is the opinion of many in the media (even those who would disagree with their theories). You have already added the Elwood Carlson source to two generation pages. I don't know why you need to add criticism after every paragraph that Strauss and Howe are mentioned. It's inappropriate. Leave the criticism where it belongs on the authors' theory page. It's already mentioned that the authors work is considered "pseudo-science" by some. I'd say that's pretty harsh.

Also, in the UK, 1982 is also a common start year (though obviously not a year used by everyone) for Generation Y/Millennials. I have a recently published book by a British psychologist that is currently regularly referenced by churches around the UK (in recent articles); as well as in Australia, Canada, and the United States. I have already provided the source for this, and the author mentions "1982" or "1982-" (meaning 1982 onwards) throughout her book. I have already shown that Canada and Australia both tend to use 1982 (not referencing Strauss and Howe). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

And I have provided numerous of reliable sources that use the 1965-1982 range as well, but you continue to ignore them, and have criticized them for not being reliable enough, although that is completely untrue. I have posted articles from the UK and Canada that use a different date range than the one that is more commonly used and again you ignore it. Are you blind Creative? I have repeatedly stated that the common end year is 1981, however there are other researchers use different dates. No year is set in stone, and there is plenty of room for more research to be conducted. I am not saying that there are not sources that use the 81 end year. I am NOT disputing the facts here, but you are by denouncing any source that ends Generation X in 1982 or later because again for your own apparent personal agenda, wanting to be the last of X. I have tried to reason with you and even offer my apologies for you not feeling well, AND wished you Happy Holidays, but you being the stubborn person that you are completely ignore my attempts to reach out to you. To end this we need a formal consensus with your proposal, if the consensus is reached it needs to be displayed on this talk page proving that a consensus was formed. After that I would like to move on to other things. Good day. Educatedlady (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. I only said that there aren't a lot of reliable sources using 1965-1982 (most are 1965-1981). I googled it, and did not see one newspaper using these dates or official census, unlike the Australian one. There was a realty website, but I have found several using 1965-1981 or 1961-1981, etc. Others seemed like personal websites or personal papers. I am more than happy to include my proposed phrase and I'm seeking arbitration a week or so after the holidays are passed. I am not unreasonable, which is why I made the proposal to be fair to both parties. And you can leave the Elwood Carlson source as a reference as well. There should be no problem after this is resolved. I do agree that we need to clearly state on the talk page that an agreement has been reached (when it has), and then keep an eye on the page. We might have to link to the Consensus page later on, seeing as how many anonymous users edit in their own dates and mess with sources. I forget the internal link, but there is a page that explains linking to previous discussions or something - not sure. I have confidence an agreement will be reached in the New Year and we can all move on. If in the future, too many anonymous users make changes to the dates or make unconstructive edits, then we one or both of us can apply for a semi-protection tag. Have a peaceful Christmas/holiday. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me. I am glad we are on the brink on a conclusion. Educatedlady (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Titular redundancy

{{editprotected}} Remove redundancy in titles:

• Generation X in the United States → In the United States
• Generation X in Canada → In Canada

--Cybercobra (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it wouldn't hurt to say please though and make it sound like a requst and not an order! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Reflections

Yeah, I would just like to say that as a Gen-X'er, I do think that people of my generation are either being ignored or overshadowed by both the Baby Boomers as well as the Millenials. The Millenial Generation has had it's way long enough. I also think that half of the Boomer generation is hogging the cultural spotlight at our expense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemp99 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor: well the Baby Boomers have always had the spotlight, and still appears as the more beloved generation. Generation X is criticized for being slackers, and Generation Y is just crticized period. Educatedlady (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

really? there's been a huge backlash against boomers for, basically, destroying the world with their greed and sloth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting.I guess it just comes down to your own perception. I'm Gen X and I don't feel overshadowed by Boomers or Gen Y at all. Most of the Gen Y that I know respect and envy Generation X because they feel like we did many of the things first that they consider central to their culture and society (invention of video games, for example) and as far as Boomers go, I think only Boomers admire themselves, along with some of the older Gen X's that are perhaps on the borderline. In my office the Boomers are on the way out, and Gen X are taking over management positions.Dojodan (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)