Talk:Generation X

1982 start of the millennial generation??

Consensus has been reached to change the wording of the lead paragraph to reflect multiple sources' use of multiple dates to define Generation X.

First off, wikipedia clearly states in the 3rd millennium section that the new millennium began on January 1, 2001, not January 1, 2000 like it is widely accepted as. Technically that is correct, as 1 BC rolled over into 1 AD and there was no year 0. To be politically correct the class of 2000 was the last graduating class of the 20th century and the 2nd millennium. That also means that those born in 1982 turned 18 in the last year of the 2nd millennium and 20th century. Those born in 1983 are technically the first ones to turn 18 in the new millennium and the 21st century. But I am just playing with specifics here. I have found more than an equal number of sources that use 1980 or 1978 as the start year of Generation Y as Creative Soul has found articles that use 1982 as the start year. Plus 21 is when you technically become a full blown adult anyway, not 18. Wikipedia also lists 20-40 as young adult. I would post these news articles here, but I am afraid they would just be erased by Creative Soul as he seems obsessed with keeping his birth year of 1981 as the last year of Generation X. Plus this page would just grow longer with more to read and that just bores a lot of people and turns them off. I have all of these articles ranging from CBS to USA Today posted on my personal "My Talk" page. I have also found saved and stored these in my favorites box on my computer, and most are from the last 5 years(most from the last 3). Bjoh249 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC) What's your point? The article just says gen x ends "usually" not later than 1982. That gives a wide degree of lattitude for dates before that, and also some after. I believe that CS has agreed to the current wording, so what is the problem? Or do you seriously want to get into a debate of counting whether it is in fact "usually" 1982 or 83? Would that really add much to the article? Peregrine981 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was born in 1980 and even thou I grew up with all the gen x stuff as a kid, i identity myself with the gen y generation. being born in 1982 or 83 and thinking you're part of generation x is insane. Like i said i was born in 80 i don't even really consider that a gen x kid imo. I think the driving force behind this whole 1982 thing is a lot of people don't want to be identified with gen y, but if you were born in 80,81,or 82 you will have a hell of a lot more in common with gen y then someone that was born in 76,77,or 78 tru gen x. 1982 is just to ridiculous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenXKid4life (talk • contribs) 09:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Read through the commentary on this topic, and you will find many reliable sources discussing this very issue. If you have a dispute with the validity of the sources, please let us know. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

IF you don't consider yourself Generation X then why in the world is your username GenXKidforLife??? Proves you are a confused person.Educatedlady (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Again I find it VERY interesting that people like you have NOTHING to say in dispute of 1961 and 1965 BOTH being used as a beginning to Generation X. This just proves you have an agenda. You are a complete phony. Educatedlady (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I consider myself a GEN X KID because i was born in 80 and the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SOURCES use 1965 to 1981 as the dates for gen x kid. But with that said i feel people that were born from 78 on have more in common with gen y then gen x. And you still haven't said what year you were born. Because you have been on a personal mission to get the dates to end in 1982 does that mean you were born in 82 and don't want to associate with gen y? Because i personally consider 1982 as gen y since the overwhelming majority of sources use 81 as the end date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenXKid4life (talk • contribs) 05:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been other users who have also wanted the date change. We have shown the sources that use the date. If they are reliable sources they can be used. If you look on the archives you will see some of the sources that were posted. 75.148.160.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Personally as a person who graduated high school in 1981 i don't feel anyone of 80's born people are generation x at all. Generation X was targeted to 20 something year olds in the early and mid 1990s. The movie Reality Bites, Nirvana and the tv show Friends were not targeting persons born in 1980, 1981, or 1982 but 20year old people. I don't think you remember what generation x was really about in the 90s. The reason why some people choose to end the generation in 1981 or 1982 is because it has to end somewhere. But gen x is really only about 1965-1975. I was born in 1963 and I have Baby Boomer attributes mostly, but some Gen X as well. People born in the early 1950s are bona fide Boomers. People born in the early 1960s are Boomers/Gen X, people born in the early 1970s are bona fide Generation X. People born in the early 1980s can be Generation X and Generation Y, and people born in the early 1990s are bona fide Generation Y. Despite some reports that I am Gen X. I am a Boomer. Heavymetal81 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

^ this person hit the nail on the head. Smartest thing i've heard. I call my self "genxkid" because the dates say i am. If you were born in the 80's and even really late 70's for that matter you're not true gen x imo. Because of what the above user said the 90's "GEN X" lifestyle was not marketed to kids in there teens. It was marketed to the "gen x" crowd, people that had just turned 18 by 1990 on up. If having 1982 as the end date makes some kids feel better that fine. But go up to someone that was born in 1970 and tell them you are gen x because you were born in 1982 they would laugh at you. I think one thing that should be added to the article is what age range gen x was truly marketed towards and that's people born from 65 - 75. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.170.26 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh Genxkid that goes for you too. You are not Gen X either being born in 1980. There is no difference between persons born in 1980-1982. My daugther was born in 1981, the same year I got out of high school. There is no way we are part of the same generation. Regardless of what the "dates" say, you were not part of the market of the generation in the 1990s. So I am really laughing my a$$ off at you for being born in 1980 and callin yourself genxkid. Sorry "Kid" but you need to grow up. You're not bona fide gen x. You need to stop basing your life on books. Heavymetal81 (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bona fide Generation X definitely begins somewhere in the mid 60's. Given the non-existence of definite boundaries, border years like 64 or 83 can be swing years between generations depending on the individual and how he or she self-identifies. As someone born in 1963, you identify as a late Boomer with Gen X traits. Many born in that year would agree with you. Some 63'ers would also say "we're Gen X". Thus a classic example of a swing year, though I'm more inclined to see 1963 kids as Boomer/X'er cusps or "second wave Boomers" (as opposed to Woodstock boomers), considering these people would have been in high school mostly in the late 70's, only graduating during the first spring of Reagan's year of office. 1965 kids, however, spent the bulk of their high school in an 80's Reaganite America. They are the first real "Generation X'ers" as far as I'm concerned. With regards to early 80's babies, I don't think it's set in stone. I definitely don't see them as "core Generation Y'ers". I was born in 1989 and I self-identify as being part of Generation Y. I definitely don't see myself in the same cohort as someone born in 1980. A person born in 1980 would have graduated high school in the spring of 1998. I would have been in third grade then. How am I in the same generation as that individual? I have a friend in born in 1985 (another Generation Y) and even between us there are some notable differences in our teenage/adolescent experiences. He went to high school in a world without facebook, myspace, youtube or even commonplace ipod ownership (until his senior year I think). You may not see early 80's born kids as part of the core of Generation X, but they sure as hell aren't the same those born in the mid-late 80's and early-mid 90's. I think late 70's and early 80's kids belong in their own generation, consolidating my personal view that generations are 9-12 years rather than 15-20. During the Obama election, commentators felt that as a "post-Woodstock Boomer" president born in 1961 who didn't fit into what we would call "generation x", Obama should be placed in a separate category for Second-wave Boomers called "Generation Jones". This would include people born between 1955 and 1964. Those tail-end boomers basically, like yourself. Similarly, I think births ranging from 1976-1984 should be given a separate generational moniker, a cohort of kids who came of age with the rise of internet technologies, as opposed to core Millenials who experienced that rise as little children (I was 5 when both internet and cell phone came out). Just my two cents. Afghan Historian (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting observation Afghan Historian. Like your friend I went to high school without the world of Facebook, Myspace and the like. We didn't have cell phones. I learned to type using a typewriter not a computer. I think persons born in the late 1970s and early 1980s are very unique because while we have characteristics that are associated with Generation Y, we have those associated with Generation X too. For example I loved N'Sync and the Backstreet boys when I was in high school, but I loved Van Halen and Bon Jovi as a young child. I remember Columbine in high school, and I remember Challenger as a preschooler. I self identify as an XY Cusp. We don't have all the characteristics of Generation X nor Generation Y. Educatedlady (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

All great points, and good, reasoned discusion. And what do all of these comments really have in common? Generational dates are not cast in stone. This is not a hard science, which is why I find it so hillarious how much time and effort is taken up on wikipedia debating the exact nuances of which year is and isn't in a certain generation. I'm almost tempted to create a banner at the top of every generational talk page pleading for people to realise that you cannot possibly cut an entire generation on January 1 of a certain year. It just doesn't make sense, even if lots of authors do it, just to create a short hand guide to a generation. But I'm sure it would make no difference. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you have an idea there Peregrine about the banner! If its possible please do it! Many of the authors I have read that have drawn exact lines for generations have no specific reasoning, (or at least concrete reasoning) for doing so. That's why in my own study I am defining X as the early 1960s to the early 1980s. This may seem "vague" to some, but it is certainly a lot more accurate. Educatedlady (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that it would have any real effect other than to incite more debate. Plus, I'm not sure what the "rules" are, regarding that kind of POV posting on a talk page. SO, for the moment I'm inclined to avoid the potential headache and focus on the articles. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, I will ask an administrator. I know I have seen some other pages that have banners with warnings on them. But you're right I want to avoid potential headaches as well. God knows we have had plenty Educatedlady (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When does Generation X really end and begin?

Consensus has been reached to change the wording of the lead paragraph to reflect multiple sources' use of multiple dates to define Generation X.

I've heard the following spans for Generation X. 1961-1981 1965-1976 1965-1981 1960-1985 1968-1986 1965-1985 1965-1982 1965-1974 1958-1985 1966-1984 1963-1985 1961-1983 1964-1986 1964-1985 1967-1981 1968-1980 In general, the start date is no earlier than 1960 and the end date no later than 1985. Are 1958-1967 and 1975-1985 kind of grey areas? I ask because some self-identify in different generations in those grey areas. I have a brother born in 1967 that calls himself a baby boomer, while I know someone that was born in 1962 that calls herself Generation X. I think that's why 1954-1967 as well as 1975-1985 have been partitioned off as subgenerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVillani1985 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Welcome. First, please make sure to sign your comments when posting on talk pages. I have left instructions for how to do so on your talk page. Just read the section WP:Tilde. Anyway, to answer your question: There are no exact time frames for generations, but in general, for Generation X, the earliest date used is 1961 and the latest is usually 1981 - though some sources end the generation with 1982 (the year for the sharpest increase in birth rates - Echo Boom), it is more common for 1982 to be the starting point for Generation Y/Millennials (who graduated in 2000). The association with 1982 as the "new generation" has been around since the 1980s and 1990s. It is more common to see 1965-1981 for Generation X and 1982-2000 for Generation Y, but 1982-1995 has also been used. See my previous posts on the generation talk pages with a variety of sources used for reference. Of course, not everyone agrees with the ame date range, which is why the introductions on generation pages are worded the way they are. The last I checked, the U.S. Census considers birth years up to 1964 as part of the Boomer Generation, and uses 1965-1981 for Generation X (looking for the official Census chart I have somewhere - used in a report), as does Canada, and the Australian Census Bureau (official) - along with New Zealand. Dates range from early 1960s to 1980s, usually ending with 1981, sometimes, though rarely, with 1982. 1982-1986 are usually considered "Older Millennials", but 1983-1985 are definitely part of the Generation Y/Millennial group. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Hello Editor. There have several different variations used for Generation X, and the years are often disputed. However usually anywhere from 1961-1982 have been more recently used. Researchers have been faulty (just my opinion) in defining the last of Generation X and often base their conclusions solely on academics and not common culture. Fortunately there have been a new crop of demographers that have been using alternate dates to define Generation X including the emerging 1965-1982, which seems more accurate because the Baby Boom Generation has ended in 1964 for years until authors Strauss and Howe begin coining generation X beginning in 1961. However it does not make sense to start a generation at the beginning of a decade and not include the first year of that decade (1960) nor does it make sense to end a generation at the beginning of the decade and not include all applicable years from the early 1980s (1980-1983). Happy editing. I do encourage you to sign up for an account, as it becomes difficult to identify users by IP addresses. Educatedlady (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are an American citizen the cut off date is 1981 END OF STORY. http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr3/pars/2520.pdf If you live in another country who knows. But if you live in the US and were born in 1982 or later you are GEN Y! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenXKid4life (talk • contribs) 09:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Because of a report from the archdiocese of Philadelphia? Give me a break. Your tone is confrontational and one sided. If you want to have a debate about this, fine, but please try to engage with the point of view of others rather than simply asserting you know "the truth" IN CAPITAL LETTERS, with no room for debate. Thanks for your understanding. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are sources that use the early 1980s date. We have shown sources that use the 1982 date. If there are reliable sources they can be used. There are different dates used by sources. If you look on the page and archives you will see the different sources that were posted. 75.148.160.76 (talk)

i haven't posted here in a while but i have been observing. why such a big debate on this issue? if sources says gen x ends in 1990 then use them! Heavymetal81 ([[User talk:Heavymetal81|talk] ]) 09:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There arent any sources that use that date. Thats why its not used. There has to be reliable sources that use the date. If there arent any sources it cant be used. 75.148.160.76 (talk)

protection

Consensus has been reached to change the wording of the lead paragraph to reflect multiple sources' use of multiple dates to define Generation X.

Perhaps we could remove the protection now? I think that people have calmed down and it seems that there is some spirit of compromise and consensus in the air.... It has been some months that we can't edit this article... Peregrine981 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Hey Peregrine I agree. I assumed we would be doing a formal consensus to add to the page, and do a semi protection like Creative said. If you want to start the consenus that is fine or I can. I haven't seen Creative lately I just wanted make sure she was on board. Educatedlady (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC) All I know is there has to be a firm cut off date, in life there must be rules and boundaries. 1981 is the absolute cut off date for GenX if you were born on Jan 1, 1982 sorry you're not a genXer end of story. There might not be much of a difference between people born in 81 or 82. But you can't just keep adding a year on and then before you know it people born in 90 will be genXers. Every major publication has stated 1981 as the last year for GenX so that's it. You can take the protection off but u will just have more kids born from 82 - 84 trying to squeeze into the genx crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenXKid4life (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC) To GenXKid4life: Hmmm seems VERY suspicious that you come on here today to campaign for 1981 after we have reached an agreement previously. It is also interesting that there is NOTHING on your talk page, you have no other edits, and your username is Genxkid4life??? Sounds like a case of sockpuppet (user trying to hide behind a fake account) to me. I have already warned administrations about you, and i am collecting this comment and any future comments you make. Don't get yourself banned over absolute BS. If you think that Generation X should end in 1981, write your own research study, interview people, have it copyright, peer reviewed and published. Not that it will stop other demographers from using other dates as a beginning or end year. Interesting that you have NOTHING to say about use of 1961 and 1965 as the beginning of Generation X. Educatedlady (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC) To Educatedlady What in the name of god are you talking about? Fake Account? Please contact all the admins you want you nut. This is the first time i've talked on wiki. You sound like you have to much time on your hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenXKid4life (talk • contribs) 05:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC) GenxKid4life: Obviously you are the nut for coming on here in the first place trying to start yet another debate. There has been VERY heated debates on this page, and there has been suspected persons using multiple IP addresses to spam this page. So therefore that is why I am leery. It is not about having "too much time on my hands" This is not a STYX song, but rather being proactive in keeping debates at a minimum. This is why we are proposing this consensus. It is not about our own personal opinions but rather facts. While you may feel that Gen X ends in 1981 or 1980 or 1981 are really not part of it, (it seems like you are changing your mind) sources have used various dates. As long as a source proves reliable (not necessarily popular because Wikipedia does allow a minority view to be included as well) we have to find wording to reflect that. So go choke on your damn "nuts". Educatedlady (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC) To the poster above you are not informed. If the source is reliable it can be used in the article. I have found different sources that use the 1965-1982 date range. I dont understand why people have to make this such a problem. If there are good sources that use the date then it should be used. I think there will need to be some sort of protection on the page because there always seems to be others who want to change the introduction. 75.148.160.76 (talk) Allright let's go to semi-protection to keep out sock puppets, and anon contributors. But there's no point in stalling the discussion further at this point. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Good idea, Peregrine if you want to start the formal consensus that is fine with me. Educatedlady (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Honestly, I don't know what the formal procedure is now. Does anyone know how to lift a protection? Peregrine981 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Well we have to go through the formal consensus first before we can request a life of the protection, and we can only an administrator can approve that. Once we have complete the consensus then we can contact an adminstrator by Wikipedia chat and they will review the consensus and lift it, and we can request semi protection.Educatedlady (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Allright then, let's vote: Who is in favour of moving from protected to semi-protected status: In favour: Peregrine981 (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Against: First we need a formal consensus on the proposed changed to the article (vote), then we can ask an administrator to remove the protection. If you read above an administrator informed us once we reach an agreement then we can ask for the protection to be removed. Educatedlady (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for Introduction of Generation X Article

Agreement has been reached to change the wording of the lead paragraph to reflect multiple sources' use of multiple dates to define Generation X.

This is the proposed consenus for changing the wording of the introduction to the Generation X article. Once consensus is reached this section can be added to the heading of this talk page to inform other editors that a consensus has been met. "Generation X, commonly abbreviated to Gen X, is the generation born after the World War II baby boom ended. The term had also been used in different times and places for various different subcultures or countercultures since the 1950s. While there is no universally agreed upon time frame, the term generally includes people born in the 1960s and 70s, ending in the late 1970s to early 80s, usually no later than 1981, but sometimes as late as 1982." I agree to change the wording of the introduction to reflect a variety of sources that use various dates to define Generation X. Educatedlady (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC) All the people that wrote articles about what year Gen X starts and ends are just human beings. What makes them the be all end all, in all honesty i don't feel like anything born in the 80's is Gen X including 1980 or 81. Even this article lumps everything from 80 on as a gen y. http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/no-mcmansions-for-millennials.html . An estimated 80 million people comprise the category known as "Gen Y," youth born roughly between 1980 and the early 2000s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenXKid4life (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC) A couple of suggestions. I would say usually not later than 1982, as that seems to be the last date that you see with any regularity. Also, the "western" part is a bit difficult. Are we really sure that it is only western? The post-ww2 gens seem to be generally applied more or less globally, with occasional regional or national variations. I would also suggest to keep this phrase in the intro: "The term had also been used in different times and places for various different subcultures or countercultures since the 1950s." as it gives some context to the term. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Peregrine I made changes to the proposed, let me know what you think. Educatedlady (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC) I propose we keep the wording the way it is for both the Generation X and Generation Y articles, except that we say "usually no later than 1981" for Generation X, but add a comma, then "but sometimes even as late as 1982". That is more accurate based on the research I provided. Peregrine981 and you both agree that 1981 is more common and used more often. That would be a true compromise, and a statement that I am asking administrators to consider. Also, I should add that we should not remove the mentioning of "mid-1970s" from the Generation Y article as some have proposed, because some sources have used the term "Generation Y" (in some cases also the term "Millennials") to describe those born from 1975/1976 up to the early 2000s. I don't know why some anonymous users are changing "mid-1970s" to "late-1970s Though it's true that the late 1970s are used more often than mid-1970s, several sources use "mid-1970s". I don't know about the "western" bit. Where else would we use the term "western"? By this, I mean where else in the generation articles would we want to use the term "western"? Also, Peregrine, I forgot to notify you, but Educatedlady and I discussed keeping an eye on the generation pages for excessive anonymous edits or drastic changes. We are in agreement to request a temporary protection if necessary. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC) If it is so important then I will not object to "usually not later than 1981", even if I don't think it is necessarily the best way to define the generation. I don't think it is such an important point that it is worth keeping the page frozen, and everyone distracted for months on end. I can accept it as compromise wording as long the usually is left in, in order to keep the possibility of a later date open. But I would warn that this wording will likely require constant battling with new arrivals who are convinced that 1982/83 etc... are more "usual." However, it is unlikely that we will escape them anyway. Also, keep mid-1970s for Gen Y. As far as "western" goes, we use it sporadically at the moment, mostly because I don't think it is really clear in most of the literature exactly what the geographical definitions of these generations are. It seems, in my lay opinion, that western more or less applies to all pre-ww2 generations. Baby-boom I am not certain, but it would seem logical that it is largely a phenomenon of countries who fought in WW2. From Gen X onward they seem to become more "global" so don't necessarily need the geographic qualifier. I certainly have no objections to your final proposal, and will agree to keep an eye. However, we should be careful not to become an old guard or "cabal" who will not allow any changes to "our" work. Newcomers may bring fresh ideas, and we should be careful to encourage them to bring constructive edits. But certainly, if they are just randomly changing things to suit their own prejudices I will help out. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Ok I will change it back to reflect what I posted initially usually 1981, but sometimes as late as 1982. If you all agree I am okay with it. I think the sources will back up the intro, and decrease potential battles, although it may not eliminate them. I am all in favor of others coming to make changes and bringing in fresh ideas, because research changes. Even GenXKid4Life brought a new article that stated that millennials are defined as persons born 1980-2000. All this time I have been supportive of using all resources that use various dates. If we have made a consensus I will contact an adminisrator about the protection status. Educatedlady (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Ok it looks like we are on board reaching an agreement. I am contacting an administrator about placing the article on semi-protection status, and placing this consensus at the forefront of the talk page, to show validation that a consensus was made in regards to the introduction, to attempt to decrease furture intense debates like we have had. I hope to work with you guys and other editors in improving other areas in the article. Educatedlady (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

*CITATION for "Along with early members of Generation Y, Generation Xers are sometimes referred to as the MTV Generation.[citation needed]"

The Simpsons, Season Four, Episode Eleven; Homer's Triple Bypass. Where Homer is about to tell Bart and Lisa about the surgery,

Bart: Nothing you say can upset us, we're the MTV generation. Lisa: We feel neither highs nor lows. Homer: Really, what's it like? Lisa (shrugs): Meh...

Just had to put this here. I found it too ironic that there was a citation needed for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.247.141 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

ABC of XYZ

I wonder if this is really a legitimate source, the website makes it look more like the book was written to make money than to be a legitimate source of information for accuracy purposes. Also including the link might constitute spam since the only purpose of that website is to make money.--174.45.204.124 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Diversity?

This line caught my eye: "Compared with previous generations, Generation X represents a more heterogeneous generation, exhibiting great variety. They are diverse in such aspects as race, class, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation." This strikes me as statistically improbable, verging on impossible, particularly for ethnicity & race. Unless there was a substantial influx of immigration or massive difference in birth rates, the racial & ethnic composition should be within a few percentage points of the values for prior generations. Sexual orientation is also unlike to have changed in actual numbers, but rather in openness. Class is difficult to nail down, especially with all the economic ups & downs of that period. While the lines above are pretty much verbatim from the citation (to the point of verging on plagarism), they also seem illogical. Surely it would be more accurate to say that Gen X is *perceived* as more diverse in (insert stuff above), or "portrayed" as such in the media, or more open & proud of diversity, or something like that? I do think that GenX brings to mind a more diverse group than prior "generations", but I doubt this is a product of actual population composition changes but rather of certain groups no longer being marginalized to the same extent as in previous generations (and media portrayals reflecting this).

Long story short, while I agree that GenX seems / is portrayed as more heterogeneous, I doubt that there are genuine demographic shifts underlying this, making the above-quoted line inaccruate, even if sourced. While taking care to avoid WP:Synth and WP:OR, perhaps some more digging for references might allow the paragraph to be expanded and give a more complete picture? Mokele (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. This also seems to assume a US POV. Please feel free to do some digging along these lines. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. Educatedlady (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

75.11.156.74 and 76.206.29.76 has been reported

This user has been deleting my comments and has been attacking me via my talk page. They have been reported administrators.Educatedlady (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just on here for a short bit. You said you reported these IP addresses. I have had to deal with anonymous vandals who repeatedly engage in disruptive edits. I would also suggest you keep track of these IPs yourself, and perhaps leave the appropriate warning template on the IP's talk page. This way, other editors can see a history of warnings and can apply a stronger warning next time, or administrators can fully block the IP if necessary. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In the United States

If the article is going to link Gen Xers to particular presidents, it does make sense to mention the 2-term presidents, but does not make sense to leave out Bill Clinton. My belief is that linking to particular presidents should be left out of the article entirely. --98.180.18.161 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree because it doesn't make much sense, as Bill Clinton became president in 1993 during all the Gen X hype, so wouldn't he be connected to X also? (as well as Y?) Also many gen xers grew up during Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford's administrations. The fact that the article states that Gen Xer's are linked to Reagan and Bush gives the impression that persons born in the early 1980s are linked to this generation, however the article states that the generation is linked to these presidents states that Generation X dates are 1965-1978. Its conflicting. Plus this statement doesn't apply to persons living in other countries. Educatedlady (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)