Talk:Generation

William Strauss and Neil Howe

Many sources use different dates for the beginning and ending of Generation Y, and not just Strauss and Howe. Can we just be neutral with this as well?? Just use early 1980s and around the turn of the millennium for the start and end dates for Gen Y.Bjoh249 (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The other editors are okay with leaving it as it is. Strauss and Howe are very influential and the most well-known and respected generational theorists. Neil Howe continues to publish books and other research material, and is still a highly sought-after consultant on generations, especially the Millennial Generation. I have already added sources to another article proving this. NPR and schools recognize Strauss and Howe as groundbreaking researchers. Strauss and Howe's research has allowed even critics to get their own works noticed. It is already clear that their are no exact time frames, and that sources use different dates. There is no reason to remove sourced material. In fact, administrators have said that the material is valid. I have at least three administrators who have said I have not violated Wikipedia policy. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just suggesting that we add a neutral point of view and include mentions of other sources. Looks like you already did that. Thanks. Strauss and Howe are also VERY wrong. I don't care if they are widely sought after or not, which they are not. I totally disagree with most of what they say about Generation X and Y. They may understand the older generations, but not the ones that come after their own baby boom generation.Bjoh249 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Table of generations

This Strauss and Howe table of generations is terrible. Some "generations" mentioned in it (slackers, hippies, beatniks) are actually subcultures, NOT generations. And references to contemporary popular culture (MyPod, Myspace, Disney, iGeneration, Google) are just slack. Remove it, now. Nick carson (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I am going to give it a week. If no one says anything in a week I will clean it up!--Mickey 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs)

The picture

awwww man thats nasty that chick in the picture, come on we dont need to see that.. it should be removed, also now all the people who see it are going to picture her banging some guy. I mean come on, spare us the photographic depictions the article is enough --Krakko 20:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Generational evolution of consciousness?

In the Maya calendar, Carl Johan Calleman believes that the generational evolution of consciousness has steadily decreased during the universe's lifetime from the Big Bang to the present, from 1.26 billion years during the first 820 million years to just 20 days starting February 11, 2011.

What in the world does this mean? If someone can't clear this up, it should be removed. -Amake 02:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I was just about to refer people to my talk page for my neo-definition in some unobtrusive way with a new section, flipped down and saw the calendar reference here, went to the Calleman article (news to me), was understanding the expansion described with the quoted words in the first paragraph there at a moment when the other guy here had his extremely loud ringtone go off, and was beginning this ridiculous sentence 7 minutes (plus) ago. 8.Julzes (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Generations

I have just proposed Wikiproject Generations]. please comment. ElectricalExperiment 23:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Cite generation names

I think that the extra generation names should be cited so that they can be cut down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeAipom (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Heavily Opinionated

Where exactly do I go to report that "generation table" as the most opinionated thing on Wikipedia? Look at some of the names for the latter generations.

"The Spoiled Generation" "The MyPod Generation" "Generation whY" "The Myspace Generation"

First things first. I am currently sixteen. Therefore, according to the so-called "facts" of wikipedia, which is supposed to carry facts, not opinions, that would make me a spoiled, i-pod carrying, myspace account holding complainer. I might be a little spoiled (not enough to be called "spoiled", but somewhat), and I might complain a bit (who doesn't?), but it might surprise you to learn that I own neither an I-pod or a Myspace account. Likewise, the oldest generation in the table, let's take a look at the names on their list, shall we? Oh look, "The Greatest Generation". Wow, that's certainly opinionated. "The Hero Generation". Again, opinionated. Next, Boomers. "The Breakthrough Generation". That does seem somewhat opinionated (what exactly did they break through?). Generation X is termed as "slackers". Have you noticed something? As the generations get newer, the extremely opinionated names get worse!

Fix. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.178.169 (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

These are standard names that are broadly agreed upon. Mostly these older generations have the benefit of history, meaning their accomplishments have historical context; newer generations simply do not as yet have that benefit. For example "The Greatest Generation" is the most well known label for that generation. Simple as that. These labels are also meant to describe the defining features of that group of people (historically speaking), they certainly do not apply to everyone. Many people would take issue with being "The beatniks" or "The Bitter Boys", regardless those labels persist as well. As long as Wikipedia uses a reputable source, that is the best we (or anyone else for that matter) can do.

Also, I too do not own an IPod, however I do own an MP3 player; our generation was the first that could do so, which is the point. It also broadly represents the explosion of portable devices generally, the IPod simply being the most iconic. - RoyBoy 03:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

fixed generation table based on Strauss and Howe

The table referenced Strauss and Howe but the dates were wrong as were the generation names. Generation X is a nickname for the Thirteenth Generation, thus Generation X was moved as a nickname in the table list. As far as the nicknames go I agree with the person above. Maybe put one or two nickanmes but not a whole list. I am a Gen Xer and some of those names I did not recall. I even did research for some and did not find anything. I will "clean up" in a week if no one say's anything otherwise. Also the like to the Strauss and Howe web page is correct, however the info in the article is not all correct. It seems that dates are usually what is not correct. I believe some people want to fall in a certain year or have an opinion as to when (for example) Generation X started and ended. The fact is Strauss and Howe have outlinded the dates and thus writers should follow if citing Strauss and Howe. Here is a great link to their work and from the Fourth Turning book: http://www.fourthturning.com/my_html/body_generations_in_history.html Mickeyp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

globalize

Some of the definitions are only used in certain countries. Not all countries in the world experienced a baby boom after the 2nd world war. The baby boom is typically associated with the United States. What is missing is information on pre-industrial age generation. It is this generational length that dominated human history. Secondly, generations can also be applied to non-humans. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made changes to that table, which was filled with mistakes. It had plenty there which is and was inconsistent with Strauss & Howe, but a general page on generations should not use a table by S&H anyway. Their theories are controversial and not very popular among generation experts, and certainly don't represent common thinking. S&H have their own pages on Wikipedia, and that is where a table like that belongs. I've left the table for now, but I have at least added Generation Jones, which certainly should be on any chart of generations, given how much national media attention GenJones is receiving now.TreadingWater (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed the table back as it is based on Strauss and Howes tables. It was not inconsistent with Strauss and Howe. Also can you please tell us how Strauss and Howe are controversal? Also GenJones is a sub group of the Boom. This article does not represent a world view thus the banner at the top of it. Here is the link to the curerent table information:

http://www.fourthturning.com/my_html/body_generations_in_history.html

Notice the table you table has G.I. and Silent as the same as Strauss and Howe. What has come into play by the media is GenJones which doesn't even span the length between parent and child. Second New Silent should not fall under millennials and Gen X is NOT the internet generation. The reason we went with Strauss and Howe is because it is clear cut. They define the lines well, and while some people may not agree, it is a very good go by. If Please talk on discussion page before making any changes. Thanks. --Mickey 20:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing the chart. However, we still have only two countries that have age of first time mothers, that is the US and the UK. It is very likely that in the developing world the ages deviate significantly from US/UK stats. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Chart

After rereading the article I do not think a chart should be in it. There are too many charts on other generation pages and it seems everyone has a opinion as to when generation dates start and stop and what the names of the generations are. This article is a basic summary as to what a generation is so there is no need to go into a timeline as to what the generations are. I will not do anything for a couple of weeks so that if anyone has a different opinion as to why there should be a chart can say so here. Thanks! --Mickey 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need for a chart here. But if there is a chart it should not just represent one expert's opinion, given how much variation there is among experts on this topic. And it certainly should not be Strauss and Howe's theory, which is definitely less popular now among experts, and was always a minority view anyway. Strauss and Howe have their theories well-represented on Wikipedia; a Strauss and Howe chart should not be in a general article about generations...it creates a misleading perception. I've adapted the chart a bit, but again, I think a chart doesn't really belong on this pageTreadingWater (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am removing the chart. There are too many charts about wikipedia about generations and people are never able to agree as to what is right and wrong. I would rather there NOT be argument over a chart and rather have a base article tell what a generation is.--Mickey 14:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs)

Ok 25years is a Generation?

25ears as article states is a generation. So why then is Generation used for "Beat generation" Baby Boommer" generation etc.? They lasted I beleive less then 25earsThanks!Andreisme (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is starting to become ridiculous. It seems now that a generation can be defined as being anything between 5-35 years; at one point the chart (which has since vanished) had Generation X being less than 1 year (I believe it had +/- over the same year, with other generations overlapping it on both sides). Still, I believe charts are useful and am very disappointed that it's gone. Also, it needs to be remembered (& noted) that there is a big difference between a biological generation and a socio-cultural one, the latter of which I believe is mainly addressed here. This is probably why now it seems common to describe each decade as being a "separate" generation, even though very few if any people are actually born to parents who are aged 10. I think 22 or 22.5 is the average length of a generation as quoted from Strauss & Howe. Shanoman (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, we need to drop this nonsense of Generation Z starting at 1995. Generation Y practically begins at 1982 onwards, and we're only given 13 years! Generation Y should be put at its original dates of 1981-2001. The late 70's kids are not Gen Y'ers. Even the early 80's born kids (1980-85) mostly graduated high school during the early 2000's (2000-2003) a time before ipods, facebook and stuff. Generation Z doesn't start till 2000 or 2001. Basically all kids born during the first 15-20 years of the 21st century. Which includes kids born in 2010 and onwards till at least 2020. These are Z'ers, not Generation Alpha's as being posited by a few obscure amateur papers. User: Afghan Historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.187.41 (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

re: Interbellum Generation- those born at dawn of 20th cen. were adults by the 1920s

LIST OF GENERATIONS

Western World

Interbellum Generation - "those born at the dawn of the 20th century and who grew up during the 1920s"- immature brats that refused to grow up until they were in their 20s? Did they stay small until that time, like Oskar Matzerath in The Tin Drum? ;) Fp cassini (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

TV Generation

Overlooked in this discussion is the generational division brought about by widespread distribution of Television in the US.

In 1955 only half of all US Households had one and they were quite expensive. In 1958, two things occurred that would change all that; the invention of the integrated circuit, and anti-trust action by the US Justice Dept against RCA, AT&T, and IBM, making their patents available for free to everyone and opening up the electronic based industries.

This quickly brought the price down, making television affordable to the masses.

The first transistorized TV was released in January of 1959, and the first all-transistor set in 1960.

By 1960 most households had at least a used set.

This should be the dividing line between the Baby Boomers and Generation Jones.

Generation Jones was the first generation raised on television and it's constant barage of commercials. No wonder they were Jonesing!

Baby Boomers were avid readers, which went into decline with the widespread distribution of television. 96.18.8.154 (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Baby Boomers were the Hippies, whereas Generation Jones were the Yuppies.

This I believe leads to the dubious citation of ideological division in Baby Boomers. It's not real, but rather an artifact of the late date(as late as 1964) assigned to the Baby Boomers.

Those born before 1958 lived in a different world from those born after. At this time in history, there was a clear Paradigm shift. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.8.154 (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Article organisation

This article seems to be a bit of a mish-mash of different things. I suggest:

• All the "generation can mean this, it can also mean that, and by the way it can also mean some other thing" in the lead section be moved to "Generation (disambiguation)".

• The rest of this article be split into two articles, one about familial generations (currently that would be short, but there's no reason it would need to stay that way), and the other about cultural generations. The two things seem to me to be sufficiently different to merit separate articles.

86.138.41.250 (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

I disagree, until we have enough information to split familial generation, I don't think it makes sense. What would we really put in such an article anyway? Peregrine981 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Peregrine981: "sorry to undo good faith edits, but these dates often prove to be highly contentious. As other date ranges are already provided and sourced, we cannot suddenly dump in an entirely new system."

I accept the Undo was also good faith, but for someone searching for / coming to this article afresh (as I did today), the single MOST important attribute it could have, IMOHO, is a mapping from names to dates: effective the Ontology. Thoughts as to how to square that circle? Bill Martin (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have often wondered about how to best incorporate dates into these generation articles. I am tempted to be very careful about it because wikipedia articles are most often the #1 hit on the internet for generation articles, and I have seen it happen many times that people will take a wikipedia date completely on faith, which then starts getting spread around the internet as the "official" date. The other problem with stating defined dates, means that people take them very literally. ie, "if you're born in 1980 you are X, but 81 is Y", when a generation cannot be that clearly defined. The best system I've been able to come up with to date is to take all more or less credible sources as equal, and list all of their start dates as part of a range. The problem with this is that you wind up with a very maximalist definition of a generation, spreading upwards of 30 years. Another system that seems to avoid many of the pitfalls is simply to say "late 1940s" or "mid 1970s" or the like, leaving it slightly amorphous, as these things surely are. At any rate, this is wikipedia's defacto, "official" listing of generations, so we need to be careful. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the date ranges given for living generations in particular shouldn't be worded as if they're carved in stone, because there are invariably disagreements in reliable sources which cannot be ignored.--otherlleft 00:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on the dates were already reached and the dates were to be left alone since it started edit wars. This page was under protection for a long time. I don't think we want to go through all that again. 1981 is NOT Generation Y. Please see other comments. The Class of 2000 is Generation Y and most demographers use the Strauss and Howe guidelines with the 1982 birth date starting Generation Y. Again, people seem to confuse Generation X with the MTV Generation, which encompasses Generation X and the early members of Generation Y, up to birth year 1984. The dates were set up in the introduction to best represent the generation dates that are most accepted. Please respect the consensus that was previously reached.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't nix the edit you made. I edited back what you deleted. I left what you wrote. I ask that you not delete the information again. The Millennial Generation/Generation Y is defined in the same article and the Strauss/Howe explanation needs to be left included in the paragraph because it includes both uses today. Most demographers TODAY use the Strauss and Howe model. I gave my explanations for why 1982 births/Class of 2000 are the start of Generation Y. You seem to be ignoring this. MTV Generation is a SUB generation and has it's own page. People seem to be confusing Generation X and the MTV Generation, which encompasses Generation X members and early Generation Y. Please do not delete this again. I realize a couple of people may differ on this, but the generation article pages reached a consensus on dates and content. The Strauss and Howe information is an important definition used today by researchers and MUST be included in the definition. Millennials are used interchangeably with Generation Y. I ask you again to please respect the consensus that was reached. Just because you disagree, does not mean the general consensus has changed. A couple of people do not make a consensus. Also, as I mentioned, Strauss and Howe are important to how the term Millennials is used today by not just demographers/researchers, but media today. I guess this page will be considered for protection again. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly respect that a consensus was once reached, and that it took a lot of work to get there. Let me better articulate my concerns with the way it is worded, to see if it generates more interest. The particular wording I have a problem with is, "Today, many follow William Strauss and Neil Howe's demographics in defining the Millennials. Respected researchers William Strauss and Neil Howe have been influential in defining American generations in their book . . ." Who are the "many" that follow Strauss and Howe? Is there a reliable source that indicates how many, or details in what ways their work has been influential? I don't have a problem with using their work as a source, but when weasel words creep into the article then they must be challenged.--otherlleft 00:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I also don't doubt that these researchers are respected, but I don't want to see them described thus unless that, also, appears in a reliable source.--otherlleft 00:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record I would like to state my opinion that there has never been a consensus regarding the dates of generations. There has been more or less constant edit warring in this regard for years, throughout the various articles. There may have been periods when the dates were left alone, but this absence of conflict does not reflect consensus. Also even if there had been a consensus, I refer to wikipedia's policy on consensus:

"Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" is not a valid rationale for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.

Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things."'

Peregrine981 (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have said over and over why that information must remain AND added that a larger consensus had already been reached (see the archives where Strauss and Howe were discussed - it goes back at least 6 months to 1 year). Two people are not a consensus. But that is NOT the reason the information stays on the article page. You insist on bringing this up after I have cited the information and stated that it is part of the Generation Y article page. Strauss and Howe are important researchers and MOST media, demographers, and researchers today go by their standards. That bit of information is part of the DEFINTION of Generation Y and Millennials, and therefore belongs in the definition under the Generation page. Also, I said they were researchers not demographers. Others are demographers who use them as references. I have stated the reasons, references, research, and citations are provided. You have not shown any reliable sources or citations that show that MOST researchers don't go by the standard definition. The article pages show the origins, various uses, and definitions. Millennials and Generation Y are used interchangeably. The Strauss and Howe information stays. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What I was asking of you (or anyone else) is to provide a source that demonstrates your assertion that important researchers and that most demographers use them. I have no doubt their work is a reliable source, but that doesn't mean we have the right to use weasel words to describe their contributions. I don't need to review the consensus that was previously achieved to know that it did not result in a reliable source being included in the article that asserts these things about Strauss and Howe, and barring that source, it is appropriate to include differing viewpoints - if reliable sources for those are provided, of course. So instead of falling back on assurances that other editors agree with you, how about just ponying up a source which agrees instead? Because of the nature of this article's history I won't remove the unsourced citations yet, because I'm sure one of the many editors you've described can help us find that source.--otherlleft 14:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

CreativeSoul is obsessed with keeping those born in 1981 in the Gen X generation. That is just not the case. Strauss and Howe may be experts on generations, but they are not the only ones. Many others have 1980(some late 70s)as the start of the millennial generation. S&H tries to say that there are huge differences between those born in 1981 and those born a year later. It almost makes it sound like we are old people and they are young people. Sorry, but that just doesn't line up. 1981 is very much within Generation Y and the millennial generation. Bjoh249 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Beat Generation - New Section added

CreativeSoul7981 <-- This following conversation (from Hello again) is posted by me. It is a conversation that Unitanode and I had earlier on this topic. I invited others to join the discussion.

Hello. I questioned the addition of this section because I wasn't sure it belonged here, but wanted to ask another user. Please discuss, if you think it needs to be reorganized, as Peregrine981 has edited.

Here is the conversation UnitAnode and I had:

START

Hello again. Thanks for your help on the various generation pages on Wikipedia. Your input is helpful. I wanted to bring to your notice the addition of The Beat Generation on the Generations page. What is your opinion on this? I know there was a Beat Generation, but don't think it's an official one, more like a sub-generation like MTV Generation. Do you feel it is like Generation Jones and doesn't belong on the list? Hope you have a Happy New Year! Let's pray that 2010 will be better than 2009.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• No, it's not the same. The Beat Generation is widely recognized. Generation Jones is nothing more than a neologism created by one man, and cited by a few news organizations. UnitAnode 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't think it was the same thing. But it seemed like a sub-Generation to me, though I guess it does fit on the article page for Generations. Do you think a link should be added on the pages for the Lost Generation and the Baby Boomer pages? I don't think it's necessary, but it may be helpful for others if they don't initially go to the Generations page.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the number of articles linking to it right now are more than enough. UnitAnode 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No arguments here. (Sorry, I signed this post, but I think I clicked the wrong icon at top). --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So, should we leave it with the other Generations on the list, reorder them, or move it to a different section altogether?--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

END OF CONVERSATION

According to our own article, the Beat Generation is not a generation in the sense we have been using. It refers more to a cultural movement, "a group of American writers" rather than a broad based demographic. It should not be included in the basic list. However, I think that we could include it in the article under a separate section, as it is undeniably a prevalent term that might need clarification. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that someone (probably CreativeSoul7981) pasted text here, making it appear as if I'd posted here. The above text is cut-and-pasted from a conversation at my talk. UnitAnode 20:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I re-edited my original post. I guess it was hard to read that I had indicated it was a conversation and then signed my comment.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Smackbot fixes - citation needed

I noticed there were some citations needed. See the fix [User:Smackbot|Smackbot]] made earlier. I will be reading through some books on the topic, so I hope to add some references that are missing. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

widespread use of television

We say Generation X was "the first generation with widespread access to television during their formative years." However in the recently inserted citation, it says that 71% of American households had tvs as early as 1956. I don't know what your definition of "widespread" is, but I would consider 7 in 10 households to be fairly widespread. Considering that baby boomers, under almost any definition, were still in their "formative years," and Gen X under any definition was yet to be born, I don't see how this ciation supports our statement. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Western world

For obvious reasons, the cultural criteria introduced in this article do apply to Europe to a much lesser degree and to Germany hardly at all. To apply them indiscriminately to the "Western world" is an unacceptable Americocentrism.

-- 84.180.247.252 (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? If you could add in some referenced information regarding the cultural differences I would be very grateful. Cheers, Peregrine981 (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

EPIC nonsense

There is no credible source for the name, at least none yet presented. If the source were at all legitimate, it might be listed somewhere in the Generation Z article, but I see no evidence of that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The disputed text is:

The EPIC Generation, refers to those who had come of age in the late 2000 to the present, "because this generation has begun reaping the benefits of the rapid advances in science and technology, . . . having that epic atmosphere, surpassing the usual or ordinary moment in time."<ref>"Curriculum for the EPIC Generation - Research Colloquium" (Press release). Center for Learner-Centered Instruction and Research, De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde. 24 March 2010. Retrieved 3 March 2010.</ref> The term epic also refers to the peculiar characteristics of this generation: experiential (4D), participative (wiki users), image-driven (familiar with international symbols and abbreviations, videocam users), and connected (social networking via world wide web)<ref>"EPIC Generation". Retrieved 5 March 2010.</ref>.

The first source seems to be a course announcement, but I can't tell because it's password protected, and an https link without proper certification, and the second is a video without any author information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

April 12 rewrite

The edits by Letowskie (talk · contribs) seem to be reinserting the assertion that Generation Jones is even a cultural generation, which has been rejected by consensus of all-but-one editor. If further comments are needed, please comment here before reinserting. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply: April 12 rewrite

Here's what Mr. Rubin sent me in PM: "Removed Generation Jones per long-time agreement of all-but-one editor, and associated information. The difference between cultural and demographic generations might be relevant, but Strauss & Howe's cultural generations are about the same as the demographic generations, so the difference would probably need to reference one of the rejected references to Generation Jones. Please do not add until you can get a consensus reversing the previous consensus, at Talk:Generation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)", which is pretty much what he discussed above.

For generation Jones, you do have a valid point. It probably should not be inserted until more wide acceptance is found. I do suspect that it will be the case in the future, at least in terms of a disputed generation, due to the popularity of this term in referring to Pres. Obama himself, and those around him.

However, my additions were much more than just gen Jones. It primarily added clarifications to the confusion brought by this page, intermingling (unjustifiably) the generational concepts in population dynamics with that of Strauss Howe, which was based on historical typology. It was disturbing, for someone who studies in this area, to see the significant confusion brought by randomly mixing parts of concepts from two very different schools of thought, in two different disciplines, designed for two very different purposes. The population studies primarily looks at hard statistical evidence, and especially deals with parentage and the binomal distribution of population peaks and troughs; while the historical study deals with the entirely differen issue of how current generations specifically fits in with past (mostly American) generations according to a specific historical analysis. Neither one of the camps even claimed any equivalence with the other.

As has been pointed out, some equivalences in the article are frankly gross misrepresentations of the chronology and the descriptions of these population cohorts. Before the boomers, there is a certain correspondence. For genX and 13th, it is still fairly close, although the descriptions of these two concepts are quite different. The difference in timeline between Gen Y and Millenials, and especially between Gen Z and new silent gen are very different. The new silent gen actually overlaps mostly with the new "gen alpha". And of course, one time line describes the western world in general, while Strauss Howe is only applicable to the US (at least for the last two centuries), and they cannot be equated at all. I don't know where Mr. Rubin gets the idea that these generational concepts are "about the same"?

And of course, as one posted eluded to earlier, it's unacceptable that Strauss and Howe here is represented here prominently as the de facto generational timeline for the part of the article on Western world, when in fact it can only applicable to one country by design!! — Letowskie

Addendum: April 12

By the way, I'm not trying to impose any set of definitive descriptions or dates to each generation that the consensus does not support. However, as most here recognize, there are more than one school of thought on what are the currently living generations among the western world, in academica. And usually only with the passing of previous generations are large consensus about the name, description and time period of the generations reached. But we cannot muddled the issue by creating random mixtures of different systems of generational systems about a civilization, and expect a consistent outcome. Mixing different generational concepts is not consensus, it is simply inaccurate information. I simply want to add clarification to what are the different ways to make such classifications, and presenting competing systems of organizing current generations that are still in flux in the academic world and in popular culture. It's not for us to decide which are the correct descriptions or correct time lines, but it is our job here to present information from academic and popular press accurately and to inform those that are interested in the issue. — Letowskie

The Little Rascals.

Most of the earliest original Little Rascals seem to be of the Greatest Generation, or the generation before. (Generation4 (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

I am not only referring the children when I mention the Little Rascals. I am also referring to the adults. If the Little Rascals, Jackie Cooper and Wheezer are of the Greatest Generation, what does that make their teacher, Miss Crabtree? What is her generation.

I like to use old movies as guide lines.(Generation4 (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

The word, "emo."

What generation started using this word? (Generation4 (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

Confused between the Beat Generation and the Baby Boomer Generation.

I was born in 1950. As a kid, I watched TV shows such as Howdy Doody and Topper. I remember hearing the Honeymooners in the background as I was put to bed, in my early years. Does that make me part of the Beat Generation or the Baby Boomer Generation? (Generation4 (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

Generation Z

Please stop changing the dates for Generation Z. Only one book has this generation starting from the early 1990s. All other sources, including magazines, newspapers, demographical research and technological magazines all use the mid-1990s, especially 1995 as the starting birth year for this group. The other editor's dates run into Generation Y. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Generations can override other dates especially if neither Generation Y or Generation Z are defined. Additionally, you seem to be mistaken on the number of sources being used to cite the early 1990's date. See this by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, this by the California Teachers Association, or this by essential babies Australia. Finally, note that the removal of sources without any valid reason constitutes vandalism, which may result in your account being blocked from editing.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the source because it is only one that supports this date. I wasn't the editor who put the dates for this page. Dates were changed without discussion. I found this australian cite that also has 1995 as the start date. Generation Z Classroom. Also, all the technological cites that I have seen mention Generation Z use 1995 as the start date. The terms first usage refers to 1995 as the first birth year. One book is not enough to change the date without discussion. I'm not Australian, but found a page to support what I'm saying. Most demographers start Generation Y at 1982 (that is the earliest date widely accepted) and end the generation at the EARLIEST 1994, but can extend to those born in 2000. I am just pointing out that this article claims the earliest dates for Generation Z is 1990 or 1991 (early '90s) which is just way off base. I think there will be other people who agree with me. I didn't create this article page, but it is on my watchlist. I felt the dates were changed with no good claim. I asked others to join the discussion. However, the dates for the other generation pages have been set by a consensus and therefore should not be changed. It also caused the pages to be locked. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The dates for other generations were set by the United States Census Bureau not by consensus. However, Generation Y and Generation Z remain undefined. Note the opening line in Generation Y, "As there are no precise dates for when the Millennial generation starts and ends, commentators have used birth dates ranging somewhere from the mid 1970s to the early 2000s." That simply means Generation Y and Z are left to third person consideration until a clear date is set by the United States Census Bureau. Now note the early 1990's date is fairly weighed with sources of such third person views per WP:RS. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not in disagreement with a couple of sources you provided, but I'm not sure if the website on parenting/pregnancy is appropriate. As I said previously, most sources cite 1995 as the starting date. I think a consensus should be reached before changing the dates in the heading of an article. Others are welcome to give their opinions. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it takes time and we need to be looking back to name a generation, I think calling the latest generation, "generation Z" is jumping the gun, gen x and gen y, were called such because there were too many variations in society and no one unifying theme. But generation Z is starting to have a unifying theme, and they are starting to be called "the 9/11 generation" Such as in this article: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/08/rutgers.sept11.kids/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

table

I've been an end use of this article for years. Can we please back a reasonable table listing the American generations from the revolution on. I understand there may be controversy but some sort of system or at least a link to 1/2 dozen different systems is important. Ultimately what people want is a classification scheme with some sort of dating structures. I understand it isn't wikipedia's job to pick a winner but then make a series of lists. But losing the table just diminishes the article too much. CD-Host (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You can find a list like this at Generations_(book). Feel free to link to that page from here, along with any other systems that are encyclopedic.Peregrine981 (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Digital Natives

I find a problem with the inclusion of Digitial Natives under the "I" Generation heading. Technically, Digital Natives is not a certain generation, but a divide. The wiki article on it even says so "A digital native is a person who was born during or after the general introduction of digital technology". I propose it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.88.24 (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy Generation

Generations Y and Z are extremely prone to reading fantasy and watching fantasy. People from these generations long to live in a world that doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepoodlechef (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you simply sharing an opinion or do you have a reliable source for this and would like it added? -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The Generation XYZ

"The Generation XYZ are the generations that served Iraq invasion of Kuwait and during/after 9/11 then the sub-sequential present wars. This is the cause of generational riff between the generation in power Baby Boomers and the three generation. In a society the reward winners such as in sports, the Baby Boomer were known for Vietnam and many negative traits which then tried to superimpose on the X generation (ie...supposed Losing Generation) and refuse to acknowledge the Second Greatest Generation."

Aside from the grammatical errors in this post, it is an opinion, not fact, and is not cited. Suggest it be verified or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF0F:8BB0:E136:87D:FEAE:1991 (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Familial generation

I'm a bit dubious about the current content of the "familial generation" section. Right now it talks entirely about how long an average generation is, and implies that this somehow defines a familial generation. However, my understanding of the term is that it quite simply means the succession of generations in its most basic sense, from grandparents, to parents to children (etc...). How long the average generation is is maybe an intersting sub-topic, but not the main point. Or am I missing something? Peregrine981 (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Request replaceing the pictures

I request replaceing the pictures depicting generations to such ones that depict whole families and not just the female members (I would do it myself if I had such pictures available). The current pictures are bad illustrations as half of the family, thus half of the elder generations is missing. 84.0.34.189 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

1942-1946

If the "Silent Generation" ends in 1942 and the "Baby Boomers" don't begin until 1946, what about the people born between 1942 and 1946? Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Generational theory section is illogical

Starting with this quote:

"Contemporary society readily, if not naturally, accepts the notion of a generation as a form of differentiation or comparison.[according to whom?] The idea of a generation is not new and can be found in ancient literature"

This is referred to a the "bandwagon fallacy", an form of illogical reasoning that states that something is believed by many it must be true. Just because societies throughout time have accepted the concept of generations doesn't mean it's true (and I don't believe there's a source either)

And continuing with this quote from Pew which essentially undermines the entire section:

"But we also know this is not an exact science. We are mindful that there are as many differences in attitudes, values, behaviors, and lifestyles within a generation as there are between generations."

If the differences between are as great at the differences within generations, how is the concept of generational theory useful?

Tgiesler (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)