Talk:Xennials

Neologism vs demographic cohort

Xennials is currently a popular press neologism. As of yet, it's not included in research by notable demographers/researchers. All of the sources are popular press currently, with no sourcing from researchers/demographers. We should use language which supports current sourcing, especially in lead. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is, Wikipedia articles don't start with "Xxx is a term for yyy." That's just bad writing, and should be avoided on Wikipedia. The article is not about the term "Xennials", it's about the actual Xennials, a demographic of people born at a particular period of time, for which there are multiple different terms. And yes, it's a demographic in the sense that it's a particular sector of the population, regardless of whether demographers use the concept or not. Other acceptable intros would be something like, "Xennials are the sector of the population born..." or "Xennials are people born..." Feel free to come up with a better intro, but please stop re-inserting the "term for" language.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Generational articles are my primary area on Wikipedia, and this is currently the standard format for articles on generational terms which aren't part of the main recognized demographic cohorts such as Baby boomers, Generation X, Millennials etc. Please see Generation Snowflake, Generation Jones, Me Generation, Strawberry generation etc. Demographic refers to statistical analysis of cohorts. Currently there are no references in this article which include any statistical analysis of Xennials. Xennials are not currently a demographic cohort studied by researchers, marketers or demographers. It's currently a popular press neologism discussed in Social Media Week and GOOD Magazine. This might change at some point, but at this point I think we should follow the current sourcing and existing pattern for articles on generational terms. Add- also, to clarify, I haven't been reinserting new wording. I've simply restored the consensus wording which has been in the opening sentence of the lead for over a year, which was changed without discussion and then opened this discussion. I see no consensus to change this wording. --DynaGirl (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that other articles also include bad style is no reason to repeat the error here - it means those other articles need to be fixed, too. WP:ISAWORDFOR and WP:REFERS explain why this is bad style and what to do to avoid it. A local consensus (let alone one person) doesn't override Wikipedia-wide style guidelines. I've suggested several alternatives at this point, any of which would resolve the problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that it's bad style. The current wording seems consistent with openings for other notable neologisms. It does not use "refers to" [1] The current article is about the term primarily, although there is a smaller section that mentions traits various op-ed writers/newsbloggers have attributed to these cuspers. However, putting "demographic" or "population" in lead would not seem to represent the current sources, because there's no sources that study the cuspers as a demographic or population. Currently the sources are opinion pieces from individual cuspers. Nothing from sociologists, demographers, marketers etc. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL, it literally uses the phrase "is a [neologistic] term". That's the very definition of the bad style WP:ISAWORDFOR and WP:REFERS say to avoid. The article is not about the term, which is clear from the fact that it was titled after a different term until a few days ago. And even if it were, the term would be italicized per WP:WORDSASWORDS. Again, I've offered several suggestions, any of which would fix this problem, and several of which avoid the "demographic" language you find objectionable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how a title change form Oregon Trail Generation to Xennials changes that these are both neologistic terms for X/Y cuspers, with Xennials arguably being slightly more popular currently. That these terms are neologisms seems clear in the text of the current article and text of article before the name change, and throughout the edit history of the article, and also on the article talk page, which frequently debates the notability of this neologism. Not opposed to italicizing the term. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how I can be any clearer than I have been. The article is about "X/Y cuspers", people born at a particular time. It's not and never has been about the name "Xennials", which is one of several terms for these people, and not the one originally used as the title. As such, the intro needs to be written that way. A later sentence can explain that the terms are neologisms.

Now, is there anything objectionable in the suggestions "Xennials are the sector of the population born..." or "Xennials are people born..."?--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the full text of the current article [2], the edit history or this article, which includes an admin tagging it as neologism, or this article talk page which includes multiple editors debating the notability of this neologism and where this neologism would be best covered on wikipedia? This clearly seems to be about a neologism. We'd need additional sourcing to support your suggested changes. I do not think there is sourcing currently available which supports your suggested changes. --DynaGirl (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Who said it wasn't a neologism? The issue is that it's not about the neologism, it's about the people the neologism refers to. The suggestions are supported by the same sources as the current phrases (ie, all of them).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The current lead makes clear this refers to people and the current article is primarily about the various terms and their origins/histories. My opposition to stating in opening sentence of lead that Xennials are demographic or population etc, and then only later mentioning the terms are neologisms, stems from the sources. The current sources are opinion pieces by non-notable journalists or newsbloggers. The only quality secondary source currently is from Merrian-Webster which describes Xennials as a notable neologism in their "Words We're Watching" section.--DynaGirl (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This article should be written the same as though it were titled "Generation X/Millennials cusp(er)". Several terms for this cohort are described. This article is not a dictionary entry like in Merrian-Webster. If the article were about the term it would not start with "(also known as the Oregon Trail Generation and Generation Catalano)". Imagine if it were written: "Xennials, who are also known as the Oregon Trail Generation, are people who...." I believe it is proper to use the word "neologism" under the terminology section. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC) This article is not about a neologism. This article is about a cohort which is referred to by a neologism. Many articles have an etymology section; this or the "terminology" section would be the appropriate place to describe the term itself as a neologism. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Xennial Date Ranges

I've seen only a few variations for the date ranges of Xennials, but shouldn't we include other minor variations that are backed with credible citations or research as opposed to just running with the current mainstream definition that is only highlighted by a few possibly conjectured popular media sources (i.e. 1977-1983)? Any person that performs a quick google search can easily discover this issue. Xennials, as far as I have seen, can be stretched as far back as 1975 to as late as 1985 or 1987. Citations, research and references can certainly be provided (and should be for any variations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolomonSalem (talk • contribs) 17:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We publish what reliable sources say, and currently several sources including Merrian Webster dictionary are using 1983 as end date. An exception is Business Insider which used 1985 in one publication and this is mentioned in the article. I haven't seen any reliable sources for 1975.DynaGirl (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

There are more 1985 sources that should be cited. I have not seen 1987 nor 75. SexyKick 01:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The January 12, 2019 edit identifies 1973 as the starting point according to Sarah Eaglesfield. In her twitter account @zenxv she describes herself as an xennial, but I have found no articles about xennials mentioning her. Should this edit be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya Butternut (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

How do I say it?

Just discovered this new word. Had a debate with the other person in the room about how to say it. Can we have pronunciation guide please? HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I pronounce it with an initial \z\, like the "x" in xylophone, and the -ennial is just like the last two syllables in Millennial.--Frmorrison (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I pronounce it "ex-ennial". I see no reason to think that a standard received pronunciation exists. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I also believe it is pronounced "ex-ennial". As a portmanteau of Generation X and Millennials, this pronunciation seems to make sense. DynaGirl (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's pronounced "X" "ennial", just like how you pronounce Millennialz. The other side of the Millennial's cusp generation. 1996-2004 SexyKick 03:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I removed the recently added content referenced to Reddit and Quora because these are user generated sources which do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. DynaGirl (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Self-identifying as Xennials

I don't like this sentence in the lead: "People who identify with Xennials, Oregon Trail Generation or Generation Catalano do so because they do not feel they fit within the typical definitions of Generation X or Millennials." I understand that the concept of this microgeneration has been created because people have felt they don't fit in the other generations, but I don't like the idea that people can choose their generation based on how they feel, regardless of what year they were born. It seems like this has lead wiki editors to want to change the date ranges for xennials. In the future if enough people identify as xennials outside of the birth years of the late 70s and early 80s the years could change, but I still think the language of "identifying as xennnial" should be edited from this article. I have changed the sentence to: "This microgeneration was identified by people who felt that they did not fit within the typical descriptions of Generation X or Millenials." --Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This is well referenced and supported by article text. This is largely about self-identification. Some GenX/Millennial cuspers identify as strictly Millennials or strictly as members of Generation X, but apparently many don't. They feel like they don't fit neatly in either, hence the concept of "Xennials". DynaGirl (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

DynaGirl, Are you saying you believe that the concept of Xennials is largely about self-identification? I disagree. I understand that self-identification is supported by article text, but as I've stated, the names for this cusp generation were created by people through self-identification, but now that the names and the concept exist, self-identification should not be the main way to describe Xennials in the lead. I had edited the article text to be consistent with my changes to the lead but you reverted those edits as well. Would you like to discuss the source text? The reference in this talk page regarding demographics, for instance, does not discuss self-identification. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Dan Woodman does not describe self-identification in his article for The Conversation. In his interview with Mamamia, he does describe his own experience, but this would be the same if a sociologist who was a Baby boomer described his own generation. So, when he was interviewed he spoke in the first person, but in his own article he wrote from a non-personal perspective with no references to self-identification. I think the Xennials lead should be changed to be consistent with that style. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying the references describe it as being about self-identification and as about not feeling they fit into the main generational categories. DynaGirl (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

DynaGirl, I'll try to be clear:

* Many of the references describe the Xennials concept through self-identification.

* Many of the other references also describe the Xennials concept without discussing self-identification.

* The only article written by Dan Woodman, who is the main authority referenced throughout this article, does not discuss self-identification.

* The only scholarly article specifically discussing Xennials does not discuss self-identification.

* The concept of this article exists regardless of what Xennials themselves think. Other Wikipedia articles that discuss "self-identification" are articles on sexual identity and political identity, etc. This makes sense because these concepts are dependent on thoughts and feelings. Xennials are a demographic defined by observable characteristics connected to birth years, regardless of what one thinks or feels. This is supported by the references.

I feel like you are giving more weight to "popular press" pieces than to articles written by scholars and researchers, contradicting yourself earlier in this talk page. Am I missing something? I hear you repeating yourself but I'm not hearing you elaborate on your thoughts while discussing what I have said to you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The lede sentence in question sounds fine. According to Wikipedia policy, ledes don't need to be heavily referenced. The main generational categories (in the sidebar like "baby boomer" etc.) have existed like that for years, some for decades, so status quo is the operating principle. In fact, the Millennials' page was created in 2001. Xennial is clearly not a main generational catagory, it's more like "Generation Jones". 2606:6000:6111:8E00:AD57:6F50:A5F1:2067 (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent addition of "microgeneration" to opening sentence of article

I removed the recent addition of "microgeneration" to the opening sentence, because "microgeneration" is not actually a word in the English language. At least not in the sense it is being used in the recent additions. "Microgeneration" does not mean mini generation of people. It actually means "the generation of electricity or heat on a small scale." [3]. Also please see Wikipedia page for microgeneration. Sure, a viral Instagram post about Xennials and a websites and what appear to be student papers call Xennials a "micorgeneration" but "microgeneration" isn't yet a recognized word in the English language with respect to people, and therefore should not be used by Wikipedia until it is, except maybe in a direct quote, attributable to source, and not in the opening sentence of the lead. Xennials is currently a neologism. This is well sourced and should not be removed from the lead. Maybe at some point it will grow beyond a neologism, but according to Merriam-Webster, Xennials was included in their recent "Words We're Watching" section which discusses new words which are increasingly being used, but which do not yet meet criteria for a dictionary entry. The only notable academic currently referenced in the article is sociologist, Dan Woodman, who says "the 'Xennials' must be taken with several grains of salt. There isn't yet any strong academic evidence for the grouping, although clearly the idea resonates with a lot of people who felt left out by the usual categorizations." DynaGirl (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@DynaGirl:, @Scarpy:, @Cuchullain:, We are approaching an edit war over the use of the word "neologism" or "term" in the opening sentence versus using language to describe the concept of this demographic cohort. There is also disagreement over whether there are any scholarly sources. I will take "microgeneration" out of the opening sentence and include it elsewhere in a direct quote attributable to source. I will remove the reference to the University of Dayton Law Review article which has yet to be published. Please note, however, that this is not a student paper; this was written by an adjunct professor at the Stetson University College of Law who is also the associate director of the law library. There is one published scholarly source (that I have access to), and that is the article in Industrial and Commercial Training. The writer states "Very few academic articles on generational differences mention cusp generations and none address their unique opportunities for organizations in the workplace." That would suggest that up until this article was written there were no academic articles describing xennials, but now there are. And as I have noted, there are more which are soon to be published. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

But you actually need a references for demographic cohort. Xennials is a term recently coined by Good magazine that was fueled by a Viral instagram post and journalists and newsbloggers have written about it. This isn't yet studied by demographers, statisticians, sociologists outside very obscure papers who basically just say it hasn't been studied. If over time there are references from demographers or if over time there is statistical analysis of Xennials (which is needed for cohort), then that content should be added to the body of the article first, and then if it become due weight, it should be added it to the lead. But it's really not appropriate to just keep changing the opening sentence of the lead like this when it's not supported by body of article or the by the references. Also, the article you added for microgeneration says it's not peer reviewed and appears to be from a real estate conference. I suppose it's as good as the various magazines and websites which make up the bulk of the current text, maybe better, if it is attributed to source, but I don't think we can use this to make a statement of fact about formation of "microgeneration", (which isn't even a recognized word in this sense yet), but rather present this as a statement made by this author writing for the conference. DynaGirl (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You removed lines which I have a reference for. The Melissa Kempf Taylor article is the reference for: "Xennials are the microgeneration caught between the end of Generation X and the beginning of the Millennial generation who have their own collective personality. Xennials 'merge the ballpoint pen and computer mouse.'” Xennials simply are a "demographic." This is the concept that is described in this article. If you feel that the generation described in this article is not notable then it simply shouldn't be an article. The fact is that this article describes a demographic. According to Merriam-Webster, the word demographic means: "the statistical characteristics of human populations (such as age or income) used especially to identify markets." For instance, people born between 1977 and 1983 are a demographic. There is no need for an academic study for this to constitute a demographic. By definition the subject of this article meets the criteria. Your objections to the word "cohort," however, are more valid. Merriam-Webster: "a group of individuals having a statistical factor (such as age or class membership) in common in a demographic study." Note the word "study." Still, the Melissa Kempf Taylor article does identify Xennials as a cohort. You describe this article as "obscure." What is your understanding of Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source? Have you actually read this article? Have you deleted information from an article you haven't read? Regarding your reinsertion of the word "neologism," I feel you are engaging in an edit war. As has been said, this article is about a concept not a word. The lead is supported by the body, but you've undone my edits to the body. "Many people who were born on the cusp of named major generations." This line supports the term "cusp generation" in the lead. This line is supported by the Melissa Kempf Taylor article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya Butternut (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This was pointed out to me on my talk page, so here I am. I will say, much of my commentary in Template talk:Generations Sidebar applies here. DynaGirl, even when/if you're right, you do a lot of shifting goalposts, your criticisms are excessively captious, and I will say again you have a sense of WP:OWNership when it comes to these pages. When Generations Collide does discuss Generation X/Millennial cuspers as a demographic cohort (although where this standard comes from as a kind of notability guideline I can't say, it looks like your invention). Unless you want to nitpick semantics about "Generation X/Millennial cuspers" vs. "Xennials" vs. other terminology (Most people are using Xennials because it's three syllables and the meaning is fairly obvious in context from the word, whereas Generation X/Millennial cuspers is 12 syllables and perhaps less obvious in it's lack of parsimony), what you're saying appears to be incorrect.

To the second second point, reading the about page for the Industrial and Commercial Training I see "All submissions are subject to the double-blind peer review process. Contributions may be conceptual, literature-based or empirical (both quantitative and qualitative contributions are invited). Case studies are also welcome, but should highlight the outcomes and benefits associated with particular practices." I don't see anything contradicting this in the article, but you're welcome to point it out if I missed it.

Regarding the term "microgeneration," it's used in the context it was used in the article in several places (sometimes with a hyphen, sometimes without): Business Insider, HuffPost, Vogue, again in Business Insider, USA Today and probably others if I cared to dig in to it. If you believe someone would mistake the term in the lede for "small-scale generation of heat and electric power by individuals," then I'd propose a micro-generation as a compromise that should be immediately obvious to all readers in the context of the article... It's about as ambiguous as the term "generation" is in context.

If micro-generation is too potentially flummoxing for readers, I have to say I like the term "cultural generation" as much if not more. It fits with a definition used in Wiktionary most relevant here: A specific age range in which each person in that range can relate culturally to one another. - Scarpy (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Scarpy, DynaGirl: "Micro-generation" is just a made up word right? The meaning is confusing. It's like saying an "orange-blue" car is driving down the street. Why not be more precise with the language on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6111:8E00:C013:6217:389B:B9CB (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

And as you mentioned before, the Finnish study shows that Xennials are a studied cohort. Packaging Value by Generation--Results of a Finnish Study --Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Another one I missed before - The organizational value of Xennials: A microgeneration placed to smooth workplace tension - Scarpy (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Responding to the tag. Looks like the edit war has started. For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Scarpy. There's no reason that Xennials should have to be a "studied demographic cohort" to call them by the perfectly correct and well understood term "cohort", or similar. It would also appear that even by this arbitrary standard, Xennials are a studied cohort according to the references above. DynaGirl's edits to the intro have result in some frankly bad writing. The issue with the into "Xennials is a neologism for people born during the Generation X/Millennial cusp years..." is that this article is not about the word Xennials, it's about the people this term refers to. They're a cohort, a demographic, subset of people, or whatever you want to call them; they are not a word. There's also no reason to point out that the word is a neologism in the lead. The lead should be something like:

Xennials are the demographic [or cohort, etc] born during the Generation X/Millennial cusp years, typically from the late 1970s to the early 1980s.

I also highly recommend that both Dynagirl and Kolya stop reverting each other so that measures to stop the edit war won't be required.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your comment before I made more changes where I used direct references I thought might satisfy Dynagirl. I'll discuss all future potentially disputed edits here first. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I do think "cross-over generation" as a hyphenated word in quotes is better than microgeneration, because the current definition of microgeneration actually has nothing to do with people. Honestly, one of my major concerns with your edits is that they are consistently to the opening sentence of lead, and not reflected by the body of the article. The lead is suppose to summarize the body of the article, so I just added the explanation from sociologist Dan Woodman regarding his usage of "cross-over generation" to the body of the article as well, so that it's not only in the lead. DynaGirl (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

DynaGirl, I had added "cross-over generation" to the body. I didn't feel like it was necessary to expand on the concept of "cross-over generation" because it's a straight-forward phrase used by Dan Woodman to describe a demographic on the cusp of generations, which the summary repeatedly describes. I feel that my edits to the lead have been reflected by the body of the article. Xennials are described by dates of birth; this by definition makes them a demographic and a cohort. Even if this isn't specifically stated in the summary, the references explain this in detail, but I think your main concerns are that you disagree with the words "demographic" and "cohort" and you don't consider many of the sources to be reliable. You have expressed that you find Dan Woodman to be an authority, and now that my edit quotes him you have agreed to it. I would prefer, however, to include the words "demographic cohort" in the lead in order to make the article more consistent with the other major generation articles which begin with "...are the demographic cohort." Generation X uses "cohort" in the lead and does not explain the concept of term; it is simply used repeatedly in the body of the article. I expect the other major generation articles follow the same pattern. I think a good compromise is the lead: "Xennials (also known as the Oregon Trail Generation and Generation Catalano) are the 'cross-over generation' on the cusp of the Generation X and Millennial demographic cohorts, typically born between the late 1970s and the early 1980s. This microgeneration was identified by people who felt that they did not fit within the typical descriptions of Generation X or Millenials."

We could add a "Demographics" section to the article to show the approximate size of the Xennial generation. "There were roughly 25.1 million people born in the U.S. between 1978 and 1984." I think this would be a goood addition, but the word "demographic" fits in the lead regardless. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I basically just want this article to reflect reliable sources. I'm actually not aware of any reliable sources which estimate the number of Xennials. Timeline.com appears to be a self-published blog. I'm sure data is available for these birth years but I think that falls into WP:Original Research. Also, I think sections as well as the lead, usually best grow naturally. Editors add reliably sourced stuff to the body of the article and if/when it becomes due weight it gets added to the lead, instead of directly added to the lead. With respect to a potential separate section for the number of Xennials in the population, if we ever get to the point that we have even a single reliable source which estimates the number of Xennials, in the U.S or Australia or anywhere then maybe makes sense to have a section for that, but if it's just a single sentence, often it can be added to an existing section first and if more sources are found then a separate section for it makes more sense I think. DynaGirl (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

DynaGirl, what are your thoughts on my comment above the one you responded to? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually concerned that you seem to be trying to push this article toward what seems to be a misrepresentation that Xennials is currently on par with Millennials and Generation X as a recognized demographic cohort or whatever you want to call it, when that is not currently reflected by the sources. Maybe it will be some day, but it's really new now. You also seem to have the impression that I'm opposed to the concept of Xennials when I'm not. I'm just worried that you may be trying to use Wikipedia to lead the sources into what you want Xennials to be instead of simply following the sources. DynaGirl (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

DynaGirl, I feel like you're projecting motivations onto me that don't exist. You have been repeatedly reverting the article lead to state that Xennials is a neologism, against the apparent consensus of editors. I, nor the other editors and administrators involved, have attempted to make this article and concept more significant than it is. But what it is simply is a "concept" not a "term". There is no such thing as a "recognized demographic cohort." This is simply a description. I have suggested the compromise of describing Generation X and Millenials as a "demographic cohort" in the lead to make it clear what Xennials are in relation to, if you are concerned that readers will incorrectly infer that this language implies Xennials are one of the recognized major generations. Besides my first edits which I learned constituted original research, I have tried to follow the rules as I have learned them. I believe you are trying to push this article to be even less significant than it already is. You removed the significant text I paraphrased from what may be the only published journal article, and what remains, with the irrelevant inclusion of "Division of Student Affairs", makes it sound like the author is a school administrator commenting on students' comfortableness with computers and pens, instead of the researcher who she is. Again, have you read this article? I also feel you're misrepresenting the paper coauthored by Assistant Professor Dr. Appel-Meulenbroek. It is not the "real estate conference" that describes generations; the authors of the paper cite multiple sources to describe the concepts of "generational fuzziness", etc. Again, have you read this article? It doesn't appear you have, because the conference did not take place at Eindhoven University of Technology as you wrote in the text of Xennials. There is no question that this is a minor topic, but it is of interest to me and I would simply like an accurate article which includes what few reliable sources we do have at the moment. As it is now I feel like I have to run all edit suggestions past you to be sure that they align with what you want this article to be. You do not own this article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut Generational articles are my main research area of interest, not just Xennials, but generational articles in general. I've read a lot on this topic and I honestly do care about generational articles reflecting reliable sources. I don't think this qualifies as WP:OWN. I read the articles you've linked, with the exception of the Finnish article on packaging, which only had an abstract. I read the abstract. Do you have access to the full text? Also, I was not the only editor reverting the well sourced removal of neologism from the lead, and I'm not really sure why you are bringing it up now considering I've compromised with you on your replacement of "neologism" with "cross-over generation", and added text regarding cross-over generation to the body of the article so the lead is supported by body [4]. Also, please read WP:CANVASS. Your multiple talk page messages to User Scarpy, who wasn't involved in this dispute but rather an editing disagreement on another page with me, which resulted in RfC, honestly seem to maybe border on inappropriate canvassing. It doesn't seem like you are notifying users in general who have shown interest in same or very similar topic, but rather just ones who you suspect will agree with you in a specific editing dispute: [5],[6],[7]. With respect to my repeated explanations regarding the lead representing the body of the article, this isn't really about ownership, but rather policy and I seem to have mistakenly thought you were a new user. Which I now see isn't the case. Looks like you're been around for years but with long breaks in editing.DynaGirl (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

DynaGirl, I am bringing up your reversions of “neologism” and “term” back to the lead because this has been the main subject of the dispute, and it illustrates the nature of your edits. An administrator repeatedly stated to you that this was an error that should be corrected but you did not correct it. They stated that their suggested corrections to the lead “are supported by the same sources as the current phrases (ie, all of them),” but again, you did not correct your error. I have tried to improve the bad, misrepresentative writing in the article to something more accurate while also trying to accommodate your concerns, but you have repeatedly reverted the edits and demanded more sourcing and shifted the goal posts after my edits met your criteria. You only “compromised” with my edit to the lead after I referenced the one source which you deemed to be reliable, after you would not accept the simple descriptive words “demographic cohort,” which, as the administrator stated, were supported by the text of the article and the sources. As I have stated, I have simply tried to correct the misrepresentations, inaccuracies and bad writing in the article. You have misrepresentated my edits as trying to make the article more significant than it is.

You state that you have read the articles that I have linked. If that is the case, why did you delete my edits and misrepresent the articles? Do you see the text I paraphrased from the Melissa Kempf Taylor article? Can you tell me what is the full quote of the text?

Thank you for informing me about “canvassing.” In the future I will simply direct involved editors, including you, to my comments in the talk page until I've read more about canvassing. Although my notifications do seem to at least partially fit the criteria of an appropriate notification, because Scarpy is one of the “Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)."

You state your repeated explanations regarding the lead representing the body of the article are about “policy.” Yet, as the administrator stated, the changes to the lead were “supported by the same sources as the current phrases (ie, all of them).” The changes did meet the criteria of the policy. It seems to me that you were actually attempting to override policy. The administrator stated to you that “bad style” chosen by "local consensus (let alone one person) doesn't override Wikipedia-wide style guidelines.”

You have misrepresented my editing experience on Wikipedia. Before editing Xennials I had only edited six articles, for a total of twelve edits. Most of the six edits were adding single words or sentences, and the other six edits were correcting my own edits immediately after I made them. Only one edit totalled over 500 characters. I am a new user.

You have a pattern of misrepresenting articles, misrepresenting sources, misrepresenting policy, and misrepresenting editors. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, This seems to be breaking down into WP:NPA. You've made multiple uncivil accusations which are not supported by diffs, because they are not true. For me neologisms isn't the main focus of the dispute, but rather having a lead that represents the reliable sources and having a lead that summarizes the body of the article is the main source of the dispute for me. It seems currently, neologism is probably better sourced than "cross-over generation" but at least cross-over generation is decently sourced and I can respect the argument that neologism unfortunately leads to awkward wording, so it's a trade off, and I can support cross-over generation and have not tried to revert your recent change in that regard, instead I've added text to article to improve upon it. DynaGirl (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

DynaGirl, I feel like I have accurately described your behavior as I have seen it, but I can use "I statements" in an attempt to be civil. I feel like you haven't addressed my concerns. As the article is now, I see that my edits that you reverted from the body of the article have not been restored, and what remains is misleading and/or inaccurate. Maybe there is a dispute resolution process we can engage in to see if a third party feels my observations of your behavior are accurate. Until then, I can add new sections to the talk page with my suggestions to restore my previous edits, and make edits with the input from others. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, you are not using diffs, so it is hard to follow you. Although piecing together what you have been saying I think you might be referring to this version of the article [8], and it seems you might be saying that the reference you added to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Characteristics and traits" section was also supposed to be the reference for the last sentence of the first paragraph of that section, even though that sentence did not contain any reference at all. If content is split among 2 paragraphs, please add the reference to both paragraphs. Also please attribute statements to who is saying them. DynaGirl (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: I don't recall you chastising 2606:6000:6111:8E00:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx for WP:CANVASSing you when they contacted you under fairly similar circumstances. It's understandable that you have an interest in this topic, and your input is valuable, but I believe this has degenerated in part to the dismissive attitude you've taken with other editors. I will include myself there. It started with the templating and went down hill from then. I hope you don't feel like this is an attack, but such behaviors make it difficult to have a productive civil conversation, in part because it doesn't treat the person you're having it with like a peer. I'm not saying myself or other editors involved are blameless or that I couldn't have done things better, but I'm honestly saying as someone who has edited Wikipedia for over a decade (and made plenty of my own mistakes during that time) I think changing tact would go a very long way here. - Scarpy (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Scarpy, that's in relation to a different page and different content dispute that was addressed via RfC. It seems to not be on topic on the Xennials article talk page, but for the record, I did think that the IP contacting me in that manner was not ideal, but incidental because I watch that template page and I watch all of the main generational cohort articles which display that template, so I was going to see that edit and comment on it whether or not the IP alerted me to it. Also, that IP doesn't seem to be a static IP address, so makes a difference in terms of pinging them or messaging them with concerns. If you'd like to discuss further, please do so on my user talk page. DynaGirl (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You could have left a message in the section where the IP accounted notified you the same way you could for anyone else. As far as I can tell the content dispute here is nearly identical. If you don't want me to respond to comments you leave in article talk pages, don't leave them in article pages. - Scarpy (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

User:2606:6000:6111:8e00:ad57:6f50:a5f1:2067, Regarding this edit [9], because at this point it looks like 3 users have objected to "neologism" in the opening sentence (see above discussion), I think maybe best to not revert it back to "neologism" at this point, while also avoiding other contested terms like "cohort" and "microgeneration" and just stick with "people" like User:Aeusoes1 suggested [10]. I thought cross-over generation worked adequately, because referenced, but I can also see your objection that this sounds gym related. I hope we can all agree on "people" because the neologism of Xennials refers to people. "Cohort" refers to people. "Microgeneration" (in this context) refers to people and "cross-over generation" refers to people. "People" seems to be only thing generally agreed upon here. Also, I think Scarpy's comments above might be in reference to you. DynaGirl (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No one is objecting to "demographic cohort" except Dynagirl and unverified users as far as I can tell. More than 3 verified users have objected to her changes to the lead, including an administrator. I don't know that anyone but Dynagirl and unverified users have objected to microgeneration either. But I think "micro-generation" or "demographic cohort" would be fine. Most press pieces and the most cited scholarly article all say "microgeneration," so I think we should go with "micro-generation" as a compromise. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Koyla, You seem to be claiming I am edit warring with an administrator, which is untrue. The admin you refer to has actually been active on the article recently and has not reverted me nor been reverted by me. This administrator's only recent contribution was to remove a reference from the lead which was no longer needed after I added content to the body of article so that lead was supported by the body of article, following your editing of the lead [11]. DynaGirl (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Dynagirl, the last time that administrator made an edit, the word "cross-over generation" was in the lead. He had disagreed with your use of the words "term" and "neologism." He probably hasn't seen the article in its current state which I'm sure he'd disagree with. Also, I had supported my contribution in the lead with text and a reference in the body at that time. But this is a distraction. You are changing the subject. No one shares your opinion that "term" and "neologism" are proper. Many people want to use the words "demographic cohort" or "micro-generation" but you are dominating and taking ownership over this article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

XY Cusp articles

Some forgotten articles could get reincorporated into the Xennials article.

MTV Generation[12]

Cold Y Generation[13] --Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources. Those are old wikipedia pages consisting of what appears to be WP:Original Research. The MTV generation one is apparently old user draft space link. It has refs (but they do not link to what they claim to link to, and it appears to include made up or at the very least inaccurate content. For example, I've read a lot of Strauss/Howe work and they do not use term MTV Generation in relation to X/Y cuspers, although they do make references to MTV, but not as claimed in that draft space link whose refs do not link to what they claim to link to, but rather as being the pivotal cultural occurrence that differentiated Baby Boomers from Generation X (i.e according to Strauss/Howe, when MTV began in 1981, Boomers were't the audience, and they couldn't relate to it, and they realized there was a new young adult generation (Generation X which was still unnamed). According to Strauss/Howe, they realized Boomers weren't the generation of young adults anymore, it was Generation X (which Strauss/Howe called the 13th Generation). The Cold Y Generation link is completely unreferenced original research which has been deleted/redirected. We can't incorporate old unreferenced or inaccurately referenced user space drafts into this article and we can't incorporated deleted unreferenced original research into this article. DynaGirl (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Like, there is "information" on these "pages" on wikipedia that is not in the Xennials article. Regardless of whether that information is original research or referenced it is information that can be researched and probably added to the Xennials article when sources are found. The names "MTV Generation" and "Cold Y Generation" may or may not be relevant. These links show the concept seems to have existed well before the GOOD Magazine article. After a quick Google search of "XY Cusp" which was written in the "MTV Generation" article I found a reference to a shopping study using XY Cusp as a cohort two years before the GOOD article: [14] When you start off by calling my links "unreliable sources" or reverting edits without discussion it's dismissive without moving things forward. Or worse, it could turn editors away from discovering exciting new information. Did you even check the links in the MTV Generation article? There's a reference from the Mayo Clinic in 2005 about the Gen Xer/Millenial cuspers: [15] And this article from the San Francisco Gate in 2006 which describes a political poll of 1,400 Americans by the New Politics Institute including the cohort of "Cusp Millenials". [16]. And who knows what other information can be found directly or indirectly by reading these old Wikipedia articles. How about this; you state that Strauss/Howe do not use the term MTV Generation in relation to X/Y cuspers. What do they have to say about X/Y cuspers? --Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It's true, there were a lot of useful things in the old versions of the MTV Generation articles. In addition to the ones already mentioned, this is pretty good

Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc (2006-03-22). "A New Survey Comparing Political Attitudes Between Generations". Archived from the original on 2006-09-08.

Kolya, keep up the good work! - Scarpy (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Koyla, regarding your question of what Strauss/Howe say about X/Y cuspers, they don't seem to say much on the topic. The old Wikipedia draft page you linked to unfortunately appears to have dishonestly (or at least inaccurately) attributed something to Strauss/Howe which isn't attributable to them. Strauss/Howe believe Millennials birth years start specifically in 1982. Apparently this coincides with a time of increased protection of children and things like "Baby on Board" car stickers in the U.S, and they believe there was a rather abrupt cultural shift from under protecting children, to society prioritizing and being highly protective of children, which differentiates Generation X from Millennials. DynaGirl (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Since it's come up, I'll tell you it's not surprising to me that there is so much criticism of Strauss-Howe for its lack of rigorous empirical evidence. With all the language of archetypes and casting generations as heroes, prophets, artists and nomads who variously experience unravelings and awakenings, if you didn't know better you might mistake it for mythopoeia.

If you start reading the Strass-Howe Wikipedia article with the question in mind "why are these useful distinctions?" I believe you'll have a hard time trying to scrape together an answer. The best I can come up with is Strass-Howe predicts that sometimes there are catastrophes that cause a crisis that causes a response that is followed by a recovery then sometimes that recovery sets the stage for another catastrophe that starts the cycle over again, and when a catastrophe happens different generations will respond in different ways (but it's not at all clear to me if/what they're attempting to predict there -- at least not from what's in the article). It explains more than it predicts or guides.

While all WP:RS deserves due weight, there is a strong argument to be made here that marketing and HR scholarly sources have more encyclopedic value. They have a real interest in the usefulness of generational distinctions and economic incentives to get them right. They research this area because they have quantifiable goals to improve sales and organizational stability... real world stuff. - Scarpy (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"mythopoeia"...nice! 2606:6000:6111:8E00:C013:6217:389B:B9CB (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Demographics

This article from Timeline cites CDC population data: [17] The linked CDC report is here: [18] Xennials "represent a small population among a time period of record-low birth rate in America. There were roughly 25.1 million people born in the U.S. between 1978 and 1984, representing only 36% of all Gen X births, or in 1984, merely 10.6% of the entire American population. (Multiple factors contributed to lower birth rates at this time, including more women entering the workforce, the oil crisis, higher crime rates, and a shaky economy.) On the other hand, beginning in 1977, Xennials mark the beginning of an upswing in birth rate, at 15.1%, compared to Gen X’s low point, a 14.6% birth rate in 1975 and 1976, respectively." --Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Xennials research

Marketing research:

J.D. Power has used Xennials in a dozen or so consumer studies: [19] (I don't think the studies themselves are available.) "J.D. Power defines generational groups as Pre-Boomers (born before 1946); Boomers (1946 to 1964); Gen X (1965-1976); and Gen Y (1977 to 1994). Xennials (1978-1981) and Millennials (1982-1994) are subsets of Gen Y."

Nationally Representative Survey Reveals Moms' Shopping Habits With Generational Comparisons [20]

The Xennial outlook on finance, tech and home life (Xennials: An untapped opportunity for marketers) [21] "Recent research from GfK Consumer Life uncovers how Xennials serve as the bridge between the infinitely dissected Millennials and oft-neglected Generation X" (I don't think the research itself is available.)

The case for micro-generations: An Xennial takes on Gen X [22]

Parking's New Target Market: Xennials (Based on first hand interviews with xennials) [23]

Xennials: the in-between generation redefining growing up. Summary of report from JWT Intelligence's The Innovation Group: [24] "The report also features in-depth case studies of two major groups, the New Types and the Lifestyle Types, which are then broken down into 12 detailed sub-types, including the New Adult Festivalgoer and the Xennial Entrepreneur." Link to pdf of report: [25] Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

What brands should know about the 'New Adult' [26] "Do we need to rethink these outdated definitions of generations? In my group at J Walter Thompson we’ve been examining this in depth. What’s emerging is a cohort between the stereotypes of millennial and Gen X. A group, somewhere between 30- and 45-years-old, who share more in common with each other than with the term "Millennial" or "X". They’ve been called "Xennials" in some places, and "midults" in other discourse." Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Would probably want to add the Finnish study to this.

* Korhonen, Virpi; Ylipoti, Kerttu-Maaria (2018-07-01). "Packaging Value by Generation—Results of a Finnish Study". The 21st IAPRI World Conference on Packaging. doi:10.12783/iapri2018/24396. ISBN 978-1-60595-046-4. OCLC 1046683227.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - Scarpy (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Xennials Feel The Retirement Savings Squeeze According To Environics Research Survey For TD [27] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Characteristics and traits

I feel like this section needs some work. If someone were reading this article for the first time and just wanted to know what Xennials were supposed to be, they'd have to sift through a lot of vague quotes by the coiners of the terms for the XY cusp generation written in the 2010s. I would propose starting this section with the paragraph that begins "The Generation X," and then following that with a paragraph summarizing Xennial characteristics. One phrase I like which is in many of the press articles but which does not appear here is Xennials had "an analog childhood and digital adulthood". This can be found in The Telegraph among others, which shows the global reach of the concept. After those two paragraphs I mentioned I might include the Dan Woodman paragraph, and then after that talk about "self-identification" with the quotes from the popular press pieces. So...

• The Generation X and Millenial demographic cohorts...
• (summary of traits described from many sources, including the quote "analog childhood and digital adulthood")
• According to Australian sociologist, Dan Woodman...
• Many who identify with the cusp years of Xennials... (although, this language of "identify with the cusp years" is awkward. Perhaps change this to "identify with the concept of an X/Y cusp generation"
• (quotes from 2010s press pieces, with the addition of information from Sarah Stankorb, the coiner of "Xennials")

--Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty important to attribute information to the source, to clarify who is making the assertion, and who they are (sociologist, journalists etc). Also, I wouldn't support deleting the well sourced introductory sentence of "Many who identify with the cusp years of Xennials, Oregon Trail Generation, or Generation Catalano do so because they do not feel they fit within the typical definitions of Generation X or Millennials", and moving this below general discussion of Generation X seems potentially confusing as well. DynaGirl (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not suggesting information would not be attributed to the writers; I am suggesting that we write a summary in paragraph form in addition to the quotes and snippets. The introductory sentence: "Many who identify..." is well sourced, but that is not an argument for why it should be in the introduction. I think it makes sense to put this sentence right above the quotes of the coiners of the modern terms. What you're referring to as a "general discussion of Generation X" does not exist. How exactly would it be confusing to move a sentence about "identifying as an Xennial" below a summary of Xennial characteristics? Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Synthesis & Original Research

Kolya Butternut & Scarpy, Regarding the last 4 talk page sections, please just make sure any content added to the article isn’t WP:Original Research or WP:synthesis: Please see this from WP:Original Research:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

Also from WP:synthesis:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

It looks like the sources linked above range from good sources to very bad. The very bad are the links to the old deleted/redirected Wikpedia pages, with no references or claims not supported by the sources cited. Other bad sources include self published websites or blogs. The reliable sources which specifically mention Xennials (or Generation Catalano or Oregon Trail Generation) seem really good. The reliable sources already in the current Xennials Wikipedia article do explicitly say that Generation Catalano and Oregon Trail Generation are synonyms for Xennials, and they use the same birth dates, so using sources which mention any of these names ins’t Original Research. This isn’t the case with some older sources like Lancaster's When Generations Collide, which also discusses cuspers. Lancaster doesn’t mention Xennials etc at all, and they use different birth dates for their grouping (1975-1980). As far as I’m aware, no reliable published source has linked Lancaster’s work and their different birth years grouping of 1975-1980 to Xennials. Another example of Original Research would be going through government documents on various birth years and pulling out information on Xennials birth years yourself, when the sources used do not identify Xennials birth years as a separate grouping. DynaGirl (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: You would benefit from carefully re-reading WP:OR and WP:SYN. What you're saying here is incorrect. There are several reliable sources that point out the variance in generational/micro-generational birth range definitions, just because there's not universal agreement on exactly the same date ranges doesn't make it WP:SYN so long as the differences are stated. Lancaster and Stillman obviously didn't use the term 'Xennials' because it wasn't coined until 2014 and their book was published in 2009. As I have pointed out previously, and as Cúchullain put very specifically "this article is not about the word 'Xennials,' it's about the people this term refers to" which are people born during the Generation X/Millennial cusp years, typically defined as the late 1970s to the early 1980s. I don't see how your objections here are any different than the ones that were raised and discussed four days ago. - Scarpy (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Scarpy, I'm just saying we need a reliable source reference to connect the different birth year grouping used by Lancaster in When Generations Collide and the birth year grouping referred to as Xennials. I agree birth years can vary for any generation or "micro-generation" (and they already do vary for Xennials, with most sources stopping Xennials birth years at 1983, but some going up to 1985). But we can't just decide on our own that what Lancaster is discussing is the same thing as Xennials, especially when it's different birth years, and no reliable sources (at this point) makes the connection between the two or how/why the birth years changed. DynaGirl (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to repeat the same argument, I'll repeat the same response. Xennials is one of many terms for Generation X/Millennial cuspers, different researchers use different age ranges when studying generations, including Generation X/Millennial cuspers. Stating the different ranges is exactly what's done in every other article and I suspect you know this just as I do. See Silent_Generation#Date_and_age_range_definitions, G.I._Generation#Definition, Baby_boomers#Definition, Generation_X#Birth_dates, Millennials#Date_and_age_range_definitions and Generation_Z#Date_and_age_range_definition. - Scarpy (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Scarpy, Xennials is one of the many names for the Generation X/Millennial cusp, but there was a recent consensus against moving this article to Generation X/Millennials cusp. The article was instead moved to Xennials, which is more specific. The reliable sources explicitly connect Generation Catalano and Oregon Trail Generation to Xennials and they all use the same birth years. Find a reliable source that makes a connection between Lancaster's earlier birth year grouping of 1975-1980 and Xennials and then add it to the article, based on the sourcing, not based on your personal opinions and analysis. This seems especially necessary because Lancaster doesn't use comparable birth years. Hopefully such a source would provide some sort of explanation of how/why the dates changed. In the meantime, the more general cusper article is currently a stub and it seems like you've found a lot of really good info which could be used to expand upon and improve that stub. DynaGirl (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

DynaGirl, You state that the reliable sources all use the same birth years? What are you talking about? They all look different to me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Kolya, I'm not saying the reliable sources all use the exact same birth years. What I'm saying is the reliable sources use birth dates of late 70s to early 80s to describe Xennials (and Oregon Trail Generation and Generation Catalano) and the reliable sources connect these topics explicitly, but they don't all use the exact same dates. A few reliable sources extend Xennials to 1985. Lancaster describes an earlier birth year grouping of 1975-1980 and no reliable sources connect Lancaster's grouping to Xennials, or explain the shift to later birth years from Lancaster's grouping to Xennials. DynaGirl (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

DynaGirl, There are sources with earlier birth years. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen any reliable sources which end Xennials as early as 1980. DynaGirl (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

DynaGirl What?? The years of "The Lucky Ones" aren't relevant because the "reliable" sources that refer to it don't state its years? What is happening... Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Koyla, I'm really not sure what you're responding to, but it doesn't appear to be my above comments. I wasn't referring to The Lucky Ones, but The Lucky Ones are mentioned in the current article. The sources explicitly connect The Lucky Ones to Xennials. They also use comparable birth dates of late 70s to early 80s [[28]].DynaGirl (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)]

DynaGirl The Lucky Ones refers to 1978 to 1980. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This reliable source uses late 70s to early 80s for The Lucky Ones and explicitly connects The Lucky Ones to Xennials. Please see: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-garvey/the-biggest-and-best-difference-between-millennials_b_7438370.html. DynaGirl (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

DynaGirl...yes, and the article it links to says 1978-1980...Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

When I click that link it goes to a website that says it's under construction, which does not appear to mention The Lucky Ones currently, but if you can find a reliable source for The Lucky Ones that uses 1978-1980 as birth years, add it to the article, but that span seems rather short to me, even for a "micro-generation". DynaGirl (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

DynaGirl Old pages are saved on archive.org's waybackmachine [29] So, clearly an XY Cusp cohort of 1975 to 1980 is within the current grouping. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, and as repeatedly stated above, Lancaster in When Generations Collide, uses 1975-1980. Please just find a reliable source that connects Lancaster's grouping of 1975-1980 to Xennials. Hopefully such a source will explain the date change shift. Also, if you're finding reliably sourced general information on cuspers, please consider adding this to the more general Cuspers article as it is currently a stub which needs expanding. DynaGirl (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: as far as I can tell you're the only person who thinks this is necessary or thinks a lack of it represents WP:SYN. If you think it's necessary, the burden of proof is on you to explain why the date ranges for Xennials need to be treated differently than the date ranges for every other article written about generations. - Scarpy (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@DynaGirl:, @Scarpy:, Merriam-Webster links to the Buzzfeed article with the range 1975-1982, and Susan Singer of "The Lucky Ones" uses 1978-1980. I don't have a source which uses the modern terms and specifically 1975-1980. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Lede

Could use some more fine tuning. 2606:6000:6111:8E00:D152:7F46:A25F:D936 (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes...can we lock the first sentence of lede? I think that if we can't agree on "Xennials are a cross-over/micro-generation or demographic cohort", then it should at least say: "Xennials (also known as...) are people born on the cusp of...." Editors are edit warring over this and changing it back to "Xennials is a term for" or "Xennials is a neologism for..." --Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I can support this. I recently edited it to the "Xennials are people" wording in hopes of some sort of compromise [30] (please see above talk page discussion on microgeneration in lede) but see that it has been changed again. Although I guess I could also support the current "term for" wording without "neologism" which the IP seems to have edited as a compromise to eliminate "neologism", considering the article is largely about the term, and all people in these specific birth years do not identify as Xennials. Also, many (at this point most), demographers and commentators do not include Xennials, so people in these birth years would be either referred to as "Gen Xers" or "Millennials" and not as "Xennials" by most of the sources. DynaGirl (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that "people" would be used as a last resort. We should get all editors involved in the dispute to weigh in first. I find "Xennials are people" to be unnecessarily vague. I would prefer the lead to start "Xennials are a/the microgeneration...", as Merriam-Webster uses the word "microgeneration" just like all the articles. I would propose "micro-generation" as a compromise." Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Or "demographic cohort" Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Kolya, simply going back to your original wording which has received significant objection does not actually qualify as a "compromise". DynaGirl (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

"Microgeneration" was my original wording. The compromise I have been suggesting is "micro-generation" and "demographic cohort." You had agreed to "cross-over generation." There have been no objections raised by verified editors. You edited it to "Xennials are people" without discussion and after we had been in an edit war. I feel that was inappropriate. "Neologism" is essentially the same as "term." They're the same sort of bad writing against Wikipedia guidelines. Regarding your other comments; if the article is written as though it is about a "term" then the article is written poorly. This article is about a concept and should be written to reflect that. As far as people not "identifying as Xennials," please see above talk page discussion on Self-identifying as Xennials. Merriam-Webster states "Initially the word was used in articles by and for xennials themselves. But it seems now that the people in marketing are paying attention." The scholarly sources and the marketing sources do not discuss self-identification. The people who coined the words discuss self-identification. The concept exists beyond those people. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dynagirl: "Demographic cohort" [31] is how this article started. How about we go back to that? There are many verified objections to your repeated reversions back to "name", "term", and "neologism". Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Koyla, for objections to demographic cohort, please refer to above talk page sections. Also, it seems a bit of a contradiction for you to say that you think it is inappropriate that I made one edit to change it to a version which earlier in this talk page discussion you yourself said you supported, at least over what was there before. Either way, making one single edit to the article in the last couple of days [32], to a version which I've never reverted to before, and which was previously proposed by another user [33] is not inappropriate, but on the subject of questionable appropriateness, you and User:Scarpy appear to not be editing independently on these articles, but rather appear to be coordinating your edits on Scarpy's talk page, and now appear to be coordinating your editing offline as well. [34]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DynaGirl (talk • contribs) 04:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

My bad. Thank you for adding signature template. DynaGirl (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem. If discussion here wasn't so uncoordinated, we wouldn't need other means for coordinated discussion. Under the circumstances it's a very appropriate use of available options. I would welcome any effort to decrease the entropy of this talk page, if you'd like to join me. - Scarpy (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

:@Dynagirl:, I don't see any verified users other than you who object to "demographic cohort." I don't recall suggesting using the word "people" until after you had changed it back so many times I felt like I had no other choice. You're mischaracterizing your edit as "one single edit." Our initial disputes were over the word or phrase that comes after the first verb in the first sentence. You have been reverting that word for years. It's not a small edit. It is the foundation of our dispute. We had agreed on "cross-over generation." I would suggest that we use that until we can come to a compromise with other editors. Any unverified editors should create accounts if their opinions are to be considered, considering that as I've said, the first word after the first verb in the first sentence has been disputed by you for years. Do you agree on our previously agreed upon word choice of "cross-over generation?" Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, Demographic cohort has never been the status quo version of the article, and demographic cohort actually means something specific in social science research. I removed it shortly after article creation and explained reasoning and sourcing on talk page. Also, can you please stop what appears to be canvassing. You've contacted yet another specific user on their user talk page [35] in what does not appear to be a neutral effort to simply contact users who might be interested in topic, but instead specific users who you suspect will agree with you in a content dispute. WP:Canvass was already linked in above talk page section the last time you did this. Typically, the editor who created an article would have that article on their watchlist, so this doesn't seem about general awareness. Seems like you are contacting User:Udeezy and specifically encouraging him/her to support you against me in a content dispute. There are neutral ways in which you can get additional feedback, and ways you can get input from additional editors such as noticeboards and WikiProject pages which are discussed on WP:Canvass and WP:Dispute Resolution, but please stop selectively contacting users who you suspect will support you in a content dispute. DynaGirl (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dynagirl: You're the only registered user who I know of who doesn't support my opinion. I'll read your links; as of now I know of no other way to contact people. I could just contact every person who's ever edited the article if that would work. Regarding the phrase "demographic cohort," you stated that you "removed it shortly after creation and explained reasoning and sourcing on talk page." Are you talking about this?

"Most of these sources don't mention "Oregon Trail Generation" but instead refer to Xennials and Generation Catalano, but both of these were apparently recently deleted. This doesn't really seem notable enough for a stand alone article yet because the sourcing isn't comparable to the other demographic cohort articles. There are no sources from demographers; no sources from sociologists, no research; not even any research from ad agencies or those trying to market to these individuals. The current sources are all basically opinion pieces, apparently from individuals in these birth years. I think this definitely warrants mention on both the Generation X and Millennials pages regarding people on the cusp feeling "in between", but the sourcing doesn't really seem enough for a stand alone article. --DynaGirl (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)"

I don't see anything there that supports not using "demographic cohort" today. You haven't answered my question: Do you agree to our previously agreed upon compromise, "cross-over generation?" Lastly, what are you claiming that "demographic cohort" means, in social science, with references? Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Koyla, you included an old comment from me in a way that seems confusing. It is indented as if I replied to you there today when I did not. There are actually multiple registered users who have agreed with me. You state you don't know of any registered users who have supported "neologism", which is interesting because this occurs in same discussion you lifted the above quote from. Here's a diff from an administrator supporting "neologism" [36], but I'm not go to his talk page and ask him to support me over you in a content dispute, as you have been persistently been doing, because that would seem to be along the lines of non-neutral canvassing. With respect to the status of the current sources and whether or not it's changed enough to now support "demographic cohort", there is that one source, The Finnish packaging study which appears to maybe study Xennials in terms of statistical analysis compared to other statistical cohorts, but I've only seen the abstract. Do you have access to the full link? Also, as I stated in above talk page section, I can support "cross-over generation" considering it's referenced and doesn't seem particularly misleading to me.DynaGirl (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)