Talk:Generation X

Bracketing Years

It seems obvious that Generation X has been totally influenced by the Baby Boomer concept, the only generation the government defined and we were all force fed their definition. The front end Boomers have no cultural similarities with the back end Boomers whatsoever. The bracketing years of Generation X are so diverse, to try to nail it in this article, or even say "around" this year or that year, is the height of stupidity. So often a publication about Generation X will refer to Douglas Coupland giving them their name, when his definition is drastically different that what is stated in the publication! So, at the end of the day, it's just a lot of research with opinions that are biased from the start and have been repeated so often that everyone believes the lie. 2601:8D:500:5950:1D08:5FA4:F6D5:3861 (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

We are encyclopedia editors not social scientists. We make our edits based on what the sources say, and unfortunately when sources don't seem to make any sense all we can do is try to find the most reliable sources possible.  That being said, social generations are a social construct; we shouldn't expect them to mean much.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I was born in 1964 and recall on my south NJ county college campus fellow classmates referring to ourselves as "twentysomethings" as a backformation of the "thirtysomething" catchphrase popularized by the tv show. That was in 1987. So, the lines were drawn then (with Time Magazine slacker articles and such) and to hear anything different now to me is false. So, what kind of non-original analysis verifies that the birth years are around 1965-1980? If you are lowering the expectation as you say, as an encyclopedia, you should use a loose definition, especially when there is all of this controversy involved. Why is this page locked form editing? I would bet a small number of Wikipedia pages are locked. This article has been back and forth for a very long time. You say it is only a social construct, which it is, but you give it a demographic flavor with the lead paragraph. 2601:8D:500:5950:1D08:5FA4:F6D5:3861 (talk)

Forbes Contradiction in article

https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2014/08/27/generaiton-x-once-xtreme-now-exhausted-part-5of-7/

Not sure if this link will work, but Googling "Gen x Forbes 1961" will bring it up. Clearly written by Howe, but in Forbes magazine, which by implication sanctions the article as Forbes output.

Have just run across a Harvard Business Review which also uses the 1961 model. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Articles written by Neil Howe do not represent the opinions of Forbes; they represent the opinions of Neil Howe; see WP:RSPRIMARY. Forbes more recently and more frequently cites 1965 to 1980 as the birth dates for Gen X. Compare: [1] to [2] Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Forbes does not, per se, have institutional opinions. It employs and publicises those who express informed opinion on Forbes behalf. Sorry, but your argument is tantamount to saying that a journalist writing for The NYT is expressing his own views, and not those of the paper. Not disputing your Forbes sources, but if anything, this just makes stronger the argument that there is no definitive answer to the Gen X dates. There does however appear to be a 61/65 split. That ought surely be mentioned in the lede, if just lightly. I don't want to get into a pissing contest over this, but the lede is unbalanced. If '65 is "generally accepted" (by whom, btw?), why does the piece later contradict itself on this point - and several times. I appreciate the work you've obviously put into this, but be reasonable. Hanoi Road (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The lead must reflect the body of the article. The article does not give equal weight between 1961 and 1965. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

One tends to say lede, and it's obvious that the article does not give weight to both hypotheses, which it ought to. That is surely the point. In fact the 1965 hypothesis has virtually no credible sources; and by credible I mean scholarly research. Bloomberg? Seriously? You cannot relegate Strauss & Howe, far less Harvard to page 88 in favour of something as risible as a TV station. I also question "widely accepted". Such is not the case at all. Perhaps it was before the Strauss & Howe generational theory, but the tide has shifted since then. Almost all of the sources you list in the lede are frivolous. I assert again that there appears to be a conflict, but that conflict must be adjudicated by credible sources. I don't see any in the lede. In a separate topic, you describe Strauss/Howe as "mythology". As opposed to what? A guy at Bloomberg selecting a year from thin air? Where's the research there? Where's the work? Where's the BOOK? You need to reason this through, rather than typing defensive, knee-jerk reactions to other people's input. It's this kind of obstinate "it's MY baby" approach that makes Wikipedia seen as increasingly unreliable. Wiki is NOT a personal forum. And I am NOT taking issue with you personally. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. For starters you are not indenting your talk page comments per WP:INDENT. Secondly, the lead section of a Wikipedia article is "not a news-style lead or 'lede' paragraph." As for the content, please note that the article discusses both the popular and academic definitions of Generation X. I have found a source which states that "birth year boundaries of Gen X are debated but settle somewhere around 1965–1980."[3] Lots of people write well-researched books; it doesn't make them relevant. Strauss and Howe are not as influential as they once were, and their birth ranges are rarely used. If you disagree the onus is on you to provide evidence. Please note the existence of Cuspers. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Indenting pages? Is that really the best you can come up with? "Lots of people write well-researched books. It doesn't make them relevant". Dude, I think we're done. Hanoi Road (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

my take

yes, we need reliable sources, but in my town everyone agrees that Baby Boomer is 1946-1959, Gen X 1960-1979, Millennial 1980-1999, Gen Z 2000-2019. perhaps contributors here should pin my dates as comparison or in finding sources. im assuming good faith, so good luck folks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.94.194 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Most people broadly agree with those dates. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The previous statement is inconsistent with current consensus, especially at the current version of Baby boomers.[4]. See WP: Verifiability. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

For a guy who wasn't going to "dignify" any further discussion with comment, you comment a lot. Excellent indentation, btw. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Oxford and Cambridge University definitions.

The OED defines Gen X as those "born in the 1960's and 1970's. The Cambridge definition simply stated "early 1960's". There is no mention of 1965.

This is consistent with the Harvard definition, which, more specifically, lists a start date of 1961.

All three of these establishments are of course renowned for their stupidity, so I suppose we ought treat them with some cynicism. Bloomberg is probably a better source. (....?).

No, I'm not attaching links. This is all on Google. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The Cambridge dictionary is not as authoritative as it sounds. OED is not on Google; you need a subscription. Anyway, dictionaries typically only give general definitions of generations. But Harvard starts Gen X in 1965. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Harvard Business Review defines Gen X as 1961/65 to 1979. You're right about Cambridge University (currently ranked in the top 5 universities in the world) probably not "being as authoritative as it sounds". Bloomberg is probably a better source. :) The OED does require a subscription (which I have), though they're kind enough to indulge the likes of you with a specific Google question, gratis. Nowhere in any reputable source does the 1965 figure appear. All recognise that the number likely starts from the early 1960's and none are prepared to be more specific. With good reason, I imagine. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Writers in the Harvard Business Review use many different years, and you're cherry-picking one ten year old article. The Cambridge Dictionary is not the same as the university. You state: "Nowhere in any reputable source does the 1965 figure appear." The article is full of reputable sources using that year. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So, I guess that given all the variables, what makes you think that 1965 is universally accepted. Or accepted at all? It's clearly an imprecise science with no real expertise possible. Best to reflect that in the lede? Rather than defending obvious shit and ignoring the subtleties? Hanoi Road (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

You stated "Nowhere in any reputable source does the 1965 figure appear." This is patently false. The article is full of reputable sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to get into a source war, I can do a lot better than Bloomberg. The US statistics Office cites 1960 as a start point. Most Top 100 Universities (or relevant faculties therein) concede 1960 as the most accurate starting point, based on hard sociological research (Empirical data is clearly impossible in this case). However, your rag-tag of 1965+ "sources" does not bear serious scrutiny. Hanoi Road (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

PS: As a Cambridge graduate (Clare College), let me assure you that the Cambridge corpus releases nothing under its name without full university approval. In other words, it is not a Forbes set-up, where anyone can chip in with impunity. Otherwise, it wouldn't be Cambridge. It would be Pig Knuckle College, Arkansas. Hanoi Road (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no such thing as the "US statistics Office", but the U.S. Census Bureau does not define Generation X, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does use 1965 as a start date. Again, you stated that "Nowhere in any reputable source does the 1965 figure appear", but you have not discussed any of the sources in the article besides Bloomberg, which you have cherry-picked because you found it to be the least authoritative. It is clear you are not acting in good faith. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

NYT and The Washington Post obviously employ writers. A couple of them (probably copying each other) casually and without research mentioned 1965 in some article. These are not "sources", dude, any more than Bloomberg is. Cherry picking? Almost ALL of your sources are illiterate, re-hashed garbage, and to push your ridiculous agenda, you relegate the only REAL source (Strauss & Howe) to some sort of supplementary counter-argument when it is in fact the only reasoned case. When cornered, you then resort to indentation? Wiki procedure? Where's your dignity? I can't find a single other contributor on this talk page who agrees with anything you have to say. What does that tell you? Hanoi Road (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It tells me you don't know how to read the archives? Sorry, I can't help myself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't you help yourself. Really. Tell me this: Could you help yourself from not seeing the following major article as you were trawling the internet in search of support? So if quality broadsheets have the final say, where should this one go? "Smashing the Gen X Stereotype 1961-1981" Los Angeles Times. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to argue pointlessly, could the lede not be reworded along these lines: "Researchers and popular media typically use birth years around 1965-80 to define Generation X-ers, though others position the starting point for the group as early as 1961"? An Investopedia article I've just read uses 1961. Atlantic magazine uses 1961. The LA Times has used 1961.A whole raft of other, reputable sources acknowledge the differing views on the start year. So should this article, and it ought be stated in the lede. We can leave Strauss & Howe where they are, if you like. I can do it and provide the sources, though I don't have time today. That surely makes the thing more balanced.

Hanoi Road (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you continue to argue in bad faith.  I doubt anyone is reading this, but I feel obliged to point out that your LA Times reference is twenty years old, and we have recent LA Times references in the article.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I read your LA Times article, referenced. ("THE TRUE GREAT GENERATION"). In your stampede to get support, did you bother reading the piece? It cites 1961 as the start date for Gen X (....?). So...you know.... that sort of defeats your own case, I would have thought. If we're applying the age of articles as a factor, you've quoted Toch from 1984, Foot from 1996, Gross from 1990, and U. Wisconsin from 2003. The oldest of your sources was written thirty-five years ago. Sorry, but Wiki is not your personal playpen. I'm taking this elsewhere. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I have referred this mess to Admin. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Admin has responded accordingly. And they made the right call. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not use any administrative powers, Hanoi Road. I simply made an edit. I suggest that you abandon your belligerent style of interaction with your fellow editors and try a more collaborative style instead. If you continue on your current path, things will not end well for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I tried a collaborative idea earlier (which you implemented yourself) but it was shot down, and pretty much arbitrarily. And I am not the only one to get this response. Sometimes, courtesy just doesn't work. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I was distracted by all of your false statements and unwillingness to work collaboratively, but now that a good faith editor is involved, I have been able to work with them to hopefully improve the lead.[5] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, you were correct on the content issue but completely wrong in your style of interaction with other editors, Hanoi Road. This is a collaborative project, and I recommend that you conduct yourself accordingly. This situation called for a neutrally written Request for comment to pull in uninvolved editors, not endless verbal sniping at your opponents on the content issue. Courtesy and following established dispute resolution procedures always works best. Always. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Not always. Read the well-reasoned "Original Research" topic with another contributor. The responses are a facsimile of the ones I received. Anyone challenging Butternut would have received the same treatment. I agree with you in general on the courtesy issue. But when the responses consist of disrespectful, passive-aggressive evasion (and I can spot such tactics instantly), the courtesy has to stop. Thanks for your input. Really. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not about me; I have been defending the consensus which was made with many other editors, both through editing and through discussions which are now archived. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This makes me laugh. For days, you've resisted basic common sense. Only when brought to task do you start running around like Biff polishing McFly's far in Back to the Future 11. "Thank you, Mister Editor! Pleasure working with professionals, Sir! Thank you, Sir"!

Get out of my sight. Hanoi Road (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like we are done here, but as you have made WP:PERSONALATTACKS and are casting WP:ASPERSIONS, I warn you that if you make another attack or dishonest statement I will take you to WP:ANI. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we're done. The article is now correct. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead section compromise

Since there's so much fighting about the dates in the lead, here's what I think could be put there as a compromise:

"Researchers and popular media use the early-to-mid 1960s as starting birth years and the early 1980s as ending birth years, with 1965 to 1980 and 1961 to 1981 as widely accepted definitions."

Does this sound good?--98.235.178.140 (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus has already been achieved, and besides, there is no source for your suggestion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

US-centric

Yet another US article seeing the USA as a template for the world. This whole idea doesn't work elsewhere. The dates would be different for people who grew up in Iron Curtain countries, because there would be a clear divide between those who grew up under Communism and those who didn't. No corresponding thing exists in the USA.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.82 (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Most editors are from the US and have knowledge of US sources. If you know something we don't please make suggestions.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)