Talk:Generation X

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Generation X article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
  1. through 17 November 2005
  2. through 06 April 2006
  3. April 2006 to July 2007

Contents

[edit] Copyvio

I've removed the "Comments by Generation X Writers" section, as it simply mirrored text from an article in The Independent, and thus a copyright infringement. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MTV Gerantion?

I do not think that people born during the time MTV first aired would be in the MTV generation. Actually if I recall that was a slang used to describe teens that were watching MTV when it first came on. Also, becasue of that, Pepsi tried to coin the Pepsi Generation thing. No The MTV Generation was created by the media and should be removed.

YES"....Your right, MTV Generation is in fact to describe the core of the Gen X, in that if you were in the school system k-12 and College aged then you are the MTV generation. In Summer 1981 MTV started those children are theat generation I'm 38 and I was in seventh grade. So I know this term and it is quite acurate as any one who in in their mid to late thirties can tell you we say it's birth just like we saw the birth of the home computer. So I think it means to speak to those most core X-ers who were the actual teens of the 80's. I think some have just included (right or wrong) those younger Xers who may have always had' Mtv on the tube. Not sure but you are correct in your notation, still in this designation one can in fact can include the younger sibs...of x-ers. I define it in general terms that it can be a designation for all' those school aged children & youth ages 5-18 who only grew up with it's inception in the eighties. Which in reality is itself a pretty selective group now ages 30-45. As far as the flop of the Pepsi generation;...they tried to make very generation the the Pepsi generation..it was a marketing ploy they used from the 50's on to the 90's it just did not work with us because we were the target of the the cola wars...remember Old Coke was the New Coke...arrgg (ha). This commentary is pretty right on, even though it is my opinion. From Martin WA State.

[edit] What happened to 1974?

I couldn't help but notice that in the generation succession at the end of the article, 1974 is omitted! I probably wouldn't have noticed, except that's the year I was born (lol). I have always considered myself a Gen X-er even though the beginings/ends of generations are definitely blurry (when does the "Baby Boomer" generation really end and when does "Generation Y" really begin?). From what I have learned, '74 is far to young to be a Baby Boomer, yet far too old to be Gen Y. Who really knows what the generation "boundaries" are anyway? There probably isn't a strict boundary really. They seem to phase from one to the next over the course of several (three? five? seven?) years. And then there's all the "sub-generations" (MTV Generation, etc) filling in the "gaps" maybe? I've always been taught that I'm either middle or late Gen X. Anyway, just wanted to bring up the 1974 omission. No big deal really, just something interesting to think about... J —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicali00 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Due you are and Xer' anyon in their 30's is a gimme'..anyway 74 is always included most often especially when most historians go to 1981'. There is no doubt you are all X.' 76 is when the birth rates began to rise again so even at a conservative assesment you wouls be X. Sometimes years are not listed but it does not mean it was not pivitol, I have nieces and nephews born then or near and they remember much of what I do growing up they were just the younger tikes. So you are in the heart of X, just think of it this way you are only a year older than another X-er Drew Barrymore born Feb 22, 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generation X is the shadow of the Baby Boom

First came the "Boomers," those who benefitted from the post-war (World War II) economic boom. Author Douglas Coupland describes, as best as I can recall, Genertion X as those who came after the Boomers — those born in the shadow of the baby boom generation. I think the usual mistake made in defining generations is that a line is drawn at the beginning and end of a birth bell curve. From an economic impact perspective, the real impact occurs when a generation enters the workforce at age 18.

In other words, if we accept that Boomers enjoyed the fruits of the post-World War II economic boom (cheap higher education, affordable housing, and abundant quality jobs) then we're really talking about those born between 1945 and 1954, with those on the leading eddge of the curve (1945-1950) enjoying the greatest advantage. I would propose that Generation X (those born in the shadown of the Boomers who struggled with skyrocketing education costs, unaffordable housing and "McJobs") really belong to the 1955-1964 cycle. It's interesting that Coupland characterizes Gen-X as those born after 1963 when he, himself, was born in 1961. So he is really right in the center of my proposed definition of Gen-X.

When the media talks about Boomers, they are usually characterized as those who were teenagers in the 1960s; with the free love movement, Vietnam War, a particular style of "rock" music probably best associated with the Beatles, and a major social rebellion in the acceptance of casual drug use. Having been born in late 1956 (almost 1957) I have nothing in common with the Boomer generation. I had to register for the draft, but we had pretty much pulled out of Vietnam by 1974 when I turned 18. Most of my "teen" years were in the early 1970s, so the Beatles are about as foreign to my "teenage soundtrack" experience as, say, Bing Crosby. The cost of a college education was just starting to escalate out of proportoin to its ROI when I graduated in 1979. By then, I could not afford to buy a house on one income, as the Boomer's generation had done. And I had to settle for inferior jobs because the Boomers got to the good jobs first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulboswell (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello'...for the person who graduated in 74, you are a Boomer (NO Doubt) you are sooo 70's in fact you were in a disco no doubt. X-ers knew the death of disco and remember the records being broken and later the inception of walkmans and video arcades. These markers are not really in dispute, I have Boomer bros and sisters you are in the Rowe/Wade, Vietnam and Hippie demise era. Generation Jones are those whom were the teens in the very late 70's (78-80) some may or may not identify with boomers it can depend, these were the Grease and Close Encounters....kids'-simple. It is unfortuante that those graduating 78-80 are in between but that always happens in every generational shift. Generation Jones really only encompases a few years and most often is Gen X encompases them as the older or elder of Gen X, Barak Obama would be in that camp. Just think of it as 61-81 is X, that is the best understanding: After JKennedy and to the sunrise of Regan era; Gen X were in fact the Regan generation our parents were those from the Greatest generation (the last of the large families) and those young parents of the 60/early 70's who where Boomers. Author martin cline. wa

Actually, Coupland originally considered "Xers" to be those born in the late 50's and 1960's. The 1956 to 1965 cohort is sometimes referred to as "Generation Jones". I agree, a bell-shaped curve has nothing to do with peer personality. Furthermore, I asked the Census Bureau in an email 3 times to define exactly what constitutes the Boom, with no reply. As Strauss and Howe pointed out, birth rates began to rise in in the early forties. You have valid points, but for all the problems you had, it was much worse for those after you. College costs only started to rise in 1979, and you still had much better job opportunities and much less unemployment than those born in the early 60's. Ledboots 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


GENERATION X was and is the "Antidote" to the Boomers. We exist to remind them that their time is over and ideals failed or at least was not based in truisms or morality but humanism. We were those children that resulted or were the little brothers and sisters of those who were Boomers. We inherited the sexual revolution with "Safe Sex" montra's, Condoms and Anti-Drug campaigns. Instead of Tie die we had the "Izod" and breakdancing. It is best to think of anyone born after the Kennedy asassination and to the Regan revolution as Generation "X". In reality we are the most education generation and saw the major world change and the rise of the internet. Be glad' if you know Footloose, ET, Raiders, Breakfast Club, Star Wars, Jaws and the first walkman you are an "X"er. Our desire for relationships, authenticity and upward mobility is a unique mix. Author Martin Cline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Gen-Y is the REAL Internet generation...Gen-X was more like the video-game arcade generation. As for "Star Wars", more than one gen can claim title to knowing that because George Lucas felt like making prequels and re-runs. I'll concur on the Walkman, Footloose, and ET, though. As I was born in 1979 I kinda consider my generation to be the "Back to the Future" generation - the ones who grew up with that time-travel flick. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is true but you must see that Drew Barrymore and Barak Obama are all X-ers, so it is just a reality of scope and demographic context. It is a bit big; your movie reference may be eluding to generation Jones' which in fact are the oldest of our group they actually were teens in the very late seventies and early eighties. So Tom Cruise and as you mentioned Micheal J Fox would be in that lot. But the core are in their mid to late 30's now, so when I speak of movies and historical markers those of us who actually in Junior High or Highschool when Ferris Bueller, Breakfast Club or Top gun were out are just claiming that we were the Regan kids-genration. M-TV began in the summer of 81 and home computers began being intergrated into homes and schools for the first time in the years to follow it took some time though. Companies like Google and Facebook were created by this generation. Yes as kids some played pong, Donkey Kong, Pac Man, Mario and later Doom. So some will vary on an end or age point but mainly the age range stands at 28-47 at it's widest if you are in your 30's and 40's your the heart of X not getting around it. Anyone under age 28 is in no way a X-er but Y they had way more advancments but we were the fist kids to get the slower versions, ha. But this led to the dot-com boom/bust and boom. So You are right when you say that you are much like Y but some would say that you are just in the tale end of the X. Gen Y are 27 years old to 13. We had Madonna, Y had Brittney. Still the Millenials are 12 and under and have Myli or whatever..? You get it. Author martin cline :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is all too specific and too ideological a definition of Gen X to be useful. While some people in our generation view the Baby Boom achievements of Civil Rights, the Free Speech Movement and the Sexual Revolution as successful, others do not. If you want to paint a sharp division, it would probably be most useful to note the point at which American men no longer feared conscription. This produced a profound change in the outlook of US youth toward their country. It was the fear of conscription that made Vietnam such a passionate cause amongst members of the elder generation, and made them so anti-establishment. Our generation was a bit more measured and realistic in its political outlook. Nonetheless, Gen X inherited and expanded on many of the Boomer's achievements. Amongst Gen Xers it is almost universally accepted that racial segregation and discrimination is unacceptable, whereas the Baby Boomers were split on the issue. We are the oldest generation to accept open gays as members of society, although our generation is somewhat split on the issue. We are the first generation to return to urban life, after the Baby Boomers abandoned the cities for fear of race riots. 76.108.177.119 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)N. Landau


The coming problems in the USA, especially, are a direct result of the Gen X being so small...the Boomers will reap what they did NOT sow...that is, they didn't want to have kids when they SHOULD HAVE, they thought of me, me, me (despite being SOOO in love with socialism as a concept), and that they would be young and live forever, both impossible...NOW, Social Security is going to go belly up, OR the Gen Xers and GenYers are going to get taxed into oblivion to pay for it...the culture that the Boomers know and love WILL perish along with them...People need to know, it's OK to have more than 1 or 2 kids, its OK to have those kids when you are young enough to have the energy to properly raise them and discipline them, and its OK to know that some day you will be gone (as will we all), so what and who are you leaving behind to take care of things and carry on?...Sad, sad Boomers, I will not mourn you the way I am mourning the loss of the Greatest Generation, they gave YOU the WORLD and look what you have done with it!...thanks for nothing but the MUSIC! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.24.73.60 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] America, America, America, me, me, me

This article drones on about America and puts everything in a US perspective. Generation X is a global theory. I'm gen X and do not have any post 9/11 fears or over protective parenting habits - get over it and stop being so US centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.146.140 (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is very true and is especially true of this attempting to make "grunge" music a defining feature of Generation X. That may have perhaps been the case in America but it was nowhere near as important in Britain (the rest of Europe?)with the acid house/rave/dance scene(call it what you will)being far more influential and of greater cultural importance amongst those of this generation in Britain. In the light of how this defined such a high proportion of British youth I'd set the parameters for Generation X as to include those born between 1963 and 1973 or those who aged 15-25 when it all kicked off in 1988.

This is the Wikipedia. Pretty much every article could be summed up by your phrase "America, America, America, me, me, me". 80.254.147.52 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

well, blokes and chaps, this kinda started in America to begin with, so of course it's america america me me me....204.52.215.107 (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Because this is en.wikipedia, if you are an Xer from an English-speaking country other than America, feel free to add your own section! Ledboots 13:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I would love to hear your thoughts. For example, I have added a few "Famous Gen Xers", but they are all Americans. Who else could we contribute, particularly from other countries? Thanks in advance.--Cbradshaw (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

YOU' both are VERY right, it actually is a context of demograhic realities that was reported on in several other countries before the US picked up on it. Canada, Europe and some of Asia I believe....but people are forgetting that there is always some lag years between generations. So some need to realize generation Jones...(look it up)! Are just those whom are often forgotten they usually are split up into either Boomers or X-ers becuase they were the kids of the very late seventies into about 80'. Nevertheless it is easiest to make the distinction after Kennedy to Regan or to the fall of the Cold war? This is not rocket science and anyway the Millenials 12-under are already being marketed to so this is not a very eath changing discussion it is just about historical markers and demographics. I could tell the shift when freinds went of the air (thank God) even though the actors are all my age Jennifer Anniston looks great for 38..almost 39. We have grown up now and have been for about ten years people need to move one. And oh yes please let churches home and youth groups know that Gen x-ers are all well over 25 years of age now. In fact Gen Y is already entered college..hello'. martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this article should still be tagged "globalize" or "globalize/US". I would do it if it wasn't protected. arny (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Generationxpic.jpg

Image:Generationxpic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Generation

Pulling from an article I read by Robbin Kirkland and Olivia Sheehan from the Centers for Osteopathic Research & Education, I would like to see more discussion on the Silent Generation. This birth cohort was born between 1925-1942. They generally had large families and considered it natural. They married early and lived during the great depression. About 95% of them are now retired. Kirkchenry (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

I do realize that this is an article about Generation X. However, I have not been able to find a higher level article about Birth Cohorts or Generations. If anybody can provide me guidance on that issue it would be appreciated. Also, there is the GI or WWI generation and the Millennial Generation. Although I haven't searched for all of these, I have not really found the right information. Kirkchenry (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Honeslty I'm intrigued by your question and I will try to help. The first way to guage or put skin on this generation is to add 18 year to the dates you ascribed. This will help identify the years of formation and the years of highshool and generational independence. As a demographic I would also look at the Presidents, Social Programs and Celebraties of this time. This at first glance seems to be a great opportunity to learn more about this special segment. Honeslty I think this is a very important generation as they actually would be the Korean war generation which really is just the end of the Greatest generation, they would have been their little brothers and sisters. There was some jelousy between those in the 50's and those in the 40's from some movies if you really look as they try to define themselves, the Movie rebel without a cause highlights this. But what may make you more excited is that this is the American Grafitti polulation, Buddy Holly, Doris Day...Lucy'. My Guess is that Elvis was born in this timefame. This is not a forgotten genration just a bit eclipsed. But they were the parents of at least half of the Boomers. My guess is that this generation saw a rise in womens issues, racial and gender issues. Also this is the BEAT generation...easily studied and musically very important mabye the most important to date. You may want to read the book Generation's it was published about 1991. It was really the original book that helped to begin this discussion all over about labeling generations. martin cline response author-good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what am i

im born in 1977 growing up i always thought of myself as generation x wore alot of flannel shirts from round about 92-97 lol, according to this article i am but if you look at the gen y it says people born as early as 1975 are gen y,i dont know what i am anymore,i dont know all the in and outs about generation things but all i know is i was a kid in the 80's a teenager in the early and mid 90's, so what am i i always though anyone born 1965 -1981 was gen x than i guess anyone born from 1982 to 1998 gen y or sometimes it seems like gen y is trying to make itself to big by tryin to include people born in the 70's and gen xers trying to make there generation to exclusive by trying to eliminate those born in 80,or 81,--Mikmik2953 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was born in 1979. My brother came about at the tail end of 1983. Let's take a look at our childhoods: Inspector Gadget, Nintendo, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, He-Man and She-Ra, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, PCs improving from the likes of the Apple II (and, in the high school I visited as a kid, TRS-80s where one could learn programming in BASIC) to IBM PS/2s to Gateways and Dells, the emergence of the Internet (first, America Online; later, Netscape Navigator by my early adulthood), a swimming pool in the backyard, various leftover toys and books from the 1970s mixed in with ones from the 80s and 90s, and library books (I was a little late to the Internet, believe it or not - but then again, I was also late to take the wheel of the car). My brother was, at least for a few years, more computer savvy than I was. But I like Internet culture and anime and I wonder whether I'm really an X-er or Y-er at heart. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To the previous bloggers'....77 and 79' you are both x's sorry. Although I and others may be able to make a case for the 79 being a Y'. First to speak to the 1977 person. The 77' blogger is an easy one because you are already 30's sorry no resercher will claim someone already 30 is a Y'. You may be just feeling your age but you actually are the best age now dont feel bad about that, it is a better demographic. If you have some concept of saturday morning TV and Night rider....you are an X-er even though you were in elementary when I was in Highschool. MY nephew was born in 76 and he loves to talk about the old school days of the 90's. I have nieces born in 78 and they would consider themselves x-ers maybe younger but can remember care bears, cabbage patch and the like plus they can sing some of the 80' tunes. They graduated the year of clueless and even Alicia silverstone is 30 so you are in my research a X-er. Although you are RIGHT- you do have more in common with Y so you could be the first Y's and to some researchers you may be. But in my study and memory, 81 is the best cut off. But you are right in that you can claim or go either way (X/Y) in this discussion. I would say X to be safe because you are still in the seventies and so politically you were born under a set of circumstances that maybe you were not aware of but still defines you and your parents. You really are just the babies of the X. So you get to choose but I still say X manly becuase you knew a less technical time then your sibling that means you have shown your age.' Just think 62-82 and that is the most liberal set of years in this silly discussuion, actually a generation is only really about 14 years or so. Many books would say 64-78....are the only true X-ers, even 66-75. In that way Y may on some level apply to that first person. You can easily monitor your context of generation by matching yourself with a current same aged celeb or look at the president during your teen years this is the easiest way to tell. Others will be able to tell you as well even when you cannot not decide. But I say include those till 1981 because the political change that happened after that, in the 80's is not often desputed. good luck...martin

Thanks for the interesting analysis Martin, but I must respectfully disagree. The first two commenters are onto something. I was born in 1978, so I can identify with both of them. We belong to both X and Y and neither at the same time. Generations do not have a hard cutoff, so anyone born roughly from 77-84 was stuck in a transitional gap between X and Y. This is supported by birth data since it was at an unusual low during this period. I've found that I have a lot in common with people in this time period, but anyone outside of this gap is a typical X or Y. My best friend is only 5 years older than I am, and he's definitely a typical X, although a young one. My brother was born in 1982, and he has the same issues. My youngest brother of course was born in 1990, and he's definitely a Y. My parents were boomers that actually had kids while they were young, which was atypical of that generation, but I'm also an unusual case. We're 80s kids, 90s teens, and 9/11 era 20 somethings. Old enough to remember things before high technology took over (80s), but young enough to be early adopters (90s). There was some interesting information here on Wikipedia about us being a "lost" group. They called us the "XY Cusp" or "XY Gappers". Of course, this was deleted because it was "original research." Well, the problem is that there IS no research on us because we're a lost group. No one really cares about us since we're such a small group. They just don't see us as being worth the time or energy to market any crap to us, so we just remain forgotten.Yorath (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Famous People"

Why is "Dakota Fanning" who was born in _1994_ included in this section of this article (which is clearly about the generation born 1960s to early 80's)? This must have been a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.127.64 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This section gave me a good laugh. What is the point of this section? There are thousands of famous Gen-Xers. Why not list them all? Name your favorite famous person born between 1965 and 1980? Very encyclopedic. Lets just list the entire 2007 New York Yankees Team. And the 2001 Dallas Cowboys. Ok, Ok, lets add the 2005 Vancouver Canucks. NationalPark (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You have a point. What guidelines do you suggest for evaluating truly noteworthy Gen Xers? --Cbradshaw (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I took some time to organize the "nominations" for famous people. I doubt that we need more in the Arts area (they're mostly Americans anyway, who could we put in from other countries?) How about suggestions for sports, politics, and Technology?--Cbradshaw (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You are soooo right. But 'MOST all of the Famous People Today are Gen X-ers'.....Julia, Diddy, Jay Z, Will, Pitt, Jolie and Anniston...too easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is getting a little out of control. No offence to Brandon Routh, but he's done one high profile thing! As for "Members of the band...", frankly, I couldn't name one member of those groups. However, there may be a need for a section on influential (or representative) musical groups; particularly Grunge era musicians. But compare: I think most people are familiar with the "Icons" of Cobain and Love...who else other than a dedicated fan can even name all the members of the Pixies (for example)?
Again, I ask for some suggestions on guidelines on who's famous. Right now we need more balance from science/tech, sports, politics, etc, *not* from entertainment or music.--Cbradshaw (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the comment about the Pixies not being well-known enough to deserve inclusion, and add that none of the bands the article claims are associated with Grunge actually are. Korn and Green Day aren't even really part of the "alternative" scene from the 90's... I'd even venture to say that they contributed to the end of that era in music. Anyway, the only musicians famous enough to warrant inclusion are Kurt Cobain and *maybe* Eddie Vedder. Ebolamunkee (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This beautifully illustrates something that Wikipedians will have to hash out for the foreseeable future. Nirvana is undoubtedly one of the best-selling bands of the 1990's, but that essentially nullifies their standing as "Alternative". And while you may not think the Pixies are "well-known enough", it would be incredible to deny how influential they were to other bands of the era. By virtue, it wouldn't be difficult to argue that they're a more legitimate representation of late 80's / early 90's alternative than Nirvana or Pearl Jam, despite never having sold nearly as many albums. -- Kevin (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] succession box

The years used in the succession boxes before I just changed them were certainly not years that are commonly used. First of all, Strauss and Howe are just two of many generations experts; many experts disagree with their generational birth years, and further, the years used in those succession boxes didn't even accurately reflect Strauss and Howe's proposed birth years. Secondly, I can't imagine where those birth years could have come from (I've never seen anyone start GenX as early as the 1950's, I've never seen anyone use 1955-1962 for GenJones, etc.) Coupland never said that GenX started in 1958, he said, in fact, that GenX was a mindset, not a chronological span of years. Generation Jones is not a cusp generation; it is actaully the largest generation in U.S. history. Of the many hundreds of articles, and discussions in books, about Generation Jones, I've never seen it called a cusp generation--instead it is commonly now automaticaly included as a bona fide generation. C'mon...for Wikipedia to work, we all need to focus on accuracy, and the birth years in the succession box now reflect the emerging concensus most commonly used for these three generations. 21st century Susan (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect on a number of accounts: First of all, Although Coupland later said Generation X was a mindset, He did say in early 1992, as noted in this article, that they were 20-33 years old. Also, the inside flap of the book states the it is for the “generation born in the late 1950s and 1960s”. His original viewpoint has been distorted by media and marketers soon after it was published. Second, you are basing your whole premise on Generation X with your supposition that there exists a Generation Jones, while, like Strauss and Howe, many so called generation experts disagree with pollster Jonathan Pontell. Third, you are emphasizing a focus on accuracy. I’m not sure that there ever will be a unified consensus, or any “official” definition of any of these cohorts. And besides, can you back up your point that these succession boxes now reflect a common consensus? Who performed such a study? And also, you are decrying accuracy, yet you didn't include the correct years for Generation Jones: 1954-1965 (which I did). Succession boxes are a bad idea and should be removed, as they will constantly be edited. This article is meant to show the many points of view people have, and can’t possibly be summed up in one box. That’s why previous box at least attempted to reflect varying points of view. Ledboots (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Coupland is actually or could be designated as generation Jones...which most often is included in X (look it up), this would mean those born from 58-63. In all honesty most historials and real people you ask that age would use a post Kennedy assasination administration as the best marker for the generational change. Anyway, if one just takes those babies born in the sixties (not in the 50's) it makes the discussion much simpler. Coupland is just the eldest of Gen X and so his assertions of historical influences for that segment still hold true. He was not born in the 50's so he is speaking to a context of life in the US and the political realities for babies and youth culture of a certain time in history. Which I might add lasted to the early 70's as historians mark a baby rise from 76 on before that births were in decline for a period. Now there are other markers to be used but demographics and birth rates still stand. So all generations have 'markers' but Coupland I think some might assert would be in that transition or change span, but it nonetheless was a change so he is an X and it does speak to years and context of perspective one does not deny the other. So you both are right and anyway he was not the firt to write or label this generation. So he does put boundries on X; so those teens between 1978-80 may on some level have to choose if they more identified as Boomers or X-ers. Ask any of them and most often say they do not identify as Boomers even though there is some over lap of shared media, consumer goods and memories but as one of the writer shared they really saw their own explosion.' In many ways they are the pinnicale of Ad and media interest both as children and now. This was the easy bake oven generation. I know because my I have boomers and Xer's in my family unit (8 kids). We cleary know when to draw the genrational lines it is not hard. Coupland is a year older than my nearest brother and he is the very same age as Tom Cruise who is not a Boomer but one of the lead X-ers' in our memory bank. But there always is a few years at each generational shift that may be in some way debated. Still most would say anyone born in the 50's is not an X-er it really does not seem to work longterm, just like Gen y's whom are at their eldest age 27 or 28 now, they may need to decide if they are X or Y. Martin C. WA.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About generations X and Y: the Fatalist generation

I came up with my own term "the Fatalist generation": Imagine you are born-raised from 1976 to 1985...you're probably not much of an "innocent" child: You feared global warming, environmental damage, racial strife and "diversity", widening class division and middle class decline, political apathy and distrust of our leaders, Baby boomers' self-absorbed individualism, the rise of reactionary conservatism put a roadblock on many liberal trends, meagcorporate culture like shipping our factory jobs overseas or bring in illegal immigrant laborers in certain jobs still in our country, fanatical materialism when the economy boomed in the late 1990s to collapse in the 2000s (look at the house foreclosure pandemic), the changing economy required more academic requirement and intellectual skill, and now the War on terror threatens our national security in a nearly-failed mission against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "real world" was a common phrase used among many Generation X and some Gen Yers in the 1990's to describe the economic difficulty to obtain and declare independence like young 20-something adults during the recession of 1990-93 that produced the "slackers" who can't get out of their parents homes until we're over 30. We are the "Fatalists" might had "lower standard" public education, ill taught about the "Puritan" work ethic our parents tickered with, matured slower than our elders had, didn't know the value of WWII/ Cold war sacrifice, doesn't hold patriotic feelings in the era of international globalization, and our impaired social etiquette by our free time spent on the internet. We know how tough the "real world" has become as a result of neglect and mishandling of our elders' rule (in this case, Baby boomers) of the order of things, and they will pass all that on (i.e. to fund social security, taxes to pay for our federal budget deficit and preserving American military might) to us when we're older when we can't pay our bills at home, our college loans, our lower incomes and depressed wages.

'Generation X' has aged abit more as the majority of them are ages 30 to 40 and I noticed they are more aware of the realities of adulthood, probably their parents overshielded them or didn't teach or warn them about the world has changed, since they were teens themselves...and we analyzed the Baby boomers are hypocrites in young people rebelling, having fun and playing around with life. Our disenchantment with both democracy and capitalism despite it defeated fascism and communism, and made European colonialism and post-WWII socialism into the trash bin for good. The "fatalist" generation doesn't see any gradual improvement in our political structure: the two-party system is simply a political game of a single government ran by the "military-industrial-technocrat- megacorporate" complex that controls the U.S. and world economies.

Yes, we are more tolerant of change when we feel it's desperately needed, proud of racial and cultural diversity and care deeply on the environment when man has altered the natural process of things (i.e. global warming). More Gen. X and Yers aren't too "liberal" when we emphasized families more (so many of us grew up in divorce or single parent families, or our mothers are working so much) but aren't "conservative" as we both scoff at the Bushes, Clintons, the Nixon/Ford and JFK/LBJ legacies for nearly ruining our quality of life as the "lone superpower" about to collapse in any moment. This is the 21st century, China is stronger, the Middle East may get us back, the European Union is a better example of democratic living, and Mexico is said to influence America more than Canada does. We know the Pax Americana is over, we're in a global technological age and the nation-state as the "Fatalists" believe has served its fate.

In the year 2008, we might have a president who's a Generation Xer who's open-minded, calmer, worldly, concerned on domestic issues and wants to be the first non-White male president. We rather have Obama instead of a Baby boomer psuedo-feminist wife of a former president who cheated on her while on presidental duty anyway, or a 70-year old hawk who's like "George Bush III". He may be "fatalist" but the point of fatalism is to fight it, give the world a second chance and improve ourselves economically, socially or politically. We are more progressive while we want America to be strong again, more traditional on family values while we tolerate gay couples and we want unity while we have different cultures and minority groups. But we got to save the middle class, cut down on military spending, focus more on health care, education and children's well-being, amd stop this "radical religious right"/"politically correct left" stuff that caused more fear, division and impaired civil liberties. This produced "fatalism" to hurt our economy and living standards.

Sorry for such a long diatribe, but Generation X-Yers are not naive or immature, and able to live on our own but it took us longer and we hafta work harder than our parents (it seems like it with longer work days or hours, plus commuting time to and from our homes) when economic conditions are instable or economic booms end up as busts so quickly. We want to get off foreign oil costing us $4 a gallon and go for natural gas alternatives to prevent us more wars for oil and cool down the warming planet. We want to control immigration in a proper legal manner when we need more people to our countries who want to work and contribute to this country. And most of all, we want Generation X-Yers to prosper, retire on time, and save up for the future or give it to our young the same way the Baby boomers and their parents had before. Maybe it's up to us to stop being so "fatalist" and start working to help fix and save the future. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Generationzxthgde.jpg

Image:Generationzxthgde.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the name

It states on the page for Generation Y that "Generation X" was originally a pejorative, yet I see the more unlikely story on this page that it was "uncreative researchers" that came up with the name. This seems unlikely as I doubt that in the days when the name was coined, researchers would just "make up" a name and it would stick - I can't see why Generation X came about, but I'm fairly sure it had more to do with the pejorative and less to do with a group of researchers. Zchris87v 14:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was neither. Douglas Coupland popularized the term in 1991 with the novel, meant to describe what twentysomethings were not - yuppie boomers. Only later did marketers convolute the term and others use it as a pejorative. Ledboots (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Your edits removed numerous fact tags without sourcing statements, malformed the reference template and inserted a bizarre POV about negative stereotypes of Generation X. I've reverted the changes. You may add statements back provided they are sourced under WP:CITE. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Cumulus Clouds: my edits were an attempt to remove the cleanup requests that have been there since September '07, that I feel were only slightly revised in the direction of being less POV. If you actually compared my template to the previous, you would know this. Furthermore, if I did mistakenly insert a POV while trying to make positive changes, using negative statements like "bizarre" is uncalled for when one is making an earnest attempt to edit with quality! And, the last section is absolutely an attempt to use "credible" resources to further define this subject, and all of those tags are a little excessive (and likely, unnecessary) to say the least. Ledboots (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Removing fact tags simply because you don't like them isn't really helpful, they're there to alert others which statements need sources. If a lot of statements need sources, expect a lot of fact tags. Acknowledging a POV and then inserting it also isn't acceptable since this directly contradicts WP:NPOV. If you remove the fact tags in the future, please be sure to do so with adequate sourcing to replace them. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Like or dislike is irrelevant. Like I previously mentioned, my intention was to help the article out by editing preexisting script (with much neglected sources needed), not changing content, but attempting to make it more neutral. Btw, the mediation requested above is to address this and the reference flags. Ledboots (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

I have removed significant amounts of original research from this article. Those edits were reverted by an anonymous IP without explanation. I have reverted those changes and if that happens again I will seek short term semi protection. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have returned this article to the version prior to your edits. I have already request a mediation between us, which you ignored, so as far as I'm concerned, your edits are invalid. As you put it, you can't go changing content around just because you "don't like it"! Ledboots (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Removing fact tags and reinserting original research because you have a vendetta isn't a valid reason and is, in fact, a violation of policy. If you want to seek mediation go ahead, but if you continue to revert this material because you want revenge, I'll see administrator intervention. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't mind if I disregard your interpretation of my actions. Incidentaly, vandalism is also against policy. Please don't ignore my request for mediation this time; it's what civil and intelligent people do to resolve disputes. Besides, I actually didn't delete the fact tags, just restored the article prior to your editing. And whether or not what you removed is original research remains to be seen, doesn't it? Ledboots (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undo issues

I would like to submit that anyone who wants to make a contribution to this article postpone until pending mediation is resolved. Administration does not feel an article lockdown is warranted at this time and your edit is likely to be undone my myself or the other party until it is resolved. Sorry for any inconvenience. Ledboots (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If you do it again I'm reporting you to AIV. You have no right to continually revert other people's contributions because you're hung up on this stupid edit war. I'm not about to do anything like that and it's ridiculous that you would try to hide behind this minor conflict to justify your attempts to keep this page locked on your version. Give it up. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Informal mediation

Could we discuss the TIME magazine reference? In particular, does it matter the article doesn't use the phrase 'Generation X'? PhilKnight (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That particular article slightly predates the term "Generation X" as it is known today, which was put on the map by the book written by Douglas Coupland and published the following year (1991). However, it is credited as being one of the first nationally published articles of the recognizable peer-group personality displaying certain characterizations, some of which may be considered deragatory ("slacker"-like references, etc). It is also a possible source of intergenerational conflict between Baby Boomers and Xers, if you will. The article also illuminated the term "twentysomething", referred to as a backformation of "thirtysomething" popularaized by the tv show. After "Generaton X" (in which Coupland often used the term "twentysomething"), the terms were used almost interchangably, which is part of the reason why their is a lot of varying opinion about this so-called peer group. What some failed to realize is that each year that goes by, people get one year older, thus, a twenty-nine year old will then be thirty. Marketers and publications (by those failing to make a distinction) well into the 1990's still used the two terms simultaneously, leading to a dilution of the original usage. David Foot, Canadian demographer, economist and best-selling author on the subject (and published by Statistics Canada), made this point quite clear. Ledboots (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Awesome, but unless you have a published source to back up any of that research, it can't go into the article. Also, it doesn't make much sense as written so you may want to find other sources which make that point more clearly. Furthermore, you can't rely on two different sources to intersect on an idea to try to prove your point. This is called synthesis because the ideas are not published in the papers themselves but are extrapolated by the editors based on the evidence in the sources. This article is not a research paper, it's an encyclopedia entry. 24.17.211.181 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Second footnote of the article, Generation X#History of the Term. Mstuczynski (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

David Foot and Statistics Canada used birth rates; please tell me how vital statistics are considered extrapolations? If what you say is true, than the only definition of Generation X presented in this article should be the one by Douglas Coupland, credited for - giving the generation their name. Or why not just "Generation X is defined as a lot of things by a lot of people." As it stands, anyone looking at this article is going to see in the opening paragraph "Generation X - born from 19xx - 19xx", and that will change via pov on a daily basis. Does that make for a better article or even a good one? Ledboots (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If you have an actual source for that statement to which you can attribute the dates to, it can go in the article and those dates will be fixed accordingly. Otherwise it is your conjectural analysis, along with that of any other editors and thus becomes a gigantic waste of time. This is why things need to be sourced. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We are actually not in such utter disagreement! You obviously are well aware of proper format; I too am in favor of quality, and avoiding synthesis, but not at the expense of completely sanitizing an article. I'm sure there are multitudes of items that should be removed and others cleaned up. Some, however, had direct quotes from the references and ISBNs listed. Regarding pop-culture items, any kind of statistical analysis is obviously difficult to demonstrate. By originally setting this up, my intention was to illustrate a collective conscience using well-known and acceptable sources, such as box-office hits like "Fight Club" for example. Regarding publications though, if it will help resolve this dispute, I can edit the list and leave behind only those items with some methodology behind what is claimed. Ledboots (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Your methodology would still be your own primary research into the subject. References have to be made from somebody else's methodology in a published source that can be easily verified. The list that existed here previously were a loose connection of unrelated items that various editors deemed (on their own) to be "representative" of Generation X. There was no reference for any of those items and everything in that list was highly subjective. More importantly, the content didn't inform anybody on the topic of the article and instead existed as a dumping ground for trivial items that were only tangentially related to the subject. This is why the information was removed. If a portion of the material can't be easily included with sourced statements, leave it out. If there are quotes in the references that illustrate an idea in the article, include them in the body and not in a seperate list. All other material should be removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. Are we talking about the same article? First of all, there are plenty of items with sourced statements. In fact, an administrator asked me to include the ISBNs some time ago, nothing more, which I then completed. Agreed, items that were "dumped" there that were clearly pov should be removed. Secondly, this very topic is subjective to begin with, that's why the idea of presenting an "expert" point of view, like a PhD or government agency, is a more valid source than say, a local newspaper article reference, or the next-door neighbor. The top of the section clearly states, "The section below is an attempt to compare differing concepts of Generation X birth years". That is the intent, to present credible (most people would include government agencies or dictionaries as such) research as to what defined the cohort's years of birth. Thirdly, I frankly don't see how the items are unrelated when we are talking about categories such as media, print, best-selling authors, etc. Where else would one encounter this topic to be presented in a wikipedia article? You are stating that you don't have a problem with some of the references, just how they appear, in a "list' format because it lends itself to bad editing practices, but that leads me to two questions: 1) is that any more so than usual? 2) is a "list" format in some kind of policy violation? Ledboots (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • To answer your last question, 1) that's irrelevant and 2) yes, see WP:TRIVIA. The major, glaring problem with the section is the sentence you cited, "the section below is an attempt to compare..." because this is your attempt to compare those concepts by your own standards. This is unacceptable for this article and any others in this encyclopedia. What you've said meets the very definition of synthesis because you're trying to extract unpublished analysis from published sources. If there are any real meaningful references in that section that can be extracted from it, statements can be written in the body of other sections in the article and those references can be cited. Otherwise they are useless in the article, regardless of where they came from or what government agency published them. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I wasn't looking for you per say to answer these questions, just posing them. Regarding your claim it is trivia, the reference you provided WP:TRIVIA states: "This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format." That is what my assertion is my disagreeable friend, and you obviously do not concur, which is why this is being mediated. I already stated that as far as defining this cohort's birth years, the present format is impossible. Therefore, the need of the list format is totally feasible in this instance. Your sweeping claim of "synthesis" is incorrect as an abstract notion of a cohort is not be presented as "Generation X", simply restated in an article of the same theme. Perhaps the introduction to the section should be changed, to a less suggestive one, but that should be the extent of any modification. Ledboots (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In-line citations for statements are always preferred over a list of sources. Anyone would agree that this information is presented far better as prose than in list form. If the birth years for Generation X cannot be cited to a source (or series of sources) that explicitly state what they are, they must be left out. Changing the lead in that section won't change any of these facts and it should be left out completely. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry to say that I don't feel prose is a better format in this case, and maybe others don't as well! It should be easily edited so long as the information is viable. Remember, we are taking either demographic or peer-personality items and easily adding or possibly removing them. Whatever analysis the author referenced used is what is important, regardless of what object complement is used (i.e., Generation X, 13th Generation, Generation bowl of red cherries). The fundamental question is, who are they/when were they born? Demographers use birth rates, sociologists use peer-group behavior to define. Let's face it, the concept of a "generation" debatable to begin with. But at least with credible sources, such as Coupland, Tulgan or Webster's dictionary, some validity is gained. As far as the lead, stating birth years as being "contrasted" might be better than "compared". Sorting by demographic or peer-personality is probably pointless as that is often conveyed in the title. Anyone else out there that would like to interject anything into this particular discussion? Ledboots (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If the information can be added to the body of the article with inline citations, add it. Otherwise leave it out. Do not inject your own hypotheses or analysis into the article. I don't care about the semantics of what this peer group is called and that is not what we are debating here. Everything in this article must be sourced. Nonconformed (inline) sources in the article without accompanying statements must be removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Besides the obvious concerns about quoting a bunch of disjointed sources outside of a reference list, that section is written very poorly and is extremely hard to understand. The list beneath it of Generation X celebrities, which Ledboots created, is garbage. The hidden message directly beneath the section header illustrates the original research that Ledboots was trying to insert into this article and very explicitly states that he has no sources to back up any of those claims. The sections on "Generation X in literature" amount to pure trivia and none of these claims are sourced. The very earliest portions of that section which detail what study said what about Generation X are useless if they're kept in a seperate section outside of the reference list. This whole debate is a waste of time and I hope it can be brought to a very swift close. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You use the term "debate" loosely. I would say it approaches an argument, which I'm unwilling to undertake. I've said my piece. Incidentally, I did not start the celebrity list, it has made it's appearance on and off for a long time. Wrong again, Cumulus Clouds! Your last statement is definitely something we can agree upon. Ledboots (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Gen X' millenials?

How could ANYONE link an early-1980s birth to Gen X? Being born in that range, I have always been lead to believe by impressions given by the media that individuals of a decidedly older, more experienced age were being referenced. Whenever there were TV specials and references made to Gen X "phenomenas", such as an "unemployment crisis", or the "Seattle movement", seeing as this was all coming out at a time before I even hit puberty(or just starting to), how was I supposed to relate to it? Younger children my age were NEVER alluded to in these things. The stuff about being the "first generation of divorce"...I don't know, but I think by the time we got to my childhood, divorce was hardly new anymore.

I am aware that there was a book released in the early-1990s devoted to the subject, one which put forth a birth span of 1961-1981(incidentally STILL an earlier cut off than the one given on the Wiki entry), but I never assumed that was to be taken too seriously since it's release, given that for starters, people born between 1961-'64 are clearly BABY BOOMERS. The Baby Boomer birth span of 1946-64 is one I have NEVER seen disputed. Not to mention, the Gen X birth span is supposed to be more narrow, isn't it? Being as it is IIRC, also reflective of a brief, birth decrease trend that initiated in the mid to late 1960s?

I'm sorry, but the idea of someone being a Gen-Xer who wasn't old enough to have entered high school at the start of 1990s, or worse yet was still IN high school at the start of the 2000s, is one that doesn't register at all. It seems quite a misleading message to send.(Theburning25 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm afraid that is a matter of debate. The reason why so many think the boom is from 1946-1964 is because media put it out there for so many years. Even birth rates, the bread and butter for the Census Bureau, can be a slippery thing. The Baby Boom certainly did start in 1946 for all states, but pre-war baseline ending birth rates occurred throughout the 1960s for the individual states, 1964 being the average. Much analysis has been done to show those born at the tail end of the boom display very different traits than their older peers, and have more in common with those born later (although some like Yankelovich demonstrate "cusp" traits for that birth cohort). The reason why Strauss and Howe picked 1981 as the ending year was because of their 22-years in a generation theory. One thing they did point out; lots of people born in the early 60s (myself included, born in 1964) don't acknowledge being lumped in with Baby Boomers and identify with the "hippie-cum-yuppie" progression as Strauss and Howe put it. Ledboots (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

--- As someone just starting high school in the mid-90's (born 1980) I certainly agree that it seems out of touch with reality to call someone born in the 80's a Gen Xer... I have never considered myself GenX, nor have I met anyone my age who does. I did not feel particularly connected to the traditional GenX touchstone issues/moments such as the Regan Administration or even the death of Kurt Cobain. There must be more research out there that can help settle this, one way, or the other. Adam Clotfelter (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] protected?

It is protected and no date is given for when it will be unprotected. What is this all about? I can see that there was some kind of debate (although I can't seem to understand what the debate was about) two weeks ago, so why is the article protected now? Is it because of the debate two weeks ago? JayKeaton (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is protected because of a lengthy edit war relating to content that is deemed to be either original research or inadequately sourced. While I agree there has been no talk page activity in the last 8 days, the dispute has spanned several months, and is still unresolved. At the moment, I think unprotecting could result in a continuation of the edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow, so this is a very on going problem. Though if it is that big, isn't it time we get someone much higher up to come in and make a decision, rather than let this article suffer for several months? JayKeaton (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Somebody slashed over half the article on March 31. There has been some kind of debate as to the origin of the name "Generation X" and which author should be given credit, but the mass deletions by "Cumulus Clouds" goes beyond that. The stuff I added about Gen X being marked by the love of extreme sports was cut... how well researched does this have to be? Is there any debate that Gen X popularized snowboarding? For that matter, is there any debate that Yahoo, Google, and eBay were founded by prominent members of Gen X (this was also slashed)? Maybe I was wrong to add that stuff... I did not realize that Wikipedia has become a place where even universally understood information needs to be cut-and-pasted from media sources. If it has, then we can expect the type of result seen on the Gen X page often: the only thing left is a tediously academic discussion not of Gen X itself, but of media opinions of Gen X. It is "established fact" that Gen X is apathetic, or that members of Gen X founded Yahoo, Google, and eBay? Is the whole page really to be devoted to old media opinions, and none of it devoted to the quirks and achievements that have defined the generation in retrospect?
Incidentally, I haven't deleted anybody else's edits, so I am not a combatant in the "edit war" (just a random casualty).Nlandau (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Every statement must have a source. If you are unable or unwilling to find a source, it cannot be included because it is original research. Your opinions about the apathy of this generation or what generation the founders of the companies belong to cannot be discussed in this article without a source. I don't really care if you don't like the policy, it's there for a reason and it must be adhered to.
Aside from those concerns, information about extreme sports isn't relevant or germaine to this discussion and even if it were sourced I would disagree with its inclusion. Your broad categorization of an entire group of people as apathetic is also inappropriate and shouldn't be included because it would not demonstrate a neutral point of view. I don't particularly care who invented the term, but if the information about it isn't sourced, it can't be included. Again, your (and Ledboots') unwillingness to locate sources for these statements leads me to believe you are pushing your own POV or you have a poor understanding of policy. The latter can be remedied by reading these: WP:OR and WP:NPOV, but the former will result in an RfC and further dispute resolution. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


The point is that there has been a lot of frivolous challenges in violation of when-to-cite policy. Items that are not clearly original research or ludicrous to the discussion are fair game. Statements like "Gen-X are often perceived to wear Doc Martens and attend Raves" may have their place in the article; yet their are those who insist on some type of referencing. How absurd! Ledboots (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is to say a source is accurate and if someone was not to come up with something in the first place you would have no source, you my friend are running in circular logic. Somewhere some how something has to be made up trusting "sources" (meaning you found someone else with the same opinion) still does not make something correct or incorrect. As George Carlin said "It's all Bull#$*& and it's bad for you" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.127.159 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "unwilling" to locate sources. A number of the most distinguished members of Gen X were listed with links to their bios. The dotcom companies founded by GenXers included links to these companies' histories. You have said that the list is "garbage" in a thread above. Why is it "garbage" to list the one Nobel laureate born since 1961? Why is it "garbage" to list some of the greatest entrepreneurs in history that are members of Gen X (such as Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jerry Yang, and Divid Filo)? These are not trivial persons in history, and they exemplify a generation. This is really more important than the recitals of the criticisms leveled at Gen X by journalists and authors during the very early 1990s.

Moreover, what remains on the page is utterly trivial. All that is left is the opinions of poorly informed journalists and authors written over fifteen years ago, before most of the important events and achievements of the generation occurred. Why is it acceptable to allege that some author of little repute in 1991 accused GenX of "rampant political apathy," as opposed to discussing the anti-globalization protests and Free Tibet movement that flowered among GenXers during the rest of that decade? Mind you, references to the actual political movements were accompanied by links to the full Wiki articles, which in turn contained numerous outside references.

I have to agree with everybody else on this talk page that the "edit war" is merely one person's attempt to dominate a page with his opinions. 76.108.177.119 (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Maintaining a list of people born between an ever fluctuating set of years did nothing to improve the article. It didn't explain the term or add anything relevant to the discussion on the topic other than "this person may or may not have been born within the set of years identified for Generation X." This is a waste of time. This was evidenced by the massive number of edits to that list while it was included in the article, while the other sections were entirely neglected. Removing the list encourages people to add relevant, encyclopedic information to this article that isn't pure trivia.
  • You keep insisting that you should be allowed to include information because it's absolutely and totally necessary to the article, but you refuse to find sources for it. If you cannot find a source, it cannot be included. References from other articles may be used -if they support the statement appropriately- but wiki-links themselves are unacceptable as sources. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe those involved should agree to step back for a while and let uninvolved editors take a go at it. Powers T 12:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Provided that the article isn't continually reverted to this diff, you can knock yourselves out. My only concern is that this article comply with policies on NPOV and original research, so please look out for that as well (or I will probably keep complaining about it). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator, please make a call

All I see is the slashed page when this dispute began, with Cumulus Clouds giving blessings to go ahead and edit as usual. Give me a break! What has changed? You sit there and decry how pov this article is and all of original research, and it's ok for you to slash items, of mine at least, that I know were properly sourced. What about wiki policy concerning that? Isn't that vandalism? Mediator: I'm asking that you please make a call here for the sake those who properly contributed here. Bring back the unslashed page and go from there. Not everything was unsourced and trivia. And lets face it: if we resubmit our items as this page stands, the edit war will only continue with it's prompt removal by Cumulus Clouds saying it's "trivia", then I'll "keep complaining about it"!! Ledboots (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What's up with Cumulus? S/He continues to remove well-cited info and refuses to acknowledge the citations. Anybody out there that can explain the background here? I'm not going to continue to spend time sourcing this info if it continues to be removed. The goal was to be helpful but when my time is wasted by Her/His quick reverts I'm ready to move on. Thoughts? 24.98.135.148 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Your sources were inadequate since they did not support the statements they were citing or they were referenced by unreliable sources. You also removed a reference template and then attempted to hard-cite those same poor references. You will need to read WP:CITE to understand how to use in-line citations, then you'll have to read WP:RS to understand why blogs and are considered unreliable sources and lastly, you will have to stop cutting and pasting material from other websites since this constitutes a copyright violation. I'm also going to warn you on editing under an anonymous IP address, since I suspect you have an account that you're choosing not to use to try to support yourself here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you look at this reference for example, it doesn't fully support the sentence "As the first of their cohort reached adulthood, they experienced the collapse of the Soviet Union and the United States of America's emergence as the world's lone superpower". While it confirms the US is the world's only superpower, it doesn't provide any linkage to the concept of 'Generation X'. More citations similar to this are required - citations that are specifically about Generation X. This approach is explained in the No Original Research policy. PhilKnight (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So, this version of the article is supposed to maintain some kind of integrity. What a laugh! First of all, the first reference (Time Magazine, 1987) does not in any occasion mention Generation X. Why? Because the term was pretty much only used in the generational context in British Columbia (via Vancouver Magazine). Why is it included then? And if anything, why not put 1965 to 1980 (the supposed "Baby Busters") like the article mentions, unless, the editor wants to use their own pov, which is totally the case and evidently acceptable by all in lieu of the default article. Secondly, the "Twentysomething" citation needed flag; Wikipedia is a tertiary reference [1]. The date of the "Thirtysomething" TV show absolutely predated the article. Do I have to spell this all out? I guess ignorance prevailed in this case. Thirdly, it is a matter of historical common knowledge that Twentysomething became interchangeable with Generation X, reproduced a million times in media. Fourthly, Coupland mentions the "trailing edge boomer" cohort in the article by age "those 20-30" (roughly). The citation with the twentysomething born from 1987-1991 is evident in the #4 reference. Aside from the plethora of things that are still wrong with the article ... why is it still edit protected? This dispute was taken to arbitration and promptly dismissed as being a simple case of "obvious content dispute". Ledboots (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Because anytime it's unprotected you immediately set about returning it to the same diff and then trying to get it protected on that version. And by the way, ArbCom's rejection of your case should in no way serve as an endorsement or de facto decision in your favor. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generation x

Don't you think we could have been called something other than generation-x? Sounds kind of lame to me. Cartoon generation or Cereal generation would have suited us better. Saturday mornings and a big bowl of cereal, that was the life. Every saturday morning we had something to look forward to for a few hours. Cereal was great any time of the day. Whos making the games, videos and cartoons for our kids these days? We are. My kids called my music and games, Dinosaur for awhile, now they call it retro and want to see and hear my stuff. Our toys and games were not hi-tech as they are now but we had a great imagination though. Toys and play ground equipment made of steel, sirens from our own voices. Nothing wrong with my kids and all the electronics they have, but its just at a push of a button more or less. Anyway, calling us generation x just dosnt cut it for me. Stephan pollack (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strauss and Howe Correction

Regardless of whether Strauss & Howe properly delineated their "13th Generation" and its association with Generation X, it's definitely the case that they identified it as 1961-1981, NOT 1965-1982 as currently in the article. In particular, the book Generations, listed as a reference for this assertion, definitely has it as 1961-1981. Can this be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbowman (talk • contribs) 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)