Talk:Generation X

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Generation X article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Sociology C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This entire article is garbage. It spends the bulk of its length describing the definition of who fits in the category, but absolutely nothing to do with the trends and perceptions of the generation. The most informative portion is just a list of all the bad things that happened during their childhoods. The Gen Y article wasn't great, but it was much, much better than this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.52.26 (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so fix it... Peregrine981 (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many born in 1981 graduated in 2000(including me). I feel hardly any connection with those born in the 1960s and 1970s(especially those born in the 60s and early part of the 70s). Many sources have Generation X defined as 1965-1976 and the millennial generation as 1977-1995. Some have the millinnials from 1979-1995, and some from 1980 onward. Don't discount ALL of us born in the 1980s as a part of the Millennial generation, as we all came of age in the new millenium or right before it. My sources are: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Generation+x http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossarym/g/millenials.htm http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122455219391652725.html http://www.hettler.com/AAHAM/Generations-Mosier.htm http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2006-06-28-generation-next_x.htm http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1437/millennials-profile http://www.cpasuccess.com/2007/08/defining-the--1.html http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-generation-y.htm http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561546943/echo_boomer.html http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/millennials.html http://newpolitics.net/sites/ndn-newpol.civicactions.net/files/NPI-Millennials-Final.pdf (Bjoh249 (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

We are going by standard research. MOST people born in 1981 graduated in 1999 NOT 2000. Recent documentaries by 60 Minutes and PBS all use 1982 as the start of Generation Y/Millennials. 1981 is the last date used by most media/universities, etc. I should add that those graduating in 2000 were referred to as the Millennial Class, and the Class of 1999 as the last of Generation X. Also, some who use random dates like 1979 or 1978 as an end date were using the age of 30 as a reference, so whatever year they wrote the article, they used the corresponding birth year. Generation X started out referring to those born up until about 1975, but from eighties on, 1982 was used as the start date for Generation Y. Please respect the consensus and the wording of the introduction of the articles. They were set that way for a reason. People were going in and changing dates repeatedly and adding various date ranges. Other dates and sources are mentioned in the article and do not belong in the introduction. The sources already cover the various date ranges, and the intro is set to indicate the earliest date and latest date WIDELY accepted. The consensus was already reached on this topic for the generation articles. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say you are wrong and I have shown evidence at top that shows that you are wrong(including the 60 Minutes article you were talking about). I was born in 1981 and graduated in 2000 and I am not Gen X-er. Re-read my selections at top. (Bjoh249 (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

While I was at it I also decided to go over to PBS to see if you were wrong about what they said as well. Turns out you are:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june10/millenials_02-24.html (Bjoh249 (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You don't seem to understand that they are referencing 1981 in "that" case to the class of 2000. Read this moderated by Judy Woodruff, Senior Correspondent, PBS Newshour here: http://www.millennialmakeover.com/Articles/PBS%20Role%20of%20Young%20Voters%20in%20Politics%20Continues%20to%20Grow.htm

and here: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1515/millennials-panel-one-transcript-portrait-of-the-millennials

Quote: 'At a conference at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010, Pew Research Center analysts and outside experts discussed research findings about the Millennial generation, the American teens and twenty-somethings now making the passage into adulthood. This first of three sessions provided a broad overview of the Millennial generation, examining their demographics, values, attitudes and behaviors, and discussing the results of the new study.'

Further down, quote: 'In 1982, when the first Millennials were born, we saw the appearance of baby-on-board bumper stickers all across America.' SEE? It is more likely that there is an error in your reference. I have the same date of the special with the transcript and it clearly quotes 1982. Same moderator - Judy Woodruff.

The last PBS special that aired used 1982 as the start date for the Millennials. As I've said again and again, MOST researchers and media use the Class of 2000 (who MOST were born in 1982) as the start of Generation Y/Millennial Class.

Also: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/01/60minutes/main646890.shtml Echo Boomers/Gen Y starts at 1982, from CBS 60 Minutes.

This discussion is OVER. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont let Boomers alter their aging process, it is anyone born after Kennedy and up to Reagan. Conservative is 61-81 whcih actually comes fromthe first book whcih delt with the notion. But really 64-81 is th most the accepted. Basically if you graduated in the 80's you are not a Boomer. Is anyone understanding that this political move regarding republicans is a generational position too? I hope people get this..... X'ers are more likely to support McCain's generation (Greatest or Korean war) than Dems boomer ticket. Xers are in many ways anti boomer or rather alternate to the Boomer worldview. For those raised or born after Civil rights and Vietnam are more capitalist in approach albeit more world market savvy. But one must realize the pragmatic nature of those in there 30's and early 40's given our consumerist upbringing under 12 years of Reagan and Bush 1; not that they as leaders were perfect but we as a voting block hold national security and economic issues in common with elder generations. This is the case where we agree with our grandparents over our parents world view. Granted we are more worldly in ethos but the first generation to be raised with computers still carry a distinct difference in values than Boomers. Please note that even Obama is not really a boomer technically (this may be debated) but he is the eldest of a new generation his whole life is a multicultural one much like those born during or after the civil right movement. Gov Palin graduated HS in the 80' she is no boomer but X 29-46 this will matter in that the boomer perspective in the market place, philosophy and politically positions are on there way out. Boomers are already on their way out, the Clintons were their last hope. Sorry. M.Cline 09/02/08

Obama graduated high school around 1979, as did most people born in 1961 (I know there are exceptions). I don't consider 70's high school graduates to be Generation X'ers and the 80's culture as we know it wouldn't have started in 1980 itself but at least a little later, say 1982-3. I know alot of people born in 1961 who don't really identify with the generation that grew up with John Hughes films, Reagan's presidency, grunge music, slacker culture etc --24.251.17.123 (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)(though there are some early 60's born people that helped start grunge in Seattle). I think births from the late 50's and early 60's consist of a sub-group of the Baby Boomers that shares many features with the up coming Gen X'ers (who were still children when these people came of age) but retain many characteristics of their older peers. Generation Jones as they say. And many Gen Y'ers, like myself, are the children of this set of Boomers, not of those who really were part of the events of the 60's. - User: Afghan Historian[reply]

The 80s culture really took off in the late 70s I would say. Big 80s stars like Blondie and The Knack took off in 1978 and 1979 and they had a lot of the style and music you would be seeing in the next decade. Grunge, metal, punk, and hard rock which was popular in the 80s, started in the 70s(60s with hard rock). It really doesn't really matter though, the 1980s decade was still 1980-1989 regardless of when the culture that defined the decade was.( Bjoh249 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC) )[reply]

None of those stars were that big until the 80's though. Rock styles always had roots in what came before them (the Beatles in this way started in the 50's with the styles of Elvis and Chuck Berry). I'm not trying to say everyone thinks this way but alot of people I've talked to who were born between the years of 1960 and 1964 consider their adolescence years to be the late 70's rather than the core of the 80's. These people graduated between 1978 and 1982 and often listened to classic rock, disco, punk and late 70's soft pop/rock rather than the music that would come to be seen as "X" formative, such as Michael Jackson, Madonna, Van Halen, etc. I had a professor born in 1964 who saw himself as being a tail-end baby boomer/Joneser rather than an "X"er. I had an uncle born in 1963 who considered his adolescent culture as being ruled by Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Kiss and such. Of course there are always exceptions and places where the generational boundaries blur beyond recognition, such as Seattle where many of the foundational local grunge artists were actually late 50's born kids in their mid 20's. The 80's culture as we know it didn't take off till around 1982 onwards. I generally would put 1964 or 65 as the real start of Generation X. It's funny actually because the term was originally coined by British sociologists in the mid 60's to refer to the British baby boomers. Afghan Historian (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps: The Knack were active from the late 70's to 81. Basically a cusp decade band rather than a solid product of the 80's. Afghan Historian (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...the top universities in the country does too:

http://hbr.org/2010/05/mentoring-millennials/ar/1 http://qn.som.yale.edu/article.php?issue_id=6&article_id=72 http://stanford-online.stanford.edu/webinars/100406d-burnett-sheppard.pdf http://www.brookings.edu/governance/~/media/Files/Programs/Governance/red_blue_purple/200802_millennials_keeter.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjoh249 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try arguing with them. (Bjoh249 (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Other CBS news and PBS's recent documentary all use 1982 as the start date for Generation Y/Millennials. As you were born at the end of 1981 and graduated in 2000, you are Generation Y. MOST people born in 1981 were part of the graduating class of 1999. Even Ad Age has changed their dates and uses 1982 as the start of the Milennials. Going around on various generation pages (including Strauss and Howe and saying 'They're wrong!) and posting the same thing is not constructive, nor is it allowed on here. Please refrain from disruptive edits and the use of foul language. You have already been warned at least a couple of times by other editors. This is your last warning. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PBS article was from this year and the only one I found on the subject from that agency. The CBS News article was the main one you cited and I have found no other articles on it from CBS News. The other recent news articles I find on Gen Y are the same: http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Workplace/Engaging-Millennial-IT-Workers-Rethink-Everything-614399/ http://www.prweb.com/releases/lifeway-research/same-sex-marriage/prweb4454854.htm http://www.skininc.com/spabusiness/management/personnel/101320584.html http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20100902__Jersey_Shore__brings_MTV_a_wave_of_new_viewers.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/31/AR2010083102922.html I was actually born in April 1981, but I graduated in 2000. It is obvious you want to have this your way or the highway. It is not like anyone takes wikipedia seriously anyway. I don't care if you don't change anything on the article or if you ban me, I have the truth on my side. Wikipedia is a proven opinion site, not an encyclopedia. (Bjoh249 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You don't have truth on your side. You have an opinion. You don't FEEL like you belong to Generation X. That is not a valid reason. You already tried that TACTIC with your first few reverts. You ignored the warning and tried again. You seem to be missing the point. MOST sources use 1981 as the end date for Generation X. You may have started school late, but the graduating Class of 2000 (AKA The Millennial Class/Generation Y) consists of mainly people born in 1982, maybe some in late 1981. These are also standard dates used by the school system. The graduating Class of 1999 was referred to as the 'last of their generation' before the Millennials. Also, I could name a bunch of schools that list 1982 as the start year, including Emory, Stanford, and some schools in England and Australia. The key is that MOST sources use 1981; I never said ALL. We use the standard dates, which were reached by a consensus. Repeatedly ignoring this, as well as vandalizing a page with foul language and putting multiple posts on several talk pages is grounds for being blocked. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see, unlike you, I have posted my sources to back them up. I don't see any real difference between 1981 and 1982. Both were years in the 80s, both came of age with the internet, both became full adults in the new millennium, both were in college in the new millennium, both classes of 99 and 00 were prepared for the new millennium in junior high and high school instead of the 20th century, and both are a part the young generation of today. I use sources and you ignore them. I also use the top schools in the country and you ignore them. Like I said, I have truth on my side and you are just some jerk trying to spin everything towards your biased and uninformed way of thinking. Don't change the article, ban me, I don't care. Like I said, no one takes Wikipedia seriously anyway and approaches the site with caution when they do come to the site. All I have to do is mention wikipedia to anyone and I get the same reaction: A lot of biasness and not one to take all seriously.

Also, your article says 1981 as the end year and doesn't exclude those born in late 1981. Be consistent if you are going to post just your opinion. (Bjoh249 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, I have decided I'm not coming back to wikipedia ever again and I will be spreading it around how you guys are biased and you allow lies and half-truths into your articles, as well as leaving out two sides to certain stories you put on here.(Bjoh249 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I only pointed out your faulty reasoning. You said you felt part of the Millennial generation though you were born in April 1981. I said the end date for Generation Y is 1981 because most people graduating in the Class of 1999 were born in 1980-1981, not 1982. The Class of 2000 is generally considered the start of Generation Y. That is the reasoning sources use for the date range and why the introduction of the Generation X page is worded the way it is. You insist on ignoring the reasoning behind the consensus and resort to name-calling and copy and pasting your posts several times. You spammed 3 separate talk pages with the same information. Please stop this disruptive behavior. You have received your final warning. Other editors have also warned you. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The start date of 1982 must be in error. In the UK (and I'm pretty sure this is true for the US) also, a school year starts in September 1981. Therefore, someone born in September onwards (1981) will have graduated (US) in 2000. The fact that specific dates (instead the generic 1982) were omitted from numerous 'studies' that show 1982 as the Gen Y start year makes these 'studies' less valid.

Further, Gen Y is in dispute: I've seen in this talk section many links that give the start year as EARLIER than 1982. Elsewhwere on the web a start date of 1976 has been used. Broadly, it seems, those born between 1976-2000 seem to classed as Gen Y'ers.

I think a better criticism section should be included in the main article and should address the start date (i.e. September 1981) for those graduating in July (2000), which would technically make them 18 years old and Gen Y graduates. Also, someone mentioned here that MOST people who graduate are born in 1982. This is not good enough. If we are to analyze the phenomenon properly, we should include specific date ranges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.192.249.21 (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this latest post to be highly suspicious, considering the protection recently put up as a result of recent vandalism and edit warring. Two such editors responsible for this have already been warned that continued behavior will result in them being blocked from further edits. One editor has been warned of spam postings on several Wikipedia talk pages.

The consensus on the dates has been reached and the introduction worded in such a way specifically due to all the edit warring with the dates. We are using the earliest and LATEST widely accepted date ranges. 1981 is the last date used by most researchers, media, demographers, universities, etc. And 1982 IS the birth year for most in the high school graduating class of 2000 with 1981 being the cut-off date used by school systems in the United States and Australia, as well as other countries. If you were born in the Fall of 1981 and graduated in 2000, you are part of the Millennial Class. We are going by standard dates that are widely used.

Though 1976 was initially used as a starting date for Generation Y (referring to the Net Generation), most quickly started using 1982, and continue that tradition today. 1982 also corresponds to the start of the Echo Boom (Echo Boomers, AKA Generation Y and Milennials - again a name attributed to those in the MILLENNIAL CLASS - class of 1999 has never been called the Millennial Class) because of the largest boom in birth rates since 1964.

This has been argued to DEATH already, and 1981 is THE LAST date MOST WIDELY used for Generation X. 1982, 1983 are rarely used. Only one published author uses 1983 as the start date for Generation Y. I don't believe this one source is enough to even be mentioned on, but it remains on the Generation Y page. This author uses the September 11th tragedy as reference for his dates, even though the term Generation X has referred to those born up until 1981 for YEARS. When the Class of 1999 graduated, they were referred to as the "last of their generation," while the Class of 2000 was called the highly anticipated Millennial Class and the first of the New Generation. Most sources continue to use 1982 as the beginning birth year for Millennials/Generation Y.

The article will remain as it is, and the protection will stay in place. If the edit warring starts up again, this page will be protected indefinitely. Thank you.Please do not spam Wikipedia with the same post on different talk pages. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first of all, I'm not spamming. Millions of people visit Wikipedia all the time so it's hardly surprising when a bunch of people come to the same pages and even the same conclusions. I don't know who was spamming before, but I assure you this is the first time I've commented here.

Anyway, you yourself admit (and I quote) " If you were born in the Fall of 1981 and graduated in 2000, you are part of the Millennial Class."

1981 (up until the fall) is the LAST date of the Gen X'ers. Gen Y starts after the fall. There is a percentage (I'd guess it would be at least in the region of 20% of students graduating in 2000 from US high schools who are a part of the Y Generation). A distinction needs to be included, if, that is, you are interested in keeping accurate records.

Wikipedia (from the years I've used it as a reference point) has always been very good at maintaining facts, but on this issue a portion of Generation Y'ers are being ignored here, and that is not fair nor is it keeping in with specific data.

The FACT (and you admit this yourself) is that those born after September 1981 will be a part of the Y Generation. A simple line (you said it quite well actually) should be included in the bulk of the main article as, quite simply, it is truth. If a starting year began in Jan 01 1982, then this wouldn't even be an issue, but the fact of the matter is this is not true, it is Sept 1981.

I have no problem with saying the 'last date is 1981' provided it also states that 'up until the fall of' is also included.

Again, I'm not a spammer but I have always valued wikipedia on being specific, and this should reflect in this article. Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.192.249.21 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I completely agree about the distinction. I have actually mentioned this to marketers who erroneously attribute 1981 only to the Class of 2000, when the majority born in 1981 graduated in 1999 and belong to Generation X (as per school cut-off dates). Many have made corrections since. A consensus had been reached for the wording of both article pages (Generation X and Generation Y), but I will see what I can do for this page's introduction. I will also add a little more information from Strauss and Howe's other books when I can later during the week. However, most of that information probably belongs on the Strauss and Howe page. I have some other work to do, but I will update when I can.

Most people born in 1982 were part of the Millennial Class; it is the birth year most used and associated with the High School Class of 2000, so it will be left as such. That is how it is used by the media. Usually, such articles mention both the year (1982) and the graduating class of 2000. They are already appropriately referenced on Wikipedia. It is pretty much a given that if you graduated in 2000 (and didn't just repeat 9th grade or something) and grew up with those classmates, you are a Millennial/Generation Y member. The Generation Y article already shows such a distinction. The Class of 2000 has always been referred to as the Millennial Class. While there are people who skip grades, etc., those people aren't generally classified as belonging to Generation X either. The start date for Generation Y also happens to coincide with the echo boom (birth rates) of 1982 as well. I am trying to avoid too many specifics, especially in the introduction, since it has caused problems in the past (hence the consensus on the wording). The phrase "up until the fall of" will not be used since there are many people born in September and even early October 1981 who graduated in 1999. We will continue to use the standard and most widely used dates (as presented in sources). Note: I only mentioned spamming because the last editor (who are pretty much close to being banned) made the same post on at least two talk pages, so his posts were removed. It's one of the reason's why these pages become protected. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying.

In regards to this issue, I have a question:

Do you agree that the earliest date of birth for a person graduating (not repeating a year or anything of that nature) the normal way for the 2000 class would be born AFTER the fall of 1981?

Because you have already admitted that it is technically true (albiet a smaller percentage), this is grounds for a distinction being made in the main article.

Yes, I realize that MOST (like you stated) will have been born in 1982, but the fact remains there are Gen Y'ers born in Sept, Oct, Nov and Dec '81 who graduated (because they were in the same year group as those born between Jan-August '82) in the year 2000. Even if you were to JUST include the VERY late months of Nov/Dec that would surely make-up around 10, if not 20% of all classmates who graduated. Even if it was as little as 5%, I would argue that these people still count, or do they not matter because they are in the minority?

You are not dumb, you clearly are articulate and understand this issue, and I'm guessing have read into it, so I am asking you as a fellow academic to at least make some sort of note (a single line would do) that recognizes those born at the latter end of 1981 are legitimate Gen Y'ers.

Commonly, I'm finding regular Google searches are displaying many references to 1981 as a legitimate start date for Gen Y. Whilst I agree with you that those born before the fall are Gen X'ers, those after are certainly not. Especially those born at the very end of that year.

Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.192.249.21 (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that we will be going by the standard dates used without going into specifics because that is how sources use the date ranges (while mentioning the Class of 2000 belonging to the Millennils/Generation Y) and how this will be in line with the conensus. It's obvious that if you're born in November/December 1981, and graduated in 2000, you are Generation Y. Sources already mention this, and it is mentioned in the article for Generation Y. Please do not change or add specifics, because it is unnecessary and goes against the consensus for the introduction. I think it is clear now. The last of Generation X was born in 1981 and graduated in 1999. Since MOST sources use 1982 as the start of Generation Y/Millennials, that is what we're going to use. Recent documentaries and newspapers usually use 1982. The MILLENNIALS started with the graduating Class of 2000 - the start of the NEW MILLENNIUM (hence the name). Millennials/Generation Y/Echo Boomers. This topic has been beaten to death and the discussion is no longer productive. I regularly edit the generation pages, so I will keep an eye on things and add new information when I can. As the generations grow older, there will be more information. But, sources generally use 1982 because it is the birth year for MOST of those in the graduating Class of 2000. It is implied that if you're born towards the very end of the year AND graduated in 2000, you're a Millennial. This article already contains a link to Generation Y, which has more details. Also, later on, there will eventually be a set date range used (instead of the vague one), and 1982 will probably be the starting date, with some clarification on other terms, like Net Generation (1976-2000?) being a sub-generation of both LATE Generation X and Generation Y members (a little bit like the MTV Generation - which includes those belonging to Generation X and EARLY Generation Y members). But for now, these specifics are on HOLD.

The protection will probably be extended since I have a feeling the edit warring will continue. I advise you to respect the consensus and accept standard ending birth date (with the added clarification). Thank you for being respectful and polite in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I appreciate it, especially considering the previous weeks' insults and accusations against me and at least two or three other editors. God Bless, or if you're not so inclined, a peaceful farewell. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I do appreciate your explanations and the time you're taking to talk this issue through. However, I strongly disagree with the blanket statement that Gen X ends in 1981. The fact is that Gen X ends before the fall of 1981. Gen Y starts after the fall of the same year.

This is a small (but significant) distinction and, what's more, it is factual. The truth demands that this distinction be included on the grounds of legitimate documentation. All that is needed is a simple line clarifying this.

Do a google search and you'll see PLENTY of studies simply using a 1981 date as the beginning of Gen Y. (Some even go further back as 1976). Some, like you say, use 1982. But the very fact is that Gen X ends in 1981 but Gen Y starts in 1981 also, just in different seasons. To avoid confusion, surely Wikipedia (one of the most used resources on the 'net) should make this distinction, even by using just one sentence in the bulk of the main content.

I won't be making another post on this issue, but I hope, for the sake of accuracy and logic, you (or any editor for that matter) will make this distinction somewhere in the main section of both the Gen X and Gen Y article pages.

Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.12.138 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're saying refers to some, certainly not most, people using 1981 as a start date for Generation Y because of some people born at the end of that year graduating high school in 2000. Also, I was told by one marketer, that the only reason they used 1981 for the start of Generation Y, was to have an EVEN number of years in a generation (how stupid), considering they have the Boomer Generation containing 17 years. Go figure. They are going to fix that. I found this to be the reason for using 1980 as the end date of Generation X - very random.

However, most sources, certainly recent USA Today articles, Huffington Post, PBS, and 60 Minutes specials (though I've contacted them about some contradictions) - I have transcripts of their shows - use 1982 as the start of Generation Y precisely because that is the birth year MOST associated with the high school graduating Class of 2000. I think the distinction in the opening is clear enough. I'm fairly certain that over the next few years, more and more sources will be using 1982 as the start date, generally also referring to the Millennial Class (2000). It's implied that if you're born at the end of 1981, say November/December, you're associated more with those born in 1982. If you get into too specifics, you'll have to do that for all generation pages, and discuss birthdays, etc. You see, some who were born in early October 1981, also graduated in 1999. Way too many unnecessary details. If you graduated in 1999 and were born in either 1980 or 1981, you're the last of Generation X (last graduating class). If you were born at the end of 1981 or 1982 (most in this class were born in 1982, just like most graduating in 1999 were born in 1981, along with the end of those born in 1980) and graduated in 2000 - you are a Millennial/Generation Y member, and technically, if born in 1982, also an Echo Boomer. I'm going to try to cite the transcripts on here, and will get back with the information when I can. Since I have been researching this, I have spoken with or exchanged letters with people who work as marketers and demographers, as well as CBS, PBS, and newspapers. Many who initially used 1976, 1978, or even 1980/81 as the start of the Millennials, are using 1982/Class 2000. Moreover, more and more countries, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, and even countries in Asia are using 1982 and those in the Class of 2000 as the demarcation - the start of the Millennials. Over the years, this will become clearer. 1982 is considered to be the year that MOST Class of 2000 graduates are born and coincides with the largest population boom since 1964. I think I've covered everything here. So, this discussion is finished and any changes in regards to dates are indefinitely on hold. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the last post by an anonymous user (switching of IP Address from 67.192.249.21 is suspicious and the current IP Address, 184.154.12.138, links to a website that hides IP addresses - Hide-Myip.Net Free Proxy Surfing to Hide IP address. Poster repeatedly ignores consensus, and the fact that according to school systems and research, 1982 is the date most used for the start of the Millennial Generation. I clarified the article in a way that shows the last of Generation X graduated in 1999, and explained in my discussion that it is already inferred that very late 1981 births coincided with a 2000 high school graduating class. The wording in these generation pages reflect what is found in current newspapers, research, and other medium. I made sure not to add superfluous details that would cause further edit warring in regards to dates, and go against the consensus. Birthdays and several date ranges added are not approved. Frankly, this anonymous poster is just repeatedly dragging this out after several explanations as to the current standing of this article. The hiding of his/her IP Address clearly indicates a reason to be anonymous. I have my suspicions that this post may be by a recent editor who has been warned several times for edit warring and vandalism by myself and several other editors. This article page has been under protection several times over just the past couple of years. It is under protection again for repeated changes of dates, vandalism, and posters repeatedly ignoring warnings from editors. If such behavior continues, this talk page may go under protection again as well. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that adding the final graduating year (1999) is particularly helpful. It isn't an integral part of what it "means to be a Gen Xer". We have enough contention about the birth years without getting into this red herring. A graduating year will follow fairly naturally from the birth year. Should we start saying that baby boomers are defined as those with graduating years of 1962-1982? It is superfluous information overload. At the same time it is too nationally and culturally specific in my opinion. 1999 may be a standard graduation year for those born in 1981 but it is far from universal, and also excludes those who didn't graduate, unless we're saying that gen x is only applicable to the educated class.

Additionally, for what it's worth, and considering the time and effort wasted on defining specific birth years, (see above) I think we should go for a "softer" approach to birth years. There is no consensus on exact dates for this generation, and frankly neither should there be. Generations like this are naturally amorphous and do not lend themselves to precise definitions. Why not say "rougly 1961 to 1981" or "early 1960s to early 1980s". This is more forgiving language and allows us to avoid repeated arguments over minutiae, when the effort could much more usefully be engaged elsewhere.Peregrine981 (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Changes were made because those born in late 1981, who graduated in 2000, were objecting saying sometimes 1981 is used for Y (referring to late birthdays). That is the best way to clarify who is in Generation X according to recent research without adding several date ranges and birth dates, and thereby going against the consensus and causing edit warring. Sources who use 1982 say that those who graduated in 2000, who were part of the 2000 class growing up, are the first Millennials/Y. Recent documentaries by PBS and CBS News, as well as other articles make this clarification. I have added sources that make the clarification as proof. It is mentioned on the Generation Y page that the Class of 2000 is generally considered the start of the Millennials. Even though 1982 is the beginning of the Echo Boomers, those born at the tail end, who went to school with the rest of the Millennials, are considered Millennials. Several people feel the clarification is necessary, so it stays. I have the sources to back the statement, so please do not erase them again. I have previously mentioned why the wording is such because otherwise, all the generation pages would need several date ranges according to birthdays, etc. Millennials has always been a term first used to describe the Class of 2000 - which includes those born in late 1981. Without getting into specifics, the current wording makes the clarification, and is backed by sources. This page is also under protection to prevent further edit warring. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not so much to do with specifically correlating birth years with graduation years. That is a losing game, because it is a)largely irrelevant, b) self evident, and c) impossible to pin down. Different jurisdictions will produce slightly different graduating years, not to mention that many people either don't graduate or graduate early or late. However it is safe to assume that most people will graduate plus or minus 18 years after their birth. In any event, the arbitrary number of year that you graduate in will have little to no effect on you, except as a result of other factors.

There is some credibility to say that the millennials, (who we by the way list as Generation Y) are called such because the first of the cohort came of age around the year 2000. However, that is how they were named (by some people). NOT how they were defined. It is not the defining characteristic of the generation. (Certainly not with its tail end graduating towards the mid 2020s.) The specific graduation years are largely irrelevant to anything but the name (which we don't use), including in the sources cited here. Just because a source mentions their graduation year does not mean we must include that fact in our introduction. Furthermore, the sources cited are largely discussing the generation following X. I don't think it is wise to define GENX "negatively" through the supposed (disputed) definition of its successor.

Also, not to sound like a broken record, but there is not enough consensus to narrowly define a generation as those born between two specific years. It just doesn't make sense. Why not include "about 1961-81" and avoid giving a false sense of consensus and definition where it doesn't exist. I know that people like to put things in tidy boxes, but it simply is not possible, and is potentially quite misleading in the case of a cultural phenomenon like gen X. I would also point out that because it is under semi protection does not mean that the current state of the article is somehow more legitimate than any other article. In fact it likely means that the content is heavily disputed and a new wording should be found through dialogue. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a false definition because sources mention the Class of 2000 as being the start of the "Millennials." The term itself refers to those who graduated high school in 2000 and later. So, 1999 graduates born up to August/September 1999 are Generation X. People have complained and get confused because they are born late 1981 and graduated in 2000. If someone was born late 1981 and basically grew up with the Class of 2000, they are a Mllennial/Gen Y member, NOT Generation X. The distinction is clear. Several people have been complaining, saying that they were born late 1981 and feel that they are a Millennial. Well, that is because of school guidelines as well as being a part of the highly touted Class of 2000.

The consensus was reached because 1981 is the last year used by MOST media and researchers, and those people usually use the high school class of 2000 as the demarcation. Look at the upcoming TV series My Generation which is about the Class of 2000, not the Class of 1999. Most current sources use such guidelines, and that is what we will be going by. The wording sticks by the consensus and gives a bit of clarification without putting superfluous facts such as birthday ranges on all generation pages. I repeat: The current wording is on par with most acceptable research today. The consensus was reached at least one or two times, yet every other week this is brought up again. Protection will probably be renewed due to all the edit warring and vandalism. This discussion has been beaten to death. We are moving on to improving the generation pages with other information. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a consensus has been reached then why is there edit warring? There self evidently is no consensus if there is edit warring. You are not the guardian and keeper of this article, and it is not for you alone to decide what "is on par with most acceptable research today." If people (and I know I am not alone) are challenging the wording of the article you will have to defend your position without retreating to the same canard that "consensus" somehow deems it unacceptable to change anything, ever again. You are still largely ignoring my substantive arguments. In no source that your provide does it give any substantial validation to your theory that something so fundamentally changed in January 1982 that this precise date can be given with absolute certainty as the dividing line between the generations. I know that it is a useful shorthand in certain contexts, but your dogmatic attachment to this precise wording is misleading. The fact is that there are perfectly valid sources that do not follow this logic, and under wikipedia NPOV policy we should be reflecting this fact in the article. If you want to write your own article on Gen X that presents your own original arguments then go ahead, but this is not the place for it.

I would like to see a credible, at least somewhat scholarly source that says that the class of 2000 is somehow epoch changing. The one somewhat substantial thing that the article provided says in this regard is that the "hoopla" surrounding the class was an EXAMPLE of how this generation has been made to feel special. But, it was treated as one example among many, many different things. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make sense that the slight media buzz, over an entirely symbolic round number, in the early summer of 2000 somehow defines a generation for decades to come. I defy you to find any meaningful connection to any of the kids graduating now from the buzz around the class of 2000. And those are the kids who are supposedly the very heart of the generation by almost any definition.

On another note, you complain that there is "vandalism" (which sometimes seems to be constituted of edits you disagree with) and edit warring, and yet refuse to debate the points raised in any depth, leaving little path forward but confrontation. I am more than happy to compromise if you can provide convincing evidence, but I'd like to see some flexibility from your side too. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to realize that a couple of posters were warned several times for their disruptive behavior. They were engaged in edit warring, and one poster went in and changed the dates in the Strauss and Howe section (despite the obvious mentioning of the authors' book as the source. Deliberately changing these dates in regards to the authors' book(s) is vandalism. and the other editor posted the same message on several Wikipedia pages. The other culprit also went back and added foul language in the article page - that is vandalism. I realize you have disagreements, but I am keeping the dates and wording in line with what the media goes by today. I have left your one source using 1983 in the Generation Y page, despite the fact that pretty much no other respected researcher or reporter uses 1983 as the start of the Millennials/Generation Y. It also doesn't really add anything important to the article page, but I left it in there because it mentions September 11. Despite the fact that the last of Generation X was already halfway finished with college by then, and had already experienced other major events in U.S. history such as the end of the Cold War, the Persian Gulf war, etc. No one else uses September 11 as a guide to mark a generation. The oldest members of Generation Y had already come of age (born late 1981/1982 - graduated in 2000). September 11, 2001 occurred over a year after the FIRST of the Millennials graduated high school. Most people nowadays use the Class of 2000 as the first graduating class of the Millennial generation. I have several other sources that mention the high school Class of 2000 as the start of Generation Y; I only added what I needed to, since the Generation Y page pretty much covers the issue well. We should be focusing on adding other information on these pages other than dates. I have kept the wording in line with the consensus and current use of terminology by most media. I will continue to monitor the page for superfluous and unnecessary changes. It's disruptive and not helping the article at all. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we are spending far too much time on this trivial point, but it's a two way street: If it really doesn't matter that much why don't you agree to a compromise? Is it too much to ask to say "about 1961-1981"? Surely you can concede that in general a cultural generation will rarely have such specific cut off dates without some major event to spark a change? I again ask you to find a source that actually explains what is so different between 1981 and 1982 that we can categorically say that everyone born before and after are supposedly so different?

Check this blog out for some of my feelings toward the confusion of defining these generations. I don't really agree with the blathering later in the article, but he does a good job of exposing some of the absurdity and confusion surrounding this field.[1]

Certainly we should be adding substance to the article, but doing is better than saying.

Thirdly, I would very much be happy for you to provide specific sources including page numbers that claim that graduating in the year 2000 was a DEFINING feature of the next generation. Frankly it doesn't make any sense, so I doubt you will be able to find it except in easily debunked and uncredible pop-history. I know for a fact that Strauss and Howe do not make this claim. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree CreativeSoul is NOT willing to relent. She is making this very personal, because she falsely reported me for vandalism to the article when I CITED ALL of my sources. "Thank you for your report on Educatedlady at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, this is a case of content dispute and edit warring, rather than vandalism. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring would be a better place to report this. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)".

You are willing to accept that Generation X begins in 1965 but not end in 1982. I agree with the other poster what is SO different about 1981 and 1982? Nothing. Do you think those born in 1971 and 1972 are THAT different? Culture. Culture is what defines a generation. Like with the Baby Boomers we often hear about President John Kennedy's tragic assassination and The Beatles. This is culture, NOT their graduating classes. I am sorry Strauss and Howe are wrong. This article should AT LEAST have BOTH findings included side by side. 1961-1981, and 1965-1982 or 1961-1982. Why are you so angry about this? The years are disputed. We really don't know where Generation X REALLY begins or where it REALLY ends. More research still needs to be conducted. I believe if we STOP aruging and work together we can become closer to accuracy. Continously saying that Generation X is 1961-1981 is somewhat inaccurate. We CANNOT just go by the standard research. We have to think outside of the box and look deeper. Regardless whether 1981 or 1982 is included in Gen X, we are the last so therefore we are NOT going to relate to EVERYTHING about the generation but certainly quite a bit of it. The early 1980's are 1980-1983. How can one place 1980 and 1981 in Generation X and not 1982 or even 1983? It makes no sense. You can base your information off PBS and 60 minutes however they are obtaining their information from Strauss and Howe. These researchers are primarily basing their findings on when one graduated high school. It is okay to say these individuals are wrong with their research. They are not the absolute truth because they have researched this. I was born in 1982 and I know which generation I typically identify with. The Baby Boom generation is not based when they graduated high school, its a boom in births. Contrary what you may believe I was a teacher for a while and taught individuals born from 1991-1995. These indivduals had no prior knowledge of the Cold War, Kurt Cobains death/Nirvana, The O.J Simpson Case (1994), NOTHING! These are all events that defined my childhood and adolescence. Please I am researching this now, and currently I have 107 pages of information including my own experiences as it relates to Gen X. If anyone would like to participate in this study that understands my point of view please email me at genx65_82@ymail.com. I am working with other individuals born from 1976-1982 who are finding our common cultural characteristics.

Barbara and Jenna Bush twin daughters of former President George W. Bush were born on November 25, 1981. The twins were raised in Texas and first attended “Preston Hollow Elementary School” which is a public school in Dallas. Therefore the twins were required to have reached their 5th birthday before September 1st before enrolling in Kindergarten as law in the state of Texas. Therefore since the twins’ birthday fell after September 1st they begin school in 1987. They started high school in 1996 and graduated in the year 2000. Beyonce Knowles was born September 4, 1981. Like Barbara and Jenna Bush, Beyonce was born and raised in Texas which has the cutoff date of September 1 for a child to begin Kindergarten at the age of 5. As a result Beyonce graduated high school in 2000 as well. Jodie Sweetin who portrayed “Stephanie Tanner” on the ABC sitcom “Full House” was born in January 1982, skipped Kindergarten and as a result graduated from high school in 1999. Strauss and Howe are stating that Generation Y is the beginning of all things technology. Those born in 1982 and even 1983 DID NOT grow up entirely with technology at our feet. I can attest to that and so can others. The reason why the research by Strauss and Howe is widely used because while there are other sources that have concluded different years these researchers have made a career out of studying this and still are inaccurate. Take Nirvana for example. Nirvana and the death of Kurt Cobain almost symbolizes Generation X. I was 12 in middle school when he passed away and it had a horrific affect on me. A person part of Generation Y would not have any experiences with this first hand. I grew up listening to groups like Van Halen and Bon Jovi and Metallica FIRST HAND! Not listening to them long after their decline. Generations need to based on CULTURE NOT graduating classes. I feel that this article needs to reference BOTH conclusions of 1961-1981 and 1965-1982. There are more sources concluding that Generation X is 1965-1982. See the following:

“Commerce Concepts”: Market Updates, Asset Allocation and Investment Education for Plan Participants and Individuals. Volume 12, issue 2, 2nd quarter; 2008. Generation X: Born Years 1965-1982. “Generations at Work”; Andrew Schwartz; April 22, 2009. Generation X: Born 1965-1982. “Tools for Effective Teaching”; Judy Campbell ARNP: Ed.D. Christine Brooks MSN, FNP-BC; Palm Beach Atlantic University School of Nursing; November 10, 2008. Generation X Born 1965-1980 (1982), Generational Classroom Implications Chart: Gen X (1965-1982).

“Recruiting Ideas for a New Generation” Sharon Cureton, IPMA-CP Human Resources Director City of Daphne; (Year Published Unknown): Generation X (1965-1982).

“The Organizational Generation Gap”; Pharmafocus July 2008; Wiley-Blackwell Publications; Generation X 1965-1982.

“NJPS 2000: Jewish Baby Boomers”; NORTH AMERICAN JEWISH DATA BANK; Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz; Director, Research and Analysis United Jewish Communities; June 5, 2006. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Opinion: American Generations and the Happiness Index”; Samantha A. Torrence; July 1, 2008; Digital Journal; Generation X 1965-1982. “Facilitating the Career Development of Today’s and Tomorrow’s Academic Rheumatologists”; Janet Bickel: Career and Leadership Development Coach and Instructor; March 14, 2009. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Steadfastly Forward”; Timothy R. B. Johnson, MD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI Received for publication February 24, 2005; revised May 5, 2005; accepted August 1, 2005. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Maximizing Return on Your Training Investment: A Reference Guide for Managers”; Michael Polowy, Andrew Reitz, and Floyd Alwon: (Year of publication unknown). Generation X 1965-1982.

“Generations X and Y in Law School: Practical Strategies for Teaching the 'MTV/Google' Generation” Joan Catherine Bohl Stetson University - College of Law Loyola Law Review, Vol. 54, p. 1, Winter 2009 Stetson University College of Law Research Paper No. 2009-21 . Generation X 1965-1982.

“Sizing Up Tomorrow’s Customer”; Floral Trend Tracker; Glen Hiemstra; Winter, 2005; Generation X 1965-1982. 

The Nielsen Company; Client Communication: Final 2009-2010 National Universe Estimates. “Compared to last year, the 2009-2010 UEs for persons 18-49 showed a small decrease, which was driven largely by declines for persons age 35-49, an age group that is comprised largely of the smaller Generation X cohort (born 1965 - 1982).”

“Generation X and the Millennials Will Have Major Effects In the Future”; Kim Ehlers, Holly Sisson, Paula Theilen, Marcy Kratochvil, Nathan Jantzi and Jason Love. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Factoring for X: An Empirical Study of Generation X’s Materialistic Attributes” Nora M. Martin: University of South Carolina and Diane Prince: Clayton State University; Year of Publication Unknown; Journal of Management and Marketing Research. Generation X 1960-1982.

Caroline Perkins; “Don't lose all the best Gen-X talent.” (Generation X, born between 1964 and 1982) (Editorial) ID: The Voice of Foodservice Distribution, May 1, 1998, Vol. 34, Issue 5, p15.

“Generation X” Generational Advisor Newsletter (2009), Generation X 1965-1985 and Generation Y 1983-2002. http://generationaladvisor.com/2009/03/generational-primer-gen-x/

Frank Feather “Future Consumer.Com: “The Webolution of Shopping to 2010”, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2001. Gen X – Born 1965-1982, Web-Gen 1983-2000. Generational Cycles in Mass Psychology: Implications for the George W. Bush Administration by Ted Goertzel, Rutgers University —Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs) 07:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in an earlier post (to which CreativeSoul cowardly deleted), if you were born in late 1981 you can still graduate in 2000. This distinction should be included in the main article.

Also, anyone born after 1980 isn't going to have much in common with the Gen X'ers born in the 60s. The whole system of 'generations' are flawed as is because a generation (who share things in common) are seperated by no more than 5-6 years, let alone 15-20 or more.

CreativeSoul is, in my opinion, not fit to edit wikipedia and it seems I am not the only one who strongly disagrees with their approach to this discussion on generations. Where are the sensible editors?

Trust me I agree with you. Creative Soul is NOT fit to edit Wikipedia because she is making the whole issue personal because she supposedly graduated in 1999 and wants to be called the last class of Gen X. When I was in high school I NEVER heard one person in the class of 1999 saying they were the last of Gen X. I attended the graduation for the class of 1999 at my school. The only thing mentioned during that time was this was the last class of the 20th century. And even that was only mentioned briefly. Trust me we are ALL editors here. Creative SOul DOES NOT have the authority here. If we obtain enough individuals to agree on a specific consensus to correct this Generation X page then it can happen. It will probably be years before Generation is accurately identified. Research is STILL being done on the baby boom generation because President Obama who is supposedly a baby boomer doesn't really act like his former baby boomer rivals Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

This is what is keeping Wikipedia unreliable in some cases. The Generation X page needs to account for ALL sources just because another researcher defines Gen X by different years does not mean they are incorrect. I am suggesting that the Gen X page have a range of dates from 1960's-1980's. Educatedlady (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EducatedLady, thank you for agreeing that CreativeSoul is not fit to edit wikipedia. 1982 is NOT a start date for everyone graduating in 2000. 1981 is also a legitimate start date and should be added to the main article. The examples of celebrities are a good way to demonstrate the point also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.12.138 (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from a person using a fake IP address as mentioned before. You are hiding behind an IP address as I mentioned earlier. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if this person is indeed hiding behing an IP address then they should be encouraged to sign up on Wikipedia and have a username. Do you mind doing this so you can express your argument to increase validity?

I added that there are a growing number of researchers that have identified Generation X from 1965-1982. I added sources verifying this. So I hope no one goes and deletes it. I added it to the middle section so it can cause less controversy. In addition to Generation X. I have been reading reports for years that the baby boom generation is 1946-1964. I will add these sources at a later time. No disrespect to Stauss and Howe but they are not the only sociologists and researchers who study this, and I feel its biased to rely on ONE source. If you were conducting a research study you would not use only one source, you would use several. In order to obtain validity ALL reliable sources should be used and that is what I posted in that middle section. Has anyone seen the lack of appropriate citations in many other sections of this article. While we are focusing on the years take a look at this:

"The members of Generation X are thought to be[weasel words] the first generation to be raised in an age of postmodernism.[citation needed] Understanding the transition from modernism to postmodernism is relevant in order to understand the perspective and modalities of this generation.[citation needed] Compared with previous generations, Generation X represents a more heterogeneous generation, exhibiting great variety."

"Often the children of divorced parents,[citation needed] change is more the rule for the people of Generation X than the exception.[citation needed]"

I have posted cited sources and they have been deleted to know valid reasons, but the sections above remain that have no citations. This makes no sense to me. Educatedlady (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Educatedlady, I haven't read Stauss and Howe but I have heard that they use 1982 as a start date for Gen Y based on graduation dates of 2000. However, if Stauss and Howe failed to note that you can graduate in 2000 by being born after Sept 1981, then they are not doing their jobs properly. Because the start of an academic year is generally around September, then a graduating class of 2000 would have a portion of students born in 1981. Not 1982. 1981 should be included in the main article if we are to go by JUST academic definitions of 'gen Y'ers'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.154.12.138 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Strauss and Howe are doing the jobs properly at all. They appear to know absolutely nothing about those born in the 1980s, and probably not the 1970s even. It seems several of us here were born in the early 1980's and we not only need to form a general consensus on Wikipedia but conduct our own study as well, to prove the contrary. Cultural generations are supposed to be defined as just that: cultural. Not graduating classes. I have not read any reports that end the baby boom generation at 1982 because that was the last graduating class of the baby boomers. These researchers are simply using 1982 and 2000 as a starting point for Gen Y because its easier to begin at a new century and new millenium. They have forgotten that those who graduated in 2000 were seniors beginning in the fall of 1999, and only attended school in 2000 for a few short months. I really feel that Generation X does not end until around 1984 however more research DOES need to be conducted before that is set in stone. Again we need to stop referencing to only these researchers when determining the boundaries of Generation X. There are several other educated, reliable researchers who are proficient in their job but are being ignored for the "popular" reseachers. Educatedlady (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you all would take a look at the Wikipedia page for the Baby Boom generation. Here is what it states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Generation

"The birth years of the Baby Boom Generation are the subject of controversy."

Therefore if the Baby Boom generation birth years are subject to controversy then that indicates that the birth years for Gen X are as well, because if the ending years of the Baby Boomers are at controversy then one cannot know where Gen X begins, and if you don't know where Gen X begins, then you don't know where it ends. I can imagine that there has been more research done on the Baby Boomers than Gen X, and there is still conflict on its birth years.

A similar statement like this should be applied to the Generation X page. Educatedlady (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the quality of this article according to Wikipedia. While CreativeSoul continues to personally attack me I will not shut up and back down. You were wrong to attack me in the beginning. When I first made those edits I had no idea about the regulations and policies of Wikipedia. Instead of you correcting me like a mature person you attacked. So I attacked. Two wrongs DON'T make a right. I am willing to come to an agreement to satisfy my concerns with this article and yours. We need to agree, but I WILL NOT stop at your demands. You are not my mother. And DO NOT speak to me in such a manner like you are. Again what the article should state is that Generation X ranges from 1960's to the 1980's. Educatedlady (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. [show]More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.

Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. "

We need to come to an agreement on this article once and for all and stop the arguing. Because this is just going to keep going back and forth over and over again. Its tired and its not worth arguing over. There are people homeless and dying of cancer and here we are arguing over Generation X. I admit I had my faults in the beginning and I am sorry for that but I was attacked. I had little experienced in editing on Wikipedia, and had no idea consensus were formed and discussion pages. You can see that by going to my talk page. However, I stayed out of sight on this issue for a few weeks to research this site and by sources on this topic, to have a better understanding. CreativeSoul you NEVER once said. Hi I'm sorry but your information is incorrecly posted, and should be placed somewhere else in the article, like another editor informed me. No you you immediately went on the attack claiming to have remembered all this stuff in the 1980's like people born in 1982 do not. You have made this whole drama personal, and did not assist me with my errors. However I am willing to let bygones be bygones if we can come to an agreement on this article. I understand standard research is being used, but who is to say what standard research is? Why are you so defensive on this topic? And why do you keep ignoring what everyone else has to say that disputes your conclusions? This is not a dictatorship. Educatedlady (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I find it amusing that you are just keep listing all your memories of the eighties as "proof" that you are a part of Generation X. I am not discounting your memories, you regularly listened to hard rock as a child? That had to have happened in the late eighties or early nineties. I also have a lot of memories from the eighties, but of course, we didn't even get cable until I was in high school, so I watched as much music videos and cable programs as I could at a friend's house (9 months younger than me, with a sister 10 years older than me). And I DID watch ET in the movie theater. I have a few very early memories at that young of an age. I cried in the movie theater when ET "died." It was also the first real movie I owned. My parents didn't buy a lot of movies.I remember watching a ton of TV shows that you mentioned as well. However, I'm not claiming to have watched 4 or 5 different soap operas and remembering all details from "Dallas" and "Dynasty." Sure, I remember a lot, but after 20+ years, many details are hazy, same for my mom. Some things will trigger those lost memories, though. I am now catching up on all those shows and filling the blanks. Yet, you basically claim to have just sat and watched TV all night with your mother. I can understand staying up late a few times, but didn't you have school? Besides, we are not going by "feeling" on these articles. Everyone remembers something different about their childhood. Not everyone saw the same movies or listened to the same music. That is not the point. The dates and sources used are from reliable sources that are well known. The date ranges reflect the standards. While I have no problem with 1961, I do see that 1965 is a general start date for Generation X. However, we are holding off on adding a note about 1965 being a more common start date now, because the generation is just approaching middle age. But, 1961 is the earliest start date used. 1982 or 1983 has NEVER been a COMMON end date for Generation X - NEVER. I have found quite a few sources even using 1984, 1985, and 1986 as the end date for Generation X. That's ridiculous. By your logic all these dates should be included because there are a couple of sources that use those ranges. But they aren't the most acceptable ranges or the most commonly used.

1982 coincides with the population boom (Echo Boom - 1982-1995). That will probably be the date range used for Generation Y in the end, but today, Generation Y birth rates are thought to continue until about 2000/2001. That is why the wording on the Generation Y article is that way. The most common starting birth year for the Millennials is 1982, and the most common starting graduation year, 2000. Obviously, quite a number of people believe that, otherwise recent The New York Times, NPR, Huffington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, CBS, and ABC, all wouldn't use these 1982 as the start of the Millennials/Generation Y. And now, there is a new television series about those who graduated in 2000, the highly touted "Millennials," called "My Generation, a documentary on the first graduating class of the new millennium.

I am just tired of arguing about this again and again. I mentioned graduating in 1999, because when I graduated, media and newspapers, as well as teachers, etc. talked about how our graduating class was "the last of our generation." All these articles popped up at the time, talking about how the first of the next generation (Generation Next?) would be graduating the following year - they were called the Millennials/Millennial Class. That's the point I'm trying to make. We use the dates and terminology most common today. Otherwise, we'd have at least 5 various date ranges on all the generation pages. How can a Millennial, a person who graduated in 2000 possibly be a Generation Xer? People born in 1982 or 1983 have NEVER been a part of Generation X. Either Generation X ended by 1975 or 1981. There is no logic to other dates used, other than several people can use different sources. The most respected researchers, universities, and media (TV and newspapers) all use 1982. It doesn't add anything important to the article pages to post everyone's date ranges, because there are so many variations. The eldest of Generation Y had already come of age by the time the tragedy of September 11 occurred. Is it any wonder that not many go by Edward Carlson's model? Even the magazine Psychology Today (I previously mentioned) discussed the psychological differences among generations, and it uses 1982 and the graduating year of 2000 as the start of the Millennials. The Generation Y page already mentions the one author who uses 1983, and that is only left there because September 11 is mentioned - though as I said earlier, is not a good reason to change a date range. Many "big" events happen during one's life; that doesn't mean we change generation names each time that occurs. We are going by the most commonly used -or"most popular" (as you say)-dates. It's ridiculous that this topic comes up every few months. This was long since settled and the reasons disclosed.

I made things personal when you kept changing the dates over and over after I explained to you the consensus and reasoning. Also, I mentioned that I was using the wrong terminology (vandalism), however when you went back and changed the dates in the Strauss and Howe section, you graduated from edit warring to vandalism. Then you just went on a long rant and criticized me. Other editors stepped in, yet you keep bringing this up over and over, after yelling at two other editors, bad-mouthing me, and saying you'd never come back on here again just because you didn't get your way. It's over and done with, so that's that. People may disagree for whatever reason, but the most acceptable sources and most commonly used information is used on Wikipedia. Otherwise, there would be tons of opinion and contradictory information. I am not being defensive. I have laid out the reasoning for the wording on these generation pages, but you just ignore it. The sources I mentioned are all highly acceptable, well-known, and reliable. Therefore, the wording will remain the same. We need to get off the subject of dates and move on to topics that have not already been settled several times. This is not productive at all. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its not productive at all, but we need to include information from other sources as well. Not every source I have seen on Wikipedia is the most reliable.

Well I find it amusing that you immediately went off and told me how you remembered Ronald Reagan, The fall of the Berlin Wall, and The Challenger Explosion right after I made that first change to this page. As if people born in 1982 do not. THAT is why I mentioned my memories as a child in the 80s AND 90s, because you did first. Again you are ignoring everything I have said. I did not reguarly listen to hard rock as a child, in sense that I am turing on the radio on my own and listening to the music. Sorry if I gave that impression. I was too young to know how to do that, except messing around with the buttons on the radio, but my family often had the music on frequently along with Friday night videos so that is what I recall. We did not get cable until around 1989 and then my mom got rid of it and then we got it again in 1991. So I can say MTV really wasn't part of my life until the early 90s. However Nirvana WAS a MAJOR part of my life growing up, as they reached their peak in the 1990's and Van Halen was the first rock group I remember. As for television no I did not just sit in front of the TV and watch Dallas and Dynasty every single week. Dallas came on fridays at 9 and Knots came on Thursdays at 8 or 9 I think. I don't even remember what day/time Dynasty came on. My mom would allow me to stay up until 9:30 some nights. She knew I would cry if I didn't get to see Knots Landing so she let me stay up a little later on Thursdays. On Fridays I got to stay up until 10:30pm even 11 as a child, so even though Knots was my favorite I actually saw more of Dallas, because it came on Friday's plus my mom was more into Dallas than Knots. You forgot I said Knots Landing was my favorite show as a kid. I remember pieces of these shows, not whole episodes. So why do you find this amusing? Yes these details are somewhat foggy to me even my sister who is 11 years older than me. However I can remember more from a year ago than I can from last week. Its just that I have a better long-term memory than short.

However, just because 1982 was not part of a researchers conclusions does not mean there is not room for more advancements, and I believe these advancements need to be made based upon VALID and concrete research. That is ALL I am saying. Don't base boundaries of generations on graduating classes. That is not how the baby boom generation is based upon which according to Wikipedia their generation dates are STILL being disputed and those individuals are in their 40s to 60s. I have heard 1983 and 1984 being in some sources and EVEN 1985 but I have found only one or two sources saying this and which were message boards. So I am not saying to add these years until research proves otherwise. I am not suggesting this to be biased because I worship 1982 so much. For years I believed 1982 was part of Generation Y, because I knew my sister was Generation X, and I figured we couldn't be in the same generation because of our age difference. However after reading other sources this is what changed my perception of the entire situation. And as for this My Generation show that is coming on I am sure there is someone born in 1981 in the series. So are they a millennial? A millennial only comes around once every thousand years so that term doesn't make sense. They might as well keep using Generation Y. Educatedlady (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get down to specific proposals or this is going to go on forever. At the moment we are discussing the lead section if I am not mistaken.

My proposal is to eliminate any reference to graduating years as it is irrelevant to Generation X. I would also propose to go to a looser wording, I would suggest "is the generation born after the baby boom ended,[1][2] ranging from the early 1960s to early 1980s." This way all reasonable "camps" are represented, and we avoid being overly specific about years, hopefully avoiding future edit wars.

To CreativeSoul, you claim that we are ignoring your reasoning, but I think that there is a difference between ignoring and disagreeing. If I can paraphrase your argument, it seems to be: I perceive there to be a majority of reputable sources who claim 1961-81, and my memory of graduating in 1999 leads me to believe that it was a major generational shift because there was a lot media attention on it.

However, according to WP:NPOV "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides.

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a particular topic. It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material."

We must according to the bedrock of WP policy clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Given that there is far from consensus on this question, and no apparent third party literature discussing the divergences of opinion, I think it is reasonable to include a broad range fo dates in the introduction. If you want to get into a detailed discussion of who believes what, you are welcome to mention it in the definitions section. With regard to the graduation question, frankly I think you are the one who is dodging my questions with regard to reliable sources. The general opinion here is clearly against inclusion, so the burden falls to you to explain why it should be included. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, people born after Sept 1981 can graduate in 2000. This distinction should be included in the main article. This is FACT, not opinion.

Also MANY sources state 1981 as a start date for Gen Y. This is because they are not being lazy in regards to ACEDEMIC start years (they begin in September the previous year, not in Jan).

Again, this FACT should be included in the main article. The fact that it isn't is shameful.

Excuse me, but if you've read what I've previously written, you'd see that I've address this issue. Please learn how to spell and sign your posts. Hopefully, you're not the same person who was pretty much banned, who now hides behind various IP addresses.CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A portion of this Talk Page has been deleted. Why? Because CreativeSoul has been deleting several of my posts so now I am doing the same.

CreativeSoul has been distruptive on this Talk Page and it appears I am not the only one who is disgusted with their behaviour and their blatant disregard for the facts.

The only post that needs re-iterating is as follows:

Gen Y, if we are to accept a graduation year of 2000, begins in 1981, not 1982 (as falsely stated). Here’s the proof that an academic start year begins in September the previous year through to August the following year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_term

"In most countries, the academic year begins with the start of autumn and ends during the following summer."

So, are any editors going to amend the 1982 error? You know, the one that uses the blanket statement that if you’re born in 1982 you graduate in 2000? It’s false because an academic start year begins in 1981 for a graduation of 2000. And those born after September 1982 would graduate in 2001, not 2000 also.

And can anyone quote Strauss and Howe to see if they account for an academic start year beginning in September 1981 and onwards for a legitimate graduation date of 2000? IF they did not mention 1981 as a legitimate start date, then their 'research' needs to be criticized in the main article.

IF they did mention it, then whoever has been using the blanket statement of 1982 as a start year should simply alter the dates to reflect the facts.

If we are to accept Gen Y begins with the class of 2000, then we must also accept 1981 (after September) is the real beginning, not 1982

You can delete this but it is not going to stop the truth from coming out. There is no reason for you to delete this. Creative Soul deleted this and called information from the United States NAVY nonsense! So what are you saying is that Strauss and Howes information is more reliable than the Navy?

I thought I would bring this to everyone's attention. Apparently the new millenninum did not begin until Jan 1, 2001, so anyone that is calling Generation Y milliennals and the year 2000 as the first graduating class of the millennium has their facts completely out of order.

According to the United States Naval Observatory WHO IS THE OFFICIAL TIMEKEEPER FOR THE UNITED STATES "Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100.

Similarly, the 1st millennium comprised the years AD 1-1000. The 2nd millennium comprises the years AD 1001-2000. The 3rd millennium began with AD 2001 and will continue through AD 3000"

And as or the media this is what THE MEDIA said about this: Many organizations knew 2001 was the start of the next millennium, but they did not wish to contradict their advertisers who all want to have "Millennium Sales." Some of these companies in the later part of 2000 planned on saying "Oops, we made a mistake. Now lets have a 'real' millennium sale." However, the public's reactions to the exploitation of the millennium sales of 1999 made most companies drop their plans for 'Real Millennium' sales.

ABC NEWS: "Since the new millennium starts Jan. 1, 2001, will it be millennium mania all over again?"

HERE ARE MY SOURCES TO BACK THIS UP:

http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/astronomical-information-center/millennium/ http://americanindian.net/millennium.html

This all proves that Strauss and Howes research is WRONG. The last class of the 20th century and millennium belongs to the year 2000. If our society wasn't so oblivious then we would already know this. Educatedlady (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep all comments brief as possible. Just stating that you agree or disagree and a brief reason and citations why is sufficient. PLEASE NO ARGUING!!! PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS USING FOUR TILDES

UPDATE**** As of Sept 26, 2010 so far three users are in favor of the change, one who is in favor does not have a registered account. 1 registered user is not in favor of the proposed changes. Educatedlady (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Generation X page date ranges should be changed from 1961-1981 to the early 1960s to the early 1980s because the specific years are still in dispute, and according to the United States Naval Observatory the starting year of 2000 for the new millennium is not accurate http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/astronomical-information-center/millennium/. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]}Educatedlady (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will say that I agree we should change the specific dates to rough dates. I am happy to say Gen X is from early 1960s - early 1980s AS LONG as Gen Y has an overlap of early 1980s - 2000ish.

You make some valid points. I have researched this myself and find that the dates are frequently disputed. Being born in 1981 myself I can say I don't think that Generation X will truly be identified in terms of birth years because research never ceases. I agree to have the dates ranging from the early 1960's and early 1980's. Heavymetal81 (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Allow me to piggyback off what I have already stated. If the dates aren't changed to reflect the range of 60s-early 80s then people are just going to come back and keep disputing what is posted. At least with stating that the years can be from the early 60s to the early 80s that should satisfy everyone while still following the standards. Heavymetal81 (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposed wording. Should keep edit warring down, and is more realistic. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the majority of current sources end Generation X in 1981, and Generation Y/Millennials start in 1982, why should such a vague date range be added back in with all reliable sources pointing otherwise? No blogs or youtube videos, or information from DNA professors. The consensus was agreed upon based on the standards used today. Standards being the key word. It's ridiculous that this is even brought up every other week. So, we need a consensus once a month to make everyone happy? The date ranges and sources support the most widely acceptable date ranges. Millennials are those who came of age in 2000. And the Generation X label was already pretty well-defined before the year 2000. 1982, 1983, 1984 or 1985 have never been nor are they Generation X. The consensus decided on the most acceptable date ranges based on reliable and commonly accepted evidence. Only one published book used 1983 as the start of Generation Y, and he is not well-known with his research widely accepted. That source REMAINS on the Generation Y page. That information does not belong on this page. Other editors have already reverted EducatedLady's edits and restated the previous consensus. If blogs, youtube videos, or personal research papers are added again, or Elwood Carlson's Generation Y work mentioned on here, they will be removed. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative. You repeatedly fail to address my major point to you, going back into your circular logic that "it is so, therefore it should be so on wikipedia." I ask again: WHAT ABOUT NPOV!!!! Just because "the majority" of sources use a term does not mean that we ignore all other sources. I can find, quickly, several sources with different dates:

[2]

[3]

[4]

Please let me know why these sources are illegitimate? And please let's see some concrete sources that claim they're illigitimate, not just your hearsay. I am willing to listen, but your blanket dismissal is getting tiring. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated that I would include some statement about 1965 being an acceptable start year for Generation X, but many sources still use 1961. The current date ranges reflect that 1961-1981 date range as the widest possible and widely acceptable. Also, other sources already include 1965. That ALREADY fits the 1961-1981 date range. Some people cut off at 1980 to keep the generation at an even length span, but most use 1981 as the end date and the Class of 1999. I have already stated the reasons and why the consensus has chosen this wording. Also, Douglas Coupland's book is about those born in the late 1950s and 1960s. Robert Capa was the originator of the term "Generation X."

And I have said several times before that Elwood Carlson's book is not widely known or accepted, or even used by most researchers or media. I left his source on the Generation Y page. The reasoning is all there, the consensus was already reached. We are not doing this once a month. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CreativeSoul, you HAVE NOT been able to refute the fact that an ACADEMIC year begins in September, which makes 1981 the actual start date for the class of 2000. You even admitted this was TRUE a few days ago! And yet, you still persist in saying 'it's 1982'.

You say this issue comes up all the time: well, I'm not surprised.

Millions of people are visiting Wikipedia every day, and there will be a portion that are interested in Sociology/Generation Phenomena etc that will come to the same conclusions as I, EducatedLady, and the various others who visit here come to.

YOU are ignoring the facts, yes, I even included a Wikipedia link proving when an ACADEMIC year begins! Yet you won't change the article to reflect this.

Also, NO OTHER generation is defined on graduation dates, and the more I think about this topic, the more convinced I am we should use generics as Gen Y is typically associated with those who grew up with the Internet/social networking/cell phones etc. All these things became mainstream in the mid '90s, more specifically, 1996 if we are mainly focused on the 'net.

People born in the 60s and early 70s would have already been adults by the mid 90s, but those born around 1980 would have been just teenagers when the 'net became popular.

This is why the emphasis should be on shared cultural experiences, NOT just on graduation dates stated by Strauss and Howe (and even that is not right if they don't account for 1981 as an academic start year for graduates of 2000), and certainly NOT just focused on the USA, which is where most of this 'research' seems to be concentrated on.

If you think a website like Wikipedia, with millions of visitors a day, are going to ignore facts (like the one I already explained to you several times now) then you are mistaken. It is common sense that people will dispute these 'studies', because 1982 is NOT an academic start year for 2000 graduates PLUS Gen Y is NOT about graduation dates as a whole. It is a factor, but it is NOT the principle defining factor of what makes a person Gen Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.201.205 (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you're being really ignorant.Once again, I am not refuting academic years or ignoring anything because I agree with you on academic terms. But they don't belong in these articles, as mentioned previously, for the reasons explained. 1982 IS considered the most common birth year among those who graduate in 2000. Moreover, it is the date that is used by respectable sources such as well-known researchers and journalists. It is inferred that if you born in late 1981 and graduated in 2000, you can be considered as Generation Y/a Millennial. I've said this a hundred times. We use the standard dates used that are widely used. Academic years or birth dates do not belong on any of these generation pages. Also, there are no reliable sources that specifically state the difference between those born within the first 8 or 9 months or 1981, and those born at the very end of that year. Without source backing up that statement, it can't be added to the page. I have also said that I would try to find a way to include a definition on the Generation Y page that would not violate the consensus or Wikipedia policy. I am now looking to see if one or two sources that I have would work. One source I have doesn't, because they use 1982 as the start date. I can't use that source. Plus, I'm reading several books and having to search very carefully for wording that I might be able to use. In the meantime, the Generation X page makes it clear that the last of that generation born in 1981 also had to graduate in 1999. Defining Generation Y does not belong on this page.

You are arguing in the exact same way as the person who was previously banned and refuse to answer why you won't register. That is a major red flag. Spoofing ID addresses is illegal. And EducatedLady, another editor who has been warned, isn't even in agreement with you; she wants to extend Generation X to 1982 or 1983. You are obviously just trying to stir up trouble. You have been warned about your disruptive behavior by others and myself, and I am warning you again.

1) I'm not 'spoofing' anything. By saying 'spoof' you are implying something sinister, which is not the case at all. By the way, your false claims of 'spoofing' could be interpeted as potentially libellous, just for the record. Also, using a web proxy to make legitimate comments on forums/websites is not illegal. You are blatantly lying and that is shameful.

2) I already provided proof that an academic year begins in the fall of one year up to late summer the next. You don't have to reference books on Generation Phenomena to make that distinction. I already provided a Wiki link (that contains other sources from which it is based on) that would suffice.

3) A Generation is defined as 'shared cultural experiences'. Going by graduation dates alone is not how you determine a whole generation. Also, the emphasis on the current Gen Y page is very US-centered, and doesn't look outside this very narrow scope.

4) I'm literally exhausted with this page and how you keep denying the facts. I'm done here, this is just too tiring and is a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I turn out to be wrong, I will apologize. But, I can't really understand why you would keep changing your IP address unless you didn't want to be traced back to another account. And as I said earlier, you joined this discussion immediately after that editor was warned of being banned the next time he/she made the same edits. That person's arguments were exactly the same as yours and engaged in similar behavior. If there is nothing to hide, why hide behind an IP address then change it when I state my suspicions? As you can see, other editors have reverted EducatedLady's edits and have called her out for disruptive behavior. You are blatantly ignoring the reasons I gave for not implementing your proposed changes and saturating two talk pages with the same posts. You have also engaged in Canvassing, which is against Wikipedia policy is considered disruptive behavior and you may be blocked from editing. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just read your response (which is why this will be my last post as opposed to my previous one).

1) Probably half of all people online use web proxies to comment on forums/talk pages. Many people are just in the old habit of surfing through (the many) web proxies online as that's just what they're used to. Nothing much to say about it, only that it's just surfing preference.

2) Just because others think in the same way, doesn't mean they are the same person.

3) For some reason, you think you have to document the academic start year via Generation/Sociology books that study Generations, when in fact, Wikipedia itself has a long article outlining School start/end dates, and even goes further and mentions those in the Northern/Southern Hemispheres. Because Wikipedia itself has already stated when an academic year begins for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere, a simple note in the body of the main text should be mentioned.

4) Again, I'm finished on this page. There's too much negativity and that's not what I came here for. The whole debate of Gen Y is something we could argue about for decades because there are still many researchers arguing for a 1976 start date, which seems the most common. But again, I'm too tired to keep debating this, so I'm bowing out of this conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT POST COMMENTS NOT IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED CONSENSUS!!! Thank youEducatedlady (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleting my legitimate comments on MY OWN TALK PAGE. Wow. Ian.thomson (talk) , the editor you yelled at, has warned you again. I will report you once again if you continue this behavior. You have shown your true colors once more. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I didn't delete ANYTHING on YOUR talk page. I deleted comments on MY OWN talk page that YOU posted. I have NO reason to go to your talk page. However, IF this occurred it may have been an accident. I saw comments that you posted that contained my user name. Secondly you deleted my comments on this talk page and you deleted comments from other users. You have continously shown your true colors because you are trying to validate your life by a Generation and continue to ignore the facts and have the unmitigated termerity to call my posts nonsense. DO NOT disrespect me and speak to me like a child. The truth is coming out and you are afraid. Next time you have an issue with me go to my talk page instead of posting NONSENSE here. Educatedlady (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this link right here you removed a comment that was not your's from a page that was not your talk page. You DID delete a comment from her page. The only conclusions we can draw here are that you're either dishonest or incompetant, because we have the proof right here. It is amazing that you continue to deny this, I recommend apologizing. I recommend locating diffs of CreativeSoul's actions if you wish to accuse her of removing legitimate comments (which do not include personal attacks). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here you tried to remove proof of your misdoings. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC

I did not delete anything on your page on purpose. I discovered it was indeed an accident, as I had both talk pages opened at the same time. However it DOES NOT excuse your behavior in deleting my comments about the new milliennum beginning in 2001 and I had to repost it because YOU deleted it. AND it DOES NOT excuse other comments YOU have deleted by other users. Educatedlady (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence for that? All you have to do is go through her her contributions (link right here), click "diff" for where she did it, and post the address here to prove what you're saying, because I've gone through the first page and haven't found anything aside from removing a personal attack by an IP editor (by the way, sockpuppetry is frowned upon here). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the comments on this page another user mentioned their comments were omitted and my new section "Wait...Stop The New Milliennium Begin on January 1, 2001 WAS deleted. I just reposted it. So check for that. Educatedlady (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone. My computer keeps saying I'm logged in, but obviously I wasn't before. I was the last editor who removed the double category. Educatedlady, please stop your disruptive behavior. Another editor has already called you out. The other editor's posts were removed and approved by two other editors because he was spamming the talk pages. I kept the comments to one page and also redirected the discussion. I followed Wikipedia rules. If you keep this up, despite repeated warnings, I will report you. Again. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AND I along with another editor are reporting you for using two different accounts to delete information from this talk page. I KNOW it was you that deleted my section, but you didn't do it using your main account. Either you did it with an IP address or you signed up for another account, and deleted our information. So I am reporting you for this Educatedlady (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through this talk page's history, I found you removing more of CS's comments on Friday. In fact it appears you were the only person to remove stuff on Friday (the day you said she removed your post). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said I posted late Friday and it was removed Saturday morning please check the factsEducatedlady (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I have only one account. I have mentioned on the talk page that my login didn't go through AND made my explanation for removing double posts. I moved them from two talk pages and placed a notice of redirection. I also apologized in my edit for my login going through. It's the other user who is using a spoof IP address. He admitted to using a proxy and would NOT explain why he didn't register for an account. His IP address changed twice after I called raised suspicions. I think it is (Bjoh249 (talk) but I have no concrete proof. He was already warned several times for engaging in disruptive behavior, edit warring, then finally vandalizing the Generation X page. I should point out that I am not in charge of the archiving of this page. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not responsible for anyone spoofing. I did accidently deleted comments from your page, as I had my talk page open and yours (yours was by accident because I clicked on talk for you, but I wasn't trying to get to your page). As soon as I saw my username I deleted the comment, but I had no reason to delete anything from your page, it wouldn't make sense unless you were calling me an obscene name, and that would not have been the method to get it removed. I DO NOT support any comments that are not from registered users. I feel if you want your point to come across you would take the time and register. Educatedlady (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of spoofing. I accused the anonymous user because his IP address was traced to a spoof cite. Also, he admitted to using a proxy. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok I see nowEducatedlady (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I still don't understand what happened to that section I added at first about the new millennium starting in 2001. You commented on it creative soul then poof! It disappeared. I know it didn't happen on its own. Like I stated before I just want the dates changed to be varying. I could care less about 1982 being added at this point. This is what I am researching on my own, not in relation to Wikipedia. Once that research has been peer reviewed, promoted and published then I will add that here. Educatedlady (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is the last time I'm posting here. The reason I feel compelled to post is because it is clear CreativeSoul has not read my response (posted above). Here it is again:

Ok, I just read your response (which is why this will be my last post as opposed to my previous one).

1) Probably half of all people online use web proxies to comment on forums/talk pages. Many people are just in the old habit of surfing through (the many) web proxies online as that's just what they're used to. Nothing much to say about it, only that it's just surfing preference.

2) Just because others think in the same way, doesn't mean they are the same person.

3) For some reason, you think you have to document the academic start year via Generation/Sociology books that study Generations, when in fact, Wikipedia itself has a long article outlining School start/end dates, and even goes further and mentions those in the Northern/Southern Hemispheres. Because Wikipedia itself has already stated when an academic year begins for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere, a simple note in the body of the main text should be mentioned.

4) Again, I'm finished on this page. There's too much negativity and that's not what I came here for. The whole debate of Gen Y is something we could argue about for decades because there are still many researchers arguing for a 1976 start date, which seems the most common. But again, I'm too tired to keep debating this, so I'm bowing out of this conversation.

Special Note: I will remind you again that I am NOT spoofing anything. You need to get your terminologies right. Using a web proxy for commenting on the 'net is not illegal and is common practice. 'Spoofing' implies something sinister/underhand and, again, is potentially liabellous.

Anyway, I expect some degree of civility here and not bad-mouthing when someone (in this case me) gracefully bows out of the conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User do you mind registering for an account so you can express your views in a valid method? Using an IP address just causes more conflict. I want you do post your sources but it doesn't really help when using an IP address. Educatedlady (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever contribute to this discussion again (and that's a big IF) I will sign up and make a regular account. Because I am very busy with my university studies, I don't have a lot of free time, which is one of the reasons I never made a proper account here in the first place. In fact, all I wanted to do was show that the start date of 1982 was in error and have explained as much in a detailed manner for several days now. Anyway, just so you know, you didn't need to make the argument about the millenium starting in 2001 (it was a good argument though) as I already proved via this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_term that 1981 would have been the true year for Gen Y graduates. Those born after september 1982 would have graduated in 2001, so using the blanket statement of '1982 births graduate in 2000' is false.

Anyway, this place is way too drama-filled and it's tiring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree User but the only way we are going to get things changed is if we take a united stand. Please reconsider and do not allow anyone to run you off. We all have a right to be here. And in order to avoid this site from becoming a dictatorship is if we work together.Educatedlady (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this person talking about ? This user is continually ignoring the fact that well-known sources attribute 1982 to the Class of 2000. The majority of those born in 1981 are part of the Class of 1999. I have said that I would try to find a way to include a note about this, but no reliable or widely used sources mention academic terms. We go by standard dates. We are not using birthday ranges on any generation page. It is already implied that if you graduated in 2000, you are a Millennial. Some can be considered on the cusp due to their birthday, but the Echo Boom also started in 1982 and is part of defining Generation Y.

What do you mean a united stand? A consensus was drawn up and the introductions on these pages decided, with proper definitions and what sources were considered reliable. Once again, various date ranges and birthdays do not belong here. I have already explained not using Elwood Carlson's book as a source on this page - in depth. The mentioning of the book stays on the Generation Y page, not on here. His research isn't widely accepted or used. Furthermore, I explained why it stays on that page, and why I added back after someone else removed it. Apparently, it's okay by this person that a consensus gather every month to decide on date ranges. This is why there is a protection on these pages. To stop the incessant changes with the dates and disruptive behavior. Threatening another user with adding your own research isn't acceptable behavior either.

Also, no one cares when the "real" millennium started. We use the Gregorian Calendar in western society, and we use the dates and terminology attributed to it. That is definitely grasping at straws. By that line of logic, you need to tell Wikipedia to change it's time stamp because it is using the incorrect year, probably the incorrect dates as well since we have to incorporate the leap years. Come on, people. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I talked with an administrator and he/she gave me instructions to begin another consensus. You're WRONG! I CARE! So you are saying its okay for flawed researched to be circulating??? And here are links for others that care too about when the millennium began:

http://americanindian.net/millennium.html, http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~schittek/millenni.htm, http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html

People SHOULD care about when the real millennium begin because you are ignorant if you don't. You keep mentioning the Gregorian Calendar but you have failed to acknowledge this: According to the United States Naval Observatory WHO IS THE OFFICIAL TIMEKEEPER FOR THE UNITED STATES "Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100." You need to read and become educated. STOP trying to validate your life because you want to tell the whole world you belong to Generation X. I am not disputing that but YOU do not want additional years added because you are validating yourself with the class of 1999 incorrectly being the last class of the century and millennium. Again the truth is out. I know its hard for you take but you will get through it. Educatedlady (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)'[reply]

Your arguments are not supported by complaining about the incorrect location of the "real current Millennium." The media use the year 2000 as the start of the 21st Century, and the attachment of that graduating year with Generation Next. Take the argument up with them. You can't erase almost thirty years worth or more of the way terminology is used, nor can you erase our calendar. Like I said, by your logic, we should toss out the Gregorian Calendar (which won't happen). The truth is you are trying every which way to get in information that is not widely accepted by whatever means possible. Not going to happen either. And, making your entire post bold is hard for others to read. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are ignoring the fact that ABC News stated that the real millienium began in 2001. I have already posted this. STOP ignoring what I am saying. CAN YOU READ!!!!! I MENTIONED THE GREORGIAN CALENDAR!!! According to the United States Naval Observatory WHO IS THE OFFICIAL TIMEKEEPER FOR THE UNITED STATES "Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100." And you continue to ignore that you want your life defined by Generation X. I am NOT backing down or off. You may scare everyone else off from here but its not gonna happen with me. Educatedlady (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the topic of generations and the terminology used by well-known sources? I have not read an article where it states: The Millennials first graduated in 2000 . . . but wait, the real Millennium started in 2001, so they aren't the real first Millennials. ??? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. The United States Navy is more reliable than two guys looking for fortune based on INACCURATE reseearch. These men are saying those born in 1982 are graduates of the year 2000 the FIRST of the millennium. This is WRONG! This proves that the research is FLAWED and THAT is ONE of MANY reasons why the dates on the page need to be put at varying. Our society is so uninformed an uneducated its sad. I believe in order for a research study to be effective then you need to research ALL sides to the point where hardly NO ONE can dispute what you are saying. And that is where Strauss and Howe failed. They did not do their job. But I am sure they collected a hefty check for their inaccurate books, and flawed speeches, and further polluting our society with ignorance. Educatedlady (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, all the newspapers sine the 1990s that have used the term "Millennial" in reference to the Class of 2000 are wrong, too? You don't seem to get the point. It's not just Strauss and Howe who use the term "Millennial", or make references to members of the high school Class of 2000 being the first of the next generation. Media and researchers (especially popular media) have always highlighted those born in 1982, at the start of the new "boom," as special, and part of the new generation. In the 1990s, the term "Millennial" caught on, and they became "The Millennial Class." If you have a problem with the use of the term, take that up with those in the media. Stop laying the blame on Strauss and Howe - though they happen to be the leaders in their field. Your personal opinion on Strauss and Howe does not belong in a Wikipedia article. That's original research and against Wikipedia policy. The majority of researchers and members of media don't have a problem with the authors' research.

Moreover, like I said many times before, you're grasping at straws with the "real Millennium" argument. We have used the terminology for decades and we've used the Gregorian Calendar for centuries. You must have a problem with that, too, then. If you do, go and protest the world leaders of western society that their countries should cease using the Gregorian Calendar because it's inaccurate. Actually, you should probably go around the world and protest, since most of the world has adapted to using it, too. Oh, and every leap year, you can really make your arguments. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YEP THEY ARE WRONG! With the exception of CNN, USA Today, ABC News and Yahoo who ALL said the milliennium started in 2001. How am I GRASPING STRAWS by telling the truth???? AGAIN YOU IGNORE THAT THE US NAVY USES THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR WHO STATED THE MILLENNIUM STARTED IN 2001. You sound like a broken record repeatedly saying "we use standard research". NO you use the research YOU want to use because again you just don't want your validation of life as a FAKE Generation Xer to be threatened. You know you really ought to start a reality show. "I WANT TO BE A GENERATION XER" Post on youtube so someone can see how you waste time arguing with people who have provided VALID FACTS because YOU again want to validate your life. I find it funny every time I mention you want to validate yourself with Generation X you ignore me. It further proves that you really need to find yourself and what your purpose is in life. You are not even getting paid to do this. If you are trying validate yourself by a generation that is known for being slackers, and lost and other negativity then you really need help. Its all about the Baby Boomers sweetie. They have run this country for years and are not willing to give it to us. Educatedlady (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CreativeSoul needed links (it's common sense to everyone else though when an academic year begins) so here are several links that back this up. Because graduates of 2000 would have been born from Sept, 1981 - onwards, this should be reflected in the main article. Here are the links that show when an academic year begins, from various sources, even Wikipedia itself:

http://www.isc.co.uk/InternationalZone_TheIndependentSchoolAcademicYear.htm

http://www.ihes.com/bcn/tt/celta/faqs-3.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Academic_term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_term

And yes, unless I keep being goaded and bad mouthed here, this really is the last post I'm making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reposting the same information on the Generation X and Generation Y talk pages. I already explained about the school terms (several times, and on several pages of two different talk pages). Your behavior is seriously disruptive. And please sign your posts. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]