Talk:Generation/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Generation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Table of generations

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

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

The picture

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

Generational evolution of consciousness?

Wikiproject Generations

Cite generation names

Heavily Opinionated

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Aboutbo2000: Please do not revert well sourced edits, especially without providing new references. I agree with @RoyBoy: "The Greatest Generation" is the most well known label for that generation, and that fact is well sourced. The 1901 to 1927 date range is from Pew Research center. If you do not agree, before reverting please discuss other sources which you believe have more weight. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

fixed generation table based on Strauss and Howe

globalize

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chart

Ok 25years is a Generation?

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

TV Generation

Article organisation

Dates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Beat Generation - New Section added

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

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

Here is the conversation Unit Anode and I had:

START

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

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

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

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

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

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

END OF CONVERSATION

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

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

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

Smackbot fixes - citation needed

widespread use of television

Western world

EPIC nonsense

April 12 rewrite

Reply: April 12 rewrite

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum: April 12

The Little Rascals.

The word, "emo."

Confused between the Beat Generation and the Baby Boomer Generation.

Generation Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Articles