CreativeSoul7981

Hi, welcome back ;) I see we're back where we were 6 months ago on Generation. I still have a couple of problems with your proposed text. a) we don't need to be so laudatory of Strauss and Howe. Saying that they are "respected" is redundant IMO, because if "many follow them" they are obviously respected. b) I still dispute the focus on the "class of 2000". I admit I cannot find a copy of the book Millenials Rising, but based on all of their other work, I have never seen the claim that this particular class is particularly special in itself. Please provide specific page numbers for this claim if we absolutely must make it. On top of that, I really don't think it is the most important fact to include in this brief, brief summary of the broad strokes of the generation. Surely it is more important to discuss end dates or broader characteristics in a paragraph or less. Not to mention the fact that this class of 2000 notion is not broadly applicable internationally. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I mentioned before that the Class of 2000 was always referred to as the Millennials or Millennial graduating class. Numerous articles at the time I was in high school discussed the importance of this "new generation" and mentioned the Class of 2000 as leading the way. My class, 1999, was referred to as the "last of Generation X" or the last graduating class of Generation X. This was very significant at the time the term Millennial was used and therefore belongs in the article. Most demographers, especially at universities, use 1982 birth years as the start of the Millennial Generation or Generation Y. The pages I was finally able to put up (for some reason my source wouldn't take on the page) are the most significant pages that discuss this. Although the next few pages continue the discussion, it doesn't focus on the terminology and usage of the term. I am still looking through the other two books for more pages. Anyway, the authors are the most notable researchers on generations and are always referenced by new authors cropping up. That is why they are highlighted on the generation pages. I'm sure you can find the books at the library or order them from their website. I highly recommend reading their book Generations as well. It's an interesting read. I think there is another book coming out as well, but I'm still going through The 13th Generation. Have a good Fourth of July - that is if you celebrate it. Have a good one anyway. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

As the article is now, it specifically attributes the "class of 2000" idea to Strauss and Howe, not to "numerous articles at the time." Do they, or do they not make the class of 2000 a central argument? I would also argue that we should take what numerous articles in the popular press said at the time with a grain of salt. Has this idea stood the test of time? Has it been picked up by reliable sources? I am not disputing the notability of Strauss and Howe, I just don't think we need to sing their praises in the way that we do. We should be impartial. Not everybody accepts Strauss and Howe. They have in fact amended their beliefs since the publication of the book to reflect the changing reality. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

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. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, note that Canvassing (such as this) is considered disruptive behavior. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Once again I warn you, Canvassing (such as this, this, and this) is considered disruptive behavior and you may be blocked from editing.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

You are a complete asshole. How dare you accuse me of vandalism, simply because you are so against 1982 being part of Generation X. In addition I totally think you are a complete liar. NO ONE born in 1981, is going to remember seeing E.T. in theatres on its first release in 1982. You were a year old so how could you remember that? Again you CANNOT base the end of Gen X on graduation timeframes. I know plenty of people born in 1981 who flunked and wind up in the class of 2000. One person I knew born in 1981 graduated in 2002! I also know people born in 1982 who graduated in 1999. So its okay for Generation X to begin in either 1961 or 1965 but it cannot end in 1982? What is it to you? What do you have personally against 1982? One thing anyone born in the 80's have in common is NONE of us remember John Lennon's death in 1980, nor Ronald Reagan getting shot in 1981, and we do not know a world without AIDS. Go get educated. You are very immature to be the age you are. I have several friends born in 1981 and none of them have EVER been as stupid as you. Go back to the "hood" and stop being "ghetto". Once my thesis on this whole topic is published you will feel even more ignorant than you already are, and I will be sure to send you the first copy of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs) 09:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow. You sound very mature. You will be one of a very small group of people who think 1982/1983 is or ever was part of Generation X. And second of all, don't presume to know me. I have some distinct memories at a very young age; they are few, but I do have them. I DO remember seeing ET at the movies. It was one of my first films. I remember sitting in the movie theater, crying while watching ET "die". That is one of my earliest memories. I begged my father to buy me the VHS when it came out later, and that is the first real movie I owned. I remember a lot of things from my childhood, like crying when the Challenger tragedy happened, watching Ronald Reagan come off Air Force one on television, etc. Not every memory is crystal clear, but many do stand out. I remember many MTV videos, but not EVERY MTV video. We didn't even get cable until 1995 (my Dad is part of the Silent Generation so he is very old-fashioned). I watched MTV and cable shows when I could at my friend's house (who was born in 1982). Having older siblings or watching MTV doesn't make one a part of Generation X. Granted, I'm at the end, but those who were born in 1981 (most who graduated in 1999) are the last of Generation X. That is the cutoff date that MOST researchers, media, and universities use. When I graduated, they said "the last of Generation X" was graduating, and when my friend graduated in 2000, it was the "new generation"'s turn - the Millennials/Generation Y. So you can use that one author's source all you like, recent documentaries by CBS 60 Minutes, PBS, etc. all use 1982 as the official start of Generation Y/The Millennials. I highly doubt you are writing a thesis on 1982 being a part of Generation Y, and if you are, that is a very sad topic, indeed. You are calling me a fool and ghetto? Just wow. I have other editors and administrators on my side, so continue to call me names all you like. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

It should be noted that another editor, Ian.thomson, has called Educatedlady out on her personal attacks. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

This page should give you the information you need: Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism Vrenator (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the late response, I'm having trouble IRL, so I'm not really gonna be involved in heavy editing (aside from occasional reverts). I'm not concerned with the background of any editor (... well, I don't trust Scientologists, but other than that...). While I too consider Zoroaster an early prophet, and would enjoy seeing Catholic source if I had the time, the article should probably use non-sectarian or Zoroastrian sources (although if the Catholic source is a secular source that just happens to be written by a Catholic, that should be fine), just as articles on Catholic saints should probably use Catholic or non-sectarian sources and not Zoroastrian ones (except as interpreted by secular scholars if the saint was mentioned in a Zoroastrian polemic or something). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

{{helpme}} Hello. I am attempting to request for a page to be semi-protected and am following the directions on the request page. After you add a level 4 header, what exactly do you put for namespace (in place of 'x')? I looked it up on Wikipedia itself, and found this WP:NS. Other requests on the protection page (for example, the request for the 'Girl Game' page, have letters 'l' and 'a' in { }. See WP:RFP. I assume the 'l' is included from my example above, but where does the 'a' come from? I can't find this information anywhere. I wish the protection page had an explanation for this. A lot of pages on Wikipedia have terminology that one has to really dig around for. I also assume that the title of the Wiki page goes in the space for 'Example'. Thank you for your help. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have a look at the table shown in the 'instructions' blue box, just before the 'example' part. You'll be wanting {{la|ARTICLE}}, I think. And yes, you replace "ARTICLE" with the actual page you want protection for. It makes links, you see.

For example, if I put {{la|Sausage}} it produces: Sausage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is lowercase "L" and "A" by the way; I think it stands for link article. See Template:La  Chzz  ►  14:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good grief. Thank you so much! I couldn't for the life of me figure out what 'a' stood for. This is a definite 'duh' moment, but I wish your template link was posted somewhere in the instructions on the protection page. I appreciate you answering me so quickly during the holiday weekend. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It kinda has a link, because it says e.g. {{la|ARTICLE}} and note the 'la' there links to the template. However, I'm sure it could be improved; maybe you could have a go at making it clearer; the page with the instructions on is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Header, and you are very welcome to edit it, of course, or to make some suggestions on its talk page.

No holiday here in the UK, I'm afraid, but you made me have a look at Labor Day, so I've learnt something new!

Top tip, talk to helpers live, with this (even if you just pop in to say hello!) Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:37, 5 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) 19:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

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

Hi. 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 the sources 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. This page is also under protection to prevent further edit warring. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am posting my reply to you here, because the discussion is getting to big on the Gen X page, and my concerns are mostly with you. I will address you point by point, and I would appreciate if you would do the same.

Why are people ignoring everything I've previously said.

I addressed your concerns point by point. Please have the courtesy to do the same.

Most people born in 1981 are part of the graduating class of 1999. Only those born at the very end are generally part of the Millennials/Generation Y. According to school cut-off dates and dates used by MOST sources, 1982 is associated with the Class of 2000. Those are the dates used by MEDIA. That is precisely why it is clarified that those born in 1981 who graduated in 1999 are the last of Generation X. The Class of 1998 was made up of mostly people born in 1980 and the last part of 1979. So on and so forth. It's already implied that if you graduated in 2000 and grew up with that class, that you are a Millennial. Folks, this is how it's commonly presented today. Birthday date ranges DO NOT belong on any of the generation pages. Period.

I ask again: Why do these graduation dates matter?

The media has always discussed the Class of 2000 in association with the stat of the Millennials, and 1982 is the date they use.

You keep saying this but are very short on proof. Where are the sources? The ones cited DO NOT make the claim that the year 2000 is pivotal to the definition of this generation.

I have explained the reasoning at least 10 times, and only about a few people complain about this wording. Others will come on a say, end Generation Y at 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1985 (what?) or other random years...

WHat do you mean, I honeslty don't understand.

Generation X used to end with 1975, however, that made the generation really short, and most sources today use the 1982 (start of the Echo Boom) as the starting birth year (coinciding with the high school Class of 2000). There are some sources who use various ending dates, and they have done so in order to get an "even number of years" in a generation (a ridiculous reason).

Where are these sources? And PLEASE remember our NPOV policy. Remember you are supposed to present reasonable arguments in a neutral and dispassionate manner.

There is no burden on me, because I have backed everything I've said.

There is absolutely no proof for the class of 2000 argument.

We are going by the standard and popular dates most commonly used.

Are you listening to me at all???? In my most recent post I presented a BEDROCK Wikipedia policy which explicitely states that we have to present all arguments not just the most popular!!! Please address why you think NPOV does not apply in this case.

The Generation Y page already mentions the Edward Carlson book (and it's left there only because it mentions September 11), and none of that information belongs on the Generation X page.

Are you not generous.... What is it that discredits Carlson so much? I'm curious.

If you're born in late 1981 and consider yourself a cusper, fine. However, if that is true and you graduated in 2000, just know you are considered by most researchers and journalists to be a part of the Millennials/Generation Y. Your graduating class is the Millennial Class. This has nothing to do with your memories growing up as a kid. The psychological approach on the generational differences is also mentioned in Psychology Today, and I have already referenced that on here previously.

This has nothing to do with me.

This is getting out of hand. We are not going to keep rehashing the date issue every month and keep changing it. Someone will start changing the dates again to any number of birth years I mentioned above.

I would suggest that if you Assumed Good Faith, which I would say you really are not, the discussion might not get so out of hand. I have assumed that you are trying to improve the article but your failure to engage with the ideas of the other side, other than to continually restate the same tautologies, while accusing them of vandalism is not going to lead to a constructive discussion.

Recent popular media supports my wording. And if you've noticed, I have also reverted changes by people who went back and changed the introduction on the Generation Y page, even though I agree with the 1982 start date, because the date issue has not been settled yet. It will probably always include some information on birth rates ranging from the mid-1970s because of how the terminology started. I also reverted an edit by posters who deleted the Edward Carlson information, though it's not a widely accepted work in the research community. I'd call that fair. You are welcome to make constructive edits to these pages that enhances the article, but please refrain from re-inserting new dates and birthday ranges to these pages. Moving on people. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't understand why you are so flexible on Y, but not X. Clearly if the beginning of Y is unsettled the end of X must also be unsettled???? Peregrine981 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am not treating Generation X differently than Generation Y. 1982 has never been referred to as a part Generation X, but as the first Millennial Class. However, for years, they have been using dates from the mid-1970s to 1982 as the start of Generation Y. The majority of well-known sources use refer to those born in 1982 and part of the Class of 2000 as distinct from those born in previous years and graduated before the New Millennium. I hope to put up more sources as the years go by and further clarifications are made on the definitions of both Generations. Generation Y is also newer, and the eldest members came of age in 2000, whereas Generation X was pretty well defined before 2000. Even though I still don't consider Edward Carlson's research notable enough, I left his source on the Generation Y page. It's strange, because Generation X was already defined years before, and the youngest members had already come of age in 1999 and were already in the middle of their college years. Why would you just redefine a whole generation after September 11. The point I was trying to make was that the previous Generation, X, was already well-defined and shaped by other important events, and the youngest members had already graduated and gone to college. Why would someone just backtrack two and a half years later? The Class of 2000 was already labeled as the First Millennial graduating class.

Furthermore, it doesn't really make much sense to categorize a group of people who came of age in the New Millennium with those who graduated earlier, but it makes perfect sense to use mark them as the first of the New Generation (or Generation Next). There are always going to be some similarities between those at the end of one generation and the beginning of another. However, there is a gap between those born in 1981 and 1982, and psychologists discuss this in Psychology Today as well as other sources. Those born in 1982 (Class of 2000) were always looked on as the future's "brightest stars" so to speak. They were very coddled by parents, grew up to be very socially liberal, and cared about civic duty. Generation X members, on the other hand, are generally more conservative, a bit selfish, and very nomadic. I go by standard dates used by the most well-known sources.

A lot of times, people get Generation X and Y confused with the sub-generation--the MTV Generation. This generation includes Generation X members and the eldest Generation Y members, with 1984 probably being the last birth year.

Anyway, I have more statistics to put up, including information on the workforce, some on the military, and more. I will putting these up hopefully within the next few months. I did remove some of the statistics in the Demographics section, because I couldn't find any source to support that information. For all we know, someone could have made them up. I have managed to get access to other research material, but I am in the process of verifying the reliability. Some of these sources are European, and I found a couple from Asia. These might bring some more perspective to the articles. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

1982 has very clearly been referred to as Gen X by numerous people, so it is completely inaccurate to say it has "never" been referred to as such.

I've heard this story before. Repeatedly. What I'm asking for are sources. And not "over the next few years". When you add them fine. We'll take them into account, but it is simply unreasonable to ask us to take it on faith for months or years. Unsupported or disupted comments should be taken out now unless you can produce a reasonable source and defence of keeping them in.

You say "Furthermore, it doesn't really make much sense to categorize a group of people who came of age in the New Millennium with those who graduated earlier, but it makes perfect sense to use mark them as the first of the New Generation (or Generation Next)."

WHY????? what is so magical about 2000 that it changes everything. It is a pretty round number, but means nothing!!!! In the islamic calendar it was the 1420s, 5560s in the jewish, and somewhere in the 2500s for the Buddhist. We could change the numbering systems completely right now and nothing would change. I would be hugely surprised if any credible scholars use "2000" as a momentous event in the course of our civilization simply because it marked the start of the new millennium. Please I beg of you, point me to a credible source that backs up what you are saying, or I will take it out of both this and the Gen Y articles. I've asked nicely for a long time, and we have yet to see anything substantial.

Also you say "Those born in 1982 (Class of 2000) were always looked on as the future's "brightest stars" so to speak." As opposed to those born in 1981???? Every single one of them??? Listen to what you are saying. It is so simplistic and ludicrous. These kinds of trends take time to take hold, it doesn't just happen suddenly one day, so one simply cannot say it categorically applies to those born in 1982 but not 1981. Not to mention the gross overgeneralization inherent in that statement. I can tell you there are LOTS of kids born in 1982 who were absolutely not coddled or looked upon as our "brightest stars." This is a statement that maybe applies broadly across the middle class, but I would certainly dispute its application across all classes, regions, and subgroups. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Peregrine981 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am just saying that the media has run with this for years while the Class of 2000 was growing up. Most recent documentaries, researchers, and journalists refer to the Class of 2000 as the first Millennials, and 1982 as the starting birth year. Why are you arguing with me? Argue with them. Those of us who graduated in 1999 were referred to as the last of the generation, meaning Generation X. Why would the Class of 2000 be referred to as The Millennials if those who were part of that class were Generation X? That doesn't make any sense at all. Either studies use 1976 for whatever reason at the time, or they generally use 1981 because they are splitting those who graduated before the New Millennium from those who graduated in 2000 and later, and also using the first year of the Echo Boom for the Next Generation. The Echo Boom started in 1982., which is why a lot of media use 1982-1995 (mostly) or 1982-1999. We are not going by an Islamic Calendar or Jewish Calendar. In the Western world, we follow the Gregorian Calendar. The generation terms are mostly used in western societies. What does the Gregorian Calendar have to do with anything, including the definition of Millennials. We have always used 2000 as the Millennial year, and that's the way the media is using it. I happen to agree with scholars, but I'm not the person who made the big deal out of the Millennial Class. It started with the population "boom" in 1982, when parents and the media basically looked to these children as "the Future." I am not making this up. Not only Strauss and Howe, but current articles being written by The New York Times, NPR radio, PBS, etc. all use these information. I also recently found an article from 2008 by the Dallas Morning News (author Toni Armenta writing on Baby Boomers vs. Generation Y) that also uses 1982 as the start of Generation Y, and one by a University in England. You can't remove something that is backed by several sources and widely accepted, then put in information that has nothing to do with Generation X in order to change the dates to what you like. The Edward Carlson book as well as other sources refer to Generation Y/Millenials, and thus, do NOT belong on this page. Second of all, other editors have pointed out to EducatedLady that she had to remove her edits and also warned her. Now she's trying to add them back in (using blogs, someone's law school research paper - not published material, and a youtube clip - not allowed - from an assistant professor on DNA). Are you kidding me? The 1983 start date and Edward Carlson's book is not widely accepted research - it's not standard. No popular journal, newspaper, or well-known research shows 1982 or 1983 being a part of Generation Y. Only personal blogs make these claims. Next, we'll have people coming on here every week and changing the end dates of Generation X to 1976, 1977, 1978, etc. It's ridiculous. None of those dates are standard dates or accepted by major media and research. That is not acceptable. You have your source on the Generation Y page. I have kept everything in line with the consensus, and provided adequate valid sources to back up what I'm saying. I only said I'd add more sources for other information (did you read what I wrote?). There is plenty of valid sources there. I don't need twenty more. I even have the latest documentary on Millennials taped which clearly mentions the Millennials as first being born in 1982. Let's think about the term. Millennial-Millennial Class. Someone who has come of age in the New Millennium - that would be 2000 - that's 18, not 19. Those born in 1982 turned 18 in 2000. Millennials also refers to those who graduated in 2000. I don't know why there needs to be more clarification on this. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Carlson's book specifically refers to Generation X, so I'm not sure why it is less important on X than Y? Do you have any reviews that criticize the book's findings? I would remind you of NPOV. Just because it isn't what the herd is running with at the moment doesn't mean it is illigitimate.

To be clear, I am not arguing that 1982 is not a common year, and probably the most common year to mark the start of Y/end of X.

My beef is with defining two whole generations on a completely arbitrary date.

To illustrate my point, 1946 for example is the year after WW2 ended. That had a huge influence on society. It makes sense to base the boomers on that date. However, nothing of note happened in or around the year 2000. Things continued in much the same way before and after it. Nothing major changed. How can it possibly be true that "coming of age" in this year changes everything?

I will repeat none of your sources makes any claims about the importance of the year 2000. One of them says taht the generation is named after the year. Fair enough, but that is a coincidence, not a defining characteristic. Unless you get better sources I'm taking out the stuff about the year 2000. It is irrelevant!!!!

I just don't understand how you can't acknowledge that these generations do not have absolutely fixed beginning and ending dates. Even the baby boom, which does have much more absolute time markers in the form of the end of the war, has somewhat variable dates. Since it is a cultural phenomenon it will be a somewhat elastic concept. Many people who could be considered prototypical boomers were born during the war, while some of the people technically born during the boom feel no attachment to the idea. The concept will vary by country, region, class, etc... The same is true, and even more so, for any generation. Lots of people born all through the early 80s may feel more like X, because of their family situation, or their own cultural preferences, while some born in the late 70s may feel more like Y. And since there are no hard and fast makers to define one way or the other, why not simply give a rough age estimate? Why is that so difficult for you? It is certainly more accurate and closer to reality (as the constant warring is a testament to).

You say .... "Why would the Class of 2000 be referred to as The Millennials if those who were part of that class were Generation X?" Just because the class of 2000 are millennials does not mean that they are millennials BECAUSE they are the class of 2000. And who's to say that 1999 weren't millennials as well???/ Is there some sort of overlord who has decreed that all classes of 1999 most definitively are Generation X. No questions asked. Even if all of your friends are "millennials" and you only listen to Britney Spears and have a generally pragmatic and work oriented view of the world?

Peregrine981 (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

What on earth are you talking about - Britney Spears? What does listening to or not listening to Britney Spears have to do with generations? I know people older than me who listen to her music (I really don't). The Class of 2000 has never been referred to as Generation X - ever. I have been referring to how the term is used today. It is most widely used to refer to the first graduating class of the New Milennium (however you believe or don't believe it's the true Millennium or not) and those who graduated after. Members of this group first came of age (18) in 2000. As I told Educatedlady, why don't you take the argument about the use of the term with the media and researchers who've used since at least the 1990s. They have also, since at least 1982, referred to those born in that year and graduated in 2000 as the children of the Next Generation or the future. Shouldn't you be arguing with them, and not me? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's working on my end, dunno what it could be. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you think consensus is, but there absolutely was no consensus either to wait or to keep the wording. Quite the opposite in fact! See Talk:Generation X#I think the years on the Generation X Page should be changed from 1961-1981 to the early 1960's to the early 1980's. Please BRIEFLY state if you agree or disagree.

Also, you keep repeating, and repeating the same self justifications. You don't give any proof that Carlson is not accepted by the academic community. You con't provide any proof that the year 2000 defines Generation Y. You just keep saying that it is so, and therefor we should all just keep quiet and accept it. I am tired of you decreeing what is and is not acceptable. I have provided good sources to back up everything on the X page, and I have yet to see you do the same. Until you do, it is reasonable to keep my version. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The proof is, no credible source uses his research. No journalist cites his book. That's proof. There was a consensus that decided on the wording and the reasons for range. As I mentioned before, various sources are cited on that page that show different date ranges. You are just trying to widen the range to include 1982 or 1983. The majority of sources to day do NOT use either of those birth years when referring to Generation X. How can a person who graduating in 2000, who is referred to as a "Millennial" be a member of Generation X? Not logical. Elwood Carlson's work belongs on the Generation Y page. Please see my response to Educatedlady on the Generation X talk page. I have clearly stated the reasoning behind the wording for Generation X. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

On Wikipedia a person must self-identify with a particular denomination before being categorized; and the only way to know if they self-identify is a source indicating that the person is currently Catholic (or Baptist, or atheist, or whatever). That standard is frequently violated because many people think they can put anything about a person's religous beliefs in an article without reliable sourcing. That is what is unsourced in the articles. If someone grows up an atheist but is now a Christian (see William J. Murray), do we put that person in the "Atheists" category?" MANY people grow up in a particular denomination (or lack thereof in Murray's case) but do not end up claiming that perspective when they are adults. This is a simple matter of following one of the very cornerstones of Wikipedia: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The subjects in these articles may very well be a Catholic, but the articles don't state that. If you want to restore the category, please find a sourced statement to that effect. And remember, the responsibility for sourcing is on the person who adds or restores information. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am aware of this. I am working on a couple of sources on certain pages, but Brooke Shields has identified as a Roman Catholic and pro-life supporter. Michael Keaton has also stated in interviews (or it's mentioned in biographies) that he comes from a large Irish-Catholic family. Those who no longer identify as such have gone out of their way to make it known to the media. It's already mentioned on his page. Their biographies show a Catholic upbringing. Nicole Kidman has also stated that she is a Catholic - publicly, and was never comfortable with Scientology. Unless a person has stopped being a Catholic (like Tom Cruise), the category is left on the person's page. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No offense, but you're saying that Brooke Shields or Michael Keaton have said something doesn't make it true. Please find reliable sources that these people currently self-identify as Catholic, not that they grew up Catholic, or went to Catholic school, or married a Catholic, etc. Thanks for looking for sources, but please don't restore the category to any more articles without proper sourcing. There are literally thousands of unsourced categories about religious denomination. Your restoring them improperly just makes the job of removing them that much harder. Thanks.

I am not offended. And I won't restore any pages. I see your point, but does that mean that the information about them being Catholic or raised Catholic can not be included in the articles? (Just asking.) They are all referenced (not John "Red" Shea - however I think I've found something in his biography that mentions that). What I am saying is that Brooke Shields is notable for being Catholic and a pro-life supporter. She has publicly stated that she was raised Roman Catholic, and she continues to attend mass. She even attended mass while filming Blue Lagoon. I think this is mentioned on the Blue Lagoon DVD extras, and her cast mates waited for her while she traveled by helicopter to attend mass while they were shooting in Tahiti. She also discussed her faith when she was undergoing IVF treatments. I think magazine articles, interviews, etc. backing up such claims should be allowed as references. I will try to find recent article, but the interview about her IVF procedure made news several years ago when she was pregnant with her first child.

On another note, I previously cited sources showing Enya as being a practicing Catholic (an old interview), and also included a link to information about her performing for the Pope. However, those sources were removed, and I was told that she wasn't notable for being an Irish Catholic and the source was from the 1990s and too old. For some reason, only priests and bishops are allowed inthe Irish Catholic category. There are some sensitive or anti-Catholic people on Wikipedia. I think that is ridiculous. The interview that I could find said that she attended mass with her family. She talked about the spirituality of her music. How is that not relevant? How is going out of your way to perform for the pope (televised) not relevant? Many categorize her music as New Age, but I don't believe she really sees her music as such. Another editor added that information back in, but it was later removed again.

Pierce Brosnan is another actor (Irish) who publicly asserted his faith, and I think that information, along with the Roman Catholic category, remains on his page. I added the information about Catherine Bell being a former Catholic (sourced), though someone else might have added the former Roman Catholic category previously (not sure). I think in that case it was all right because that information was sourced, and she has publicly identified as a Scientologist.

I appreciate you discussing the issue with me in a calm manner. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is perfectly appropriate to discuss how a person grew up in terms of religion, as long as that isn't the only basis for claiming a current affiliation. I'm not sure why your previous sources were removed. I've removed a few sources in some articles (but not many), because they were blogs, personal websites, or other sources that clearly did not meet the criteria of WP:RS. I understand your concerns about anti-Catholic zealots (or those blindly opposed to any religion). (I'm a practicing Catholic, BTW). But I also think there is an equally zealous group that adds "Catholic" to anyone's article simply because they went to Catholic school or some other unreasonable basis. I don't remove any category for personal reasons, but I do think it often does the Catholic Church a disservice to add the category without basis. In any event, happy editing! Cresix (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I understand where you are coming from. I know of students of different faiths attending Catholic school (especially if it's notable), so I can see how that is not reason enough to add a Catholic category to a person's bio page. I will work on providing some good sources. Enjoy the weekend. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

BTW, for a deceased person, I personally accept a reliable source that indicates they had a Catholic funeral or are buried in a Catholic cemetery. Similarly, if it is sourced that a person grew up Catholic and had a Catholic marriage, I don't quibble about that one. I'm not sure what others think, but I don't remove the category in those cases. Best! Cresix (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Being raised as a member of a particular religion, and/or practicing that religion, are not grounds for inclusion in the category for members of that religion. You mention above "What I am saying is that Brooke Shields is notable for being Catholic and a pro-life supporter." No, she really isn't. She's notable for being an actress, simple as. Sure, she may happen to be Catholic - so what? Including someone in the category becomes as pointless as having a Category:People with brown hair. As per WP:BLPCAT, someone should only be included in a religious/sexuality category if their notability derives from it.

As for Irish articles, around 90% of peoples' articles would merit inclusion if mere baptism or upbringing were the grounds for inclusion. You could certainly make an argument for Enya's inclusion. I wouldn't find it a compelling one personally, but that's just me, and as I think I said to you before, I wouldn't remove it. Other Irish people who've had the categoy added - Colin Farrell, Liam Neeson, Pierce Brosnan - nothing they have said or done indicates they should be included. And saying "I go to Mass, in fact I went last night" really isn't being notable for practicing one's faith. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is technically correct that WP:BLPCAT indicates that someone should be notable as a member of a denomination to be included in the category. I happen to interpret that very broadly, and I think it is impossible to draw a clear line about what someone is "noted" for. Public figures are noted for lots of things. I think someone like Shields is as noted for her religious beliefs as she is for many aspects of her life. As long as it's accurate that she or anyone self-identies with religious belief, I don't have a problem with including them in such a category. Cresix (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's far too broad an interpretation. No, Shields really isn't as noted for her religious beliefs as she is for many aspects of her life. She's noted because she's a movie star, simple as. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I happen to disagree because, as I said, there is almost always a gray area. But I don't think we need to debate this on CreativeSoul7981's talk page. Probably the talk page at WP:BLP or WP:COP would be a better place if anyone wishes to commment further. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ha, ha. It's okay guys. So, what do you think about the Nicholas Sparks information I added? I have more sources to go through. I actually have specific quotes on his faith and its influence on his writing. I am working on the wording, so forgive me if the edits are not up to par. I hope for a little better organization on the Sparks page, but it will take some time to tweak it. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message. Let me know if there is any way I can be of assistance, especially if it involves Ireland-related articles. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't doubt you. I am just a stickler, since in other articles I've had folks post stuff that simply lacked any baring to the claim of the source. I'll re-add it, if you want. Simply put, if she went to an all girls Catholic school, I'm betting she was raised a Catholic. I myself come from literally the same ethnic background, grew up in the same regional area, and went to a Catholic co-ed school. I was baptized a Lutheran, but am an agnostic in every sense of the word. So, as you can see, I am not doubting the factual reliability of your inclusion. It is entirely plausible. Also, and on a side note, I noticed your interest on Gen X related research, and I agree the arguments you made, so if you need any help with those articles, I might be of use. I am proud "X-er" myself! The Scythian 10:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, this is the first time I have ever seen NYLA, but it seems like an interesting entertainment publication. Learned something new. I'll have to explore it some more. The Scythian 10:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the long response. I'm a wordy person I guess. I agree with your reasoning, which is why I am trying to get a hold of the article. It took me a while, but I realize, especially on biography pages, that being a stickler is a good thing. I e-mailed the magazine, so hopefully they will get back to me, or hopefully I will do everything I can to find a copy of that article! Darn it. I don't know what I did with it. So annoying. I just recently edited the Nicholas Sparks page and provided evidence for his Catholic faith, so I'm trying to do the same for other pages. I am of Iranian/Persian background, Zoraostrian ancestry, and a practicing Roman Catholic (holding to Zoroastrian traditions of course), so I have a bit of an interest in actors, musicians, and other artists I like who happen to be Catholic. I heard years ago that she was Roman Catholic, but I don't remember whether it was both her parents or just her father who was Catholic. Several of my family members have married and become Catholic, so it also doesn't seem much of a stretch for her mother to have become one if she already wasn't. I wonder what would happen if I could get this information directly. I used to live in Los Angeles while I pursued acting, and I know people who might be able to talk to her (via Scientology). Scientologist actors sometimes give lectures for new actors (yikes, sorry they scared me while I was there), and I know she has talked about her being a scientologist in magazine interviews before. I will do what I can to verify the information, but I do not think she just attended the school, because she was a convert to Scientology.

I have a couple of agnostics in my family as well, though I think one member wavers between atheism and agnosticism. I'm working on him :-) I guess for me, I have experienced things in my life which have strengthened my faith. I have never been an atheist, but I think there are times when many people, if not most, question their faith. That is part of being human. I would never force my faith or beliefs on anyone else (though it's tempting on another angry person - like the amazing atheist on youtube?). I think people need to experience and feel things for themselves. I am actually interested in agnosticism because I think many people confuse it with atheism. I always thought agnostics questioned the existence of God, but atheists claimed they know God doesn't exist. Feel free to educate me on the difference.

Regarding the Generation pages, please see the section below. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please read the update at the bottom first.

Yes, I would appreciate your help with the generation pages. I have been dealing with two disgruntled editors for a while - one, Peregrine981, whose edits have been reverted several times before by other editors as well, and who keeps trying to get his/her edits back in, and Educatedlady (who canvassed pages for support), who keeps making silly arguments (about the New Millennium being 2001, not 2000, and wanting to overhaul an article page backed by evidence because she thinks the authors William Strauss and Neil Howe are wrong (personal opinion). If you go to her talk page, you will see her accusing me of all sorts of things, then having two other editors warn her about her behavior. The arguments about the date ranges have gone on of a few months now. While various date ranges are used, 1981 is generally accepted as the last date for Generation X (some sources have it incorrectly as 1980 for those graduating in 1999 - and then use 1981 in the same article, so I have contacted them to keep their information consistent). 1982, is the start of the Echo Boom and the birth year of the Millennials and those who graduated high school in 2000. While some born in late 1981 graduated in 2000, generally, those who graduated in 2000, are considered Millennials. An anonymous user kept wanting me to put in the academic school years, but no source I came across about generations talked about cut-off dates regarding birthdays. It has been a huge mess, and now the page is under protection again (I requested semi-protection before for disruptive edits), now it's under administrative protection. I do think that 1965-1981 are the date ranges for Generation X, but, Strauss and Howe, who are at the forefront of generational research and highly respected, and others have used 1961 as the earliest date. Later, maybe in a year or two, I will add that date range, and leave the phrase "ranging from 1961 to 1981" or something like that, but for now, the previous consensus decided that the current wording best reflected the range for Generation X (with various sources included to show the different ranges used). Hardly anyone uses 1982, 1983 or 1984 for the end of Generation X (these are people born during the Echo Boom and who graduated in 2000 or later), and their sources are either blogs, a book by an author not widely known or referenced, and a professor of DNA technology or something at a university, not a sociologist/psycholgist - a youtube clip of him speaking was shown as "proof").

I don't know how much clearer I can be about the definition of Millennials. I was also accused of not showing evidence of articles defining the first Millennials as graduating in 2000, but other editors kept deleting my sources, so I added them back in and managed to include a couple more with the relevant passages, before the protection was put in place. I had to add the information about those born in 1981 graduating in 1999 on the Generation X page, because an anonymous user (whose IP address was traced to a spoofer and whom I suspect as being an editor who was warned several times about his disruptive edits - same arguments about birth date ranges and spelling mistakes) kept saying how some born in 1981 graduated in 2000. Most sources use 1982 for the Class of 2000 because most people born that year were part of that graduating class. Sigh. Oh well. I have provide numerous sources from around the world showing that 1982 is most commonly and widely used as the first birth year for Millennials, and a few editors keep throwing out more conditions for keeping the original wording, then claiming a consensus based on faulty research/personal opinion.

I would not wish this mess on anyone, but if you would like to help, please do. The page is under protection until October 20, 2010. I guess the discussion is continuing on the Generation X Talk Page. You can review all my sources on the talk page, some which are now archived. I have a lot of the books on generational research (including those by Strauss and Howe), so I know the accuracy of the quotes used. I thought I was generous including Elwood Carlson's book on the Generation Y page, even though he is not a widely known author. I gave my reasons on the talk page, and even defended Peregrine981's use of such a source for that page. He/she is now coming back to overhaul the Generation X page. If you and Corenabh (talk), another editor who has his head on straight, would like to help edit the generation pages, I would appreciate ya'll's input. Yes, I used it. "Ya'll's." Plural. I'm from Texas. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Update: Can you please read the recent comments I left on Talk:Generation X in the past two/three days? I provided numerous sources countering Educatedlady's assertions. See sections Thoroughly explained reasoning behind wording of the introduction and Moving forward with introduction. I feel totally ganged up on. I'd also like to help you edit the pages you are working on. Thanks. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Generation X. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• What's really galling about this is that in your edit summaries you repeatedly acknowledge that the current consensus on the talk is in fact opposed to your position, but you have apparently decided you have the authority to override that consensus and you keep warning others not to revert you, as if your edits are sacrosanct and you have some special authority. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CreativeSoul7981 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Tried to be brief. Not edit warring, I inserted the phrase: "While there is no exact time frame, most sources tend to define this generation as ranging from 1961 to 1981" to be fair to the consensus and be fully truthful to potential readers. I did so to also keep in line with the previous consensus and the majority of reliable sources provided. My edits today are also supported by the recent source added by an editor involved in the consensus (not by me), Ronald L. Jackson's book, which defines the earliest birth year used for Generation X as 1961 and the latest, 1981 (source #3 here). I have kept the wording in line with the agreement that there are no exact dates. There has never been hyphens used indicating exact time frames. I only added back my sources that were deleted for no reason, including those contributed by previous editors. My sources were requested by editors in the consensus. I was first told to provide sources identifying the Class of 2000 as the first Millennials - which I did (see here, here, here, here, and here) and then the consensus decided that I needed a source labeling the Class of 1999 as the last of Generation X. This can be inferred from those sources defining the first Millennials, but today I found a source (#4) identifying last class of Generation X and the first Millennial class, as the Classes 1999 and 2000, respectively. It is why 1981 is commonly used as the end date for Generation X. I feel that the current introduction is vague and does not give a good time frame for this generation like other generation pages. It also incorrectly cites Strauss and Howe's book Generations. All Strauss and Howe books clearly use the range 1961-1981 for Generation X, and at least one mentions the Class of 1999 as the last of Generation X and the Class of 2000 as the start of the Millennials. The current wording is not accurate and omits important information. I am not claiming any authority, but I have been editing the generation pages for years, and reverted changes that I thought were based on unreliable sources (such as blogs; youtube videos; a DNA expert - not a generational expert, sociologist, psychologist/educator, and sites using unverifiable information). I felt the consensus was based on the premise that the generational experts Strauss and Howe were wrong (personal opinion), but when asked, provided numerous sources citing the 1982 as the start of the Millennials, as Strauss and Howe claim. In the end, I decided to include "no exact time frame" because other generational pages have a similar disclaimer. Please see Talk:Generation X for the list of sources and the reason for omitting Elwood Carlson's book from this page. I also reinserted this same source on the Generation Y page when another editor deleted it. I believe the person who blocked me did not see my re-wording or check all my sources. I used the very source provided by another editor as reference, with the appropriate quotes to back my edits. But, a bad external link was accidentally included in my edit (not added by me). My recent edits can be found here: differential edit. I am a regular contributor on Wikipedia and strive to research a topic thoroughly, using reliable sources and making sure there are numerous references backing questionable material. I apologize for becoming frustrated, but I felt as if the people involved in the consensus were ignoring everything that I had written, no matter how many times I addressed the problems with their sources. I also did not appreciate my sources, along those of other editors, being deleted. Thank you for reading, and I will follow appropriate channels for dispute resolution.

Decline reason:

You have explained at length why you think you were "right", but whether you were "right" or "wrong" is not the issue. The issue is that you repeatedly reverted to your own preferred version in opposition to consensus. You say "Not edit warring", but you did repeatedly revert to your preferred version, and that is what "edit warring" means. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you for taking the time to read my request. I will be addressing the issue in dispute resolution, but I wanted to address the issue. The problem I have with the situation is that this time, I took in to account the disclaimer, and included the phrase: "While there is no exact time frame." That is keeping in line with the consensus that complained about the article not being clear about this. However, the source consensus members added themselves (see here), "usually not later than 1981" as stated in the article. To quote their own source: "This entry discusses two of the most recent generation age cohorts: Generation X (born 1961-1981)...the exact time frame remains sketchy; however, sources tend to define its range from as early as 1961 to as late as 1981. . .As it applied to the 1961-1981 age cohort in Canada and the United States, the term Generation X began to circulate widely and was adopted ultimately into the popular vernacular...." I do not see why we cannot say the in introduction of the article (as it originally stated) that the earliest date used is 1961 and the latest 1981 (and keep all the sources with the various date ranges - these were other people's edits that they deleted).

The second issue is the Elwood Carlson source, which is a book written on Millennials. The author is not well known, nor is his work referenced by journalists or major media. I left the Carlson source on the Generation Y page because it applied to that generation. It is a minor view (that Generation Y starts with the 1983 birth year), and one that was placed and worded in such a way in the article to not give it undue weight (as per Wikipedia guidelines). That is the only published work, besides their unreliable sources (which violates Wikipedia's rules), which included a youtube clip of a DNA professor (not an expert in sociology or generational research/psychology) that was not even about Millennials, a blog, and a source from Australia that did not even verify it's statistics/data. How can one combat a consensus based on this? I tried. I admit I got frustrated, but I spent pages and pages discussing the issue and answering the other editors' questions. How many times do you need to tell someone not to include unreliable sources? What baffles me is that these editors asked me for proof that numerous sources cite 1982 as the start of the Millennials (along with quotes), but when I did, one of them basically said: "so what". Numerous sources and popular sources (newspapers, etc.) do not mean anything? Really? You can see all my sources on the talk page (as previously mentioned).

The same editors (part of the consensus) also asked me to prove that the Class of 2000 defined as the start of the Millennials. I did that and added those references to the article. They changed their mind (because they didn't like that I had found the proof - and also further defining Millennials as those who came of age in 2000), and then asked for proof identifying the Class of 1999 as the last of Generation X (Orlando Sentinel). Well, yesterday, I did, and I added the one source that I was able to find (though one of the Strauss and Howe books also mentions this). I know there are at least two other editors who agree with my viewpoint, one who brought up the subject with me himself, but I do not think he read my message about the discussion taking place. Why is it is okay for these editors to demand proof, then delete the very sources that show the proof they asked for? I am going to apply for a dispute resolution, because I think my reasoning has been completely ignored by disgruntled consensus members who are using vague wording to give undue weight to their minority point of view. I will in the future lay off the warnings except for really disruptive behavior and true vandalism, and use dispute resolution or arbitration to handle complex issues. Thank you for your input, and I'm sorry about my lengthy response. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure I'm not the person you want advice from right now, but you might want to consider not doing this all the time, it's like using a swear word, the more you use it, the less impact it has. Also, as you have acknowledged here your posts are often very long and sometimes repeat the exact same information as previous posts. I can tell you I've been known to have the same problem. Before you save, re-read your remarks and see if there isn't some stuff that does not need to be in there. Otherwise you are actually increasing the chances that your remarks will not be thoroughly read and your main points might be missed despite all the bolding. On the subject of consensus: you can't win 'em all. Sometimes, no matter how right we just know we are, consensus says otherwise and we have to accept that. Try to see the big picture, ask yourself if this is so important that you need to battle other editors until it says what you think it should say. Just some free advice to take or leave as you please. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not disagree with you about the warning; you make a very valid point. However, in regards to the repeated information, the other editors keep posting the same questions over and over. I answer them over and over, but I don't get anywhere. I will absolutely be using dispute resolution along with assistance from another editor on the discussion pages. I understand what you are saying, and I have in the past, acquiesced because another editor was correct when it came to reliable sources, etc. However, in this case, the consensus is putting undue weight to a minority view (most sources cite Generation X ending either in the mid-late 1970s or 1981), and using unreliable sources (as previously mentioned) to back up their claims. I have no problem with the compromise of including a disclaimer about there being no exact time frame regarding generations. That is a given regarding all generations. But, they are deleting other people's contributions (sources) and referencing the Strauss and Howe source incorrectly. I was asked to provide evidence about something, and when I did, they added another condition, and when I managed to find a source for that, it was still unacceptable. These references are important because they define the Millennials as well I have others who back me up, so I am going to encourage them to participate in the discussion before changes are made or anything is made more permanent. The Elwood Carlson source is not referenced by established journalists or other researchers; it is not even widely known. Peregrine981 accused me of having a problem with the source because it was written in 2003. Not true. He was the one who made a fuss over Strauss and Howe's book Millennial Rising being written in 2000 (apparently it's too old). He claimed the authors never wrote anything after 2000, when in fact they published almost every year, and Neil Howe has several books published between 2008 and 2010. His most recent work about Millennials in the workforce came out in 2010. My problem with that source is that is used on the Generation X page; it belongs on the Generation Y page, and since it is not widely known, it is placed at the end of the Terminology section. Some other editor deleted it, but I added it back in, so I am not trying to block Peregrine981's contributions. And I do not understand how twisting quotes to suit your own purposes works to support an argument (as Educatedlady has done). Anyway, I appreciate your response, and will be more careful with my words. In the meantime, I am answering Educatedlady's post on Talk:Generation X. I am doing the best I can with what she gives me. Thanks. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Cresix. I would like to enlist your help in applying for dispute resolution. You have been helpful in guiding me regarding the Catholic categories on biography pages, and one of the few editors who have taken the time to mentor me on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate your assistance and participation in discussion on my page. Please see Scythian77's comments in the Catherine Bell section and the following sections regarding the Generation X topic. I also recently answered Educatedlady on Talk:Generation X (see the last edit). I have provided several sources from different countries supporting my claims (probably archived now). Your opinion is valuable and I will take any help I can get. Thank you. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I’m moving this to your talk page due to its “inside baseball” extremely detailed nature, and the fact that it will start to get confused with your discussion with lady. Your quotes are italicized and not indented.

I think the article should reflect accurate information and reflect common and widely used data, not give weight to minority views in the introduction - which is one reason why Elwood Carlson's book belongs only on the Generation Y page, and at the bottom of the terminology paragraph. I provided numerous (and a variety) sources proving 1982 being the most common start date for Generation Y/Millennials. I do not know why it is difficult to understand why 1981 is considered the last date used for Generation X.

I agree with you that the lead should reflect the relative importance of different ideas. We should not be including completely outlandish or discredited ideas. However, I don’t think it is outlandish to consider 1982/83 to be part of Gen X. We have provided dozens of sources on at least equal par with the 1981 sources. I at least have acknowledged that 81 is probably the single most quoted end date, but it is very hard for us to ‘’prove’’ that it is unquestionably an overwhelming choice. And your sources do not prove that it is the “most” common.

Also, Carlson’s book is not about X or Y. It is about the baby boom in particular, although it has a wider discussion of generations in general. Incidentally you seem to be inconsistent on this point. Why can we not use Carlson to discuss Gen X when we can use popular press articles about Millenials to define Gen X?

If you came of age in 2000 (age 18), then you are a Millennial, not a Generation Xer. If you were born in 1982, you are an Echo Boomer, not a Generation Xer. I have the Strauss and Howe books and they do not contradict themselves with the dates.

This isn’t an argument, it’s an assertion.

You obviously have not read any of their books and have just twisting quotes or giving partial quotes to suit your own purposes. Their books clearly state 1982 as the start of the Millennials/Generation Y, and 1981 as part of their date range for Generation X, 1961-1981.

Excuse me, but I have read their books. The Strauss and Howe theory is very “meta” and is not reliant on a matter of a few months or even years. The whole point is that there is a repeating cycle of generations that is NOT overly dependent on particular events. Strauss and Howe list 1961-1981 for simplicity's sake, but they generally acknowledge that generational boundaries are NOT hard and fast..

You have a personal grudge against Strauss and Howe, as you have clearly shown in your previous comments. The statements you and Peregrine981 have made, disagreeing with Strauss and Howe's research (the most prominent and respect generational researchers) are considered personal opinion, not fact, and against Wikipedia's policy.

I really don’t understand where you got the idea that I disagree with their research. I just think that there are valid viewpoints outside of theirs. BTW try to comment on the issues not posters.

You don't make a sound argument for 1982 being a part of Generation X - that claim contradicts the very definition of a Millennial and Echo Boomer.

What is the definitions of a millennial then? Part of the problem is that there is no coherent definition. What about being born in 1982 makes it impossible to be a Gen Xer?

I have cited page numbers from Millennials Rising on the Generation Y page and quotes from the book discussing the 1982 birth year and the Class of 2000. The book also mentions the start of the Echo Boom in 1982 and discusses the boom in births as coinciding with the birth of the new generation. I will quote some of the passages from this book below.

A quote about the first group of Millennials:

...the first five Millennial cohorts (babies born betwen 1982 and 1986) are trendsetters.

What does this prove other than the fact that they start in the year 1982?

You also fail to note that a couple of paragraphs down from the quote you provided on page 4, the following:

Look closely at the dramatic changes now unfolding in the attitudes and behaviors of today's youth, the 18-and-unders of the year 2000.

According to math, and the authors' own standards used throughout the book (which is also laid out in the chart on page 11 the showing 1961-1981 as Generation X and 1982 as the start of the Millennials), those born in 1982 were eighteen years old in 2000.

What is new about this? No one is disputing SnH dating.

There is also a box which shows a quote from Peter Jennings, and an abc.com poll from 12/19/1997 asking people to pick names for the new generation that can be found on page 6. "Millennials" and "Generation 2000" are on the list, clearly indicating that people associate the new generation (Class of 2000 and later) with the graduating Class of 2000.

So what does this prove? I have discussed this before as well. Just because they are called Millennials because the first year coincides roughly with coming of age in the year 2000 does not prove anything about the importance of the high school class of 2000 for the ‘’definition’’ of the generation. This has to do with the name, not the essential character of the generation. Also, interesting to note that wiki is still using Gen Y as the name for the generation. Do you think it is time to change the name?

Several pages later, on page 32:

The era of the worthy child had begun. Wanted. Protected. Worthy. Thus did the heralded Class of 2000 arrive in America's nurseries and cribs. Soon a much longer glossary of (mainly) positive adjectives would describe them. From conception to graduation, this 1982 cohort has marked a watershed in adult attitudes toward, treatment of, and expectations for children. Over that eighteen-year span, whatever age bracket those 1982-born children have inhabited has been the target of intense hope, worry, and wonder from parents, pollsters, pundits, and politicians. Not since the Progressive era, near the dawn of the twentieth century has America greeted the arrival of a new generation with such a dramatic rise in adult attention to the needs of children.

Again, the class of 2000 is used as an example here. Not as a defining feature. They’re talking about a general trend, not a specific defining feature. The point is that the kids are spoiled, not that the year 2000 has some sort of magical quality in and of itself.

I will need at least a few days, maybe a week to go through all the arguments. But, I want to address the issue of BusinessWeek. It does not matter that in a 1999 article cites the Millennials starting with a 1979 birth year. Others use 1976. So what? I was arguing that though various date ranges are used for Generation X (which is why all those sources must be included in the article), 1981 is the last acceptable birth year for the generation. Many sources dating back to the 1980s have used 1976 or 1982 start dates for the Millennials/Generation Y. How about the following article from BusinessWeek:

From the article, Today's CEOs: Then and Now: Here's a Look at How Some Corporate Leaders Got Their Start in Business, Plus Lessons They Learned Along the Way, written by John DeBruicker and published June 9, 2006:

Members of the millennial generation -- roughly 80 million men and women born between 1982 and 2000 -- began earning their degrees and entering the workforce in 2004, seeking entry-level positions but often nursing corner-office ambitions.

To be clear: "roughly 80 million" not "roughly 1982-2000". Those who graduated from university or college in 2003 were the Class of 1999. Those who graduated in 2004, were generally born in 1982 and graduated from high school in 2000. They entered the workforce in 2004.

OK, we might have to get into a philosophical point here. But I would say to address this:

Journalists are notorious generalists and working on tight deadlines, within tight word counts, and to a fairly generalized audience. They need to simplify things that they are writing about. This means that we always have to take things they write with a grain of salt. Before you jump all over me, I am NOT saying that press articles do not have value as sources for WP. Obviously they do, as long as they are balanced out by other sources. But in this case, we can’t just say, well, this journalist writing in a fairly popular businesss publication gives these precise dates and figures with no disclaimers, and therefore it must be so. I am simply saying that all sources have to be seen in context. It is one piece of evidence sure, but I don’t think this on its own proves anything. Please don’t say that I am not accepting your sources. I didn’t say it has no validity, simply that it has to be seen in a constellation of sources.

Defining the Class of 1999 and the Millennial Class (2000) is an important to identifying the generations. If it wasn't, sources wouldn't explain why 1981 is commonly the last year used for Generation X, or focus on the Class of 2000.

WHY? This is not self-evident to me. I have not seen that explanation in the articles.

The Generation Y page is clearly defined (in terms of it's members being Echo Boomers and Millennials). Most people know this, and I provided several sources, from different countries (see Talk:Generation_X/Archive_6 under Reasons for Consensus), many of whom do not use Strauss and Howe, citing 1982 as the beginning birth year for Millennials.

I have never accepted that definition, for the reasons I have mentioned above.

As mentioned on the Generation Y page, the media (years before the high school Class of 1999 graduated) made a big deal about the Class of 2000, including stories by Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, and Tom Brokaw (are they wrong, too?) who mentioned the Millennials entering college in 2000.

Look. Obviously media will make a big deal about this kind of thing. They need to fill up air time and pages. That does not mean that the graduation of the year 2000 is actually some sort of seminal moment in the history of the world. It is purely symbolic!!!! I’m sure they’ll make a big deal about he graduation class of 2100 as well. But it doesn’t mean it actually has any lasting cultural or demographic significance.

Peregrine first asked for evidence citing numerous source using 1982 for the start of the Millennials; I did that, and then he said it did not matter. Guess he did not think I would be able to back up my claims. Then he asked that I prove that the Class of 2000 was ever called the first of the Millennials. Besides Strauss and Howe's works, and news reports by the anchors mentioned above, these sources define the first Millennials:

Perhaps I am not explaining myself correctly. I asked for evidence that the class of 2000 is important to DEFINING either generation X or Y. I did not ask for evidence that it was the first class of the generation. That isn’t my point. My point is people may mention in passing that the first class of Y is 2000, or use it as an identifier for people to use to understand the idea, but that in no source you have cited is it cited as an important characteristic of Gen Y that their first cohort graduated in 2000. The fact that the article mentions the date is not relevant.

I am really not trying to be difficult here. I think it is an important distinction. I am trying to raise the calibre of these articles and part of that includes cutting these sorts of superfluous facts out of the arguments. I would hope that we can move to an article that doesn’t rely on clichés and superficial definitions to get to the real heart of serious empirical thinking on the topic.

The First Millennials: Class of 2000

As stated in the article , titled "Getting it Right: Graduate Schools Respond to the Millennial Challenge," from the journal Communicator: Council of Graduate Schools, Volume 40, issue 7, page 1, published August/September 2007:

The popular education press is alive with discussion of the millennial student: the cohort born between 1982 and 1994, the first of whom began college in 2000 and graduate school in fall of 2004..

Again, descriptive, but does not give areason why 2000 is somehow important to the definition.

From "Decoding the Digital Millennials: Large in Number, Huge in Influence". Litmus (Resource Interactive): pp. 1, published by John Kadlic in Kadlic, John November 2006:

Digital millennials were born between 1982 and 2000. We’ve called them “millennials” because the first wave graduated high school in 2000.

Has to do with the name (which wikipedia does not use).

From "Millennial Madness: Their Popularity & New Dimension to Diversity". DiversityBusiness.com, published by Lisa Orrell November 2008:

And most demographers agree this generation’s official “start date” is close to 1982 and ends around 2002...The first Millennial class officially said to graduate high school was the Class of 2000. And since the average college student now takes 5-7 years to graduate with a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree, this generation is just NOW starting to enter and impact professional work environments.

Again, purely descriptive. You have several sources here, which I will cut in the interestes of brevity, but all point to the same idea. They are using the class of 2000 as a convenient time marker to explain who the people are, not as a defining feature. Big difference.

After citing these source, you all changed your minds and decided the evidence wasn't good enough, saying the sources must cite the Class of 1999 as the last of Generation X. Who here cannot infer that when an article says the Class of 2000 is the first of the Millennials, then the last of Generation X is the Class of 1999? I mean, really? Strauss and Howe mention the Class of 1999 in their book Millennials Rising, but they are apparently not good sources. Again, really?

I am sorry that I have not been clear in my criticisms. I have not “changed my mind” I just haven’t seen anyone using it as a defining feature of Y any more than1962 defines the baby boom, or 1979 Generation X.

I did however, manage to find one citing both the Class of 1999 as the last of Generation X and the Class of 2000 as the first of the Millennials:

The "Freshmen, Sophomores Set To Make History" written by Alissa Lapinsky, and published by Orlando Sentinel (Tribune Company) August 9, 1996:

Ninth-graders arent the only ones that are graduating in a significant year. This year's sophomores will be the last graduating class of the twentieth century...the sophomores are the last of Generation X...So what will the Class of 1999 be doing to make sure that this year will be a good one?...Despite the novelty of being the 'last' and the 'first' classes, tradition will prevail when it comes to school privileges. Freshmen are still freshmen and will be treated as such.

Again, entirely descriptive. There is no qualitative or quantitive description of why the graduation class has anything to do with the definition.

I think that I have clearly addressed your points. I am waiting to hear from administrators and get assistance from other editors. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for the good faith effort, but you still haven’t addressed some of my direct questions.

• What is your position on keeping the origins sentence in the opening in light of my explanation of WP:LEAD above.
• What source are you relying on to reject the conclusions of Elwood Carlson.
• What is your answer to NPOV policy which states that we should fairly represent all credible points of view?
• What is your opinion of the quotes I provided that state that generations do not have hard and fast end and start dates at all? Strauss and Howe themselves are perfectly frank about this as well. This is really the heart of my argument over why we should not be so specific in our dating, but you haven’t really addressed it yet.

On another point, we are perhaps conflicting in our visions for the article. I think the article should provide solid reasoning of what generation X is. Why is defined as it is? What makes it different from other generations? I don’t think that purely descriptive factoids like “class of 2000” are really relevant to that kind of article.

Anyway, I’m glad that we have been able to have this productive discussion, even if it is getting to be kind of TLDR as our friendly neighbourhood administrator might say. I feel we are making progress here. Best, Peregrine981 (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

BTW, here's some more sources citing dates after 1981 as closings, that I've found quite quickly. I'm sure there's many more out there

[1]

To 1983 - management book - throwing sheep in the board room

[2]

to 1983 The Next Generation: Understanding and Meeting the Needs of Generation X  By Gary Zustiak

[3]

Career and calling: a guide for counselors, youth, and young adults  By Ginny Ward Holderness, Forrest C. Palmer

While not exactly paragons of academic credibility, I think that they can hold up quite easily compared to many of your sources. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will address your points here and try to sum it up on the the Generation X talk page.

Please allow several days, maybe a week, if necessary to cover everything. I have a lot going on regarding family, work, and projects, and my talk page needs to be archived. I am sure it is loading slowly. This will take some time. Again, I do not have a problem with the disclaimer stating there are no exact time frames, or that it is difficult pinning down an exact date range for generations. That is a given for all generations. My issue is with the minority view being given undue weight in the introduction (against Wikipedia policy). I never said I had a problem with Elwood Carlson's book because it was published in 2003. I said that most authors publishing after him use 1982 as the first birth year for Millennials. I disagree with the Elwood Carlson source because his book represents a minority view. I have not found one article by a major newspaper or prominent researcher citing his book. His view that Millennials came of age after September 11, 2001 is a minority (fringe) view. Most sources cite Millennials coming of age (at eighteen) in 2000 (not just the U.S., but Canada, Ireland, and Australia - sources I provided). But, keeping in line with Wikipedia policy, I left his reference on the Generation Y page (at the bottom of the other sources, again, because of it supporting a minority view), because the book pertains to Millennials. I even added the source back in when it was deleted. If I was trying to throw my weight around, I could have just left the source out.

I do not see the problem with Strauss and Howe. These authors are at the forefront of generational research and are highly respected (according to Judy Woodruff of PBS). Though you first claimed their Neil Howe still writes research papers and books, and is frequently consulted by media, radio, and other medium. You can't say the same about Elwood Carlson. There is obviously a reason for Strauss and Howe's works being so widely accepted. But they are not the only authors using 1982 as the starting birth year for Millennials. Two conferences devoted entirely to Millennials and Millennial research (one in the United States, and the other in Canada) cite 1982 as starting year. The authors of The Millennial Makeover (shortened title) have connections with the U.S. Government, and have recently spoken at Harvard University about Millennials. I have addressed both of these references in my list of sources. Educatedlady's own source (Jackson) states that though time frames are sketchy, most sources tend to use 1961 as the earliest date and 1981 as the latest date. He then goes on using 1961-1981 throughout his book. Even if we word the introduction the way it is now, it should also include this so the time frame isn't so vague, and it accurately reflect what is widely used by media/society. The other generation pages include common date ranges. Also, I did as you asked and provided sources supporting the Class of 2000 being labeled as the first of the Millennials. Then you said that was not good enough, so I found one source identifying the Class of 1999 as the last of Generation X (which really was unnecessary). I think you know that this is one of the reasons why 1981 is used as the last date for Generation X. Wikipedia does ask that the majority view be supported by numerous sources, which I have provided, and you and Educatelady have both acknowledged, but dismiss as irrelevant (majority of sources = reliability on Wikipedia, and majority view). There needs to be a Readers should have all the facts, which is also why I am in agreement about the disclaimer.

Can you please tell Educatedlady to stop posting on the talk page, at least in the sections where she is asking for a response. It's very difficult to respond to her (or you) when she keeps adding more information. I can barely read your comments because she posts immediately after you. The ALL CAPS does not help either. If we have to go line-by-line or source-by-source to solve this, or go through dispute resolution/ mediation, then that is what we will have to do. I am still going through her last response, and analyzing her sources. We just need to leave the page alone for now, and watch for anonymous users messing around with the dates or other sources (happens sporadically). Thank you. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can appreciate that it may take you some time to put together a proper reply, as it does me, so I will wait for that. But if I could ask you to address to points I have raised here rather than re-hashing old arguments I would be very grateful. I can see in this response you have already again jumped to the conclusion that I have a problem with Strauss and Howe, when I explicitly said that I don't in the above response. You also bring up the old Carlson/2003 debate. I have said it before, and I'll say it again - that was a joke! You were the one who brought up dates as a reason to exclude sources, and I sarcastically said that we should then exclude SnH. Sorry, it was a joke meant to underline the absurdity of the point. Let's move on. There are also plenty of recent authors using dates after 81 (see above). Anyway, I beg you to address the points raised above, and not old forgotten arguments. You also rehash the same arguments that I've taken pains to discuss above. Yes you provided sources, but that in and of itself is not good enough, if I don't agree that the sources support your point. I've gone into some detail why I think not, so please address those specific criticisms rather than simply saying they are in "the majority" or we'll keep going in circles. cheers, Peregrine981 (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I don't get the joke, but it's not a big deal. Already forgotten. Well you are responding to me here, so that will make it easier to read everything you wrote without mixing it with Educatedlady's comments. I don't want to rehash old arguments, but my claims follow Wikipedia policy regarding majority views vs minority ones. Again, I will go over each of your points, but I am also responding to Educatedlady as well. This will take days, but I will try to respond a little each day. I just hope she will stop posting before I've even had a chance to go over what she's written. It is not the weekend anymore, but the work week. And I'd like to point out the "red herring" you mentioned about the Real Millennium. Well, I was only trying to make a point with Educatedlady that society refers to the year 2000 as the New Millennium, regardless of any flaws in the Gregorian Calendar. Even the Naval Observatory. I know you weren't making these claims, but I felt the need to address it, seeing how silly her argument was. Will update when I can. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

What is your problem? My edits were almost entirely a matter of administrative clean up, bundling citations and making it clearer which citations refer to what. This wasn't even a content edit, except for the very minor wording issues that I changed regarding the dates of the boom, and removing the name of Generation iY. If you want to haggle about those fine, but don't just revert the considerable amount of work I did on the other stuff. Frankly it's just rude unless you state your reasons clearly. You're making it very hard and discouraging to make any progress on these articles if I can't even make clerical edits without getting into an edit war :( Peregrine981 (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

WAIT!

I thought I had made it clear that I am adding back the new edits (including yours) It's late at night, my computer is slow. I didn't think anyone would be on, so I'm fixing the page. It was easier to revert the edit and then add specific edits back in one at a time. I am also fixing a couple broken links. I am not removing your "organization." (which made the page easier to read). Can you come back to the page in 5 minutes? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK sorry. However, in future I would advise not reverting, then working on the page, but rather prepare your edits and then change the page, especially if it will take you some time to prepare, as it was not obvious to me what you were doing or why a reversion was necessary.

On a content note, this page refers to Gen Y globally, not just the US. Therefore I don't think the exact date range is appropriate in the lead. It could certainly go in a later section that delves into more detail. Thoughts? Peregrine981 (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, you make a good point. It's easier to manage when you want to make small edits, and when the previous edits do not involve formatting as yours did. Chalk it up to laziness late at night. You brought this up before, about generations names and how they are used around the world. Well, generally speaking, the generation names are mostly used in the United States. I would include Canada and Great Britain, as well as Ireland and Australia, as countries who tend to use such terminology more often. However, I also added a German source which mentions the Echo Boom period and the date range. The inclusion of the term has always been in the introduction because of the media's use when describing the size of the population. It does not take away from the description of Generation Y, which highlights the wide age range used. That is why the date range comes first in the paragraph. But, many people just read the first paragraph and skip other sections, so that is why it is there. The description of the Class of 2000 was supposed to be included there as well, but was deleted. It should probably remain in the terminology section, I don't know. Also, I know there are some broken links, but I have found a couple of them and will add them later.

Update: I'm about halfway through your questions and Educatedlady's (on the Generation X talk page). I had to print pages out to avoid copying and pasting on another page just to read everything. Hopefully, I'll have everything in a few days. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

SICK: I apologize for the delay. I have not forgotten to respond. We had important family things come up this week, which is why I have been so busy. I am also sick with a fever, but I will put up at least half of my responses late this evening (that is around 10 or 11 pm Central time here) before I go to bed. I have not been able to post my responses on the talk pages yet. I thought I would let you know first. I can get more up tomorrow morning. I was trying to go back and read your previous posts lost in the clutter. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Will add today thoughts on Elwood Carlson and Strauss and Howe books as well as recent news articles. I think one source is only available through a database, so I just have the source information, but I have managed to find another that is a pdf file. Are you able to read it, or should I look for a web link? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, no worries. Take your time and we'll discuss as we're able. Best, Peregrine981 (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, CreativeSoul7981. You have new messages at MC10's talk page.
Message added 05:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

—MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved to the appropriate Location: Generation X talkpage.  JoeGazz  ▲  22:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Please do not block or disallow users to participate in consensus discussions. You nor any other editor can do that, it is completely inappropriate. If you continue to do so, there will be bigger issues involved.  JoeGazz  ▲  21:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I never blocked anyone from posting on a talk page. There was a misunderstanding. I asked another editor to let another poster know that she was posting too quickly for me to respond to her. I never threatened her or anything. Where did this come from? I asked her to not make changes on her own without there being a mutual agreement. I am currently getting help for dispute resolution. I let her know of this misunderstanding on the discussion talk page. I am currently responding to two editors in separate discussions. The editor I am in discussion with on my talk page was the one who copied and pasted the discussion on my page. I had tried to respond to the other poster on the discussion talk page, but could not keep up with her posts. This person has been very hostile towards me, and two other editors have already pointed this out. Since, I was afraid that there would be more hostility from this person on the discussion page, I kindly asked the first editor to let the other person know. I was referring to the fact that this person needed to give me more time to respond without posting pages worth of comments that I did not have enough time to answer. I have been extremely ill, and was also dealing with a family illness during the past week or so, and I had been helping my mother pack for her trip overseas to take care of this family member.

Regarding the article page: I am in discussion over the issue. However, Educatedlady made her own edits after the recent consensus already established the wording "usually no later than 1981" as a compromise between parties. Last time I had checked, Educatedlady made her changes after the fact, and her edits and thus null and void. Why can make changes on her own? The wording of the introduction already establishes that there are no exact time frames, but I have proven that 1981 is more commonly used as the end date for Generation X. While 1982, or even 1983 is used by some sources, 1981 far outweighs the former two. I have provided the most well-established sources, numerous ones that come from a variety of countries and cover a variety of topics in relation to generations: technology, sociology, politics, religion, marketing, psychology, etc. The revert I made was back to the original wording established by the consensus before Educatelady made her changes again on her own, without approval. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Creative I am asking again what consensus? What approval? I do not need permission to edit anything here if you were operating a renegade consensus. There was NEVER a consensus that took place on the talk page recently, except the one I initiated that you try to discredit. If a consensus was done outside of the talk page then that goes against Wikipedia policy. 1982 is the latest I have seen for an end year of Gen X. I have provided quality valid sources as well. Many actually use 1982 as an end year of gen x AND a beginning year of the Echo Boomers as well. There is NOTHING wrong with using the early 1980s as a conclusion and to reference 1981 in the article as it is already done. I NEVER got the chance to agree to any consensus on the intro. Again you want this article to reflect YOUR point of view. If you want to write a research study on this using your point a view I encourage you to do so. Believe me I have no problem with 1982 being a beginning year for Echo Boomers, however research has been contridictory. ALL references to any years whether it be 1982 or 1981 in the intro need to be removed. Furthermore creative you were VERY hostile towards me back in August when I made the edit to that page. You immediately went on a personal rage telling lies about how people born in 1981 and 1982 have nothing in common. That had nothing to do with the page. I am sure people born in 1961 and 1981 have nothing in common either, but they are both part of the same generation for whatever reasons. You attacked me initially, and you became enraged because I defended myself, and valid research. I guess we just will continue to battle back and forth like the battle of Gettysberg until we compromise or one of us gives up. This is NOT a matter of what is popular but what is valid. Educatedlady (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I responded to you on the talk page. I am not talking about my consensus, but the one reached by you and others. I am not talking about the previous one. If I had things according to my point of view, as you claim, I would say that the earliest date is 1961, with many using 1965-1981 (which will probably be the case). It was also fine to identify this generation as usually ranges from 1961 at the earliest and 1981 at the latest.

The changes that were made included the phrase "usually no later than 1981", which was not inserted by me but by those in the consensus . You went in by yourself and changed this after everyone else had discussed this and the introduction was phrased to be fair to everyone. I never said remove "early 1980s" from the introduction, only that it is very vague wording. I have seen 1982 and even 1983 or 1984 used by few sources, but not by enough to warrant the phrase "usually no later than 1982". Most people would agree with me that the usual end dates for Generation X are the mid-late 1970s or 1981. 1982 is considered by most people to be part of the Millennials for all the reasons I have previously laid out. Even Peregrine981 agrees with me that most popular (meaning well-known media and journalists) use 1981 as the latest end date for Generation X. I think the phrasing was perfectly reasonable, and you can leave the Elwood Carlson source as a reference. The phrase "usually no later than 1981" does not negate the statement that "there are no exact time frames," but is is a TRUE reflection of how the terminology is used by current media. I am not sure why you are unable to acknowledge that fact. My sources come from a variety of countries, covering a variety of topics in relation to generations, and are considered more reliable and "popular". Not only that, but I have provided sources from the early and mid-1990s up to November 2010 showing how widely 1981 is used as an end date. I also previously included sources by universities, such as Emory, discussing the first Millennials going to college in 2000. The Class of 1999 was the last graduating class of the generation and the Class of 2000 was the New Generation (as reported by Peter Jennings and other reporters at the time - 1997). Those who graduated in 2000 were called the Millennials and were a distinct group from the previous graduating class. The article should reflect what is more widely reported by media. And we are not battling. At least I don't think so. In any case, Thanksgiving is coming up, and so are deadlines, so I will be responding to points made on this topic, but unfortunately they will be slowly forthcoming. I am still responding to Peregrine981, but I have my sources and some comments prepared. I am not ignoring anyone. I just thought I'd make that very clear. Sometimes I have 5 minutes to edit, other times I have an hour. It will be more like a few minutes here and there for at least a few days. I have some family obligations that cannot be delayed. Peace. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

At this point I need to tell you both to stop arguing, otherwise you both can get in trouble. I did not see consensus on the page, just discussion. If a user can find a source that is reliable and states the date specifically they are allowed to use it. Since there was no real established consensus. I am further removing myself from this discussion. Please do not argue.  JoeGazz  ▲  01:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think its a good idea to include both 1981 and 1982 in the Generation X article. I usually think of 1966-79 as Gen X, but its probably fair to use 1981 and 1982 for balance. 01:52 23 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.241.118 (talk)

Hello there, CreativeSoul7981. Since you are an experienced user, you may want to request for reviewer rights here. Cheers, —mc10 (u|t|c) 05:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

No problem. SOrry about the mix up with talk pages.... wasn't aware of WP discouraging private discussion in this case. Regarding 1981 vs. 1982 being "usual" that is going to be a hard point to deal with if Educatedlady insists. Tabulating which is "more common" will most likely be original research, unless we can find some kind of really credible study on the issue, which I highly doubt exists. It is my own anecdotal experience that 81 is "more" common, but couldn't say for sure. I think we should address the issue once you have posted all of your points. enjoy your holiday!Peregrine981 (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry you have not been feeling well Creative. I know that sucks especially during the holidays. I agree that many sources use 1981 as an end year. I am not disputing that at all. I am not disputing that Strauss and Howe are popular researchers. They are quite wrong with their research, but that is my personal opinion. You and I Creative have both inflicted out personal opinions in this issue far too much. I as a person born in 1982 feel that I relate more to Generation X and I am angry that these researchers are placing me with a generation who's spokesperson is Harry Potter and Pokeman which are two entities I have no connection to. However, again this is personal. You want to be the last of generation x for your own validation. Again that is your personal desire. I am an adult and I am willing to attempt to resolve this issue. However I know you from past experiences, you are not willing to let this go. You want 1981 in this article's intro. However, I am not suggesting to use 1982 as an end year in the intro. I did not originally change that it was another user. However after it was changed back, I made the edit so we could have a discussion on it. I don't think Wikipedia is discouraging private discussion, they just want a consensus to take place on the talk page. However what I am trying to get you to admit is that many sources also use 1982 as an end year as well. Many of the sources are more recent, which may be why it appears to not be widely used but I have found over 300 sources that use 1982 as an end year, and these sources are not unreliable. However in the article it already states that 1981 is the more commonly used year. Why do we have to state the same fact twice, in the intro AND in the article? One of these needs to be removed, don't you think? If we are not using 1960 or 1961 in the intro then why is there a need to use 1981 or 1982 in the intro? Are we debating a generation or just two years? Educatedlady (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello CreativeSoul7981. In fact the removal of the Macedonian girl pic was done twice by 2 different IPs: 79.129.197.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) & 79.129.231.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); who are probably the same person, both from Athens in Greece. I shall warn them both. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think we are moving things along and working on a compromise. However, I do feel that arbitration might be necessary. I just got home from Midnight Mass, so that is why I am awake. I probably won't be on here until after the holidays. Unfortunately, we have had to also deal with my aunt passing away recently. Editing off-and-on has been a fairly decent distraction, but the holidays are for spending time for family. Anyway, I wanted to draw your attention to the Generation Y Talk page under the William Strauss and Neil Howe discussion. I posted this to another editor who seems to give fairly good advice, but I would also like to get your input as well. If you can respond on my talk page regarding this issue (not general discussion on Generation Y), that would be great. I just don't know how to deal with Educatedlady. I have gone out of my to show some compromise with editing an article, but she just attacks me when I have not attacked her. I have already stated in seeking arbitration, so that is not the issue I want to ask you about. Looking at her last comment, do you think Educatedlady is out of line? I do not want to engage in senseless arguing. That is why I am seeking the opinion of two different editors. I would like to know if I wrote something inappropriate on the discussion page for her to respond the way she did. I only said that she kept referencing one book by William Strauss and Neil Howe, and not the countless books Howe has published since Millennials Rising was published in 2000. Would you read the comments on the Generation Y talk page, in the William Strauss and Neil Howe section? I wish you a Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, CreativeSoul7981. You have new messages at Ian.thomson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Merry Christmas to you as well. As for me, I am not completely sure what to advise. I think that both of you are being civil enough not to require any further action. My personal advice would simply be for both of you to try to focus only on the content of the article, rather than the general merits or de-merits of the sources, and what they do and don't "stand for" and so on. Just focus on the text of the article, and specific info from specific sources. Also, try not to relitigate the battles of the past, and move beyond any perceived slights from the past. I am also a bit busy with family business for the moment, so can't really get into the whole issue at the moment, including checking sources and so forth, but will try to do so sometime soon. Have a good holiday, and hope we can resolve all of this soon. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey! There is a case at the mediation cabal that is open naming you as a party - if the dispute is still ongoing, I would be glad to help out and try to mediate this matter. Is the dispute still ongoing and if so, are you open to the mediation process? Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I hope you had a Merry Christmas/Holiday and will have a great New Year. I am in a bit of a rush right now due to it being so close to New Years Eve, but I will get back to you as soon as I can. Did you happen to notice the questions I put forth when I submitted my case? I also started a discussion on the Andre Agassi talk page. I would like to know Wikipedia policy regarding my sources. I will wait for your reply on my talk page (or answer a talkback). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I hope you had a very Merry Christmas, and will have a great New Year! I am an editor of the Black hair article on Wikipedia. I noticed (talk) has already had several warnings and was also temporarily blocked from editing. However, he or she has yet again removed sourced content, this time from the Black hair page. Another editor has already reverted his or her edit. I am sure what warning is appropriate now; I didn't see a template for warning someone who has already been temporarily blocked. So, I reported the anonymous user on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Did I respond correctly on the user's page? If I used the wrong template, which one should I have used? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

See edit I can understand your concern, but the IP does not fit in several of the requirements in the big green box "Important! Your report must follow these four points:". Let me know if you have questions. Jeepday (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, If you look at the bottom of the page in edit format (above the Metadata) it notes the date format preferred (DMY). Many of the articles now detail which to use. MDY tends to be an Americanised format. I think the rest of the world uses DMY. There is more info at WP:DATE. Best wishes Span (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Peregrine981 and Educatedlady:

As I mentioned before on the Generation X and Generation Y talk pages, I am requesting mediation from other editors/administrators regarding the Generation X article introduction. I think a fair compromise to both sides would be to write, "usually no later than 1981, but sometimes as late as 1982," as I feel this is a more accurate statement. You both have acknowledged that more sources, and certainly more popular ones, cite 1981 as the end of Generation X, and 1982 as the start of Generation Y. I think it's confusing for people who come across the generation articles, because the Generation Y page clearly states that the Australian Census Bureau and Canada use 1982-2000. The last I checked with the U.S. Census Bureau, 1982 was also commonly used for the start of Generation Y, and indicated in their charts. I would be more satisfied with the wording I suggested instead of the way the introduction is currently worded because I think it's a more truthful statement based on the quality and amount of references I provided as evidence. I wanted to let you know that I am getting assistance regarding mediation on the matter. I am not in any hurry. I have a lot going on with family right now, but am willing to work on a compromise that is fair to everyone involved.

On another note: I noticed temporary protection has been requested again. It's good keeping an eye on these pages. In addition to date changes, I noticed a lot of blanking of referenced material, as well information added without any references whatsoever. What is your view on material added to the pop culture section (Generation Y page for example)? About a year and a half ago, someone added "manga" and "anime" to the pop culture section on the Generation Y page. The information was removed. I added it back, and also included the information on the Generation X page because the source discussed the rise in popularity of "manga" and "anime" during the years Generation Xers and Yers grew up. I can't remember the name of the source (which I did not originally provide), but it was some kind of newsletter or magazine. I acknowledged the source not being too reliable, so the information was once again removed from both generation pages. My question is: What kind of sources should we use to support pop culture references? I think we all know that Harry Potter books are very popular among this generation, but it is also popular among Generation Z as well? It's even popular among older adults (I haven't read the books myself, but I've seen the movies). It is understandable that music and certain movies can be identified with a particular generation, but what are your opinions regarding other pop culture, specifically something as "big" as Harry Potter and Twilight? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Creative. The U.S. Census Bureau and the Population Reference Bureau appear to be linked. I have a PDF file from the PRB dated March 2009 that cites the U.S. Census Bureau as Gen X being 1965-1982 and New Boomers being 1983-2001 (I think Elwood Carlson works with them). I have the doc saved to my computer, if you like for me to email it to you I can. What is the date of your source?

In regards to popular culture from Generation Y, I have come across a lot of Harry Potter references. However I know Harry Potter has to be popular with Gen Z too because I think those books were released in 1997 if I am mistaken (I didn't read them either). Of course generations tend to overlap which is probably why. I have a few sources that I need to dig up that site Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, N'Sync, Destiny's Child being linked to this generation as well. For the most part it appears that defining popular culture to this generation has been somewhat vague. Twilight is definitely popular with a lot of teens and adults too because some of my friends kids got me into it. I have been trying to find sources that cite this with Gen Y though. When I find the ones I saved (I have been doing a lot of my own research on Gen X and 1982, so everything is kinda running together) I will post them. Talk to you all soon. I hope everything is okay with your family. Educatedlady (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think that there is a problem with "usually no later than 1981, but sometimes as late as 1982." I am in favour of a more subtle "blending" end date structure, so I would prefer a slightly more open ended phrasing. This wording implies that no one from later than 1983 could ever be considered Gen X, despite this being a fairly malleable concept. I prefer our current wording.

As far as pop culture goes, I think that we should use the same standard as for other evidence. If you can find a reliable secondary source that discusses the fact that a given age cohort likes the item then it is sufficient evidence. We should be careful about making assumptions about who supports a given fad. For example, Harry Potter is fairly widely read across generational lines. It is not exculsively a gen Y phenomenon, nor was it universally popular across all of gen Y. We just have to be careful in how we word things. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peregrine. I like the current intro as well, but I said what the hey I was just finally glad to come to an agreement. I want to leave very little room open for debate with that intro because not only there will be editors born in 1982 who believe they are more part of the Millennial generation (and I have realized that many are confused with the fact that Millennials and Gen Y are the same), but then you have persons born in 1983 who feel more Generation X. And to top that you have persons born in the late 1960s/early 1970s who feel that persons born in the 1980s are not part of Gen X at all, even though references tend to stop at the early part of the decade.

In regards to the whole Harry Potter thing, most sources that reference it to generations tend to place it with Generation Y. Although of course I have seen persons in other generations enjoy the franchise (which is probably why it is so popular). Therefore while we can reference it to Gen Y I agree with you Peregrine that it needs to be worded in a fashion where it doesn't state or imply that "Harry Potter is Generation Y and Generation Y only". That has been my whole issue with Gen X. There are references to pop culture and events I clearly remember that is related to the Generation, but it is implied that no one before or after is able to have a connection to it. I will post my pop culture sources for Gen Y on its talk page soon. Educatedlady (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response. I have a U.S. Census Bureau chart as well (I have to find it) which cites 1965-1981 for Generation X and 1982-2000? for Generation Y. This was an official chart and not one only using population data (from the census) with the authors own dates. I think I would have to get permission from the Census Bureau if we were to use the image on Wikipedia per copyright rules. I don't see how the phrase "usually no later than 1981, but sometimes as late as 1982" can't be used. I think based on the evidence provided and the dates commonly used throughout the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., we can infer that "1981" is usually the end date for Generation X, with 1982 also sometimes being used. I don't know of any reliable source (newspaper, established/well-known sociologist/demographer, psychologist, etc.) that cites 1983 - arbitrary law firms, random websites, and blogs do not count. Most people associate the birth year 1982 with the start of the Millennials, but I concede that some reliable sources (though not many) include 1982 with Generation X. That is why I am more than willing to compromise and stand by including the date in the introduction. It doesn't come across as a definitive statement because it's already mentioned in the article that there are no exact time frames. We're not going by how people "feel," but by reliable and established sources. It is confusing to go on the Generation Y page and see 1982-2000 for Generation Y (Canada and Australia's Census) and then see the phrase "usually no later than 1982" in the introduction of the Generation X page. It is more truthful to use the wording that I proposed. I think people can see how in some cases 1982 could be considered borderline, but 1983 - no way. The thing is that despite similarities between those born in the beginning of a generation and those born at the end, there are still many differences between the two groups. That's with every generation, and not unusual. Technically, I guess, a generation is approximately ten years. Anyway, this is the compromise I am bringing up with other editors/administrators. I'm in no rush. If it turns out that administrators have a problem with my wording, well then, that is their prerogative. I will stand by an official decision.

I agree with you both regarding the Harry Potter books and franchise. I mentioned it because I noticed someone added the reference to the Generation Y page without a reference. I'm not sure if it's still there or not. I understand, Educatedlady, what you're saying about certain pop culture icons in relation to a specific generation. For instance, I listened to U2 since the late eighties or at least 1990 (from what I remember). People discover music at different times though. It's not unusual for a nine year-old kid not to listen to U2 regularly if they listen to Madonna or new wave instead. In any case, I was only thinking that maybe the purpose of the pop culture sections on the generation pages was to focus on the rising popularity of music styles, certain bands or singers. U2, Bon Jovi, Madonna, etc. can be a part of both generations, but Bon Jovi and Madonna had their greatest popularity in the eighties and early nineties. I agree with Peregrine981, that we should be careful with how we word this section. Maybe if we decide on a "focus," it might make the organization of these sections a little easier and not cluttered. What do you guys think?

Thanks for the concern about my family. We just seem to have several family members or very close friends pass away recently. It's definitely a lot to deal with on top of everything else. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand and can relate to your losses. I am very sorry about that, I know it is not easy. Take your time and don't rush yourself to get through it. If you need to take time away from here I will certainly understand.

I did find an article that states that the U.S. Census bureau does not specifically study generations so that may be inappropriate to post here anyhow. I agree about the pop culture section, we just need to find appropriate sources, which has been somewhat difficult for me. For example I saw a source that referenced "Barney" with Gen Y, but it wasn't reliable (a blog). I will continue searching however. Educatedlady (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I believe I only corrected a "ref" code that wasn't working in Generation Y, so I don't even know why I'm getting that warning/advice from you. (here's what I modified in the article anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Y&action=historysubmit&diff=409212875&oldid=409112011). --GetFresh (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wrote the following apology on the user's talk page: I am so sorry. I apologize for posting this message when you clearly did not remove sourced material. The message was meant for another user. Would you like to remove this entire conversation off your page? Again, I'm so sorry. Please accept my humble apologies. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem! See you around. --GetFresh (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problem with user. Regards, ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 06:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The user has removed the thread from the noticeboard. Regards, ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 07:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, since no one's warned you, a heads up - there's an WP:ANI report about you going on. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is exactly what I want to see: "I only came on here to respond to the accusations. I will not be engaging this user. I will leave the situation to the administrators."

If you read WP:BOOMERANG it refers to person A reporting person B for some perceived wrong, and upon investigation, person A is the one who ends up getting blocked.

I took a brief look through your contributions on the Generation Y article and I don't see any immediate issues.

I'd recommend you just ignore the other person. If they keep throwing accusations at ANI they'll end up blocked. It actually happens fairly routinely. Thanks! N419BH 22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've tidied up and archived the talkpage, and in doing so archived the Off topic thread. I took a look at the article, and noted that it was developing appropriately. My quick research matched what was being said in the article. There are good sources on GoogleBooks for future development. Good luck with the article. If you have any further problems, let me know. SilkTork *^YES! 15:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

About.com is owned by The New York Times and would thus be considered a reliable, verifiable source per WP:CITE. Second, this source references the information from another reliable source of information - a non-partisan Washington D.C. think tank/research organization. Finally, the existing sources don't even support the statement, so where do you get off saying that there are already enough "sources"? I have reverted your revert of my addition. Thank you, --Danteferno (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I added this to the Generation X Talk page: There are enough sources to support the various start and end dates in the introduction, which has been decided by a consensus. Also, the about.com website is not the problem. The recent source added only shows a list of generations and various time frames. It is only a guide and not an article about generations or Generation X, nor is it a research article written by a reputable demographer. I would ask that Peregrine981 weigh in on the discussion since he helped organize the sources. We already have plenty of sources. Please do not add any more without discussion with others involved in the consensus. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please note that I DID discuss it. I changed it because he did not respond. 60.224.2.240 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, No problem. Yeah, I keep an eye out, as it seems that 90% of edits, are just people inserting their own pet ideas without really checking into the background. Hope all is well, Peregrine981 (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please stop changing the introductory to "no later than 1981 or 1982." Such a statement makes little sense and will only confuse readers. Although it was agreed upon that 1981 and 1982 were both cited as common end dates, to suggest that they're "both" end dates reflects a lack of consensus and conclusion. The fact to the matter is that there's usually nothing cited later than 1982, therefore "no later than 1982" fits. "no later than 1981 or 1982" is like saying one should be clocked in to work no later than "7:59am or 8:00am" or that an Olympic runner finished at either "4mins 32 second or 4mins 33 seconds." Also, please respond to other user's messages on their talk pages rather than on your own talk page. --Danteferno (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think there is a recent book about how Gen X was the "peak divorce" generation, with a great many divorces. NYT recently ran a story along those lines, so that's probably why. I'm interested to see your new sources! Peregrine981 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, CreativeSoul7981. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply