Talk:List of generations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2007. The result of the discussion was No Consensus. |
[edit] Myspace Generation
I was listening to the Billy Joel song, we didn't start the fire (since there was a fire near where I live) and I noticed this song is related to the baby boomers era. So I started reading about generation and I think there is a general consensus on the baby boomers generation (46-64) and Generation X (70-82), So is it possible tha t the actual definition of the new generation might be under the widely and popular use of the Myspace generation? (82-92) and if not, why not? I hear all the time that this and that is for the "Myspace generation" (among those terms I have heard expressions such as: "Show for the myspace generation", "Created for the Myspace generation" and the like. If such a definition of Myspace generation is true,then maybe I could star writing an article on such a topic. Thanks Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Generation C
Generation C needs to be expanded as further research comes out.
[edit] Beat Generation
If I'm interpreting this right, most of the generations listed here are listed by date of birth (i.e. Gen X was born between 1970 and 1980 (the dates listed), but weren't referred to as Generation X until the 90s). With that in mind, shouldn't beat generation be moved to something like 1940-something? --24.141.70.171 06:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree. This table is very confusing, especially to anyone looking up "Baby Boom" only to find "Beat Generation" coming afterwards. Ghosts&empties 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
What does the article mean by "grew up with" ? At what age are we defined as a generation exactly? Being born at a time does not mean we are that generation does it?
Absolutely, the beat generation is a sub-set of the silent generation. Not particularly a whole generation - or even half of one. By all accounts they appear to be mostly a (small) group of artists. ANd as such i find that 3 of these time blocks need to be changed = the beat generation, and the two below it. Generation jones is a sub set of baby boomers for example.Cilstr 13:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I come closest to agreeing with Cilstr, but actually, I believe the beat generation was more of a subset of the G.I. Generation, or else straddled the GI and Silent generations, since the beats were mostly active in the late 1940s through the 1950s, and during that time were at least in their late teens/early 20s, if not 30s, which means they would have been born between the 1910s and the early 1930s. Including them as a subset of Generation Jones or even the Babyboomers is simply absurd. Shanoman 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I reacted too rashly; I think I now realize that there may in fact be at least two distinct definitions of "The Beat Generation": (1) the small group of professional writers/artists known as "The Beats", of various ages but prominent from the late 1940s through the 1950s; and (2) the sub-generation (or cusp?) of young people who were loosely influenced by these artists, those who were teenagers or very young adults during the 1950s/early 1960s, stereotyped as being "Beatniks". I believe Strauss and Howe meant the term in the second sense (sense (2)), and this would thus make them the cusp between the Silent Generation and the Boom generation. My mistake. Shanoman 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Consistency
This needs to be made consistent with the table that pages like Beat Generation shows. There are significant discrepencies between the two. --24.141.70.171 06:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Generations Table
I think certain aspects need to be modified, for instant The Greatest Generation is actually a sub-generation of the G.I. Generation and not vice versa... 87.80.126.226 17:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- What about the Transcendentalist Generation, and the Abolitionist Generation? do they fit in somewhere here? Also, do you think the "American Generations" table (found on Generation X etc.) ought to link here instead of Generations (book)? Dev1n 23:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
There are poop multiple systems in place and most of them don't agree to any adequate extent. We need a system that will take this into account rather than try to create a chart that contradicts none of them, which is an impossibility. I would also focus on 18-22 year generations instead of 10 year generations as that would at least reduce the magnitude of the confusion to untangle somehow. Personally, I would be all for using the Generations (book) system with 'Baby Bust' for 13th and 'Millenial' for 14th, but this would also have someone disagreeing with it as vehemently as I will probably disagree with anything else. Given the history of the 'Generation X' label I'm surprised to not see it strenched to include Millenials as well. The original 'Generation X' has also been called 'The Me Generation,' a label that doesn't appear to have been applied to anyone else, or has it also referred to the first half of the Baby Boom? Give up and number them numerically and list the overlapping and contradictory names for each number? Strangelv 18:24, 05 May 2006 (UTC)
The Economist magazine April 14th-20th notes: "In January 2006 the first of America's 77m baby-boomers turned 60." Suggesting the start of this generation is 1946, not 1943 as suggested by the chart of generations.
[edit] Generation X entry premature
Does anyone else think the Generation X entry is a bit premature? Even though we can presume those born between 2001 and 2025 will share a certain identity as a generation, citing Wars on terrorism and Globalization as notable occurrances is right out. Nobody knows what the future might hold, and extrapolating current events to up to more than half a century away (for those born in 2025) seems, to me, frankly ridiculous. Any objections if I remove "Notable occurrences" for Generation X?--Daniel Medina 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm assuming by "Generation X" you meant to say "Generation Z"? If so, I agree wholeheartedly. M. Frederick 06:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The Baby Boomers grew up as teenagers in the 60's - I was born in 1957 and like all my friends of same year do not consider myself a baby boomer! Baby Boomers stopped around 1955 or earlier still - using 1960 as the beginning of the X generation is totally wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.141.31 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I always though the baby boom started on VE day? not sure when it ends is Barack a baby boomer?
[edit] Baby boomer influences
In the chart identifying notable occurrences for Baby Boomers, the civil rights movement is mentioned. I think another importanat occurence would be the feminist movement, which made life dramatically different for female baby boomers than it was for the generations that preceded them.
[edit] Generation Xbox?
Um, I know Generation Y has a lot of names, but come on . . . Generation XBox? As a Generation Y'er, I'm kind of fed up with being named after electronic devices. I'm deleting it.
[edit] Consistency
The dates given here are inconsistent with the ones on the Gen X and Gen Y pages. Is there any chance you can tidy it up? I'm born in 1980. Am I lower Gen X as stated here or upper Gen Y as stated on the Gen X page? (I would say upper Gen Y, but that's just personal opinion).
It would be great to clear up birth ranges for each generation and would love to see if anyone has names for generations going back before teh lost generation - founding fathers post civil war whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnstony (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The End of Gen Y?
What specific date is fair truly to give to those born in the late 80's - late 90's [Like myself]. I disagree with the fact that they would be listed together as per they share few events in common with those born eariler. Also what in itself defines a Generation? Can it truly or fairly be classed so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.163.5.16 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] An advertising perspective, not an analytical one
This article presents mostly an advertising perspective for the current/recent generations and then flings it back through history to make some continuous history of generations that isn't demographically accurate. Many of the historic generations were not due to inventions or "pop culture" (which only emerged at the turn of the century, in any case) but wars and their demographic effects. The problems of telling a story about generations is why demographers and sociologists rarely use the word "generation" in favor of "cohort." This article should describe the attempts of advertisers to perceive and shape markets of age-related cohorts separate from such actual, popularly-identifiable generations as "The Greatest Generation" and "Baby Boomers" Pshopboy 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Why don't you write such a section and pop it in? Be bold. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Steve Jobs Generation
Anyone born between 1990-2004
Why? The release of Toy Story in the early ninties began the emmergence of Pixar which has almost replaced Disney(which owns the intellectual property and now the company of Pixar but has little creative input) as the source of childhood entertainment in the Ninties establishing a new monopoly on children's culture. When those who grew up with Pixar begin to turn to new media texts in the early 2000's they needed almost a new medium. What was this medium? Apple computers and Ipods. Apple computers now, as of 2007, is a strong competitor with Microsoft and has supported media on it's computer OS better and seems to own a monopoly on virtual media. With Apple and Pixar in tow the next and last proof for the Title the Steve Jobs Generation for the 1990-2004 generations is the acquistition of Pixar by Disney. This acquisition made Jobs the majority shareholder at Disney, which owns ABC, one of the biggest American networks.
Therefore because of his de facto control of children's culture through Pixar,his influence in the media via Disney's ABC and his control over the growing Computer giant Apple, Steve Jobs should be the defining feauture and thus the Title of our generation.
Don't get cocky, Steve. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattawa (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
Steve Jobs? who is Steve Jobs? JK, I know who he is, but most people born 1990-2004 don't. Apple has just recently become popular with the i-pod, and I am sure there is probably a journalist who has used the term i-pod generation. The idea that Jobs has a monopoly is ridiculous. You might as well call it the Redstone, Murdoch, Immelt, or Parsons generation. Of course maybe google or napster generation is more fitting a title. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] US Generations
I just removed a rather derogatory comment that made an very valid point. Shouldn't this page be titled "American Generations" or "US Generations"?
- Smedrick 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] requested move: List of generations → List of US generations
This should be renamed because all the generations are American based. 70.55.84.6 08:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe the preferred style is "U.S." or "United States" though I might go with "List of Generations in the United States" . FrozenPurpleCube 19:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Several of those listed for the US (or for America and Europe) are common to other countries, such as mine. This article should be developed to describe the geographical limits of these generations, as is already happening. Andrewa 03:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment a new article could be created for that. 70.55.84.224 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- It could, but why? There are already detailed articles on many of the generations, and ultimately I expect there will be on all of them, with this list as an overview. Is an intermediate level of detail necessary? And even if it is, and this article is split as a start to providing that, why should the current article be moved first? Wouldn't it be better to keep the article history attached to the most general article of the tree? No change of vote. Andrewa 09:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment a new article could be created for that. 70.55.84.224 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The concept of generations is worldwide with some overlaps between countries. It would be WAY more better to add info about other countries rather then to limit it to US only with a POV name change. 205.157.110.11 10:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 14:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] details
I removed some material from the Baby Boom section. Since there is a separate article, it should go there, A summary of one or two sentences is enough here. DGG (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possible Source
One source that could be used to validate this article is The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy by William Strauss and Neil Howe. It came out in 1997, and charts American generations. It begins in England with the Arthurian Generation (born 1433-1460) but generations take on a more American character as society changes from its English roots. I think this would be an excellent source, but it shouldn't be the ONLY source. If someone can come up with two or three additional sources then maybe this article can get organized. CClio333 04:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nothing more than Strauss and Howe Time to merge
Time to merge Silent generation page with List of generations . SG is nothing more than a hodgepodge of Strauss and Howe. It is a pointless list of people born at a given time, without any scientific backing, notability, or decent references. It could be fit into the LIST of Gens, if people feel so inclined. But the time has come to get rid of this thing.
The agreement--Summer 07--was to let the "silent generation" stand if it could have an existence apart from Strauss and Howe. It has not. Thus, it's time to merge it away. --Smilo Don (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Have done some research, sourcing and expansion. I haven't read Strauss/Howe, so I don't know how much the sources I used come from them, but it was very easy to find lots of stuff on these folks. I don't think it appropriate to write off these folks, many of whom are still around today.--Cbradshaw (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is one of the relatively few ones here that might stand. The time cover story is enough documentation for the term. Removing the lists nonsense is however a good idea. As they remian undocumented, I have simply just now removed them. The additional information you have been adding is names of people who have lived durgngthe S&H period in question. Since there is no reason to think this has any general significance outside of their fringe theory, and since silent generation is a much more general term that antedates S&H, the list is irrelevant, and I remove removed it entirely. Please do not re-add it without consensus on the talk page there. Yes, there is plenty of stuff on those folks, but except for fortuitous birth years, not necessarily anything much common about them. We have list of 19XX births already as articles here. and no need to do it by 20 year periods. DGG (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of Generations Table Placement
The table on the wiki page is appearing below the References section, despite being declared above it in the wiki markup. This is most distressing. h3h (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Generation Z
When we discuss about Generation Z, i.e., people who born after 1990's, certainly we will think that they are the "Internet Generation", because they are born on or after "the Internet" become mainstream technology.
Actually, in addition to Internet, I also want to mention that they are also "Genetically modified" Generation, since they are properly eat many GM food since they born (as GM technology become mainstream on 1990's). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.118.174 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Generation z watch too much hannah montanna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.229.87 (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
This article is completely bereft of reliable sources, and is likely full of original research and unproven theses. Additionally, posting an entire table based on Strauss and Howe is completely lopsided, as in the 20 years since the book was published there has been a great deal of research published that expands on their work and disproves it. This article needs sources that prove out both of those issues; leave the tags until that's resolved. • Freechild'sup? 13:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
