Jump to content

Talk:MTV Generation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.95.80.222 (talk) at 21:59, 22 January 2006 (→List of Bands). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Articles for deletion This article was previously considered for deletion.
An archived record of the discussion can be found here.

The article is not fully polished, however I hope that others might also contribute to this vital and notable term to define a geenration of youths who were born out of the early 80s.

1982-GENERATION Y

(This was taken from the discussion board on the Generation Y page, the author seems to be anon.) Piecraft 19:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up....Basically, people stuck in between are a lost group of people. Someone from 1968 can call me an Xer, but they don't know nothing about what I went through. People from 1996-8 and 1999-2005 still have yet to determine which generation they identify with. Right now, someone from 1996 is in 4th grade and 2004 is still learning how to speak. By the time they grow up, they won't remember anything that happened in the 00s or 10s except for Spongebob. But there is already a tradition in place where older people determine younger people's identity without considering their views. I don't understand the use of that oppressive tradition. Give them a chance to grow up and speak for themselves. No offense, I'm just saying. I guess publicly everyone can say 1978 is X (even though I don't identify with them) or XY or something else. I don't want to impose my identity on others younger than me or change the agreement on 1982 start date. But, in my heart, 1978 will never be X. Never ever let Gen X swallow up the 80s. They have to learn their generation ends mid 70s. Meanwhile, there is such a thing as an in-between generation. September 2005

Date Problem, Big One

"60 million people were born between 1979 and 1994 in the United States ... This generation is the first to grow up with computers at home, music downloads, instant messaging and cellular phones."

Now I don't know of anyone born prior to 1985 that grew up with music downloads, instant messaging, or cellular phones. Computers, sure, if you count the old 386s and 486s.

I was born in 1983 and am a very proud member of Generation X. I am neither a Millennial nor a part of this "Generation Y". If you assume 22-year generations and put the beginning of Generation X as far back as 1961, then the end of Generation X is still 1983. And read the Gen X article; I don't think anyone would seriousely consider Demi Moore, Jim Carrey, or Courtney Love members of Generation X except perhaps for themselves (as hangers-on to a more youthful generation, and to separate themselves from their fellow baby-boomers). Furthermore, culturally speaking, those born between 1980 and 1985 have far more in common with those born between 1975 and 1980 than they do with those born between 1985 and 1990. Those born in the early 80's grew up on AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Guns n' Roses, were not generally exposed to computers until their teens, and are very securely part of the "Gen X Culture", whereas those born post-1985 are very securely part of Generation Y, with their instant messengers, cell phones, and 3-digit-bit videogame systems.

Those born in the early 1980's don't tend to think or act anything like Generation Y, and although at the lower end of the spectrum, could not accurately be described as anything but Generation X. This seriousely needs to be corrected. --Corvun 07:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is the whole problem with these generation articles. Generations such as X and "Y" aren't really defined by exact dates or even an really properly shared characteristics. A kid born in 1988 might feel much more at home with AC/DC than N'sync, and somebody born in 1978 the reverse. Similarly a child born in a rich family in the late 70s could easily have had a computer, just as a child without much money today could easily not have a computer, let alone cell phones etc... These "cultural traits" are pretty fluffy, and are absolutely not common to an entire generation. Personally I think they describe a segment of society fairly well, but not a real generation. I suppose this is true of many described generations, but with X and Y, perhaps becasue they are so recent and we can therefore see their reality, seem particularly bad in this respect.
Peregrine981 13:01, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, I'd like to apologize for any emotional charge present in my statements. My reaction was not at all befitting a Wikipedian. However, I think with Generations X and Y, there needs to be some overlap, as with the Babyboomers and Generation X. Saying that one generation ends exactly one year and another begins the next seems a little unjustifiable to me. I think people born in the early sixties, compared to younger Gen Xers, could easily be classified as Babyboomers, just as people born in the early eighties often consider themselves members of Generation X.
Would there be any objection to having Generation X encompass, say, 1961 through 1986 (1961 being the earliest date ascribed to Gen X and 1987 being the latest possible date, assuming a 22-year generation and the year 1964 for the beginning of Gen X), and then having Generation Y encompass 1980 through 2002? There would only need to be a short paragraph on each page stating something to the effect that people born in the period of overlap may classify themselves as being part of either generation. I'd think this would be the most accurate reflection of how the generation are characterized and characterize themselves. After all, a cultural "generation" is nothing more than a social construct anyway, so the views of society as a whole should be just as valid as any "expert opinion".
Come to think of it, both the social definitions/perceptions and the "expert" definitions could be contrasted, and these generation pages could actually start to resemble something of encyclopedic entries rather than just run-of-the-mill articles.
Thoughts? --Corvun 01:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We should mention that there are many different ways of defining the generation, demographic, sociological, and popular. I like your idea of having overlapping years for the different generations, as this gives a more realistic view of the field. Giving specific dates is a bit of a trap as far as I'm concerned, there'll always be someone unhappy, but I guess we need to nail it down a bit. One of the big problems in defining the generation is that people born in the 1980s and 90s have parents of very different ages, giving them different perspectives on life. Their parents could be born anywhere from the early 40s to the 60s or early 70s.
Peregrine981 03:59, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Yankelovich Partners and Bruce Tulgan have done some excellent research on "cusp" groups; http://www.tweeners.org bill themselves as not Boomers and not Xers, those caught in the middle born 1960 - 1965.

I agree with Corvun's thoughts on the dates. I was born in January of '82, and it strikes me as ridiculous to think that if I were two weeks older I'd technically be part of a different generation by some guidelines. I, too, feel more of a cultural divide between myself and those who were born in the mid- to late-80s than between myself and those born in the late-70s. I did not have a computer in my house until halfway through high school, and didn't have internet access until a year later. No one I knew had cell phones until buying them sometime in college or even after, and about half of my friends grew up without cable tv. So it seems silly to me to be lumped into a generation that is majorly defined as "growing up" surrounded by advanced technology. I also remember a lot more social and cultural things of the 80s and 90s than my brothers who were born in 1984, 1986, and 1990. It seems that, at least with the past few generations, if you were born in the early years of an odd-numbered decade you are right in the "core" of that particular generation, but if you were born in the early years of an even-numbered decade, you tend to feel borderline and not fully part of either (early 50s= core Baby Boomers, early 60s = borderline Baby Boomer and X; early 70s = core X, early 80s = borderline X and Y; early 90s = core Y). I read somewhere a few years ago about a mini-generation labeled "Generation Jones" that described people born in the late-50s to early-60s who didn't feel like they belonged in either generation they were on the cusps of, so maybe there is something like that going on with the late-70s through early-80s people. I think somewhere I was reading characterized "Generation Y" as being separate from both Generation X and the Millenial Generation, although (of course) their dates on this "in between" generation varied from mid-70s through late-70s to late-70s through mid-80s to anywhere in between. I don't know if other people around my age feel that the time we were born is sort of a transitional period between one generation and the next, but that is how I've seen it. Narrowing it down to a specific year seems wrong, especially when you're born on one of the years on either side of the divide, whereas saying more general things such as "early 60s through early 80s" allows for a bit more leeway in either direction.

Februarystar27 23:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I agree as well. I was born in June of '82, and do not fully consider myself as part of Generation X or Y. I identify with most people between the lowest-high limit of Gen X ('77) to the highest-low limit of Gen Y ('85), but not so much outside this group. Fëaluinix 06:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the Y influences???

As I read this article, all of the influences you listed are a rip-off from Generation X. Plus, some people think GenY is more adept to technology. But, they're only good at using technology, and not creating. All of the technology listed on this article were created or fully-developed by GenX'er (do your research). Therefore, its GenX'ers who are more adept to using and creating these technologies. And, GenX'er's are not just observer, they're also contributors. I don't see much of a "so-called" Y influence in this article. This appears to be an article for disgruntled Y'ers who are deeply influenced by X'ers. Nice Beaver! 03:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did do my research, you simply misinterpreted everything and placed it out of context. Firstly I neevr stated that Baby Boomers were influenced by MTV, I said that like the MTV Generation they were influenced by the television of the time as was our generation. The similarities of Generation Y to the MTV Generation are mainly those which you'll already find in Generation Y i.e. a new music-video-pop culture thanks to the growth and development of gangsta-rap back into a manufactured version of hip-pop, not to mention grunge into inde-rock and other modified versions of the music to which Gen X'ers as well as Gen MTV'ers would refer to as nu-metal, nu-punk and nu-goth. You should do you own research, and understand that Gen X did not encompass the 80s at all but instead only influenced our generation through their interests of music, film, style etc... which would later be modified in the 90s with our own custom changes and then further developed with the influx of new styles imposed by Gen Y: i.e. the new goth and skater-punk styles that are now common-place. I also never stated that "And, GenX'er's are not just observer, they're also contributors" you merely presumed this on your own bizarre account. The MTV Generation is not a rip-off of Gen X, it is the aftermath of Gen X, the pre-emptive catalyst before Gen Y. Piecraft 04:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


How can Kurt Cobain be an important death relevant to Gen X? If he died during the time of Gen XY? Get your facts straight. Jim Morrison's death was an important factor to Gen X during the 70s - he was mourned by everyone, especially the so called Baby Boomers you seem to be confusing for the younger fans which were shock! Gen X'ers! Don't change the article if you haven't a clue what you're editing.

Repost of Early Y Partition from Gen X Talk Page

I posted this awhile back on the Gen X talk page, before the creation of the MTV Gen page. This is just the copied text of it, so excuse some of the redundencies. I just thought this might give some insight into some of the more academic justifications for a sociological sub-set straddling both Gen X and Gen Y.

The "Early Y" Partition

In the course of a lecture in one of my sociology classes, there was a section devoted to a distinctive and very small generational subdivision that falls between both X and Y. If we say, for the sake of argument, that Gen X ended in 1980, or MAYBE 1981, it has been noted that those born in the years 1982/3 and POSSIBLY 1984 exhibit certain societal and cultural traits, habits and preferences that-- while combining certain aspects of GEN X, and especially GEN Y-- render them unique in their own right. This generational partition has been occasionally referred to as the Early Y or Cold Y generation.

Reasons for this partition include attitudes about technology, societal norms and, in an indirect sort of way, areas like the global political order, etc. This generation was the very last to (assuming born in 1982 or 83) obtain cognizance or self-awareness before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. Therefore they were the last generational segment with any memory of life during the Cold War. They were also the last to have some ideas of what life was like when the modern information based society was in its transitional/formative years, rather than the current all-pervasive and totally integrated form it had taken by the early 90's. In other words, they were the final generation to be able to compare and contrast the late Cold War/Space Age society with the Post-Cold War/Information Age society using their own personal experiences and memories.

Consequently, one can see these characteristics manifest themselves in areas like the approach to contemporary technology. For the regular generation Y, modern information technology has always been "there", whereas Early Y grew up during the critical period of technological evolution in which the current bedrock technologies on which our info-based society relies were moved out of the technical/specialist realm and into the consumer applied realm, often when traits of each area were mixed and indistinct, giving Early Y a rather odd viewpoint that combines the outlook of the specialist/technical segment of the previous generation (but much more widely disseminated) with the integrationist outlook of the later Y generation.

In terms of political and societal outlook, there are also noticeable differences. Whereas Gen X has now largely has had time to fall into the standard orthodoxies of political participation (I mean that in a relativistic sense, not a judgmental/absolute sense, i.e. if you are on the far left in the U.S., a Trotskyite labor group could be considered an orthodox political outlet), and mainstream Gen Y has either done so also or (for a wide segment of it) remained apathetic or non-participatory. Early Y, on the other hand, has manifested tendencies towards a less common form of what has been termed "policy-centric pragmatism", which places a lower value, relatively speaking, on constructs like ideology or formalism. When what could be termed ideology does manifest itself, the Early Y's seem to have taken-on an unusual tendency to look to often imported belief or value systems that lie outside the scope of those normally brought into the U.S. from abroad.

Speaking in terms of societal mores and values, Early Y seems to be in limbo between the post-Sexual Revolution norms of Gen X and the emergent ones of Gen Y (which have been described by some commentators as simply the normalization or commoditization of those of Gen X). This includes an apparent embracing of the basic outlooks of Gen X, but a reluctance to carry to their logical extremes, as we see occurring now with Gen Y. In many areas, Early Y seems to embrace the more cynical worldview exhibited by X while rejecting some of what they view as crassness or immoderation. It has been remarked that in doing so, as Early Y matures they have begun to look several generations behind X in forming certain societal/sexual constructs.

In any event, this is me basically regurgitating the lecture presentation from class; some of the selected readings I've skimmed on the subject are much more complex. I would appreciate if someone could look further into this area and possibly make an edit on the Gen X article. Depending on the amount and nature of information on the subject, I'm considering forming a separate article entitled Early Y Theory. Any input is always appreciated.

This would be great if you edited this essay into the MTV Generation article as an area based upon the "Early Y Theory" which if anything truly denotes and contributes towards the overall analysis of the MTV or XY Generation. Piecraft 20:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated this article into the main article as Early Y Partition with a few changes to particular dates and spelling corrections. Tell me if you think this is alright.

Other Stuff

Possible additions, just a suggestion

  • could the musicians be put in columns that are next to each other, so one column is alternate rock, next rap, etc? Or put it in boxes, like you have at the top, and the boxes are also next to each other.
  • the rise of high security and metal detectors in schools during 90s
  • famous video games, like Medal of Honor, Warcraft, etc. I'm still trying to find sources, but do you know any other popular video games? Famous cartoons - dragon BallZ, other japanese cartoons, etc. One more TV show - X Files, please.
  • Also, a separate section for contemporary events we took part in , like the following........
  • the list of famous people born 77-85, like they have in gen X and Y pages.

While the demonstrators were fairly well organized, many of the organizers of the civil disobedience were young, in their teens and early twenties."

  • participation in the iraq war, the resulting unemployment, and protesting against the war as well

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2005/20051013_3041.html says there is a "high rate of unemployment among recently separated servicemembers, particularly ages 20 through 24, officials said." http://www.ivaw.net/index.php?id=13 shows the majority of the founders of a protesting group are around this age. Also, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0417-02.htm shows that the average age of people who died in the war were 27. This average is between 18 and 55, so there must have been more on the younger side who died to lower the average to 27.

  • I hope there is a study/article about current trends/issues of our generation, like employment, housing, etc. I'm still trying to find it. One issue is a lot of surveys about Gen Y are actually about those born in the early 80s, not the whole of Gen Y born 90s, so it overlaps with those born later 80s. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXS/is_3_81/ai_84148622 says that in 2002 "As the current unemployment rate hovers around 5.8 percent, a six-year high, unemployment among teenagers aged 16 to 19 has climbed to 16 percent; among workers 20 to 24, the figure is about 9.6 percent. They are cutting people with fewer skills, less experience, fewer established relationships, and less institutional memory." This group covers 78-86.
  • And this site went dead, but it is statistics about births by year. Maybe you could include information about population. When I saved it, I didn't save the website, but it said this site on the page <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51/nvsr51_12.pdf>) I could send you a pdf file if you want.

1977 3326632, 1978 3333279, 1979 3494398, 1980 3612258, 1981 3629238, 1982 3680537, 1983 3638933, 1984 3669141, 1985 3760561. The population of this generation is 32,144,977 (only for America). This is compared to Gen X (65-75) and Y (85-95) which definitely run over 40 million each depending on the beginning and ending dates. You can put them or not, it's ok, whatever you agree on. r430nb Dec 11, 2005

I will begin adminstering the first few changes, I think you're right some organisation for some of the listings are neccessary, however please feel free to add in to the article anything you feel requires to be stated - such as the above articles and description of how our generation participated in particular events and the surge in school violence across the U.S. etc... Thanks for the support and help. Piecraft 13:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I guess that a list of famous people born 1977-1985 could be compiled by copying info from Wiki articles corresponding to each year. How many names are needed? Approx 20-40?81.232.72.148 01:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I'll BRB in a few days to put those in as well as other stuff I have in mind. r430nb

I'm guessing between 10-20 famous people who are notable - hopefully in terms of their contribution to the generation i.e. filmmakers Harmony Korine and Larry Clark as well as actors or musicians who were influenced etc... Piecraft 11:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A list of famous celebs and stuff

I'm not sure which to really choose from - but I scanned over the majority of celebrity births on each year and picked the ones which seemed to be more widely known - tell me your thoughts...

1977

  • January 13 - Orlando Bloom, British actor
  • February 2 - Shakira, Colombian musician
  • April 14 - Sarah Michelle Gellar, American actress
  • May 26 - Misaki Ito, Japanese actress
  • July 1 - Liv Tyler, American actress
  • August 17 - Thierry Henry, French footballer
  • September 11 - Ludacris, American rapper
  • September 13 - Fiona Apple, American musician
  • November 3 - Aria Giovanni, American model and actress
  • November 10 - Brittany Murphy, American actress

1978

  • April 9 - Rachel Stevens, English singer
  • May 12 - Jason Biggs, American actor
  • May 21 - Briana Banks, German actress
  • June 10 - Shane West, American actor
  • August 19 - Callum Blue, English actor
  • August 23 - Kobe Bryant, American basketball player
  • August 27 - Mase, American rapper
  • October 14 - Usher Raymond, American musician
  • October 27 - Vanessa-Mae, Singaporean musician
  • November 9 - Sisqó, American actor and singer (Dru Hill)
  • November 10 - Eve, American rapper
  • December 2 - Nelly Furtado, Canadian-born singer and songwriter
  • December 18 - Katie Holmes, American actress

1979

  • January 16 - Aaliyah, American singer (d. 2001)
  • January 24 - Tatyana Ali, American actress
  • February 9 - Mena Suvari, American actress
  • February 21 - Jennifer Love Hewitt, American actress and singer
  • March 12 - Pete Doherty, English singer and guitarist (The Libertines and Babyshambles)
  • March 30 - Norah Jones, American musician
  • April 4 - Heath Ledger, Australian actor
  • April 10 - Sophie Ellis-Bextor, English singer
  • April 12 - Claire Danes, American actress
  • April 19 - Kate Hudson, American actress
  • May 25 - Jonny Wilkinson, English rugby player
  • December 15 - Adam Brody, American actor
  • Unknown - (Kris Kros) Chris "Mack Daddy" Kelly and Chris "Daddy

Mack" Smith, American singers

1980

  • January 8 - Rachel Nichols, American actress
  • February 12 - Christina Ricci, American actress
  • February 21 - Brendan Sexton III, American actor
  • March 21 - Ronaldinho, Brazilian football player
  • June 17 - Venus Williams, American tennis player
  • July 10 - Jessica Simpson, American singer
  • July 24 - Gauge, American actress
  • August 16 - Vanessa Carlton, American singer
  • August 26 - Macaulay Culkin, American actor
  • October 13 - Ashanti, American musician
  • December 18 - Christina Aguilera, American singer
  • December 19 - Jake Gyllenhaal, American actor
  • December 30 - Eliza Dushku, American actres
  • October 24 - Monica Arnold, American singer

1981

  • January 22 - Beverley Mitchell, American actress
  • January 25 - Alicia Keys, American musician
  • January 28 - Elijah Wood, American actor
  • January 31 - Justin Timberlake, American musician
  • February 11 - Kelly Rowland, American singer (Destiny's Child)
  • February 17 - Paris Hilton, American actress and heiress
  • March 28 - Julia Stiles, American actress
  • April 19 - Hayden Christensen, Canadian actor
  • April 28 - Jessica Alba, American actress
  • May 5 - Craig David, British singer
  • June 7 - Anna Sergeyevna Kournikova, Russian tennis player
  • June 9 - Natalie Portman, Israeli-born actress
  • September 21 - Nicole Richie, American actress
  • September 26 - Christina Milian, Afro-Cuban singer, songwriter and musician
  • September 26 - Serena Williams, American tennis player
  • October 30 - Ivanka Trump, American model
  • November 26 - Aurora Snow, American actress
  • December 21 - Britney Spears, American singer
  • December 28 - Sienna Miller, American-born actress

1982

  • March 3 - Jessica Biel, American actress
  • March 11 - Thora Birch, American actress
  • April 24- Kelly Clarkson, American singer
  • April 30 - Kirsten Dunst, American actress
  • June 21 - Prince William of Wales
  • July 25 - Brad Renfro, American actor
  • September 22 - Billie Piper, English singer and actress
  • September 30 - Lacey Chabert, American actress
  • November 2 - Kyoko Fukada,Japanese actress, model and singer
  • November 10 - Heather Matarazzo, American actress

1983

  • January 2 - Kate Bosworth, American actress
  • May 30 - Jennifer Ellison, British actress
  • July 2 - Michelle Branch, American singer
  • August 14 - Mila Kunis, Ukrainian actress
  • October 5 - Nicky Hilton, American model and socialite

1984

  • January 5 - Tiffany Teen
  • April 10 - Mandy Moore, American singer and actress
  • September 15 - Prince Harry of Wales
  • September 27 - Avril Lavigne, Canadian singer and songwriter
  • October 3 - Ashlee Simpson, American singer and actress
  • October 27 - Kelly Osbourne, English singer
  • November 22 - Scarlett Johansson, American actress

I think this list would give others (not from the MTV generation) an idea on who came from the MTV Generation, rather than whether they were important to us or not. Because after all, we tend to look up to Gen X and Jones rather than our peers. So, it looks fine. Good job! r430nb 12/18

POV/unreferenced.

There are a lot of subjective statements made, and selective lists which reflect editor opinion. Phrases like "The launch of MTV in its early period before it's mid-1990s makeover for predominantly pop music, rhythm and blues, hip hop culture and reality television." The whole article really needs to be verified and referenced. --FuriousFreddy 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand the angst people have against this article, it's almost as though some are trying to keep the reality of the truth about such a generation hidden and buried under the bureaucracy of Time and sociological hooplah! For goodness sake's, I agree perhaps there are some NPOV issues, but why not try to help instead? The sentence you have described is hardly POV, if anything the "makeover" towards a channel that shows predominantly, pop music, rnb and hip hop as well as relaity shows is even echoed in the Generation Y article relating to the music and TV of Gen Y. Why not research and see for yourself. This is not some witch hunt where people like us are attempting to demonize Gen Y'ers, but stating the obvious - they're music and TV is comparatively different from ours. MTV when I was a kid and growing up was not predominantly chart top 40 pop or hip hop or hip pop or whatever they call it nowadays. Other than presenting that sentence yes, maybe there are a few opinionated aspects to the article but pointing them out or modifying them would be much more appreciated instead of slapping a tag and stating that this is article is entirely POV and unreferenced. Please direct me to a verifiable and notable reference for Generation Y. I have already illustrated how the term MTV Generation has often been used around the world, especially in the media in the Gen X talk page. Piecraft 23:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs don't make a right. I didn't ready any Generation X article; I read this one. If you want me to go tag that article as well, fine. But it is not my responsibility to clean this article up, because I have little to no information to add to it, and I'm already busy with other articles. The sentence I referenced shows bias against pop, R&B, and hip-hop, because it implies that MTV's later heavy devotion towards those genres is a bad thing. Therefore, it, and the other instances of POV need ot be fixed. Who says the artists listed are the most important to the MTV generation? Why are they important? As it stands now, this article is just a list of "things we Wikipedia editors liked as kids" and nothing else. Wikipedia articles should read like professional encyclopedia articles, and the numerous opinions and biases presented here need to be cited (Wikipedia:Cite your sources) or removed.--FuriousFreddy 07:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This whole article is an illusion. The term "MTV Generation" may have been thrown around a bit back in the '90s, but it was simply one of those ways that older people at the time lamented kids who were watching garbage. There is no way that it could be claimed that the stereotypes, labels and personal tastes noted in this article could be fixed on such a broad age-related demogramphic, even if all these facets of their personal images were dictated to them from the same source(s). Plus, all too often this article just becomes an excuse for a list of all the things which seem to be relevant. Can any references be cited. If they can, do they come from outside the internet? If not, do they just come from personal online write-ups? Finally, what the fuck kind of good can come from an article which tells you what a load of overpriveliged teenagers watched and listened to at some point in recent history? Too much of this sort of thing is clogging up Wikipedia, in my opinion. Surely it merely makes sense to devote our energies to the historical events of this time period, or failing that, the TV shows, bands and such mentioned in this article? Aaron Jethro 03:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furious Freddy - wait, it needs more time. Aaron, I agree, sorry for taking up space. Thanks to Wikipedia for giving space. So, what I'm talking about is not so much about having space on Wikipedia, but an encyclopedic reference to MTV Generation.....It has to be general over a wide demographic because if it were any more detailed(location, race, yr of birth, etc), then it really would clog up everything. This generalization happens to be more "factual" than articles on Gen X or Y. Keep in mind that X started 15 years ago and Y 5 years ago, and stuck in everyone's mind before they had a chance to question whether it was valid or not. So, even though those terms are part of our everyday language and deserve to be in an encyclopedia, they are also illusions as well. Nobody disputes them because they are already accepted, but your same questions can be applied to them as well. It has nothing to do with facts. Look at those other pages on Gen X or Y, see what I mean. Where are the facts? But don't remove them either because they are partially true, too. An encyclopedia is meant to educate people on what actually happened. This is what reasonable people saw during that time and they moved on, grew up, and it's part of who they are. WTF does it help? It teaches people that there are limits to generalizing. We can generalize and be similar, but after the limit, we need to acknowledge the differences because if we act like something we are not, we are lying to ourselves. Neither Gen X nor Y would care about those things specific to us, so why should they describe us? Don't you notice that those definitions are more biased towards people born in core years 1970 or 1990 implying their existence is more superior, when in fact, we are just as legitimate as they are. Or did you mean who cares? Things shouldn't be rated on how much people care. It's part of history and just as legitimate as any other point in time. IF our grandsons don't care, that's their mistake, their undoing, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be recorded. That's our responsibility (like our ancestors) to tell younger people what happened in the past whether they like it or not. It's their heritage, it's the truth. We aren't going to be here forever for them to ask. After all, it's not as unreasonable as a day to day account in the life of all 32,000,000 MTVers or characteristics of each year. r430nb 12/16

Good grief, I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to reference and highlight important events and terms that are notable? Why is it that there are so many people attempting to shut anything outside of what they consider to be verifiable. You lot above do realise that notability is not purely on the Net right? The MTV Generation alobeit has been defined differently, but the fact that this generation gap does exist is notable and a fact. You said it yourselves, and I quote: The term "MTV Generation" may have been thrown around a bit back in the '90s, but it was simply one of those ways that older people at the time lamented kids who were watching garbage. Aaron Jethro Well regardless of the context to which you seem to believe it was employed, that fact that this term was used and referenced individuals of a particular time period is notable in itself as you have so clearly pointed out yourself. I'm am really getting tired of wikipedians who feel it is their destiny to delete relevant article to which they have no prior knowledge or understanding of simply because they feel it's the right thing to do or perhaps out of a self-loathing hatred of anything that seems different to what they know and understand (however small that world is). There are many more articles on Wikipedia that need heavy editing and work and probably deleting other than this. And please spare me the indignity of I don't know about any other article, but I came across this one so... blah blah blah! Give me a break, you came across this one on your own petty whim, and with that whim you also believed it was unreferenced and bogus, well guess what Einstein check your facts. Because if you haven't looked already Generation Y is unreferenced, unless you call linking the article to several websites discussing the term, however the term is not defined as of yet because sociologists and scholars are still unsure as to which years to place it in. And let's not even get started on the Generation X article either. It makes me laugh to think that so many wikipedians treasure themselves so highly to think they are the all singing, all dancing, glorified kings of knowledge. Ever read an encyclopedia before? Hold on, on second thought have you ever been exposed to urban or youth terminology? Probably not. No wonder so many decent editors have left this encyclopedia-project, out of frusteration with individuals who seem to think their ideas and thoughts have more priority than the general consensus of what this project set out to do in the very first place - to document and record important and notable data that is relevant to the further development of knowledge. Piecraft 16:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But still, you recognise the problem you have just proposed, late X'ers or early Y'ers are not accepted by Gen X'ers or Gen Y'ers as their peers. There is comparatively a difference in mentality, attitude, upbringing and events occuring to individuals throughout. We are simply the Generation Jones of the 80s. Why is it plasuible for there to exist a Lost Generation, a Second Lost Generation (i.e. Generation Jones) but not a Third? After all is it not so that Generation Jones was named after a group of writers? I believe if it is taken into consideration as a standing and notable generation than Generation XY or MTV Gen regardless what you call it should be taken into consideration as well. Basically, you dealt it therefore you got to take it. If you're saying World War 2 was caused by the Germans then you're not accepting the fatc that it takes two people of differing opinions to start a war. In other words what I'm saying is it's all very well debating this and stating Gen X = 60s-70s and Gen Y = 80s-90s but who has the authority to decide especially in terms of Gen Y or Millennials (which is a term I do not associate with nor one I like) that those born in the limbo of the late wave of X and early wave of Y i.e. mid 70s up to mid 80s are not within their own element altogether? I know most would consider themselves Gen X, but it is clear that there are differences, just as I believed to have been part of X only now realising I am thrown in with Y. So it's all a matter of years? SOmeone born in 82 is X but someone in 83 all of a sudden is Y? Sure this is all relative you could say - depending on how you feel you are part of whichever geenration you feel true to. But most people who partook in a generation's core would argue against that n'est pas? Therefore there needs to be some form of clarification, and not some out of the magician's hat vague theory that is based around sketchy dates.

We are corresponding a generation according to demographics, birth rates, social changes, socio-political changes in society, cultural manifestations and the overall atmosphere of an era (including how it was reflected upon those people brought up surrounded by it). If we agree on this, then we must also come to terms with the fact that MTV Gen is a reality as has been pointed out by others unlike myself who support it's validity and existence, albeit perhaps it was unamed or they never coined a definitive term. However I have illustrated terms which have often been employed to define us, i.e. Doom and Gloom Gen, MTV Gen, Cold Y (relatively new one), Gen XY (proposed term), New Gen X, No Gen etc... these terms have been used throughout the popular media to describe kids and teens growing up throughout the late 80s and up until the mid-90s until as I have stated the term Gen Y had been coined to describe individuals of partaking in the new-found Information Age as well as the onslaught of the Digital Revolution which didn't start truly until towards the end of the 90s. If Gen Y sums up everything as being an individual who was born into a immersed culture surrounded by technology (especially that of a digital kind) then Houston we clearly have a discrepancy or two here. Either the Gen Y needs heavy editing or to be re-considered altogether, or we need to realise that our generation (the MTV Gen) are valid to be justified as a counterpart to Gen X and the influencial firestarter to the Gen Y. Because as of now I still see no evidence or enough facts to prove otherwise.

P.S. Also I would like to note, see what other articles link to the MTV Generation page and you will see this term does in fact exist and is used, although perhaps not as regularly as Gen X or Y. Piecraft 02:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generation of Thugs

Generation of Thugs I think this page is good because it talks about what the MTV Generation is interested in, much like other Generational pages. But then I did research on crime statistics, which nobody is really interested in. On the one hand this information is not important to the MTV Generation because I don't think it really influenced us. So, it could be argued that it doesn't really prove our identity, but it does differentiate us from other generations. This is all sort of went on behind our back.

The following is a portrayal of those born 1977-85 through statistics and estimates in crime. These surveys may not be accurate. For the sake of portraying people the same age group, these figures have ignored important demographics such as location, sex, and race. However, there are large differences between these demographic groups. While it may seem like these figures are high compared to previous decades, they only represent a small percentage of the total population of people born 1977-1985. Some rates may not correspond to actual population, but to another factor, such as number of arrests. So, contrary to popular belief, not all of us are criminals, drug users, murderers, etc.

STREET CRIME 1988-1994 The early nineties were a dangerous period. The Late 1980s recession was in effect. Throughout the world, crime rates rose. In America, a crime bomb exploded in 1988. http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjbulletin/9812_2/few.html http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjbulletin/9812_2/arrest.html http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjbulletin/9812_2/minorities.html During this period, late Xers born mid 70s were entering adolescence. Naturally, criminologists would have predicted that this group of people would not be a threat until later on when they reached mid teens (15-17). However, crime statistics on numbers of arrests showed that adolescents were being pulled in to crime rings and being arrested in record numbers. The arrests adolescents increased year by year. Criminologists were baffled. Then, in 1992, the 1992 Los Angeles riots occurred. In 1992, people under 18 (born after 1976) accounted for 13% of all violent crimes reported and 18% of all violent crime arrests. They were responsible for: 9 percent of murders; 12 percent of aggravated assaults; 14 percent of forcible rapes; 16 percent of robberies; 20 percent of burglaries; 23 percent of larceny-thefts; 24 percent of motor vehicle thefts; and 42 percent of arsons. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/1996/l-juvnil.htm The arrests increased until finally, in 1994, it reached it's highest peak with those adolescents born 1977-1982. This was a cause for concern. Criminologists rushed to find an explanation of adolescent participation. Some suggested neglect. Follow-up studies of children who had cases of substantiated abuse or neglect found that 26 percent of the children were later arrested as minors. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/1997/juvnl.htm Others pointed to an epidemic of crack cocaine that fueled urban violence, as well as high unemployment and declining economic prospects for low-skilled workers, especially among minority groups. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10120 But the increase in adolescent arrests was a new issue, which couldn't be explained by old causes. Jeremy Travis, Director of the National Institute of Justice, vividly recalls, feeling confident about watching crime rates fall in the 80s. But then "rock" appeared on the West Coast -- a form of smokeable cocaine. Prof. Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University has a hypothesis called the "diffusion hypothesis:" that as new crack entrepreneurs were setting up business, taking over turf previously dominated by others, they recruited young people as sellers and middle managers, then these low level dealers needed guns to defend themselves, and the guns, once in the hands of impulsive adolescents, quickly "diffused" into the youth culture so that garden variety adolescent squabbles over girlfriends and valued clothing got settled by gunfire. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/speeches/youth1.htm Another cause was influence of peers or membership in a group. Young people who join gangs are four to six times more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they are gang members than when they are not. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/speeches/youth1.htm Modern gangs became a public concern in the 60s because of the increases in violence, but the issue itself was largely ignored by government officials. They chose instead to focus on juvenile delinquency and other issues. Gangs must not have been big enough back then, but the 90s was a different story. As 1990 came around, the youth gang population grew like never before and was the subject of daily news and community meetings everywhere. However, the gang population continued to grow throughout the early 90s. The issue was so great that government officials couldn't ignore it any longer. They set up separate agencies and research projects specifically on gangs. The increase in gangs somewhat increased along with the rise in arrest rates. http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/ojjdprpt_yth_gng_prob_2001/chap1.html http://www.nagia.org/NGTASection_II.htm http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/ojjdprpt_yth_gng_prob_2001/contents.html Gangs of the 90s are also shown in the HBO documentary “Gang Wars: Banging in Little Rock" (1994) and books such as East Side Stories: Gang Life in East LA (1998). For 1993, the conservative estimate of nationwide gang-crime activity, based on law enforcement reports, is 8,625 gangs, 378,807 gang members, and 437,066 gang-related crimes. This was an increase from 1991 estimates. http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/000293.html

On the hand, many people under 18 were also being victimized by their peers. Between 1987 and 1991, the risk that a person between the ages of 12 and 17 (Born 1974-1979) would become a victim of a crime increased 17%. Most of their victims are friends or acquaintances (53%), strangers (32%), and family members (15%). http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/1996/l-juvnil.htm After 1988, the yearly number of people under 18 being murdered rose above 1000. http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ezashr/asp/profile.asp By 1994, 25% of all crimes had victims under 18 (Born 1977-1983). 60% of victims between the ages of 12 and 19 (1975-1983) were attacked by someone between the ages of 12 and 20 (83% with weapons and 27% being seriously injured). In addition, four times as many minors were killed with a gun in 1994 than in 1984. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/1997/juvnl.htm

As a result of the crime wave of 1994, the public was now definitely scared of youth. But the number of juveniles arrested was hardly anything in comparison with the adult population. On a single day in 1988, a survey found that 1676 juveniles were in jail in contrast to 341893 adults. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpop93bk.pdf Likewise, in a single day in 1995, there 7800 juveniles and 499300 adults. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cpusst.htm (This was not the actual juvenile prison population because prison is not the same as jail.) The media even predicted a new cohort of “super-predators” based on what had happened between 1988-1994. "Conservative academics such as James Q. Wilson and John DiIulio and a small band of mainstream criminologists such as Alfred Blumstein and James Fox forecasted societal disaster. Wilson predicted “30,000 more young muggers, killers, and thieves”; DiIulio in 1990 foresaw another 270,000 violent juveniles by 2010. He warned of a “crime bomb” created by a generation of “fatherless, godless, and jobless [juvenile] super-predators.” The media hyped the story, and many elected officials exploited it. The citizenry was told about a generation of babies, born to “crack-addicted” mothers, who would possess permanent neurological damage, including the inability to feel empathy. The scientific evidence supporting this claim was nonexistent. More than 40 states made it easier to transfer children to adult criminal courts." http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10120 As a result, early Y criminals had a tougher time in court than Late Xers. In 1998, juveniles (1981-6) were more 3 times more likely than adults to be charged with a violent felony. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/jfdcc98.htm "Educators enacted “zero-tolerance” policies to make it easier to expel youngsters from school, and numerous communities adopted youth curfews. Many jurisdictions turned to metal detectors in public schools, random locker searches, drug tests for athletes, and mandatory school uniforms. The panic was bipartisan. Every crime bill debated by Congress during the Clinton administration included new federal laws against juvenile crime. Paradoxically, as Attorney General Janet Reno advocated for wider and stronger social safety nets for vulnerable families, President Bill Clinton joined congressional leaders demanding tougher treatment of juvenile felons, including more incarceration in both the adult and youth correctional systems." They also used youth correctional boot camps or “scared straight” programs that use prison visits to try to frighten youngsters away from criminal lives. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10120 http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/usermanuals/subabuse/subabusep.cfm

So, what do I think this all has to do with the MTV generation? As a result, we have been criminalized by society and each other. So, that suspicion will always be there, no matter what. Since we had lived through a tough time at a young age, we are more cautious of each other (for fear of our safety) and society (for fear of being labeled a criminal) than Generation Y. Generation Y is a generation surrounded by safety, harmony, and peace, whereas ours was prevaded by violence and hatred. They love each other and trust society. We hate each other and society. Gen Y doesn't trust us either. The difference between Generation X is that the hatred we emboddy is not so much caused by the same factors they grew up with. We grew up with violence and hatred caused by some societal unjustice, so hate, destruction, and violence go hand in hand. I'm not sure where Generation X gets their hatred from, but the injustices they saw weren't accompanied by violence when they were adolescents. So they use their hatred in constructive ways. (This is disbatable).
This is actually really interesting, and I find it also makes a lot of sense seeing as this was a time when Gangsta Rap was popular.
I didn't mean to mislead you. The last paragraph was POV, I don't know if it is true. Be careful, those were just statistics that could have been true or false. Many claim that the statistics seemed significant in comparison to the 1950s when crimes were almost nothing. But in my experience, the early 90s was a really bad time and people really were being killed every day and beaten up. I just figured that was the way life was when one grew up to be a teenager, but statistically, ours was way more violent then the rest. So, true or false, statistics definitely made the public think we were either a bunch of criminals or roughed up victims. In my POV, age makes a difference. (I theorize that) Since Generation X (65-75) was already mature enough to know what was going on, they could see it more objectively and more in a detached way. To them, it was probably just another economic recession that would come and go. They also weren't surprised by all the violence since it was the result of decades of pent up anger. In contrast, the MTV generation were only adolescents and it had a greater affect on them so that they took it personally. They didn't understand what was going on or why, and were likely to misinterpret the causes what was happening. If people did explain it to them, they didn't have the maturity to rationalize it. From my POV, people from the late 70s have a lot of hate inside them that prevents them from truly acknowledging each other. It became even worse when the violence went away and everyone started being nice to one another, then the mistrust really grew after that. I'm not sure if this describes the early 80s people.

DRUGS AND SCHOOL SHOOTINGS 1995-2000 Though the crime rates were surprising back then, it didn't last long. In 1995, for some reason, crime rates fell, and the public no longer feared little children would become criminals. http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/201370/page6.html Why did the crime rate fall so quickly? This raises a lot of questions about human nature and how can people become so violent and then stop all of the sudden. http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ezashr/asp/profile.asp One big difference between the early and later 1990s was that the economy was now booming. By the late 90s, the more important issues in the media were school shootings and drugs.

Drugs

Though crime had gone down, its lasting legacy was the rise in drug use. Drugs had been declining in the 80s until the 90s it slowly rose up again. According to statistics, the drug most likely used is marijuana. Marijuana, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), other hallucinogens, crack, other cocaine, heroin, or any use which is not under a physician's orders of other opiates, stimulants, barbiturates or tranquilizers. A 1996 survey reported on increases from the early 90s including: marijuana (10.2% of 8th graders, 20.5% of 10th graders, and 23.7% of 12th graders), Cocaine (2.8% of 8th graders, 4.7% of 10th graders, 5.5% of 12th graders), and stimulants (8.1% of 8th graders, 12.1% of 10th graders, 10.2% of 12th graders). The use of LSD in 1997 was 13.6%, which was higher than in the 1970s. Binge drinking (having five or more drinks in a row in the last two weeks) (31.3% of high school seniors, 25.1% of 10th graders, 14.5% of 8th graders) and smoking was also increasing. Some of the causes could include people's motivation to use, if people see a drug as dangerous or not, the degree to which they disapprove of use (peer group norms constraining use), and generational forgetting. Lloyd Johnston's theory of Generational forgetting is where "one generation of young people may learn a lot about the dangers of drugs. One of the ways they learn is that they are involved in an epidemic and see it firsthand. But as they grow older, and generational replacement occurs, the newer cohorts don't necessarily know the same thing about the dangers of those drugs. Particularly if we have gotten drug use down, the newer cohorts wouldn't have learned vicariously about what happens to other people." http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p980459.html

School shootings Along with the general crime rate, violence and the usual fights in schools were reported to have declined throughout the mid-late 90s. LIkewise, when the crime was up during the early 90s, the crime rate was also high in the schools. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/srsc.pr So, it is debatable whether the safety/disciplinary procedures they implemented caused students to reduce bad behavior. Anyway, the majority of the methods they used during the early 90s to prevent crime included (listed by percentage used) suspension, student conduct/discipline code, collaboration with other agencies, expulsion, school board policy, alternative programs or schools, staff development, and conflict resolution/mediation. Other used by a minority of schools were training/peer mediation, locker searches, closed campus for lunch, mentoring programs, home-school linkages, dress code, law-related education programs, multicultural sensitivity training, parent skill training, search and seizure, security personnel in schools, support groups, student photo identification system, gun-free school zones, specialized Curriculum, drug-detecting dogs, work opportunities, telephones in classrooms, metal detectors, volunteer parent patrols, closed-circuit television, establishing safe havens for students. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/gao/gao15.htm In 1995, MTVers were in Elementary (1984-5), Junior High (1981-83), High School (1976-1980). Then, the famous School massacres of the late 90s occurred. These were different from the school shooting incidents in the early 90s since the crime rate was already down. So, to the public, it seemed like the acts of an isolated person rather than part of a larger societal trend to crime. Instead of causing concern to criminologists, it caused concern to psychologists. http://www.apa.org/monitor/aug98/shoot.html Then, as other school shootings occurred, it became a trend of its own having nothing to do with crime rates. So, in contrast to other incidents in past decades (1960-70), it was part of a trend rather than isolated incidents. There were commonalities between perpetrators, as stated by the National Research Center: "While the inner-city epidemic of violence was fueled by well-understood causes—poverty, racial segregation, and the dynamics of the illicit drug trade—the violence in the suburban and rural schools more closely resembles 'rampage' shootings that occur in places other than schools, such as workplaces...In the inner-city cases, the shooting incidents involved specific grievances between individuals that were well known in the school community. In contrast, the suburban and rural shooting incidents did not involve specific grievances. These shooters felt aggrieved, but their grievances were a more general and abstract sense of feeling attacked, rather than a specific threat by an individual...In many of the cases studied, fellow students knew about the shooter's plans and, in some cases, even knew the shooter had a gun with him before the attack began. None of these students just snapped at the end of a bad day....Each shooter, instead, showed signs of his plans—even, in some cases, pleading for help. But knowledge of the impending tragedy never made it to the adults in the community." http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/0902128.html This resulted in profiling of students who looked like they were "at risk." "Lists of warning signs became extremely popular. During the year surrounding the killing at Thurston High (1998), the American Psychological Association issued "22 Warning Signs" that might indicate a "serious possibility" or "potential" for violence. The National School Safety Center, drafted a 20-point "Checklist of Characteristics of Youth Who Have Caused School-Associated Violent Deaths." And The National Center for the Prevention of Crime (NCPC), offered a list of "signs that kids are troubled" which might require "action."....(the lists included)..chronic feelings of isolation or rejection, frequent angry outbursts, social withdrawal or depression, fascination with or possession of weapons, alcohol or drug dependency, history of bullying behavior, and lack of interest in school or poor school performance...cruelty to animals, gang affiliation, dresses sloppily, geek or nerd, characteristically resorts to name calling, cursing, or abusive language." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kinkel/profile/ Students were also being unfairly interrogated for such things as wearing black clothing or arriving at school in a trenchcoat In 1996-97, public schools had a variety of security methods in place. Newsweek magazine reports on the percentages of schools taking various precautions in an effort to reduce the risk of violence: • Visitors to school sign in 96% • Campus closed during lunch 80% • Access to school buildings controlled 53% • Access to school grounds controlled 24% • Drug sweeps (locker checks, etc.) 19% • Random metal-dector checks 4% • Daily metal-detector checks 1% http://cepm.uoregon.edu/trends_issues/safety/

High school is what we went through during the late 90s that Generation X had never experienced. Actually, the school shootings were very rare and so hardly anyone experienced them. The only thing we did experience together were the security measures preventing them and the media stories criminalizing everyone who seemed like a risky psycho. While the early 90s made us look like criminals, the later 90s made us look like potential psychos with a gun hidden somewhere. Because the late 90s was a time of prosperity and low crime, it was easier to do a "witch hunt" against grungy/shady/antisocial looking people. Unlike school shootings, drugs was a real threat affecting a lot of MTVers. But society was busy focusing on unreal threats, while drugs grew and grew. Lloyd Johnston points out in his theory of Generational forgetting, one generation had learned the bad affects of drug use and stopped using drugs, and the next forgets it. Drug use was declining in the 80s (a fact for which I lost the source somewhere). This marks a big difference between Generation X, where the drug use was declining during the 80s, when they were teens. Meanwhile, when we were teenagers in the 90s, drug use was rising. Even though it is not the majority, the use of marijuana takes up almost 25%, which is very significant. The question is why? Why did drug use decline when Xers were teens and then increase when MTVers were teens? It seems MTVers have a different perspective on drug use than Xers. The National Institute on Drug Abuse http://www.drugabuse.gov/stressanddrugabuse.html states that stress is the number one cause of drug abuse. Possibly, the transition between the early 90s and late 90s caused stress, or that the late 90s was a time of great stress.

r430nb 12/21

Take Care Piecraft

The person who started this article has decided to move on to bigger and greater things. So, I wish him good luck. He is probably the first person to ever describe our generation or group in such an accurate way, not like those Gen X or Y pages. He made that first step. So, I don't know any other way than to say thank you for getting that out there and fighting for it so it stays here on Wikipedia, like he did. There will never ever be another person like that. So, the Wikipedia world just lost a good person. r430nb 12/25

Dates

So, first off, found a source for the dates http://www.youthspecialties.com/articles/topics/family/multigenerational.php It states that "The "Cuspers" are those who are born in the transition between generations. If you couldn't neatly place yourself in any of the above categories, then you're probably a Cusper. 1943-1947, 1962-1967 and 1978-1982 are each considered transition times. Many people born during these cusp periods identify with the generations on either side. Often, Cuspers feel like they belong to neither and belong to both. This population caught in the middle can play an important role in ministry. They are generationally bilingual. They can act as translators and ambassadors between the generations."

WTF? People born in 1986 can't remember a time before DVDs?

I was born in 1990, and, ridiculously enough, it is said people born as LATE as 1985 CAN remember a time before the whole Ipod wave of technology of the 1997-present era.

That's ridiculous to say a person born in 1990, much less 1986 would not remember a time before DVDS, TIVO, MP3 Players, and Sirius Satellite Radio. I admit I'd had a computer as long as I can remember, but I remember (although vaguely) the Internet surge of 1994-96 and CERTAINLY before MP3 players, Ipods, and such began to appear circa 1998. Maybe a bit vaguely, yes, but some people act as if memory begins when you turn 12. Bollocks, I remember back to when I was 3/4 age span, which is 1993-94, certainly before MP3 players and Ipods and pretty much pre-Internet too, even if computers were quite common.

I didn't even know what a DVD was until about 1999 or 2000.

Hmm, very interesting. That sentence will be removed. Thank you for the feedback. r430nb
It has nothing to do with how far back you can remember, what it has to do with is whether it was of any impact to your life at the time, judging by your own statement it would appear that it wasn't seeing as you were too young to "vaguely" remember and for it to be of any importance to you. Whilst you were growing up in the 90s you had no true grasp of the youth culture and lifestyles prevalent throughout that were sparked off from the beginning of the 80s - and the fact that the technology prior to mp3 players, Tivo and DVDs was of an actual improtance to those growing up through the 80s until mid 90s. You even state yourself that "I didn't even know what a DVD was until about 1999 or 2000." Whereas most people born in the XY Cusp already knew what a DVD was by the time you were 6 or 7. 87.80.126.226 15:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piecraft!

I had to remove the heart of the article for which you did a lot of work. I'm sorry. So I will put it here for now until there is an agreement on who stays and who goes. I know, this article isn't much of anything without this list. But they put this article on deletion since yesterday 12/28. Most people disagree on the following sections.


A generation gap that includes the end of the Generation X (a generation following the baby boom, especially Americans and Canadians born in the 1960s and 1970s) yet importantly includes the elders of Generation Y (a generation considered to follow Generation X from 1977 onwards).

However, the offspring of those who were born from parents of the Baby Boomers Generation in the late 1970s and early 1980s who do not necessarily fit in to Generation X's overview are considered to be a generation within itself - namely Generation XY often referred to as the Cold Generation Y (Early Y Partition) or MTV Generation, also the definitive term: Thatcher's Children, wrongly referred to Generation Y) which could be considered to have been between 1977 and 1985.

Movies that define the generation

Director Harmony Korine not only grew up in the generation but also emulates it within his movies which reflect the youth and lifestyle of the XY Generation. Other directors that were prominent icons during the generation would be Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith and Wes Anderson, Danny Boyle, David Fincher and Spike Jonze.

TV that define the generation


Reinsertion

I do suggest that the above sections taken out be reinserted back, if you can find cites. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know it must hurt to see something so good and with so much work taken out. Hmm. Ok, I'll try to find something, but it will take a while I'm sure. r430nb

Definition of MTV Generation

Think in that midsts of editing and adding and removing content in the article, I've not a clear concept of what exactly the MTV Generation is, and it's best that a definition be given about what it exactly is, and how the rest of the points tie in with MTV Generation. We're building an encyclopedia, so don't forget about Wikipedia's neutral point of view, cite relevant sources, and don't assume that the reader knows that you're talking about. So it's best to explain. :) --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a definition right now for the MTV Generation, but so far, I have found a definition which matches the birth years he was talking about 77-85. But my sources only cover 1978-82, 1978-88 and the name is called Xer-Millennial Cuspers. Would you have a problem if I plan to change the name of the article to match the birth years of this group to XY Cuspers? I have decided to call it XY Cusp because the name is merely a combination of the before (X) and after (Y) generational names. On the other hand, the MTV Generation is used interchangeably with both Generation X (1961-81) and Y (1982-2000). A definition of the MTV Generation would include a much wider group, expanding the lists of music into the 80s, 90s and 200s. Right now, the list of music, shows above only covers what teenagers in the 90s listened to. A neutral point of view would not only focus on the group from 1977-85 because MTV has been marketing to teenagers since the 80s until now. Someone saw that and put it up for deletion. Hence, I'm hesitant to using the name MTV generation to describe those born late 70s and early 80s when I can't find proof right now that it ties directly to this group of people in relation to Strauss and Howe's generations. The main purpose is to differentiate between this group and the rest, and naming it MTV generation would only unify X and Y together and you know Strauss and Howe wouldn't like that! BTW thanks for the editing! r430nb

The Ambitious generation

Yeah! Haha, we did it! Much thanks goes to everyone who helped! Happy New Year! On a more sad note, I'm planning to add more information from a book called The Ambitious Generation (1999) 0300082754 by Schneider, Barbara L.; Stevenson, David, which focuses on those who graduated during the late 90s (1976-possibly 81), it talks about how many were unrealistically ambitious but had no idea how to reach their goals, and also how schools and parents didn't know how to prepare them for the future. He also shows how many were doing well acadmically in school despite the negative images portrayed in the media of 90s teens. He called them the Ambitious Generation because they were the most ambitious compared to teenagers of past decades (all the way back to the 50s). It may take a while, but just know there is more coming on the way. r430nb 1/03/06

Article Cleaned up

I think this article has been pretty much cleaned up - just needs a few more literary references perhaps and some more editing here and there, but other than that I think it has proven to have redeemed itself, in light of the Gen Y and X articles which are in a considerable mess. 87.80.126.226 22:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You did a good job! r430nb

The effects of 911

Generation 9/11, by Thomas Reissmann http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/8/prweb272189.htm http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/2034703.html http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/2003/0620generation.htm http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349539 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184549038X/103-5396286-6091821?v=glance&n=283155 http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2005-10-1018-003.shtml http://www.edb.utexas.edu/faculty/somers/911/gen_%20911_ver3.htm http://www.generation911.co.uk/2.html http://www.wordspy.com/words/Generation9-11.asp http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-04-2001/0001607931&EDATE= http://latc.com/2002/09/11/schools/schools3.html http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=19325 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.children06sep06,1,3235671.story?coll=bal-local-utility http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/12/07/4395ad8437e6b http://www.utexas.edu/features/2005/generation/

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers (known as the World Trade Center) in New York City, XYers came to be known as Generation 9/11. The term had been coined by Newsweek in November of 2001, but was criticized by Thomas Reissmann as implying unified American patriotism and support of the war when clearly the same generation was involved anti-War and anti-globalization not only in America, but worldwide. [1] [2]

Despite the controversy, research has shown that 9/11 has had a significant impact on Generation 9/11. Patricia Somers restricted her poll to “The generation of people who were enrolled in high school or university on September 11, 2001” and more precisely “everyone born between 1978 and 1987.” [3] Newsweek restricted its poll to 18-29 year olds in 2001 (Born 1972-83). [4] Both polls generally center around the MTV Generation.

Newsweek conducted its poll two months after 9/11 and found that 57% of 18-29 yr olds say they've become more serious about marriage and relationships because they feel their lives could end at any time; only 18% say they've become less serious and are reluctant to make commitments at a time of uncertainty. 68% of the age group say they've become more serious about their work and studies because the gravity of recent events has forced them to grow up. 83% say that following the terrorist attacks they're at least somewhat more likely to choose health care and medicine as a profession or course of study; 77% for science and technology and 83% for the military. [5]

Patricia Somers and her research colleagues interviewed 50 students at colleges and universities in the Midwest in the weeks and months following 9/11, far away from the tragedy on the East Coast. They found that..................to be continued [6] [7]

There is disagreement on the long term effects of 9/11. Some have noted a dying down of participation in the months and years following 9/11. Since society at large equates 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, some feel guilt over not being able to to make monumental sacrifices comparable to the "Greatest Generation." This has led others to question the causes of the decline, pointing to nihilism, being burnt out by an unusual number of natural and man-made disasters, and that "pop culture was more of a concern than world annihilation" causing people to eventually "relax back into happiness and comfort." [8][9] [10]

On the contrary, Reissmann found that it caused many people in Generation 9/11 to choose careers of philanthropy. He says, "CBS reported in July 2005: "9/11 Grads Choose Public Service". According to this report, young people graduating from prestigious American universities are forfeiting jobs on Wall Street to teach inner-city kids. Applications for Peace Corps were up 80%, and Teach for America experienced an increase of 40%. Interest in non-profit careers had more than doubled. Having travelled for years and working for responsibletravel.com, it is also my experience that volunteering overseas is now more popular than ever. According to Wilene Justilien, a math teacher in Washington DC, Generation 9/11 is “a generation that wants to improve the lives of others and is driven to succeed at that right now.“" [11]

r430nb

Although the 9/11 attacks were of great importance to those of us pertaining to XY, it was just as much of an impact upon those in Gen X and Gen Y. I believe however that the 9/11 attacks were of greater importance as a cultural/political impact upon the Gen Y'ers. 87.80.126.226 11:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, too. Leave this out, then. But a warning, Generation X is "Pro-war" and "patriotic" determined to prove they are not slackers, but instead the "Greatest Generation." [12] [13] [14] [15] XYers have mixed feelings about war, maybe cynicism towards their own country. But, I'll leave it out, still. r430nb
No I think there may be some relevance in describing the political climate of the XY attitude of today seeing as it does bear relevance towards the future generation which is subsiding with the onslaught of Gen Y. However it might be good to ensure that people do not think that Gen XY is in any way taregetted as the generation to which the 9/11 attacks or Gulf War 2 were of the most important issues in terms of the influence it had over those growing up within the XY generation. 87.80.126.226 01:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the political climate - I know I'm not able to find out about political climate. All these sources, instead of portraying public opinion, try to influence or mislead society. Ok, I get it = XYers were too busy with other issues to think about war. In fact, it's been known that the military mostly targets low income and minorities with little options. So, did they really have a choice to fight the war or were they just doing it because they had no other economic options/independence to judge consequences of their actions? It's also been known that people in their late teens/early 20s are easily misled by the army and terrorists because of their belief in invincibility. There is no opinion or political climate amongst these people, there is just being brainwashed, following orders and doing what society tells you to do. But during that time, everyone knew and had experience from the past (Seattle protests and profiling of school shooters and terrorists) that speaking out against the war meant being punished to the fullest extent and that society was all too happy when it came to punishing/persecuting XYers. Generation X, instead, was more established and independent by then (in terms of major life issues) and had more time/money/networks to sit back, think about it and do something. No one wanted to mess with Generation X because Xers had connections to the media and yes, they were united as a group, unlike XYers which will always be fragmented. It was a real choice, with no real pressures. So, you are right, it's a touchy subject, I'll leave it to the more politically correct/diplomatic types. r430nb
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MTV_Generation&oldid=36268766"