Talk:Millennials/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

"Parts" Criticism

Where the hell are your sources? This sounds like shit written by Faux News in one of their "exposé"s on "sexting". Seriously, the part about people born before 1995 being big consumers of Disney channel is comedy gold. Are you that out of touch? If you need a source to tell you that Disney channel is the domain of <12 year old girls and <10 year old boys, you need to stop relying on your personal experience with this sort of article.

Is Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul really a good example of a book that resonates with Gen Y? Not being part of Gen Y, I must plead some ignorance but it seems counterintuitive to me. I think it should be removed if it can't be substantiated. Further, I'm a little hesitant about Harry Potter being featured as it has such a wide appeal. I think Goosebumps is a good example though as it seems relatively isolated to that period in time with a fairly obvious target audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.46.203 (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality

This generation might be one of the most sexual in a long time, why has no one made more note of this in the article? I added a note and some cites. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it is not the generation itself sexual but mostly attributed to high population, sexual propaganda pushed by corporations for profit, and reduced belief in waiting until marriage. I was born in 85'and definitely more sexually active now than a few years ago. Everyone loves to have sex so why should this generation be any different???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.151.183 (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This generation has sex younger and waits longer until marriage as a consequence of liberalizing attitudes born in the sexual revolution the 60s, codified in modern movies and TV shows, as well as increased tolerance overall to a diversity of lifestyles. A section should definitely be added, but with good sources to back it up unlike most of this piece of shit WP:OR article.--Loodog (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

End Date September 11, 1996 or January 1997

The end date should be 1997. Using being able to remember 9/11 as a requirement for entrence into Gen Y, September 11, 1996 or January 1, 1997 would be a good end of the generation. Children could certainly remember what was going on when they were 5 years old. Using myself (Born in January 1996) as an example, I can remember 9/11 completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffy2032 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

- And people born in early 1996 were entering school a few weeks before 9/11 so they were able to interact with peers about the attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffy2032 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Interact with their peers and say what? "Goo-goo Gaga. Did you see the big plane break the two big buildings? Yeah? Wow, let's play knights"?bob bobato (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Millennial Generation

This "generation y" thing is trite crap. We millennials call ourselves millennials, because "generation y" is insultingly simplistic and dismissive. Not that "generation x" was particularly insightful, but at least it was appropriate to the generation. Don't even get me started on "generation z". Are you kidding? Let's just name the next 10 generations, and make up traits for them before we even meet them. Millennials. Really, anything other than "Y", Net Generation is something I actually hear, too, and at least iGeneration is clever, even if no one actually uses that term. I suggest the page be moved. Maybe I'll do it myself, if I don't hear strong protest. Fredgoat (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright suckaz, I finally did it. Millennial Generation. Boom. Now, what do y'all think? I personally feel it's a more common/better description of the cohort, the name that we'll be using to refer to this generation in fifty years, but I know a lot of people prefer "gen-y", so chime in if you feel I'm wrong. Fredgoat (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fred, sorry I missed this discussion before, but I feel strongly against this change and reverted it. For future reference, you should only mark things as minor edits that are basically fixing grammatical errors and spelling errors, something no one can dispute. Generation Y is a decidedly more commonly used phrase -- 1.2 million hits on Google for "Generation Y" and 136,000 for "millennial generation". You and your friends may feel millennial is better, but you and your friends are not representative of our entire generation and the Wikipedia page for our generation. Let's try and have a discussion about this. I will agree that this article needs some improvement. Kevin143 (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

For the style of the article though, I agree that saying something like Gen Y'ers or "members of Generation Y" is stupid and it's fine to refer to the actual members of Generation Y as Millennials. Kevin143 (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fred, what I think has sealed our fate as Generation Y, is Generation Z. Gen Z is the only name that seems to be sticking for the generation after us, all the rest are those bullshit terms coined by marketers that have a habit of sticking in articles like these. And you can't very well have Generation X, the Millennial Generation, and Generation Z. There is a generation missing. Personally, I think it's pretty cool: Generations X, Y, and Z. Hopefully something very profound will have happened to humanity after Generation Z. Posthumans, perhaps. Kevin143 (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I like that. The United Generations, X, Y, & Z, who together will shape the first half of the 21st century and kick off the New Millenium. A bit narcissistic, though.bob bobato (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, 3 things - 1) The "minor" thing was a mistake. Didn't mean to select that. Sorry. My bad. 2) You're probably right that people use Gen Y more. I accept the move back. HOWEVER 3) Naming Gen Y because we had a Gen X, and then naming Gen Z (who we really don't even know yet) because we had an X and Y, AND THEN insisting on the name "Gen Y" because we have an X and (sortof) a Z already is the dumbest reasoning on earth (and personal preference in general is also not how Wikipedia works, which is why as I said I'm okay with the move back even though I like "Millennials" better). Personally I think it reeks of post-Baby Boomer generational naming laziness, and if they had their way I'm sure they'd just call everyone born after 1970 the "Damn Kids and their Music" Generation(s). Unfortunately simplistic intergenerational sniping is in vogue at the moment, and Gen Z isn't yet old enough to defend themselves, so you're right, you (happily, for some reason) and I are stuck with it, Gen Y it is. *sigh* At least I've got my crisp Santana Champ, and also the president, for whom I turned out to vote in record numbers. Fredgoat (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I don't mean to be a jackass. I do like the idea of using the term "millennials" as the primary demonym. It flows better than "Gen Y-ers", I agree. Fredgoat (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Parents of Generation Y

On the page it states that the parents of Generation Y were primarily the Baby Boomers, the author has provided no sources/references to back this claim up. The claim that the Boomers are the parents of Gen Y is true, but you cannot include them without at least mentioning Gen Jones and the oldest members of Gen X.

Those born in the 40's and 50's (Boomers) mainly had children in the 70s, making the Boomers the parents of Gen X, not Y. However, some of the later baby boomers (1950-1953) could of had children in the early to mid 80s, making them the parents of some older members of Generation Y. Generation Jones (1954-1964) could of had children in the 80s or 90s, because from 1980 and 1996 the members of Generation Jones were somewhere between the ages of 16 and 42, well within child bearing age. And the oldest members of Gen X could of had children born in the 90s. Young Gen X being defined as those born between 1965 and 1971 they could of had children between 1990 and 1996.

This definition would cover all cohorts of Gen Y.

I don't understand why the author supposes that people have children in their 40s and 50s, however, most people actually have kids in their 20s and 30s, making the Baby Boomers, Gen Jones, and some Gen X'ers the parents of Gen Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.213.47 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones is a fringe theory, that -- while it does (barely) maintain its own article -- does not need to be placed into other articles on non-fringe generational articles. Unitanode 16:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Gen Jones is by no means a fringe theory! If it has its own article in wikipedia, then wikipedia must not consider fringe, therefore it can be used in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.213.47 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is a fringe theory, and does not have the standing of the normal generational categorizations. While it (barely, at this point) merits its own article, it by no means should be shoved into other articles as if it had the same standing amongst generational scholars (not pundits and commentators, but scholars) as the mainstays like Boomers, X, and Y. Any attempts to do so will be reverted. Unitanode 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Millenials versus Generation Y

I've heard several people refer to the Millennials and Generation Y as if they are same, and some that they are not.

I've heard some people say that the Millennials are actually are actually a Cohort of Generation Y that means those that graduated high school in the first decade of the new millennium (or those born between 1981 and 1992). Anyone after 1992 is a Post-Millennial and are the "stepping stone" between Y and Z, so those born between about 1992 and 2001.

Anyone born between 1977 and 1982 is a "Silent Digital Native", or those who were teenagers and young adults in the 1990s and first adapted to new technologies.

All together, the Silent Digital Natives, Millennials, and Post-Millennials make up "Generation Y", which spans 1977 to 2001.

This is what by Sociology Teacher Says.

My major questions are:

What do you personally think of this idea?

And

Are their any reliable sources that support this idea?

If there is, we might have to rewrite the whole darn thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.213.47 (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is not consensus on what Generation Y is or when its birth years truly are. It is a fairly amorphous concept. I have no idea if there are any reliable sources to support your sociology teacher's idea. Perhaps you could ask them. For the moment we are listing generation Y as an amalgalm of ideas presented across the main stream media, plus a scattering of quasi-academic articles and books. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

I find the nostalgia claim to be of dubious interest and hard to prove. First of all, it seems like a massive and unwarranted generalisation. How can one really say that a certain generation is nostalgic for the 1990s? What about those too young to really remember the 90s? What about those that aren't? Secondly, even if I grant you that a large proportion of Y'ers are nostalgic for the 90s, how is that of any interest? Wouldn't any generation be nostalgic for their youth? Isn't that just a fairly universal feature of humanity, that depends more on personality than generation? I think we should cut it, but am willing to entertain arguments for keeping it.Peregrine981 (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. I wanted to improve upon, or at least attempt in vain to make the information reflect more accurately popular culture that Generation Y was associated with. The nostalgia claims are probably dubious and even so, only reflect a time earlier on in their generation which doesn't even define Generation Y as it is now. (the early 60s is pretty primitive compared to all that followed afterwords and defined the boomers) A lot of the information is citations and isn't really encyclopedic. For example in the Emo article on Wikipedia there is a source of Gerard Butler of My Chemical Romance pretty much rejecting the Emo moniker both as a fad and as a legitimate musical genre, yet here it is considered such, thus conflicting the information. Equally if not more rediculous is the claim of Generation X grunge bands having influence on an entirely subsequent generation. Even if it were so, wouldn't it conflict with the seperate image Generation Y reputation of being the next Greatest Generation of nation builders and such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.200.60 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

early vs. late 1990s

I have been asked to address this issue on the talk page. My contention is that 1999/2000 constitutes the late 1990s, as opposed to early. The much vaunted Strauss and Howe, among many other sources ([1] for one) all cite the late 1990s as an end for Gen Y. If you have reason to believe these sources are unreliable, please provide them. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The much vaunted Strauss and Howe also believe that that there is a repeating cycle of American Generation archetypes, which is of course ludicrous.bob bobato (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cold Y

Merger of Cold Y. Apparently the discussion of cold Y has determined, that we should merge it into this article. However, I see absolutely nothing on that page that is properly sourced, or that we don't already have here. I suggest we don't import anything, and turn it into a redirect.Peregrine981 (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just redirect -- I second that...Cold Y is very poorly sourced. Nasa-verve (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think there should be a distinction between those in Gen Y that do remember the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and those who do not remember it. I think someone born in 1984 would have more in common to someone born in 1979 than 1989 for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.101.83 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hat notes

In regard Generación Y; as long as we have an article there, it seems reasonable that someone looking for it would look here. I have no objection to deleting that article entirely, but while it's in Wikipedia, I think there should be a hat note pointing to it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Change of Thoughts - 1977-1981 is late Generation X

Generation Y starts in the 1980s. Beginning year of 1982 or 1983 is still debatable in my opinion. If you ask most people born in 1982-84 they would classify themselves as Generation X, or a cusper. Technically Generation Y starts in 1985 or 1986, ending the 20-year span of Generation X (1965-1984).

Those born between 1965-1984 are also called the Hip Hop Generation.

1977-1981 is the tail end of Generation X, as well as the first half of the cusper group Generation XY (1977-84), similar to Generation Jones (1960-1964).

Generation XY are the first college graduates at the turn of the millennium (1999-2003).
Generation Y are the first high school graduates at the turn of the millennium (2000-2006).

Late Gen-Xers are the "silent" digital natives, predominantly ignored in mass media.

They are the original social networkers - the first Myspace members (back in 2004, before it became extremely popular), and now they dominate Twitter.

As they are Generation X, they possess characteristics similar to the next generation, (or shall I say the next generation possesses characteristics similar to young Gen-Xers, as they did come first.) This phenomenon is seen across history, as with Generation Jones (1960-1964) - they act very similar to Generation X, but are Baby Boomers.

I don't really have an opinion on the tail end of GenX birth years, but to clarify facts about GenJones: its birth years are 1954-1965 (not 1960-1964), and Jonesers are not Boomers who act like Xers, but rather GenJones is an entirely distinct generation, with its own unique collective personality.TreadingWater (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm Genration X and you can't call us the "Hip Hop"Generation, that is absurd, obviously written by someone who didn't experience the late 70's and 80's (Punk Rock, New Romantics need I go? Generation X was one of the most diverse. Might as well call Generation Y the Emo Genertion--Pandaplodder (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones (by the popular definition) is really a sub-set, or second wave, of the Baby Boomer generation. It is not a separate generation to itself. I believe that is mere propaganda to divide up the Baby Boomer generation.

Cuspers born between 1960-64 (and some cases 1959) are the "true" Generation Jones because their experiences are an amalgam of both BB and Gen X. They act very similar to Gen Xers.

Famouse Gen Jonesers for example:

As a matter of fact, I was confused for a long time and considered them to be Gen Xers growing up.

Another example, is President Obama. He is a cusper of BB and Gen X.
jlh629 (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to your view that GenJones is 1960-1964, but you are the only person, book, article or organization which I've ever seen use those birth years, and I follow these matters carefully. GenJones is always defined by experts and others who are knowledgeable about this as 1954-1965, give or take a year or two.TreadingWater (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I am not the only source with this opinion. There are plenty of sources that do not include 1950's-born as a cusper group. They are squarely Baby Boomers. I will add them.

The concept of those born between 1954 and 1959 as some "ambiguous" generation, I don't buy it. From 60's counter-culture to Disco to 80's Pop (up to about 1985) is Baby Boomer's territory. Their contributions to American pop culture dominated during this time span. They were the thirty-somethings in the 80's TV show. It starts to overlap and get fuzzy around 1986-90, when Generation X started to dominate American culture. This is also BB/Gen X cusper territory. And I should know, because I LIVED it. Be weary of "experts" they try to fit their demographic so their research can make "sense". jlh629 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to place the high level of importance which you do to your own and others anecdotal experiences, and to disparage the views of experts. Personally, I place a much higher level of importance to actual research and data and experts than to tiny samples of anecdotal evidence. I LIVED through it also, and I have a very different take than you do. I wholeheartedly believe that GenJones is a full unique generation between Boom & X. But the opinions of you or me or a few of our friends doesn't begin to carry the weight of scientifically designed, nationally representative polling of thousands which has provided mountains of data supportive of the concept of GenJones as a distinct generation, not some kind of "cusper" 5 year cohort. And I don't know what you mean about "those born between 1954 and 1959 as some "ambiguous" generation". All I know is that there is a clearly seperate generation born between approximately 1954 to 1965. The data and experts make a compelling case for Generation Jones.TreadingWater (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You CANNOT be serious that there is a WHOLE other generation separate from Baby Boomers called Generation Jones. This is just propaganda, and Baby Boomer's attempt to push the marker "a little to the right of the time line" by making themselves appear to be a "separate AND younger generation" than their fellow Boomer counterparts. Consistent with other propaganda tactics and attempts to mask the reality that the BB's are not the latest new "hip" adult group ages 35-45, that, for example, are changing the political climate to one focused on pragmatism (a core Generation X trait) - i.e. Gen X is (quietly) leading the Green Movement. Now that Generation X has gained political power, we are starting to hear about a new-fangled Baby Boom Generation called "Jones" that's changing America. No, it is Generation X that is changing America, albeit quietly! There is NO separate "Jones" Generation by that particular definition.

I have nothing against Baby Boomers. I love Baby Boomers, love their music, everything. They never got in "our way" in particular - which seems to be a source of core Gen-Xers resentment. But now that I am 30, I can understand Gen-Xer's issue with the Boomers. I just think BB's should learn to share, and respect the natural process of making way for the next generation. I don't like that immature "glory boy" attitude typical of the BB generation. But I digress...

This cohort called "Generation Jones" may not have experience the Beatle craze or President Kennedy, but they are still Baby Boomers - Boomers who did Disco, Boomers who created Hip-Hop for the Hip-Hop generation, Boomers who lead the Contemporary Neo-Jazz movement of the 1980's (Bradford & Winton Marsalis, Kenny G, etc.). You can have different waves of a generation, and the first wave can seem different than the second, but they are STILL a part of the SAME generation.

The reason "Generation Jones" is so popular is because of the shear volume of Baby Boomers purporting this idea. That is a large bunch of voices. But this theory is unfounded and because a bunch of "experts" say it is so does not make it true.

The baby bust did not happen until around 1965, when Generation X was born. Generation X has 2 waves: The first wave, born from 1965-1974 (10 years), and the second wave, born from 1974-1984 (10 years). They are ALL part of Generation X.

jlh629 (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cusper group were raised during major cultural shifts, and possess identities attached to both the previous and new cultures. In the case of those born in 1977 through 1984, they are "analog" as well as "digital" natives.

Cuspers also tend to notice, by their mid-late twenties, that their cultural tastes are drastically different than their slightly younger counterparts (early 20's/teens), and vice versa. This is only experienced by members on the edge of a generation. Core members of a generation do not experience this particular "cultural divide" between people close in age to them.

For example "true" Gen Jonesers were mostly in their mid-late 20's when hip-hop entered its Golden Age (1986-94), which was a sharp cultural change. Late Gen-Xers (or Generation XY), mostly in their late teens and early 20's, experienced the same type of "shift" around (1997-2004), from 90's culture to the Boy Band craze and more saccharin Britney Spears-type pop music that began to dominate popular culture. It was quite shocking for both cusper groups, and many Gen XY members resent the commercialization of popular music during that time of their early adult years (from my own experience, and based on accounts from members of Gen Jones).

MTV's "false brand" of Hip-Hop
One example is MTV's branding of Hip-Hop culture as the "composition of 5 elements". The hip-hop generation did not view their culture in this way, and did not appreciate MTV pushing this "discretized" image of a culture (they did not, and still do not, understand) for monetary profits. Late Gen-Xers (1977-81) were too young to influence the direction of hip-hop and therefore had to "suffer" through its commercialization helped by artists such as Puff Daddy, 50-Cent, Eminem, Jay-Z, and Notorious BIG. These artists along with their simplistic lyrics and rampant materialism were not a welcomed presence, especially among Late Gen-Xers. Late Xers knew the "Golden Era" (celebrated by core Gen-Xers) was prematurely coming to an end, and fought hard to keep the culture alive and deeply mourned the Golden Era's passing (basis for the "mainstream vs. underground" struggle). Contrary to those slightly younger (second half of Gen XY and some Millenials (1981-85)) welcomed these artists into hip-hop culture with relatively little resistance, and in general were less adverse to the artist's celebration of monetary greed and material excess. This abrupt shift from highly intellectual lyrics, and community-oriented values to rampant materialism was quite shocking, especially for Late Xers as their "adult" personalities and musical tastes began to coalesce, heavily influenced by hip-hop music produced during the Golden Era.

For example many Gen Y members love Jay-Z because they came of age during his rise to fame (in the wake of Tupac's and Biggy's deaths). However Jay-Z does not represent the values of the hip hop generation, and is not liked by its core members in general.

One person who commented in response to the Boston Globe Generations article (sited in my earlier post), articulated the late Gen-Xers (1976-82) well:

As quoted: "...If I had to quibble, I'd put the birth ages at 1976-1982, which would lead to rational thinking beginning around 1987-1993. That was an era not just of radical global transformation, which was piped directly into our brains as a profound object lesson, but also of a bi-level culture: the mainstream was a wasteland of washed-out decadence and dorky earnestness, but under the radar was the last rich underground, and just as many Netters were clued into that as there were playing Nintendo. This two-tier culture led to a sort of dual citizenship for Netters. Add to that the birth of the web and the concept of cyberspace, another world opening up within the "real" one, and you've got a recipe for the psychological multidimensionalism that you can see in this generation. If GenX is flexible, I'd say Netters are fluid. We're less a "lost" generation than a "stealth" one.

I think you underestimate our memories of pre-internet days, though. Similar to our perceptions of the dying industrial economy, our perceptions of the analog era were that of a child growing up with an old dog--we knew we'd missed some mysterious heyday, we perceived it wouldn't be around much longer, and so we appreciated it. I was born in 1978 and I remember pre-computer-popularity and pre-internet days clearly. I think part of this sub-gen's enthusiasm for and ability with tech is that we *came of age as it began*, and our psyches are thus amenable to technological adaptation *itself*. We didn't necessarily create it, or watch it begin from afar; but we also didn't "wake up" already floating dumbly in a sea of it. We saw it start, were given opportunities to merge with it, and did so. And the rewards of that adaptation stamp a kind of optimism and possibility on us that Xers seem to lack, and a kind of appreciation and perspective that Yers don't seem to grasp..."

I will add more information, and sources, to support my conclusion.

I struggled with the beginning birth years (1976-83) for a long time because of the transition this particular group experienced. I think the person quoted summed it up best.

jlh629 (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merger of MTV Generation into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was No merge --Law Lord (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing MTV Generation, I find that not a single one of the listed sources actually talks about MTV Generation as a phenomenon wholly separate from Generation Y. They all either say that MTV Gen and Gen Y are interchangeable, or in many cases don't mention MTV Generation at all. In my scanning of google hits, I really can't find any sources that don't use it as a synonym for Gen Y, or as a sort of catch all for any young person. It really doesn't seem to be a stand alone concept. I propose we merge it into Generation Y. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

They also don't talk about the MTV Generation as a phenomenon wholly separate from Generation X. That's kind of the point. --Skrapion (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean that they don't treat MTV Gen as an entity of its own, in any way distinct from Y. Generation X is a completely different concept, there's no confusion there, but in most sources Y and MTV are treated as interchangeable terms.Peregrine981 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the bigger problem is that only one of those sources actually mentions the MTV generation. (And, as such, you're being a little misleading with phrases like 'not a single one'.)

The real problem here is that a quick Google search will show that people use the term 'MTV Generation' to refer to lots of different things, and there doesn't seem to be an authoritative definition (although wikiality seems to be affecting that).

The MTV Generation page is clearly talking about the XY-Cusp, so it doesn't make sense to merge it into the Generation Y page. Whether or not the term 'MTV Generation' usually refers to the XY-Cusp is, however, debatable, and a different argument. --Skrapion (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to this source [2], then I don't think I'm being dishonest, as all it says is, "These young people, born between 1975 and 1981, are categorized as generation Xers and those born after 1981 as generation Yers or MTV generation." It uses the two terms interchangeably, which is exactly what I said. I admit as well that I haven't been able to find a copy of "When Generations Collide- Who they are. Why they clash. How to solve the generational puzzle at work. Lancaster, Stillman. 2002" So I'm not sure what it says, but the online reviews and so on don't seem to mention MTV generation at all, suggesting it was a very minor part of the book. Even if it does mention MTV generation, we need more than one pop-sociology book to make a wiki article.

My problem is that this article is talking about a concept, "the XY cusp" that really doesn't seem to be discussed anywhere else. If you can locate some real sources talking about MTV generation in this way, then let's keep it. But I haven't been able to find any such sources.

By merging it into Y, I would suggest we take whatever useful sources or info we have here, merge it, and discard the fluff. Since most of the sources are really talking about millenials/Gen Y, I would think most of the info would be most appropriate to that article.Peregrine981 (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to prove my point I will list some of the most prominent sources that I can find:

[3] People Magazine, throw away term for young people.
[4] another throw away term for young people.
[5] seems to be referring more to the fact that the event was on MTV
[6] talks about MTV itself, more so than a generation. Seems really to be referring to Generation X if anything.
[7] Referring to 2008's undergraduates, clearly gen Y.
[8] Again, Generation Y.

Peregrine981 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So, shall I just nominate it for deletion then? I'm not exactly sensing a swell of support for MTV generation. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't around. I do object to the theory that "MTV Generation" == "Generation Y" (in fact, I object to your last two references, which were clearly just using the term to refer to young adults) so I've changed the redirect to a disambiguation page. --Skrapion (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. This is probably correct. Although I am not exactly versed on wikipedia policy toward this kind of term, that means many different things to different people. I notice that it isn't a "true" disambiguation page right now. Should we change it? Peregrine981 (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Although I thought that consensus was reached, looking closely at this discussion, it's not clear. An anon has been reverting MTV Generation to a pre-merged state, and I cannot really be sure that it's not the right thing to do. Reopening the merge discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I am opposed on several grounds. First, I see two pretty distinct generations in spite of the overlap. Second, I think Generation Y needs a major overhaul for quality before any merge is reasonable. Based on the tag at the top of the article, I gather I am not the only one who thinks so. --Law Lord (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific, and provide reliable sources? Thanks Peregrine981 (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose OK, Gen Y includes but is not limited to the MTV Generation. The latter is a distinctive subclass of the former, since not everyone in Gen Y is "is perceived to have been heavily influenced by 1990s era popular culture in general and mass media in particular". And not all in Gen Y belong "in a peculiar, homogenous youth culture defined by a deep appreciation of the fashion trends, perspective, attitude and music popularized by MTV and similar media (Viva, Triple J etc.) that rose to prominence in the late 1980s." I believe it shouldn't be merged and the template should be deleted. (Text copied from a previous discussion.) Gregorik (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Play-station/Diva Generation

No mention of these, Play-station Generation was coined by the UK media when studies found that kids (in Gen Y) rarely undertook any form of worthwhile exercise.

Diva Generation

This has been mentioned in part, the getting rid of being competitive, having unrealistic expectations, the "I'm special because my mommy says so"

In the UK the Big Brother Generation, you don't need to have talent to be famous, you can be famous just for being....famous

--Pandaplodder (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-close post made in the merge discussion

This article does not say that Gen Y is limited to the MTV Generation, and a redirect does not imply that. The problem is that MTV Generation is not a coherent concept, and should not have an article of its own. Please either find valid independent sources citing it as a coherent idea in its own right, or suggest an acceptable idea for the article on MTV Generation that doesn't make it into a redirect. Peregrine981 (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones

Most GenYers are the offspring of GenJonesers, not Boomers, as many experts have pointed out. So of course, GenJones should be mentioned here. The concept and name “Generation Jones” has achieved widespread acceptance and usage, especially in the last year or so. The Associated Press’ annual Trend Report chose The Rise of Generation Jones as the #1 trend of 2009. Many very influential experts, pundits, and analysts have publicly supported the GenJones constructs, from media outlets including The New York Times, Newsweek, NBC, Time Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Books about generations now almost always automatically treat GenJones as a full bona fide generation. If you for any reason want to revert this edit, let's please avoid an edit war and discuss possible changes here on the talk page; please give detailed and sourced reasons why you think this edit should be reverted. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted, but changed the link to point to the statistical baby boom, which we all agree is correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Some observations, and ideas

Remember, a generation is defined by certain events that occurred in their lifetimes, thus a shared perspective. For example, the Boomers were born during a "boom" time where birthrates were the highest they had ever been. They also had the Kennedy assasination, Woodstock, and the Vietnam War draft. That's why some want Obama and others who were just a bit too young to have been in the draft before it ended in 1975, put into Generation Jones. They had large classes in school like the other boomers, but were only 8 durring Woodstock, and they weren't able to be drafted to Vietnam!

Keep in mind, even though it is considered to have technically ended in 1975 with the Fall of Saigon, it wasn't until 1977 when Carter pardoned the draft dodgers, which in a lot of people's minds was the true "end" to it all. American's were able to come back, without fear of going to prison, and return to "normal" lives. However, all those born in the early 1960's were still too young to serve in 1977. The youngest would have been born in the 1950's- the heart of the boomers.

People point to birthrate to define a generation, because they share the common perspective of a large class in school (more of them). This doesn't quite work for those after the boom, because the "bust" of the second half of the 1960's through the 1970's, wasn't THAT much. Because of different factors, many babies weren't born in the 1970's compared to the 1960's and 1980's. Those born in the 1970's had smaller classes, and that was the decade with the fewest births since the baby boom. The births increase in the 1980's as more and more boomers settle down, start families, and obviously all the draft dodgers could now have families, causing birthrates to go up to boomer levels, hence the term "echo-boom".

Some try to pinpoint when the start of that boomlet was. Some point to 1976, because more were born that year than 1975, and it did continue to go up until 1993. If you look at the pure numbers though, births don't go up to near boomer levels until 1979 when the number was almost 3.5 million (the very MINIMUM to be considered a "boom"), until 1993, the last year it was still over 4 million. The actual live birthrate of those years are roughly 16%.

That means the 1980's babies have the same shared perspective that the boomers have- larger class sizes. The other problem with a shared perspective is that there was no major war like Vietnam. There were some other things that occured though. The first that everyone seems to point to is 9/11 (although this is more for the end of Generation Y more than anything else). There is also the dotcom bust of the early 2000's.

Both events are in 2001, and don't forget that after 9/11, the stock market really declined. So, put everything into perspective. If you're 22 (born 1979), you're just graduating college this year (assuming the 4 year thing), and are going into the workforce when all kinds of bad stuff is happening! Also, if you count "coming of age" as 21, then the first to come of age in the "new millennium" or the 2000's (using 2000 to start) would have been born in 1979. Another shared perspective. The final entire year Clinton was in office and the world was "peaceful" was 2000. The youngest to have kept him in office for those 8 years were born (excluding those born after election day in November) from 1975 to 1978. Assuming they graduated college at 22, they would all be in the workforce during the dotcom boom.

The 2000 US Presidential election has gone down in history as being the most controversial in the last 100 years. The Florida election results kept the winner from being decided for days. The youngest voters in this election were born for the most part from 1979 to 1982. That means their first presidential election has been marred. A shared perspective.

Looking at US presidential elections, the US just had the most historic. In 2008, the first African American president was elected. Zogby divided the voters into different demographics, based solely on age. The youngest voters were in the 18-29 demographic, or those born between 1979 to 1990. Another shared perspective, "young" voters were those between 18 and 29. Here's a link that talks about it:

http://www.zogby.com/blog/10112008part2.cfm

Finally, if you look at the historical events, as well as birthrate, you'll come to see a divide happening between Generation X and Generation Y. If we look solely at birthrate, the 16% (rounded) rate begins in 1979, and ends in 1994. If we look at the youngest voters of the 2000 election, we see the entire years 1979 to 1981 included. Looking at the most historic election in United States history, Zogby puts all the those in the 18-29 demographic to be all those born from 1979 to 1990. Also, keep in mind nearly all those born in 1994 will be old enough to vote for Obama's re-election in 2012. Plus, the first to turn 21 in the 2000's were born in 1979.

A little about me. I'm 32 (born 1977), and I noticed when I was talking to those born in 1979 and later about the first time I voted for a president in the 1996 election, they either don't remember it, or didn't care. I talk to them about the 2000 election, it's as if a lightbulb went off, and they talk about how they were in suspense for days to see who won. It's odd to me how back in the 90's during different elections I was put into the Gen X category, and somehow this decade I became a Gen Y, when I remember nearly all the 80's, and even voted 5 times in the 90's! I also talk to 80's babies about different events from the early 80's (1982 specifically), and I get a blank stare. I noticed that everyone I talk to born in 1977 all seem to remember the early/mid/late 80's, while those born in 1979 somehow only seem to have mid/late 80's memories. Can 2 years really make that kind of difference? I guess it can when talking about 1982, as 1984 to them was 1982 to me. I remember clearly when I was 5 in 1982, and saw ET in theaters, heck I even kept that ET doll from back then. Looks like trash, but he's MY trash! I also remember the record player I got for Christmas that year, and all the records I used to play on it back in the early/mid 80's. I tell all this stuff to 80's babies, and they act like I'm old! They talk about the cassettes they used to play in the mid/late 80's, and I did get a cassette player in 1985, but I remember the early 80's, BEFORE cassettes had the market! There's a shared perspective the mid to late 70's babies have that seem to really taper off around 1978. This connects us to other Xers (barely), that we have a shared perspective that those born in 79 and the 80's just don't have. Thanks for reading, and I think once others start seeing these perspectives, they will then divide Gen X and Gen Y between 1978 and 1979. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.154.4 (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree very much with the paragraph above. I was born in 1974, and people five years younger than me are COMPLETELY different. Pop culture landmarks such as ET, Star Wars, and Michael Jackson's Thriller are good measures. If you can't remember these coming out then you're probably Gen Y. I tend to think of Gen X as being born 1960-1975. Gen Y has grown up with the internet and cellphones. These were novelties to Gen X, who grew up with cassette tapes, video games and only a handful of TV channels. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember Thriller! It was early 1983 when I was about 6 that I heard Billie Jean on the Motown 25. The next day in my school, it seemed like EVERYONE was singing Billie Jean on the playground! I was also born in 1977, and I remember ET, but since I was born the year Star Wars came out, I don't remember the original. I do remember the final one in 1983, if that counts. I think 1977 may be the final year for Gen X though, because there's another 1977 baby (John Mayer) who commented on Jackson's death by saying it "feels like the loss of ourselves as kids listening to Thriller on the record player". I also played records as a child in the early 80's- those old book and record sets, remember those? Also, for what it's worth, I didn't have more than 4 tv channels (ie cable) until 2000, when I owned my own house! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.82.227 (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a Sociology class at SIUe, and they used similar logic, but they had different years than you. They claim those born from 1976 to 2000 were known as Generation Y. They used similar ideas, saying that Generation Y's first vote was in 2000, something the class talked about one day. They did talk about that screwed up Florida part. I thought about the same comment you made, that the ones born in 1976-1978 would have been old enough to have voted in the 1996, making me wonder how 2000 was their first vote! I can't see the logic, because the teacher said the first-time voters were between the ages of 18-24. Isn't 24 old enough to have voted in TWO elections that year, I asked. She said if they had turned 18 four years earlier- so wouldn't that make the person 22, not 24? She said I was overthinking everything, and first-time voters in 2000 were born from 1976-1982. Oh well, I guess everyone has a different point of view! I tend to agree that Generation Y begins around 1980, aka the Reagan era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.45.176 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I took that class, she didn't say they were 18-24, she said they were born from 1976 to 1982. Yes, that means they were 18-24, and she was using those ages, because that's the common age group for college students. Ususally, first time voters are in college, meaning the 18-24 demographic. Yes, it also means the 23 and 24-yr-olds could have voted in 1996 as well, but they were still in the 18-24 demographic in 2000, so that's why their birthyears (1976, 1977) were included. If you think about it, they would be the ONLY years to have voted in 1996, because someone born in December, 1978, would have still been 17 during the 1996 election. Hope this clears up why the teacher said that the first-time voters in 2000 were born from 1976 to 1982. I was born in 1987, and I'm clearly Generation Y. I don't get why people include those a decade older than me into my generation. They were in college before cell phones and the internet became widespread, so how did they have the same experiences as I did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.45.58 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Internet became widespread in 1996 - hence, the start of the "tech boom" Also, everyone at my school was forced to have a laptop/notebook from around 1994. As for cell phones/ mobile phones to some, they were very widespread in college by 1999. Certainly most had them in 1999, after that they started going progressively younger. Not sure what that means for this, but they are objective facts.202.139.104.226 (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

But 1995 was BEFORE the boom, wasn't it? I looked it up, and less than 10% of the population was online, and even smaller were cell phone users. Those born in 1977 were in college BEFORE those booms, as you say yourself that 1996 was the start. I said they were in college BEFORE, didn't I? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 1995 was BEFORE 1996. Here's proof of less than 10% internet:

http://dssresources.com/news/259.php

Here are the numbers for cell phone users (assuming adults)

http://www.caslon.com.au/timeline13.htm#5

The population in 1995 was roughly 260 million, so 25 million is less than 10%. Most users were buisness people, NOT college students. I have a cousin who was born 1976, and he graduated college in 1999, and said that no one in his class had a cell phone, because they were just too expensive. Most those who had them at that point had the money for them, so they were NOT common in college in 1999. Maybe the 1999/2000 school year, but definately NOT the 1998/1999 school year.

I can tell the two of you are Generation Y, and 202.139.104.226, you are either not from America, or you were too young to remember the 1990's as an adult. I say this, because in 1994 laptops were over $2,500, so you must have gone to a wealthy school if they MADE you have one when Windows 95 wasn't even out yet! It would have to have either DOS, or Windows 3.1 to run. Plus, if you had a cell phone in the 90's, again, you would have had to have a very high level of disposable income. I first saw one in 1999, and the ONLY reason the guy had one was because he was working 2 full time jobs, going to school part-time, and had to have one, because he had a 3-yr-old daughter. He was born in 1975, and I was born in 1977, so obviously, if they were widespread in 1999 as you say, then I would have had one, and he wouldn't have been cool like he was. He was cool back then, because he had a cell phone. I found out he paid over $70/month for it, and the service was lousy!

Speaking of widespread cell phone users, if you bother to do the research, between 1999 and 2001, cell phone users exploded in America. That would mean that 2002 was the year they were "everywhere", NOT 1999.

As far as the internet goes, the "tech boom" was when the number of WEBSITES exploded, not the number of web users. The "user boom" occurred in 1998, just over 2 years after the number of websites shot to the moon. It takes time after something gets attractive for the number of users to go up.

From now on you Generation Y kids should REALLY do your homework, and NOT believe everything you read. I can tell you from personal experience, VERY few had a cell phone in college in 1999 (maybe some of the early 80's babies that were just starting college in 1998/1999 could have, but NOT the seniors!), and VERY few people were online before 1998! I CLEARLY remember both years, so I am an authority on both! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.154.4 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, because I too was born in 1977, and all through the 1990's, I heard I was a member of the "young adults" known as Generation X. I was in my teens/early 20's, and I'd have to agree. However, around 2001 or so, I started to hear that I was part of this new "young person" of Generation Y. What I don't get is that if you're in your mid-20's, you're still a "young adult"??? I too graduated college in 1999, and like you I didn't see any of my senior classmates with cell phones. Heck, I didn't even own one until 2004, when I was 27. I did start to use the internet in 1996, but just for email. It was in 1998 that I started seeing these new kids come in, use the computers like there was no tomorrow- they'd be on these chat rooms, their cells would ring, and they'd keep on chatting with people on BOTH their computers and cell phones!!! I'd say they were born between 1979 and 1980, so that's a good starting point for Gen Y. Plus, in my opinion, if you graduated college under Clinton, you entered the economy during a time of amazing growth. Look it up, from 1993 to 2000, the economy was booming. Those are characteristics of Generation X, meaning those born from 1971 to 1978 would have turned 22 those years, placing them into the Gen X category. I think those born from 1971 to 1978 ARE Gen X, and you won't convince me otherwise- sorry Jason Dorsey, according to me, you're the final year of Gen X, and not the beginning year of Gen Y!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.82.227 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For whats its worth, I had a cell phone in 1999 when I was 14. And most of my friends had them too. But then I'm solidly in Generation Y, so what do I know?

Well there are a few demographs that put 1984 or 1985 as the end of Gen X. Personally, I think Gen Y started in 1980 because they would be first to hit puberty living in post-Cold War America. Plus people born in 1980 were the first to come out of College after 9/11.