Talk:Millennials/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Regions

Some parts of the article need some more specificity as to whether they apply globally or regionally. I noticed the "pop culture" and "digital technology" sections in particular. Are these intended to apply to the USA, North America, Anglophone countries, the developed world...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.77.77 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Upper Cutoff Point

In response to some earlier debates, I feel 9/11/01, regardless of its effects, should NOT count as the upper limit of Gen Y. That's much, much too late. "Cold" Y should end 1985, maybe 1986, while Y in its entirety really should end about 1990 or 91. Anything after that and children already started from day 1 inundated with the the modern digital post-soviet union internet team america world police world we recognize today (as opposed to us unique Cold Y who can remember quite a different world!), rather than the cold war arms selling to iran saddam is our friend communist bloc warsaw pact intel 286 motherboard 8 bit nintendo snail mail family ties world some of us can recall. Jersey John (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Population pyramid for United States

According to this site: http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html, the 2000 Census of the United States shows the demographic in the 20-34 range were lower than both the 35-54 and the 5 to 19 age groups. If you then calcualte the birthyears of everyone in that demographic in 2000, you would have:

35-54: 1946-1965 20-34: 1966-1980 5-19 : 1981-1995

If you go even farther, you can put those birthyears into a generation, and find that the Boomers were born from 1946 to 1965, Generation X from 1966 to 1980, and Generation Y from 1981 to 1995. This is exactly what demographers use when they put the previous age groups into generations. I don't see what this 1976 to 1995 stuff is coming from, because in 2000, those born from 1976 to 1980 were all in the 20-34 age bracket.

Or, if you want to say that this was as of Dec 31, 1999, you would then be shifted a year, and the demographis would look like this:

35-54: 1945-1964 20-34: 1965-1979 5-19 : 1980-1994

Just take a look at the pyramid in the picture, and you can't deny that these birthyears are the proper classifications for Generation X, the Boomers, and Generation Y.

Generation Y HAS to have a consensus of starting in either 1980 or 1981, and that's why articles like these are appearing more and more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/gen-y--30-charmed-tech-savvy-and-ready-to-take-over-20100108-lyy6.html http://www.jsonline.com/news/85915137.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.21.58 (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and ending about 1990. As far as generations go, it's greatly truncated due to the massive changes in such a short time. More changed in the world between, for example, 1985 and 1995 than did 1975 and 1985. Jersey John (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC) (hence why we have a "Cold Y" subset... what I happen to fall in.)

As I've said countless countless COUNTLESS times before, given the years given to the Boomers and Generation X, Generation Y should be demarcated around a 15-20 year limit as well. I consider the early 80's born kids to be a cusp between X and Y, if not late X'ers themselves. Generation Y proper should begin around 1984 and should end around 2000. 1984-2000 seems reasonable enough for me. 2001 onwards is Generation Z. I think I've repeated this numerous times. Very annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afghan Historian (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are very annoying. (LOL). In any case, we should use dates as used in reliable sources, not in your opinion, even if it be that of an expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If Aghan Historian doesn't have any concrete evidence to support his claims, then his case is invalid. So far I hear demograph markings without any representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.125.116 (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Anorexia in Gen Y

The desire to meet model beauty standards is still increasing, particularly in women. The Institute of Psychiatry in London found a three fold increase in anorexia and bulimia between 1988 and 1993. Genetic traits linked to anorexia and bulimia may be obsessiveness, perfectionism, and anxious personality styles.

Cold Y

I'm confused. There was the original article that was merged into this one. There are references to a section yere at Gen Y. but as of now, there is nothing at all on any theory of Cold Y. What's the current thinking on its inclusion? --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There used be a page for Cold Y to those born around 1982-1985. They are Generation Y that remember the Cold War. They got rid of it because there isn't any supporting articles for it.

Methodologies for the design of soft systems for generations x, y & z

Interested to see what themes you've sourced for these topics to date, if anyone has found a different application such as the following - or themes surrounding consumer trends, interaction and electronic media I'd be interested to know.

Prior themes from my blog @ http://blogspot6.wordpress.com/;

Methodologies for the design of soft systems for generations x, y & z

---

Summarising those seven stage representation of SSM – soft system modeling:

Enter situation considered problematical Express the problem situation Formulate root definitions of relevant systems of purposeful activity Build conceptual models of the systems named in the root definitions Comparing models with real world situations Define possible changes which are both possible and feasible Take action to improve the problem situation

Aspects which separate objectives between design, communication and Interactions for generation ‘Y’, ‘X’ and ‘Z’, the former and its contributory factors to those from later ‘X’ and ‘Z’.

“Following Generation Y, they are typically the children of Generation X; their parents also include the youngest Baby Boomers and some of the oldest Generation Y-ers.”

http:// Wikipedia.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ookwudili (talk • contribs) 08:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Generation Y should start in 1979 or 1982

Generation Y is characterized being overprotective by their parents and have grown up on the internet. In the late 70s, it was frowned upon on using corporal punishment to your kids. Plus, people born in 1977 graduated HS in 1995, which by all accounts was the first year when the Internet became widespread to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.125.116 (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Yes, Windows 95 came out in the summer of 1995 (after those born in 1977 had already graduated high school), but the internet "boom" was 1996. It took a few months after 95 came out with Explorer that people got AOL and others, and connected online. Here's a book that talks about the "Boom to bust" years of 1996 to 2002:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Telecoms-Internet-Age-Boom-Bust/dp/0199257000

They were in college when the internet became widespread, meaning all those born from 1974 to 1978 would be part of Generation Y, according to your description (all college age people in 1996). If you look at births from 1979 to 1994, you will see a distinct increase, a major one too, indicating that 1979 is the earliest year for Generation Y to start. For reference, here's an article from early 1999 BusinessWeek that also uses 1979 to 1994 as their birth years:

http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_07/b3616001.htm

Do some homework before you post, will you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.21.58 (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The ABSOLUTE EARLIEST year one can conceive Gen Y starting in the US is 1979, due to the term "millennial" which indicates "came of age after 2000", so that's those born either 1979 or 1982 depending on if coming of age is 18 or 21.

To add what the previous comment was, here's an article that calls "Millennials" mostly those who "came of age around 2000". Here's the link to it from Reuters:

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/02/17/pew-dissects-u-s-millennials-on-issues-of-faith-and-culture/

Personally, I have to agree that "coming of age" means becoming an adult, and I think that means 18, because you're considered a "legal adult" in the US at that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.90.5 (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Career pressure

I'm suprised by how this article presents the cohort as wanting the workplace to be adapted to their life-styles. My understanding is that because of career pressure, the job-market and the economic situation this generation is by far more conforming to employer and market expectations than previous generations. The German newspaper "Die Zeit" once titled their frontpage with "the conforming generation" making a point about the worries of a generation that has no backbone baecause of fears about the future. Also delaying adulthood and family life does not seem to be only due to wanting to get it right but also because one needs to concentrate on a long time of education and career start-up to secure means for supporting childreen in a neo-liberal environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.114.38 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See you guys erased what I had put on here.

Can't handle too much truth on your site huh?

That is okay though. No one takes this site too seriously anyway. (Bjoh249 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC))

I pointed out the discrepancy with the dates to PBS - it was an error. If you see above (where you posted the same thing again) you'd see that the transcript quotes 1982. So a transcript lies now? You spammed 3 separate talk pages with the same information. It is left on the Generation X page. Please stop this disruptive behavior. You have received your final warning. Other editors have also warned you. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Too many refs?

Does anyone else think that the enormous amount of refs in the first paragraph is overkill? I mean, 15 refs to backup TWO statements between them is a bit much, IMO. They could be pared down to 1 or 2 each and still be sourced. Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Trust me on this; it is necessary. I've been editing this page for years. A consensus decided on the wording, but every other week people keep changing the dates, especially in the introduction. All the terms mentioned are interchanged with Generation Y (Millennials, Echo Boomers, etc.). We're leaving the article as it is until a definitive definition is clarified in the coming years. I am working on improving these generation articles. Thanks for our input. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A Note to the anonymous poster/anyone else who does not know

As I was previously told by another editor a while back (when I didn't realize), Canvassing is against Wikipedia policy is considered disruptive behavior and you may be blocked from editing. You should also register an account, unless there is a reason you don't want to. I traced your IP address to an IP address spoofer. If you're not registering, I can only assume you're the previous poster from a couple of weeks ago who was nearly banned from this site. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

1) Just because someone else disagrees with you (for whatever reason) doesn't mean they are one and the same. And, for the record, I'm not the previously banned user in question.

2) Web proxies are common practice for those who are in the habit of browsing anonymously. Just because a proxy is used, doesn't mean the assertions are any less valid.

3) You are unfit to edit Wikipedia. You refuse to include 1981 as BOTH the start date for Gen Y and the end date for Gen X. An academic year for graduates of 2000 begins in 1981, not 1982.

4) The reason you won't change this is down to bias/personal agenda. EducatedLady already said the reason you won't amend the details is because YOU want to be a Gen X'er as you were born in 1981. I'm guessing you were born in the fall or after '81 and are actually a Gen Y, not an X. Your own bias stops you from even adding 1981 as a legitimate start date and for that reason you are unfit to edit a website such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am NOT saturating this talk page well with more nonsense. I also find it hard to believe you are not the same banned user, because you are arguing in the same manner and your IP addresses are connected to a spoofing site. You keep changing them, and did it again now right after I called you out. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Millennials. You have new messages at Talk:Generation X.
Message added 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Millennials. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk: Generation X.
Message added 17:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Removed the anonymous user's post because the discussion is on the Generation X talk page. User is saturating both talk pages with the same argument. Please see the above Talkback box. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, last time I'm posting in this section (I am not going to allow my comment be unjustly deleted). My response to your claims of 'spoofing':

Special Note: I will remind you again that I am NOT spoofing anything. You need to get your terminologies right. Using a web proxy for commenting on the 'net is not illegal and is common practice. 'Spoofing' implies something sinister/underhand and, again, is potentially libellous. The web proxy used to make comments has not been banned by wikipedia and is in good standing.

Not impressed with your attempts to make critics of the Gen Y and X talk pages look unjustly bad. You either accuse people who don't agree with you of 'spoofing' or being 'disruptive'.

Anyway, I'm leaving this page as there's way too much drama here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with someone hiding behind an IP address. I said you told me you were using a proxy. I traced your IP address to a spoofing website. Plus, I said your IP address quickly changed after I raised suspicions. I initially gave you the benefit of the doubt, but like the other user, you have a common misspelling of words. I don't have any concrete evidence, so I'm not dealing with that; I'll let the administrators look into it if they need to investigate. You are also saturating two talk pages with the same argument over and over again, ignored what I've said, and engaged in Canvassing. What happened to having enough and never coming back? Obviously empty threats. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am actually leaving this page, but your constant goading implies you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm not on this site for silly arguments but for facts, which I have actually provided, though you choose to ignore them.

And 'empty threats'?

Hm, seems like you're making stuff up again, just like you did with regards to 'spoofing' which is a blatent lie and you know it.

Using web proxies to make comments here is allowed, in fact, the ones I used aren't even on the ban list, so once again your insane claims don't hold water.

Anyway, I really am leaving, and if you were mature, you'd just leave it at that. Stop replying to every post I make, it's not needed and only encourages arguments. This is an academic website not a schoolyard. Grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you stop posting back and forth on two talk pages? I have asked you repeatedly to stop that. If you do it again, I am moving the post to one page.

I told you why academic terms did not belong on here. There are no articles written by major publications/newspapers on generations that mention academic terms. What part of this is hard to understand? I have also said, repeatedly, that I was working on a way to clarify the matter without adding more date ranges and birthdays. If I find a reliable source (not original research) that discusses generations in reference to academic terms, I will include them. I won't change the date ranges that have been set for the reasons I have mentioned previously. I already added a clarification on the Generation X page about those born in 1981 who graduated in 1999. It is inferred that those who were born and graduated in 2000 were considered Millennials by most people, though some say they are cuspers. For the millionth time, I am going by the standards used by current well-known media and research. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually did provide links. Why is it so difficult to incorperate academic start-years into the context of Gen Y? Unless you have an agenda, I can't understand why you wouldn't keep the Wiki as factual as possible.

If we are to even accept 2000 graduates as Gen Y based on their graduation date, we must also accept a portion (around 25-30%) would have been born before the so-called 1982 start date. The error that has been made is that the start of the actual year is NOT the same as the start of the academic year.

The academic year is clearly defined as beginning before the actual year:

http://www.isc.co.uk/InternationalZone_TheIndependentSchoolAcademicYear.htm

http://www.ihes.com/bcn/tt/celta/faqs-3.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Academic_term

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_term

What is wrong with those links? Several of them come from Wikipedia itself. I even used them to show the irony of the situation.

Again, unless you actually have something constructive to add, please stop replying to every post I make. I don't even think you'll even read the links I posted because you don't want to make this page as accurate as it should be. To say I am appalled is an understatement. I'm going now, it really is a waste of my time and energy to keep making the same points only to have them dismissed (even though I am right on this issue and, deep down, I think you know that I am too).

Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see my previous post for the reasoning I mentioned. Again, please sign your posts instead of having the bot do it for you. It tells you how under the edit summary in bold. You click on the four tildes, or just use your keyboard. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I've noticed multiple references to the NWO on this page, all of them out of place and, in my opinion, inappropriate. This is most likely a case of vandalism, but I just want to make sure. The relevancy to this article is slim to none. --173.59.197.62 (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

OIF / OEF

I was surprised when I read this article that there is no reference to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, September 11th, or The Global War on Terrorism. A lot of service members belong to Generation Y, and everyone of us who are still in the service either freely enlisted during a war or re-enlisted during a war. I think you could make a solid case that the current all volunteer military, which is provided by Generation Y, saved the country from social chaos that would have ensued if a draft became necessary after OIF became unpopular. I think those that keep this page up could give us that little bit of pride after bashing us for being a bunch of over-privileged liberal childish internet addicts. (Bkmalone86 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

I can't say that I don't disagree with the rampant liberalism, however, what you are proposing is definitely biased. Do you have any legitimate sources to back up your statement? I am not pro-war, but neither do I disagree with getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He was an evil man who murdered my people as well. I think a lot of people had a problem with how the war started. I am not passing judgment, however, because initially, I supported the war, though I was still unsure. After September 11, a lot of things changed. But anyway, the only reference I have found to Generation Y in the military is an article that is associated with the U.S. Army. I have that somewhere, but I have to dig for it. It's been a while since I've read it, but I think it discusses the number of Generation Y members in the military (as mentioned in the article, born since 1982) and possibly their feelings about serving their country. I can get back to you on that. I don't think it's appropriate to bring in military terms on this page, but I guess that depends on the context used. If you have any sources you'd like others to look at, please post links to them here, or list them. They can't be personal blogs or biased opinion pieces, but some newspaper columns (not referring to acceptable newspaper articles, etc.) may be permissible.

Thank you for your service to our country. My father served as a medic in the Air Force, and one of my cousins served in the Air Force in Afghanistan, and is now finishing college. God Bless you (no offense if you're atheist). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What can I say except that the Baby Boom is out to discredit our good name?- unsigned because I don't know how to sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.246.136 (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this article about a generation? Your suggestions are almost exclusively American-oriented. This also goes for the religious section which quotes some narrow American-based studies as if they represented world trends. Mr. Shean (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter

I didn't find any reference to Harry Potter. I've often heard this generation referred to as the Harry Potter Generation because most of them grew up reading it and watching the movies all the way into adulthood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.210.182 (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Generation Y and Multiracial Identitiy

I have been reading a lot of articles lately about Millennials (Generation Y) being very proactive in identifying as Multiracial in terms of race identity than generations prior to them (especially Baby Boomers). This would be a very interesting characterstic to add to the article. I am posting a few sources to cite what I am referring to. Let me know what you think. Educatedlady (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09034/946461-44.stm http://www.lewisfreelance.com/lewisfreelance.com/Diversity_Talks.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/us/30mixed.html

Name

Is there any particular reason why this article is Generation Y? Strauss and Howe, as the article says, say the correct term would be Millennials. There is really no reason to use Y, which is excessively lazy and unoriginal. It tags the generation to the completely unrelated Generation X. Apparently Z is the currently birthing one. Whats next? Generation AA? I think theres a much stronger case for Millennials that Y and it seems like it was just an arbitrary choice when the article was started.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Generation Y seems to be the more widespread term [1], [2]. I do not think there's any "correct" term as there are no formal rules for naming generations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to strongly agree with the first commenter. The name of this article should be "The Millennial Generation." The term "Gen-Y" was a placeholder, and has largely been replaced the terms "Millennials" and, as I said, "The Millennial Generation," a name that the generation itself developed (as this article informs me). I've read at least five articles in the last hour from sites as diverse as the Huffington Post, the Harvard Business Review, and others, all which refer to the generation primarily as the Millennials. I (or somebody else reading this) am (is) going to go find some good, hard empirical reason to make this change. And then I (or he or she) am (is) going to make this change. 98.223.71.136 (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I am leaning towards a move as well, but we should put together some sort of reasonably reliable indicators of how wide spread use is... Peregrine981 (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Generation Y references: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. You'll probably have to start an RfC to get a move. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you could probably find 1000 individual mentions of Gen Y. Same with Millennial. It is my opinion that the trend is toward the name Millennial, but as we have amply demonstrated in the endless battles to define dates, it is hard to say which is more common. If this descends into a giant discussion I'd rather move on. Maybe it is too early to say there is a clear choice yet. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain Generation Y is the WP:COMMONNAME. Try conducting a seach engine results count.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Search engine results are not valid basis for articles. This has been repeated more times on Wiki than I can count. And it doesnt really mean anything since it is still incorrect and completely arbitrary. I bring up the point again about Generation AA. Gen X was a one time deal. Further, the main authority on generational naming has stated it is Millenials. Even further, I dont think anyone in the Generation identifies as Gen Y. Neils examples could easily have been influenced by the naming of this page, which is another reason why search results are not valid.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Main authority? Need a cite for that. Also the Terminology section needs trimming as much of it seems to be a coatrack for their theories. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Another one of those Strauss and Howe cult followers...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would note that the term Millennials is widely used beyond Strauss and Howe, so I think we should leave discussions of their relative merits and demerits out of this. Having reviewed google news for both terms' uses in the last month I think that the jury is still out on which is more widely used, with both appearing with great frequency in major publications from around the world, so I would advocate no action for the moment. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I might take a stab at trimming the Terminology section on the weekend. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that Strauss and Howe use the term, however, they mention in their book Millennials Rising that Millennials themselves came up with the term when they voted on the name for the new generation in an ABC poll by Peter Jennings back in the mid-1990s. I still see many articles today; including US papers such as USA Today, Canadian newspapers, as well as newspapers in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand that use the term "Millennials". The term is interchangeable with "Generation Y". It wasn't too long ago that I heard a TV anchor use the term as well. I think the article is fine the way it is. The term "Millennial" should remain in the terminology, and the title of the article should stay "Generation Y". CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Religion Section

Does anyone know why the religion section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality? I dont see any discussion on this talk page. Perhaps the tagger doesn't like the findings? --NDState 16:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why either. I will look into this. I don't see a problem with including religious/non-religious sources if different viewpoints are included. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, please keep us posted on your findings. Thanks --NDState 04:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

""The Spirit of Generation Y", a 2006 Australian study conducted by Monash University, the Australian Catholic University, and the Christian Research Association was taken of 1619 people. The results show 48% of Generation Y believe in a god, while 20% do not, and 32% are unsure if God exists. 1272 of those surveyed were 13–24 years old; the rest were between the ages of 25 and 59.[52]" -I don't believe this statistic is quite appropriate as less than 80% of the participants actually belong to the so-called Generation Y at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.109.34 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

^^ I believe that you are mistaken. Less than 20% are not in Gen Y. Grtamlinb —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC).

Even though Generation Y has its limit as being born after 1980, I think it shouldnt be nominated for its neutrality. Its the only study we currently have. Also, neutrality wouldnt be the issue there. Perhaps verifiability or if Wikipedia had it, not being valid. mystery (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This article mis-defines the terms "Trophy Generation" and "Trophy Kids"

The article defines the terms as such:

"The Millennials are sometimes called the "Trophy Generation", or "Trophy Kids,"[78] a term that reflects the trend in competitive sports, as well as many other aspects of life, where mere participation is frequently enough for a reward. It has been reported that this is an issue in corporate environments.[78]"

The definition here is a common misconception of the real definition of "Trophy Kids". Similar to the term "Trophy Wife," Trophy Kids is a term used to describe children who are seen as nothing more than an accessory to a typical member of an over-achieving generation before them.

The definition used in the article is a common misconception resulting from a condescending misinterpretation of the words "Trophy Kids" creating a fabricated image of a generation that has been overly gratified by receiving too many trophies, when in fact there is no such evidence that Generation Y has ever received any more gratification than any other generation.

The definition in this article ought to be removed or replaced with the proper definition/ origin of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croato87 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources cited disagree. The Wall Street Journal article says, "Where do such feelings come from? Blame it on doting parents, teachers and coaches. Millennials are truly "trophy kids," the pride and joy of their parents. The millennials were lavishly praised and often received trophies when they excelled, and sometimes when they didn't, to avoid damaging their self-esteem. They and their parents have placed a high premium on success, filling résumés with not only academic accolades but also sports and other extracurricular activities". If you can find conflicting sources, we can put those in as well, but for the moment the sources don't support your argument. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Attacks by older generations

Would it be appropriate to include information about negative stereotypes perpetuated by the baby boomers and the silent generation about generation y? For example, that they're lazy, entitled, ignorant, materialistic, and tools of manipulation? Anyone who has ever watched Glenn Beck knows that this viewpoint is widely shared and promoted among certain elements of society.69.148.205.222 (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be just as appropriate to include information about negative stereotypes perpetuated by Gen Y against other generations, and the memes and fantasies Gen Y tells itself (and is sold as a part of pandering to the group) about how much more educated, advanced and righteous they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.134.32 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Strauss and Howe - "Very influential"

"Yet Publishers Weekly called the book "as woolly as a newspaper horoscope." And in academe, scholars chuckled. Nothing like this had ever been written with a straight face." - Don't seem very influential to me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This was already discussed. Neil Howe and William Strauss are considered the pioneers of generational theory. Please read the quotes from "The Millennial Muddle" as well as the Judy Woodruff PBS special on Millennials. "The Millennial Muddle" clearly indicates that without Neil Howe and William Strauss, the critics wouldn't have anything to write about or sell books. I did not write "the most influential." "Very influential" is accurate based on more than one source, including "The Millennial Muddle," which discusses how influential Strauss and Howe are including mentioning how Neil Howe continues to give speeches and consult with major companies. You do not need a direct quote. It is inferred by the sources given. I will ask an administrator to mediate if this becomes a major issue. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of POV to me...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page, but we can move the whole discussion here. I don't mind an administrator to mediate. I have two sources to back up the wording. Let me know if you'd like to keep the discussion on this page. Also, I'd like to continue the discussion I started with two other editors regarding the pop culture section of this article (as well as the Generation X page) and invite you to participate if you're interested. Of course, once the discussion starts, anyone else is welcome. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're saying an admin has to mediate - any experienced editor can do it. I read your response on UnquestionableTruth's talk page. Reading the source, it seems to me H&S are consulted mainly on the topic of Millennials. Given this I would be fine with the compromise of taking the word "very" out. It was a good suggestion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that leaving "very" is better overall. I think I mentioned that the PBS special on "Millennials" acknowledged Strauss and Howe (the moderator was speaking to Neil Howe and his continuing contributions; William Strauss had passed away tragically of cancer) as the pioneers of generational theory, and experts on Millennials. That source is included as a reference, as well as the "Millennial Muddle" article, which, though on Generation Y, also acknowledges Howe's expertise in generational studies. I would suggest you remove the "citation needed" template, and leave out the "very". I would only suggest a mediation because I believe these authors to be very influential - their work contributed to more books being written about Millennials, and other Generations - especially Baby Boomers and Generation X. The paragraph does not state "most influential." I feel the original wording has merit, and I would like mediation, and if administrators believe this wording is still a bit biased, then we can just keep "influential" and remove the template. Comments? Oh, and I will start up the discussion regarding the pop culture section. Educatedlady and Peregrine981 have also expressed interest in editing that section. Would you like to join the discussion? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do Strauss and Howe get 3 paragraphs? That seems disproportionate for a balanced article. #### — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmunden (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat agree on both sides of this. I think Strauss and Howe are overplayed in this article. However, instead of individuals doing their own research, the authors are frequently referenced to in other publications, making them influential. Influential, but not accurate, but that is just my opinion. Their research is more based upon marketing and less reliable research. I also posted an article in regards to pop culture for Millennials on the Gen X talk page, since we were just discussing the issue. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thank you. Educatedlady (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No that is not just your opinion, Educatedlady. Strauss and Howe are totally overplayed in the article. They should just be one source. Also, the article still lists 1982 as a common start date. That is simply not the case, no matter how many times creativesoul7981 insists it is.Bjoh249 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I do find it funny how back in 1996 all the "young" Gen X voters who were polled during the Clinton election were between 18 and 24, meaning they were born from 1972 to 1978, which today is considered part of Gen Y. Somehow those voters went from being X to Y, meaning Gen Y's first presidential vote would NOT have been the 2000 fiasco, but rather the 1996 reelection of Clinton if the mid-70's started Y. By the way, you don't need sources for any of this, just READ the article where it starts Y in mid-1970's, and look, you do the math to see in 1996 voters were born 1978 and before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.32.24 (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen any source use any of the birth years of 1972-1975 as the start years of Gen Y. Those birth years have always been in Gen X. A few sources have used 1976-1979, but it has mostly been 1980 on.Bjoh249 (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Dates

Please stop using a specific date range in the introduction. I found other sources that use a different date range for the echo boomers. This would not work with the date range that was on there. The range should try to inlcude other sources. I included the link to the sources below. http://asumag.com/DesignPlanning/university_echo_boom_impact/ http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/companies/taylor_echo.fortune/index.htm64.3.217.154 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The dates for the Echo Boomers are mentioned in several books, CBS News, PBS, and the majority of sources (popular media), including two conferences (one in Canada, and one in the United States) devoted entirely to the Millennials/Echo Boomers. Most sources use the range 1982-1995 for the Echo Boomers. I have provided several sources to back up these dates. We go by what is most common. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I found sources that use different dates. If the source is reliable it can be used. I dont know how you can dismiss these other sources. 64.3.217.154 (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Sources. Here you will see mentioned: All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Therefore it is stated here that even significant MINORITY viewpoints can be used here. It is not necessarily what is considered common or popular, even though there are several sources that start generation y with 1983. Just because something is popular does not make it right or accurate. However what it seems like that researchers cannot determine what year they want to start any generation. Therefore I believe a range of mid 1970s to mid 1990s or early 2000's should be used to define Generation Y. Educatedlady (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, EducatedLady, I have added a few more articles to my own talk page that use 1978-80 as the start of Gen Y. Millennial refers to those who came of age around the turn of the millennium. For example, when the class of 1999 came of age, the millennium and 20th century was right on the borderline with the 21st century and 3rd millennium. Plus those born from 1980 on would become full adults and reach young adult milestones in the new millennium. The talk of the new millennium was all over the place from 1997-99 and the possible Y2k bug was all the buzz in '99. Other than looking back at the past 1,000 years from a historical perspective, people were a lot more focused on the new millennium in 1998-99 than the 20th century, the 1990s, and the 2nd millennium. I mean c'mon, this isn't rocket science.

I see that the Gen Y article also still uses 1982 as the start date. That is wrong, but I have argued with CreativeSoul7981 until I am blue in the face. I will just use my own talk page to try to show the actual truth of the matter.

Also, Strauss and Howe are not the only voices on Generations, and I don't think they should be the only sources cited in every article on the generations either. I also don't agree with Strauss and Howe's findings at all. They are older men who seem out of touch with anyone outside of their own baby boom generation. One of them is already dead.

Like I said before, I don't expect anything to be changed on the Gen Y article with CreativeSoul7891 in charge of it, but people are aware that Wikipedia has a lot of articles based on the opinions of plain people, chosen as non-paid administrators, who work on their own personal computers at home, and not on actual facts from educators with doctorates, as you would find in a real encyclopedia.Bjoh249 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Woh woh woh woh... what exactly is the problem here? That's not how Wikipedia works at all. Listen if you have a reliable source for such date then change the article accordingly. If you feel CreativeSoul7981 is in violation of WP:OWN then seek mediation or contact an admin. If CreativeSoul7891 continues to revert without properly addressing your concerns, note Wikipedia's 3RR policy. Regards.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to change the article before, CreativeSoul just changes it back. He is very stubborn and is determined to keep his birth year of 1981 as a part of Gen X on the wikipedia articles. I have fought with him until I am blue in the face. I have a whole list of articles on my talk page that lists dates earlier than 1982 as the start of Generation Y. I also have updated my talk page recently, and it now includes a recent article from this year from CNN, which clearly states that 1980 is the beginning of Generation Y. go check it out.Bjoh249 (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change it back provided you cite reliable sources. I'll monitor the situation.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you over creativesoul7981 or something?? I don't want into get into a huge fight with him again.Bjoh249 (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Simply sounds like WP:OWN violation.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What creativesoul has done definitely sounds like WP:OWN. Again, if I change anything on the article he will pop out of the blue, change it back, and then he will come on here and start chewing me out. If you are over him then maybe you can change it, and then he won't be able to do anything. See my talk page for many different sources that argues against his. He always accuses my sources of being wrong, no matter where they come from, as an excuse not to change the article. He also acts like Strauss and Howe are the only experts and sources that should be used, despite them both having many flaws in their arguments. All I am asking is that it is changed to reflect the fact that the beginnings of Generation Y is not set in stone and that there are many arguments about when it actually begins. He has it set in stone as 1982 on the Gen Y page, and the Generations page. As you can see from my own talk page, many people don't use Strauss and Howe's theories. Also you can't do the generations based on the exact year someone turns 18. Also CreativeSoul uses 1982 as the first year of Gen Y on wikipedia because people born that year turned 18 in 2000, yet the wikipedia articles on the 3rd millennium and 21st century has their start beginning in 2001, not 2000. The wikipedia articles on the 2nd millennium and 20th century has them ending in 2000. That is contradictory. Gen Y includes all of those who came of age around the turn of the millennium, that includes those born from 1980 on. Also not all states and countries use 18 as the start of adulthood, some use ages later or earlier than 18 as the start. No matter where you are, you don't really become a full adult on everything until you are 21. CreativeSoul has changed it some on the Generation X page, but still has it set in stone with ending at 1981 at the bottom of it. Both the Gen Y and Generations page both use Strauss and Howe as the only experts. He also has Strauss and Howe's view on any article related to or mentioning generations. Bjoh249 (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, feel free to change it back again with the sources you have. Per WP:BURDEN it is up to you to add the sources. Re-add the information and I'll keep an eye on it.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, are you over CreativeSoul7891?? Do you have authority over him on wikipedia is what I am trying to ask here. If you do then I will change it, since I have the sources to back it up, but I want to make sure first.Bjoh249 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a political battleground. The matter of who is over who is irrelevant. Wikipeida is a community There are no ranks nor levels of authority. There are only users with differing levels of editing privileges. Wikipedia's ever evolving policies and guidelines are in place for procedural purposes. Again, you are more than welcome to re-add the text provided you cite the appropriate reliable sources. That WP:BURDEN is yours. I will continue to monitor the situation should you wish to pursue this any further.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the article to reflect the fact that experts differ on the actual start date of Generation Y. I have also cited my sources. That is the only fair way to do it, instead of just using the opinions of one or two people. Please continue to monitor this, as I am sure CreativeSoul7981 will be ready for war again. Bjoh249 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The introductions of the generation articles already include several sources. You are making unnecessary changes. It was agreed upon by other editors to keep the wording as is. You are using an older source that is already in included in the article. Educatedlady also agreed to keep the dates for the "Echo Boom". Most sources use 1982-1995. These are dates that go with the "Echo Boom" and not necessary definitive for Generation Y/Millennials, though sometimes these same dates are used with these names as well. The 1982 start date is well-known for the HUGE increase in live births "echoing" the baby boom. Educatedlady said she would leave that section alone, and we changed the introduction. You are the one removing several sources, and replacing it with an older source. This article's introduction ALREADY includes several sources with different date ranges. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I should also add that I am in discussion with another editor/administrator regarding the wording of this article to still include 1982, but with slightly different wording. Educatedlady and Peregrine981 already known that I am in discussion, and that I am not making changes to the introduction. In fact, Peregrine981 has already asked you why you are attacking me again. It's getting ridiculous now. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the articles I cited was a recent article from CNN from just this month. I discovered the article from one of my very civic minded younger friends on Facebook too. The Echo Boom has everything to do with Millennials/Generation Y. There are a mix of sources using different dates for the beginning and end of Gen Y as well, and I changed that to reflect that. I was being neutral, instead of you who wants to use mainly 1982. Just say late 70s to early 1980s as the dates for Gen Y, or just early 1980s. Don't give favoritism to any date. That is all I ask.Bjoh249 (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We have shown sources that use different dates for generation y and it doesnt seem to matter. Creativesoul only wants her dates to be used. The user is obsessed with using only the dates she wants no matter what the sources say.75.148.160.76 (talk)

Oh, CreativeSoul is a she? I didn't know that. Terrible, ignorant person regardless of their gender. Check out my talk page BTW.Bjoh249 (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not an ignorant person. I won't waste my time going on your talk page because you are baiting me. You and I disagree on the start dates for Generation Y. There are many experts out there that continue to use 1982 as the start date - not just Strauss and Howe. I have provided numerous sources showing how widespread and common the use the 1982 start date is. Not only do psychologists/psychiatrists use this start date, but the U.S. Army, Navy, media/marketing, official Millennial Conferences, numerous authors, and several Canadian, German, and Australian sources (including the official Australian Bureau of Statistics. What I had a problem with was that you deleted all other sources and included one from 2005. I didn't think that was right at all. Since the 1980s, the year 1982 has been recognized as the start of the "Echo Boom" because of the HUGE jump in births. Although the term is used synonymously with the labels "Millennials" and "Generation Y," this terms stands on its own. Regarding the section on demographics:I will concede that including various start dates is in the article's best interest and prevents needless arguments. There are no exact time frames, and even if the media uses more concrete date ranges in the future, I doubt they would do so anytime soon.

I went ahead and reworded the section to include the earliest start date, 1976, leaving the other dates intact and the clarification that not all experts use the same time frames. I think the matter is settled. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate you re-wording the article, the fact that I have found plenty of other sources that use start dates other than 1982, shows that it is not as widespread as you may think, and that there is no start date etched in stone. Also the fact that you guys have used Strauss and Howe's terms of the start date of Gen Y millennials, and they use the term as those who came of age in the new millennium. Yet your articles on the 3rd millennium and 21st century say they began in 2001, not 2000, and that 2000 was the last year of the 2nd millennium and 20th century. That is contradictory. None of that is correct though since millennials refer to those who came of age around the turn of the millennium and after, which includes the class of 1999 and those born in 1981. My page shows the use of dates earlier than 1982 as the start of Gen Y, by many credible sources. That is why you won't go to my talk page, because you know they prove you wrong.Bjoh249 (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one that is wrong. Society goes by the Gregorian Calendar. We've already had this discussion - a topic which Peregrine981 himself calls a "red herring." The U.S. Navy and the Naval Observatory both cite the year 2000 for the New Millennium. And as I previously stated to Educatedlady: Earlier you argued that Strauss and Howe were wrong, and the "Real Millennium" was in 2001: "The United States Navy is more reliable than two guys looking for fortune based on INACCURATE reseearch [sic]. These men are saying those born in 1982 are graduates of the year 2000 the FIRST of the millennium. This is WRONG!" And I said that the media and society does not care about that, and continue to cite the year 2000 as the New Millennium. We all still use the Gregorian Calendar as well, despite it's flaws. I proved you wrong. This August 8, 2006 article shows that the U.S. Navy continues to refer to those born in 1982 and graduated in 2000 as Millennials, regardless of the "Real Millennium". According to the United States Naval Observatory WHO IS THE OFFICIAL TIMEKEEPER FOR THE UNITED STATES "Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000." Well, apparently the Naval Observatory doesn't care either, because the Honorable Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy U.S. Naval Observatory said on December 31, 1999 (New Year's Eve remarks):

Well, it's not only an exciting night for the Oceanographer of the Navy but also for the Secretary of Navy and all of us here and indeed everyone associated with the Navy and Marine Corps around the world...This century has been one which has given us, out of conflict, immense peace and security and well-being...We need to change and evolve just as the Navy and Marine Corps have changed over the course of the 21st century...so different in the Year 2000 than we were in the Year 1900...I say to you on this millennial moment, God bless you all. God bless the Navy and the Marine Corps. Have a wonderful millennial moment.

My sources in the archives by Emory University and Harvard University use 1982 as the starting birth year for the first Millennials, and the Emory articles mention the fact that the first Millennials graduated in 2000. Regardless of when the "Real Milllennial" is, I had several articles indicating the high school Class of 2000 as the first Milllennials to go to college, and the articles mentioned the 1982 birth year. I even had one newspaper article mentioning the Class of 1999 as the last of it's generation (Generation X) while mentioning the Class of 2000 as the Millennial Class. I didn't not make this up. I graduated in 1999 and we were called the last of our generation (most of whom were born in1981). The class after ours, the Class of 2000 - with over 80% being born in 1982 - were called "The Millennials." Since the 1980s, and with the Echo Boom in 1982, society has looked to those born in 1982 (who would graduate in 2000) as those that would change the future. That's just the way it is. We can argue about dates all day long, but it doesn't matter. You and Educatedlady are never going to agree with me. The majority of the media and society sees the Class of 2000 and those born in 1982 as the first Millennials. People are free to disagree. You can contact all media outlets, but I doubt they'll stop calling the year 2000 the New Milllennium. You can also try asking Wikipedia and society to no longer use the Gregorian Calendar, but that will never happen either. This is a pointless argument. The generation articles' introductory paragraphs already indicate that there are no exact time frames, and that sources use various time frames. The rest of us have moved on. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have shown plenty of other sources that use start years earlier than 1982. You are trying to make up your own facts. The fact remains that there is no concrete beginning of the millennial generation. Some use 1982, some use 1980, some use 1977. Your article from the Navy just states when the new millennium began, it states nothing about Generation Y. I never argued that 2000 was the start. I was just pointing out your contradiction with using the start year of 1982 for millennials on one article and then stating the new millennium began in 2001 on the other article. Also the Gregorian Calendar is a very reliable calendar that has been used for ages, before the US even became a country, but I still think 2000 is the start date. Generation Y includes all of those who came of age around the turn of the millennium and after. Get over it!! I have plenty of sources, from many media outlets, stating the start date of Gen Y begins earlier than 1982. All people have to do is just go to my talk page. There is a reason the millennial generation includes those born in 1981. How much time was left of the 20th Century and 2nd Millennium after the class of 1999 came of age. It was just 8 months and 20 days for me. We graduated college, started families, came of full age, and everything else in the new millennium. Most of our adult life has been in the new millennium. You are just some OCD crazo who is determined to have his way on this because you think it somehow makes you superior or something. I am also adding new articles to my list all the time that use start dates earlier than 1982. You are just hopeless.

Also you talk of technology and stuff as being an indicator of the Millennial Generation. The internet has been widely used since the mid 1990s, IPhones and IPads didn't come along until the late 2000s long after the classes of 1999 and 2000 already graduated.

Lastly, the articles I find from Harvard on Gen Y are from 2009-2010, and list 18-29 year olds as millennials. The recent one from Harvard also lists 18-29 year olds as millennials. I do not leave the 18-29 year old age group until the 12th of this month, and me and you were both in this age group in 2009 and 2010. Those born in 1982 will be turning 30 next year as well, which begins in just 8 months and 28 days from now. Using age ranges to describe a generation is not accurate and not a good way to do it. We all get older and leave age groups behind. Besides, your 30s is not old anymore anyway, it is not even middle age.

The article still states that most sources use 1982, and that is not true, but you are determined to have the article biased towards your view in some way. No wonder people are so skeptical of wikipedia. Bjoh249 (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Where does it state that?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is one example: "And while 1982 is a fairly common start date, some sources use even later dates."Bjoh249 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be a split in Generation Y because with the changes happening between the 20th and 21st century, Gen Y are not going to be the same. I was born in 1985, but I can tell you for sure that my middle-school and HS experiences were very different of that of someone born in 1989. I graduated HS without the "Social Network" revolution, and someone born in 89 were prime teenagers during the Myspace/Facebook era. That said, I think the split should be this: 1978-1982 - Cusp X/Y 1983-1986 - Cold War Y 1987-1992 - Core Y 1993-1998 - Recession Era Y 1999-2005 - Cusp Y/Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.122.10 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This has bee discussed at great length, and date ranges have been decided by a consensus. While the majority of "cuspers" identify with Generation X, there is no official split in Generation Y, just a "first wave" and "second wave" if you will. Generations can be be 18-20 years and while sharing many things in common, there are obvious differences between those born at the beginning and end of a generation. The majority of reliable sources do not use the label "Cold Y", "Core Y". We use terminology by reliable sources: well-known sociologists, researchers, psychologists, as well as reliable books and newspaper articles. The wording that Bjoh249 has complained about has been approved by administrators and reliable sources are used.CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have posted numerous reliable sources too. You insist on having it your way, creativesoul. Again, you can't use 1982 as the start date of Gen Y, because the people born in that year came of age in 2000, and then say the millennium actually began in 2001 on your articles regarding the 3rd millennium and 21st century. That is contradictory.Bjoh249 (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is you all going to argue about 1982 when the article says "mid 1970's", which would be 1975/1976 unless my Math is wrong, making it nearly 10 years before 1982!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.32.24 (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The article states 1982 is a fairly common start date, and that isn't the case. Please see my talk page. Bjoh249 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is still hijacked by Creativesoul7981. It still states 1982 as a common start date, and that is untrue. This is still not a neutral article. Please change.Bjoh249 (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Still using 1982 as common start dates. I am also going to do research on Canada and Australia, because I am sure I can find plenty of articles from them using dates earlier than 1982 as the start of Gen Y.Bjoh249 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Facts

From the article, Gen Y begins in the mid-1970's, so here are some mathematical facts that agree with this comment. Generation Y began coming of age in the mid-1990's (those born in 1976 turned 18 in 1994). They were the part of the young voters who supported Clinton during his 1996 election (everyone over age 18 in 1996 was born in 1978 and before, part of Gen Y according to this article). They first entered the workforce in the early-1990's (born in 1976 you'd be 16 in 1992). They grew up during the cold war, as they were in high school when the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 (those born in 1977, would mostly be in 9th grade). Why aren't all these FACTS about Generation Y included in the article? It's not source needed facts, as the sources listed have 1976 as the beginning of Gen Y, meaning ALL this stuff would be factual if you do the math behind it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.32.24 (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your info User. Since Wikipedia has a rule about original research not sure if your info can be added, unless you find sources that we can use. I have been out of the loop lately due to personal issues, but I will start researching again, to add quality/accurate info to the generational articles. The Strauss and Howe theory points out (incorrectly) that persons that graduated in 2000 are "vastly" different than persons who graduated prior, however the key attribute that makes their research faulty is while they may end gen x in 1981 and start gen y in 1982, they easily neglect to cite that several (not just a few) persons born in 1981 graduated in 2000. Another point I should add is that while Strauss and Howe believe that persons born in 82 are so different because they turned 18 in 2000, and therefore means they are part of a different generation, however a common characteristic here is that in U.S. persons born 1975-1982 all turned age 18 during Bill Clinton's presidency. Educatedlady (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You count doing math as original research? Read it again, because those born in 1976 ARE 13 in 1989, they DO turn 18 in 1994, they ARE considered part of Gen Y according to this article, and DO turn 16 in 1992. You've GOT to be kidding me that this information has to have a source. It's like you need a source to say the year 2000 followed the year 1999, but because I say that, you say it's original research, so it can't be in an article? Good lord, do you have no common sense?? This article says Gen Y begins as early as 1976, and my God how in the world can you say that in 1992 those born in 1976 are 16 would need a source? Again, I saw that 7 follows 6 would be original research according to you and would need a source! You are NOT going to find a source that said that in 1992 those born in 1976 turn 16, because it's like unless you're a braindead moron, you KNOW that in 1990 those born in 1976 are turning 14 and are the majority starting high school. Again, do you have no common sense to see this? What is wrong with you? A source for doing math? REALLY? My god, I've never seen a person say that something that is such common knowledge that nearly every 7 year old has needs to have a source. I guess if I say that the sun rising in the morning is a fact, you'd say it needs a source!--75.0.35.23 (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

People who graduated in 1999 are very much included in Gen Y(born in '80 and '81). They were the last graduating class of the 21st century and 2nd millennium. Neil Strauss and William Howe were both out of touch(one of them is even dead). On top of that using Strauss and Howe's usage of 1982 as the start date, because those kids graduated in 2000, contradicts Wikipedia's articles on the 21st century and 3rd millennium because those articles state that they begin in 2001, not 2000. Just a total mess all around here. Wikipedia should not be passed off as a legitimate encylopedia source with all of this false information, contradictions, and lack of neutrality in many of their articles, including these ones on generations and dates.Bjoh249 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the ONLY reason it took me this long to respond to your ignorance is because I have not been on this site in sometime. You just proved how uneducated you really are. Using ALL CAPS, slang (duh? come on really 1990 here), and lack of an actual account says that you are not a serious editor anyways. I NEVER said you need SOURCES to say in 1992 those born in 1976 were 16. If you had HALF a brain you would know that from my original post, I was AGREEING with you, but you are too clueless to see that. Educatedlady (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Article

This article was obviously written by baby boomers who didn't have many kids, and it's a mess, quoting extensively from some no-name book.

Gen X was all about Smells Like Team Spirit (meaningless lyrics that annoy parents) and excessive piercings. Gen Y thinks all that is stupid, rejects piercings and tatoos and listens to the kind of stuff we get after Grunge and Alternative. Gen Z apparently goes for High School Musical, which Gen Y thinks is effeminate. There's not much else to say. Brevity is the soul of wit, and the macro-cosm is visible from the micro-cosm.

The article suffers from quoting career academics and authors. As much as I reject pop culture and consumerism, I say you should talk about how it differs from that of Gen X to get some idea of where are the minds of Gen Y.

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There are rules around here, and one is sourcing. Find sources that fit your high school musical to Nirvana continuum and we are in business. Oh and make them scholarly refs if possible. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This no name book by baby boomers has taken over the internet, google "generation me." They are redirecting the name of the highly selfish baby boomer generation onto the generation following, which is much less selfish. Top of google results? a website of this no oname book, where it admits the term already was assigned to baby boomers! The person, who is the book author writes like crud and is unclear in their paragraphs on the websites, meaning the book is no doubt dizzying to read and not at a quality level worthy of publishing... And, the person goes on to say that the true generation me puting selfish needs and wants before duty and honor... Is not selfishness. They say selfishness is having healthy self-esteem like the generation following theirs. Further, Ted.com has so far hosted two utterly propagandous unscientific "talks" about how great and happy the baby boomers are, which is not based off genuine studies, and anyone who knows members of their generation knows they are the laziest, most ignorant, most ist (racist, sexist, etc.), most selfish, most heartless, most refusing to grow up, most refusing to take responsibility, most self-hating, most hating of others, etc. generation currently alive. WE all know that generation is directly to blame for the problems of the two generations they bore and/or raised without love or care, plopping us in front of TVs instead of really raising us. Whoever included their propaganda of redirecting their own generation name at the generations already abused to high Hell and back by them is in on the propaganda. Any baby boomers who read this... Guess what. You're going to be dead in ten years. And, all you will have left is a legacy of ill-raised, highly problemed kids and grandkids who are completely lost in what to do because you told us we were still just babies in our twenties and thirties and slapped our wrists when we tried to act our ages, just so you could be in denial that you're old! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.251.138 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Oh, another piece of the propaganda against everyone not fourty and up... Facebook is full of memes that try to claim anyone born after 1975 or so did not experience all kinds of things that were all still around well into modern times, including things I suspect were invented after their 1970's cut off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.251.138 (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Music

the paragraph about music in the "Communication and interaction" section, particularly the last portion, reads like a rant against Generation Y, and may violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Specifically I'm referring to the assertion that there have been no new musical styles (I'd argue that there have been many new musical styles, especially in electronic music), the unsourced claim that "autotune has been cited as the decade's sole musical innovation," and the opinion that indie rock is "spent" and "lacking in angst," which is presented as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.147.112 (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Generational eras based on conjecture

While it's fascinating to read various sources highlighting the transitions and differences between different generations, I can't help but find most of the content of these articles (I'm referring to Baby Boomers and Generation X as well) being based on personal opinions and anecdotes not based on actual research but personal observations. Even in the last section "Cultural Identity" seems like a passive commentary that someone like Andy Rooney or Bill Maher would make. Perhaps this entire article would be better served if the conflicting POVs by various cultural historians and historical journalists were qualified before being used as sources? --98.119.14.89 (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph has no context. Why does the article suddenly start talking about the backlash against hipsters? There could be a purpose for this, but I don't see it. This needs to be either changed to make more sense, or removed entirely. Qantravon (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing sources

The external links section in this article is bloated with some good refs that we should use as citations in the article itself. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 02:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to do so. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Page should be called "Millennials", not Gen Y

Millennials speaks more to the group and the era in which we grew up. Like other generational titles, it's a unique name. Gen Y implies a lot of similarities with Gen X, which there isn't really.

Finally, most articles in recent papers and magazines use Millennials these days.

Also, people born in the 70s are most definitely Gen Xers. All of the cited articles/books for the 1970s birth start date are old, and more accurately refer to the later cohort of gen xers who were emerging at the time. Someone born in 1976 was 18 when Nevermind came out... how is that not Gen X?

99.234.70.158 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The "Generation Y" usage is dated. "Millennials" (or "Millennial Generation") is the standard in the media and among demographers now. 220.255.20.13 (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources using 1977 as the start date are not exactly old, although most recent sources I have read have mostly used 1980 as the start date, including CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/20/business/generation-y-global-office-culture/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/24/singer.young.leaders/index.html

I think we should just use 1980 and leave it at that. Or just say early 1980s. Bjoh249 (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? It'll just open a can of worms, and the heavy partisans of using the 1970s dates will wage never ending war on this issue. We have much more important things to worry about than whether it was 1978 or 1980 that marks the start of the generation and anything that encourages edit warring should be discouraged. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

End date for Generation Y

I, myself was born in 1996 but I can't remember 9/11 clearly as well as life before the internet and most people born in 1996 and later cant remember 9/11 and they have live their entire lives with the computers and internet so I put the end date for Generation Y to be 1997.Cocacola125802 (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. If you have a reliable source please feel free to include in the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If you were born in 1996 then you don't remember life(nor were you even alive)before the internet, since the internet was officially turned on in 1991 and took off in the mid 1990s.Bjoh249 (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like somebody needs to head over to Internet#History and History of the Internet and do a little bit of studying. The Internet in its present form was "turned on" during the mid 1970s-early 1980s, although most of the base technologies that make it up had been in development since the early 1960s. The World Wide Web, which is a component of the Internet and the most visible to the general public, was established in the very early 1990s but didn't become the mess we know today until several years later (thanks alot, Al.) I'd hope "Cocacola125802" wouldn't remember life before the Internet existed, unless s/he was actually born then and arrived at the present time through a temporospatial anomaly (it happens sometimes.) MXocross (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2012 (GMT)

Do we have to go into detail about Strauss and Howe's so-called "theory" on Gen Y?

They are just one of many, many experts on generations and many other experts disagree with their findings. I think just mentioning them as one of the experts is enough.Bjoh249 (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should go "into detail", but I don't think that the article does that right now. There are just a few lines, sketching a bare outline of their theory. This is justified IMO because they have been unusually influencial thinkers on this topic. (Have a look at this article: [9]) Not to say that everyone agrees with them, but they are unquestionably influencial figures in this area. That said, I think that what is currently written is not the best summary of their thinking (in fact it is inaccurate), and must be reformulated. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A post script: Sorry to revert your good faith edits adding sources to the assertion that many do not agree with S&H. It is true, but those sources did not say that. They should clearly say it in the text of the article. However, most of those article didn't even mention S&H, meaning that their use in this context is a clear case of synthesis. (See: WP:OR). Please continue your good work, but keep in mind that your sources must explicitly support the statement they are used to support. Tahnks, Peregrine981 (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I see this article is using 1982 as the start date again

The article has a strong Strauss and Howe bias.

Strauss and Howe are not the only people who have defined this generation-and I also believe Strauss and Howe are very wrong on their theories-many mainstream sources put the start date of Gen Y around 1980 or earlier.

"Baby Boomers Forum A forum for people who were born in 1946 to 1964. Defined by walking on the moon, drug experimentation, rock and roll, the civil rights movement and antiwar protest. Subscribe to This Forum

[BabyBoomers] Boomers chat?

by entpIdeas Yesterday 02:58 PM

Generation X Forum A forum for people who were born in 1965 to 1976. Stereotyped as grunge-listening, starbucks-drinking, and flannel-donning slackers. Subscribe to This Forum

[Generation X] The last generation before the Internet exploded.

by ObLaDiObLaDa Yesterday 07:36 AM

Generation Y Forum A forum for people who were born in 1977 to 1994. Information, digital and communication aged maniacs."

Can we please just use 1980 and leave it at that?Bjoh249 (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where the bias is. Right now the lead of the article says: "Generation Y, also known as the Millennial Generation [1] is the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates for when Generation Y starts and ends. Commentators use beginning birth dates from the latter 1970s, or from the early 1980s to the early 2000s (decade)."

We give priority to the "rival" of S&H's name (Generation Y) and we don't use their birth years (1982-2004). Also, I fail to see any kind of overwhelming consensus behind 1980 any more than 82... Why not stick to the long established, and deliberately inclusive language "latter 1970s, or from the early 1980s to the early 2000s " that is designed to prevent the futile waste of effort that results from putting in specific start and end dates? Peregrine981 (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

talk page removal discussion

You made a mistake by writing that I removed another editor's comment on the Gen Y talk page. I copy and pasted that comment (on the Gen Y talk page -- under "Page should be called "Millennials", not Gen Y" to show you other editor's (previous) views on changing the page name from "Gen Y" to "Millennials". The only thing removed was my own copy and paste comment which is within policy -- especially if it doesn't make sense to the discussion. So please change your erroneous edit to reflect truthfully what happened. Here's the comment that you claimed was erased from the Gen Y talk page:

"Also, people born in the 70s are most definitely Gen Xers. All of the cited articles/books for the 1970s birth start date are old, and more accurately refer to the later cohort of gen xers who were emerging at the time. Someone born in 1976 was 18 when Nevermind came out... how is that not Gen X? 99.234.70.158 (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)"

The ORIGINAL comment (above) was and still is in it's original place on the talk page -- untouched. See the section titled "Page should be called "Millennials", not Gen Y".

Our subsequent discussion on the Gen Y talk page took place under a different section titled "Page Name --- "Gen Y" or "Millennials"?

See your mistake edit at: 09:45, 16 January 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+349)‎ . .Talk:Generation Y ‎ (Undid revision 533260246 by Media67 (talk) - not proper etiquette to erase others' comments on talk pages unless they are clearly inappropriate) (top)

ALSO please notify the editor on their talk page when you make a claim like this.Media67 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already responded to you at your talk page. I'm tempted to remind you of the recent administator's warning to you to try to work more collaboratively, and less confrontationally: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#User:Media67_disruption.2C_blanking_of_pages It is way overbaord for you to post on multiple pages giant "exposes" of my "mistake", for a simple error. Calm down and move on. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Just admit it and move on. The results of that admin incident you referenced is as follows:

"No basis for sanctions at this time".

Media67 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, the "proper etiquette" for you is to first ask the editor on their talk page if they made a mistake or it was intentional -- especially if you've had dealings with the editor in the past. That's what I did and cced this page for easy reference since you made the erroneous edit here on the Gen Y talk page. Media67 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I already admitted it was a mistake (although I note that you seem to have erased that comment from your talk page as well, meaning that anyone trying to follow our discussion would have to really dig to find that) and have tried to move on. But if you want to make a whole pissing contest about : I made a mistake. Sorry. But, there's really no need to make it into a capital case, consuming all of your wikipedia efforts. I don't think it was unreasonable for me to think it may have been a case of you editing another user's comments, considering your history of doing that. Also, please note that the admin said more than just "no basis for sanctions at this time"... they also said: " I will warn Media67 that they need to improve their attitude and work collaboratively; otherwise, my assumption is they will be back here, and it may not go as well if there's additional evidence of agenda-like editing and somewhat devious or evasive dealings with other editors." To me, this is another example of un-collaborative, confrontational editing.

I don't think that a note on a talk page is needed every time you change an editor's previous edit, unless it is particularly controversial. I assume you are watching these pages? But if you would like me to do so in future I can try to do so in your case.

I would suggest that in future you should try to follow the guidelines at WP:REDACT concerning edits to talk pages, specifically "Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered. " This will avoid this kind of confusion in future. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. I see that there is quite some discussion at Talk:Strauss-Howe generational theory at the moment that could better occupy our time. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

1983-2001? Really?

Those are the most common year ranges I see, and I'm baffled. As someone born in 1985, I don't really think there's a lot of generational commonality between people my age and our kids (born 2000 and later). It's not just the fact that I'm at one end and they're at the other, it's more generational experiences growing up. For example, I feel that Generation Y can be described as having a blend of idealism and cynicism growing up, being the generation that remembers before the popularity of the internet (I know, I know, it was invented in 1968 - but it wasn't introduced to the public until the early 90s), before reality television, before internet culture, but is also too young to remember a life without the remote control, cable TV, the VCR, and the microwave. Basically I feel a generational kinship with people born from about 1976-1992 (I liked the Newsweek 1980-1991 definition best of the ones listed, but felt it was too small), although one could make an argument for 1993-1996 being part of Generation Y. We were teens or young adults when 9/11 happened, most of us were too young to remember the Challenger explosion, but not too young to remember the Gulf War. We were what I call the "90s generation".

I'm just a little confused here is all. What's the reasoning for late 90s and early 00s births being included in Generation Y? Or maybe it's just that I don't think of my oldest daughter born in 2000 as the same generation as me. She barely remembers life before YouTube, which came out when I was 20, in fact when her friend asked me what a typewriter was I felt old since I used one as a kid. I'm more amused than anything, though, at the idea I could look at my 1982 born wife and say "your generation raised ours" and point to our oldest daughter as being in my generation, but I digress. Anyways, with that weird explanation and anecdote out of the way, I should ask - what's the criteria that determines 1983-2001 other than arbitrarily picked political events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.195.110 (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Where do you get that date range from? That isn't what the article says.... Peregrine981 (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You're describing the difference between a "cultural" generation and a "biological" generation. The average age of a mother's first birth in the U.S. is 25.4 years old (biological generation). See http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm For the definition of a cultural generation look at Strauss and Howe's page.Media67 (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an intersting link Peregrine with the CDC. I have actually done some research on that site as well regarding births. Just to point out the infamous "Echo Boom" actually did not start until I believe around 1985-1987 which is when births reached about 4 million per year versus the 3 million or less in years prior. Edu Lady - Researcher (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Updates to the terminology

Media67, I didn't replace sources for no reason. The information was inaccurate and lacked relevant substance. Madsen Pirie and Robert Worcester were the first to use the term millennials to refer to the generational group despite the claim that Howe coined the term. We don't need to put everything anyone says about a subject on a wiki. The information should be useful and presented in a way that aids in the readers understanding. Another part that should at some point be added to the terminology is to relate the few years prior to 1997-1999 when Gen Y was referred to as the Millennium Generation. Noisavni (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but Strauss and Howe used the term "Millennials" to refer to that generation in their book titled "Generations" in 1991 (p. 335). Your information is dated 1998-- seven years later. Media67 (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

We have an article explicitly crediting Strauss/Howe. ([10]) Unless you (Noisavni) have a source contradicting that it would count as original research to state otherwise. It didn't seem to me that your sources explicitely discussed who named what or why. Perhaps I'm being obtuse, so I'm happy to see countervailing evidence, but for now we should stick to the established facts. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You are being rather abrasive Peregrine981 but that's alright. I was not familiar with Strauss and Howe's earlier publication. However, I appreciate the information. Maybe the wiki should reference the actual publication instead of a journalist claiming that howe and Strauss helped to coin the term Millennials without providing any background information about when or how. Noisavni (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The article does mention it. The first sentence (of the paragraph in question) says "Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote about the Millennials in Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069 in 1991.[4]"

So the book "Generations" and the page number 335 where Strauss and Howe use the term "Millennials" is there under reference number four (4). If a journalist at the New York Times gives them credit -- then it's within Wikipedia's policy to mention that too Media67 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Noisavni, I apologise if I came off as being abrasive. I'm simply trying to explain standard wikipedia policy as I understand it. In this case it is in fact better to cite a journalist claiming that S&H coined the term than simply citing the publication itself. Please see WP:SECONDARY for a more thorough explanation of why we should be using secondary sources rather than primary sources. In this case, we are being transparent about who is making what claim. Horowitz, in a reliable/verifiable source, has made a claim and we are repeating it. The primary source (Generations) is not really relevant to the debate about who coined the term, since it doesn't explicitly discuss that issue. If we simply go and find a source published on date X, using the name "millennials" it doesn't prove that this was the first use of the name. We need a source that explicitly says that. Otherwise we can easily make mistakes, for example the above usage of an article from 1998. I know it can seem a bit convoluted at first, but it is the only way we can make wikipedia reliable. We have no way of really verifying what each others' credentials are. We may all be very diligent and intelligent people, but there's simply no way to know. That is why we must rely on published sources whose reliability can be verified. They may be wrong, but at least its clear who has made what claims and on what authority. Thanks for your interest, and please do continue to make updates and corrections. These articles do need quite a bit of work. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Peregrine, Thank you for the information. What you said about using secondary sources instead of making a claim directly, is the best for accuracy. However, I do agree that these pages need a lot of work. The sentence "She questions the predictions of Strauss & Howe that this generation will come out civic-minded, citing the fact that when the War on Iraq began military enlistments went down instead." does not fit within the scope of the Millennials page. Based on the information in the demographics, almost the entire group would not have been old enough to enlist in the armed forces in 2003. Both the Gen X and Y pages lack neutral perspectives but on different ends of the spectrum. On page one of the Generation Me, Twenge states that the 35 year-olds and younger are the subject of the writing. That is a start date of 1971 which falls outside the Millennial scope and into the Generation X period. The Millennials page is full of poor references to sources with misguide or inaccurate information. While, the Gen X page seems to be missing crucial information that helps to define the group. I will do my part to further the topics and I do appreciate the assistance from you Peregrine. Noisavni (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

These pages (gen x, y,z) pose several problems which make it difficult to edit and construct a reliable article that is satisfactory to everyone. First of all, there really isn't any agreement on exactly what constitutes the various generations. What are the birth years? What are unifying characteristics? What are its geographic limits? Does it even exist? These are all complex questions that are answered differently by different people, and representing that fairly in these articles is a real challenge. Add to that the large number of "popular" but not necessarily very authoritative articles on the subject and we have a very difficult task here. But I think it is certainly possibly to do better than we have so far, so I welcome your assistance. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Noisavni, Jean Twenge is famous for writing about the Millennial generation. The back of her 2006 book states it's regarding "people in their teens, 20s and 30s" -- which means Millennials and some younger Gen Xers. If you post information on the generations pages then please make sure it's accurate and properly cited.Media67 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Media67, The text in question was first released in 2006. If you were to minus 20 from 2006, you will have the year 1986. All credible sources seem to agree that the Millennial range is from the mid-1980s to the end of the millennium, hence the name. Is my math flawed or are we using theechoboom.com as the most authoritative source about the age range now? Either way I hope to recruit more people to help with the editing of these pages. It is a challenge to get anything done when I feel I must argue every single point in the talk section to try and gain a single persons approval to avoiding having my changes undone. Noisavni (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Getting into a big discussion over birth dates has already been done. Yes, whatever you add needs to be reliably sourced per the notes on your talk page. Thank you and feel free to add something constructive. Media67 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Please add whatever you want, but make it clear where the info comes from. (If you need help citing sources, just ask) We can then have a discussion about the merits of the source. Things to be careful of are to fairly represent what the source actually says, and not extrapolate something broader from it, or to "synthesize" conclusions based on it. On wikipedia we are not "conducting original research", rather just reporting what published sources say. So please, be bold and add information you think is relevant, but please be aware that others may object to it on various grounds. It may take time to get used to it, but this is the only way to maintain the encyclopedia's credibility. We have to be thorough and tough on new information added, so please don't take it personally :) Peregrine981 (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)