Talk:Millennials/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Not Academic
ResolvedI'm removing the request for a sociology expert because this is not a sociological term. It's a popular label that is used in media and marketing, not academic research. For the record, neither is "Millenials" or "Millenial Generation." Anyone with access to JSTOR (or any other academic search engine) can verify that there is barely any scholarly research that would use these terms, and certainly no "experts." These generation ideas are not social theories, they are - at best - armchair psychology. 68.63.170.169 (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- What're not academic are misspelled words. Come on guys. Let's try and watch the embarrassing use of Millenial over the proper Millennial. Normally I'm not so picky, but this is the subject of our whole frickin' entry. --J.Dayton (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Generation Rx
StaleHere's another interesting generation name. Generation Rx, as apparently one in five teenagers abuse prescription drugs. Marijuana use is also declining. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7582787 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.231.246 (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Corporate predation
StaleWhat does "direct corporate predation" mean? Some leftist POV term, or is there a concrete non-POV definition? I've never heard of it, either direct or indirect. In fact according to Google, this is the only place on the entire Internet those three words are used in that order.
The Facebook Generation
StaleThis is an important article from the NY Times describing us as the Facebook Generation. I am not suggesting this title has suddenly displaced Generation Y, but it is much more descriptive than Generation Y, in the same way that "the internet generation" is. I've got nothing against the phrase Generation Y, I would be embarassed if millenials actually caught on, and I like the Facebook Generation as a descriptor since I use Facebook, but I realize that most of my generation doesn't actually use Facebook, it's just the upper class that is associated with people that went to four year colleges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/opinion/06mathias.html?ex=1349409600&en=2da1c3f706197a55&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin143 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
They're also calling us the "MySpace generation". Yippie. -JRK, unregistered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.33 (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Instead of desperately naming this generation after MySpace or Facebook (these sites has not been around for a long time, are not used by the majority of the people born etc), "The Spoiled generation" would be a more fitting term that applies to most people and the current state of society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.65.50 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Notable people
ResolvedMOst generation pages have a notable people list... i noticed that the Y page had a link to a list instead- and thats been deleted!!! There was lots of work in that! Why did it get deleted? I know there was 2 really similar lists- but i cant find the other- and it should have been merged with the list that was linked to this page anyway. Please explain? and can some one link the second list to this page- if that one still exists! Cilstr 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The Influential Icons list is completely rediculous. The actors in the Harry Potter series are in no way influential icons. Despite the ambiguity and utter foolishness of these generational labels Hannah Montana would fall into the realm of an influential Generation Z icon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.110.224 (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the "notable people" section until someone can provide a more comprehensive list than simply one name (LeBron James). Jack324 (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Vote: Change "Generation Y" to "Millenial Generation"?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result of the discussion was No Consensus %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I opt for a vote to change the title of this article to "Millenial Generation". According to the discussion below, many people find the term "Generation Y" to be: 1. Poorly descriptive 2. Offensive (A now adult generation should not be considered "in the shadow" of another) 3. North America-centric 68.165.179.177 01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Vote YES! -- I vote yes for the exact reasons stated above. Generation Y was the generic name until there was something that really defined us. I feel as though Millennials defines us quite well and I really don't like the name Generation Y at all. Why be called Generation Y when we are nothing like Generation X...we more closely identify with the Baby Boomers. I too feel like Generation Y is labeling us as Gen X's shadows. I severely dislike this idea and would prefer almost any name over Gen Y, but Millennials is my pick. 165.235.8.8 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Vote no -- Millenials is US centric and hasn't even caught on yet in the USA. Also, is this vote even valid? It's been going on for 10 months now. Kevin143 (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- VOTE NO - ITS not well known or understood as millenials and not ever heard of untill referenced in this article, the world does not revolve around the US contray to some belief! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzyjessie (talk • contribs) 06:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Vote - YES!
- vote NO!! We use it in Australia- and have never heard of "Millenials" except to describe gen z/new silents/gen c (what ever)Cilstr 11:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Vote NO. When people want to know about this generation, they think "Generation Y", and that's what they're going to type in. Redirect "Millenial Generation" to this article, and if the term becomes more used than the current one, consider changing it then. Mordant Kitten 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Vote YES. Im 30, an american who actually works in media and have never heard this, and by the way noone of my age group that ive ever know has actually referred to themselves as "Generation X" that was just a media grab to pull a bunch of kids into the ultra-materialistic mainstream.The generation after mine, ive always heard referred to as 'the internet generation'--71.97.164.222 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Vote - no! i agree with Cilstr. Grinchsmate 12:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Vote YES. Marketers, scholars, and millennials themselves all use "millennial" these days. Generation Y is just leftover from before we had a "real" name for this generation, like they're just an extension of Gen X. Note that it's spelled "millennial" (two n's) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannamarie (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Vote- Yes. The scholarly body of work out there all refer to the Generation as the Millenials, so its not really a choice. We're not here on Wikipedia to judge or generate names, we're here to create an encyclopedic article. Millenial Generation has been the dominant term in scholarly circles since 1991, and in the mainstream for years now. I think its clear that in order to have an article that is properly sourced and that can keep up with the times, we must change it to the proper name.--theowannabe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.102.12 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Vote YES. Strauss and Howe have outlined specifically their reasons for terming this generation Millenials. If anybody is to be taken as a reference for this topic it is them.Joshua4 (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
hmmm, body of work... lets just do a quick google search . . and see: 107,000 hits for "Generation Y" and 69,300 for "Millennial Generation". And there are specific sponsored links for gen y and none for Millennials.124.181.171.181 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's only because we're barely becoming of age to identify ourselves as ourselves. Check the dates of those articles. The more recent ones are coming up as Millennials rather than Gen Y. Gen Y is the old, generic name for our generation. The Millennials is the one that (even according to 60 minutes) this generation CLEARLY prefers to go by. 165.235.8.8 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
this just occured to me not too long ago, as i hate both "gen y" and "the millenials," and i was trying to think of a witty name similar to iGen, and i came up with Gen.com. anyway, yeah, jsut a thought. --Late Leo (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- iGen was my other pick. 165.235.8.8 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Vote YES! Before Generation X was called Generation X, we were called "Baby Busters" or "Twenty-somethings," (I was thirty at the time that was popular). I hated that my generation was defined solely in reference to the previous generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.177.102 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, right. What you guys need to understand here is that Wikipedia article names aren't created because what you want to call yourselves. It's what you are called. The Google search of "Generation Y", "Y Generation" or "Gen Y" hits 1,680,000 to "Millenial Generation" or "Millenials" score of just 424,000. Sorry guys. Generation Y it is. What I suggest is that you try to create PUBLIC UPROAR and get millions of people changing to what is just a marketting pop label anyway, then we'll talk again. And yes, I am GenY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.114.52 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Vote YES. First of all, to say the generation is named any one thing is ridiculous. Says who? Who does the naming? And, here's a question, if Wikipedia was around when, say, someone like Prince first changed his name, what would we have called him? Would we have said, oooh, sorry Prince, we can't refer to you as the artist formerly known as Prince until the Google count usurps your old name. Of course not.
--J.Dayton (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Vote NO. I really don't think that there's any consensus out there as to exactly what the demographic in question is called. I dislike Gen-Y because, as others have pointed out, it is derivative and minimalizing, but until there's a more definitive answer to this question Gen-Y appears to be the most popular name. Maybe rediscuss in a few decades when we finally figure out what happened 1990-2010? :p Nerdinexile (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- My opinion is No like it or not Generation Y is how most people think about this age group. It makes sense to people who have never heard of it before and it works. I personally prefer the term Echo Boomers, but I feel this article is best dealt with by listing alternative names in the intro but being consistant with the term that would make sense to the reader. For us to force our prefered name for our generation on this article is not WP:NPOV which this article already suffers from excessively. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Based on what I've read so far, Millennials is a term coined and promoted by the authors of Generations (book), and the date ranges apparently were chosen to cover everyone who was 18 or younger before the year 2000. It is apparently tied to that year, not to the cultural trends that are the usual "markers" used by demographers, thus it is out of sync with the cultural group known as Y.
- The term Millenials has gained some cachet, though, so we should mention it in this article, but note its original definition (which is not synonymous with Gen Y, those born circa 1976-1994), and that subsequently it became a sometimes-synonym for Generation Y.--Father Goose (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Generation Y is used in Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
More religious than their parents?
ResolvedI don't have any sources for this, but it seems to me (as a member of Generation Y) that the religious-ness of my generation is far less than that of our parents. Atheism is very common now, and society is slowly becoming more and more secular (in the western world, which is where it seems Generation Y comes from according to some of the discussions here). Does anyone have any evidence for Generation Y-er's being more religious than their parents? Because to me it seems as if it is the exact opposite. Like I said, though, that's personal observation; I don't have any concrete sources. --Whbrown 00:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the secular movement of generation y(my own generation), but many of generation y's parents grew up in the late 60's and 70's, a time known for counterculture. That is probably where the idea that generation y is more religous comes from. Also, politically, there are some studies that show that young people of today are more conservative, a quality associated with religion. I can't site the study, but I did read it somewhere. There is also a survey that shows more young people than in the eighties and nineties say they pray regularly and attend church weekly. again, just knowledge I've picked up- I can't site the source. ~~crazypenguincp~~
- Sorry but while all that sounds nice and fits the argument - no sources :( On the same subject I'd like to point out that everyone I know my age is anti-religion, that is they believe religion to be a negative influence on modern society. Now I don't have any sources but honestly, you can trust me, I'd never lie to you guys! 90.152.12.130 14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea that we (Gen Y) are becoming less religious. There does tend to be a rise in atheism but that in turn still begs a few more questions. Like what do we replace it with? If there is a tendency of religious amnesia then Gen Y must start to define what the replacement is. We cannot have a church with a Baptism just for the sake of tradition. That is backwards. Same goes for other varied practices that seem to still have prominence (Hanukah, Circumcision, Easter, Halloween, Groundhogs Day). Apollo. Apollo 82 20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I know I saw a huge report from the Pew forum on today's teenagers and their religiosity. I'm too lazy to go find it but maybe someone can Google it? I haven't seen any data indicating that Gen Y are more conservative and certainly none that they're more religious. I think the Pew Forum report said that something like 1 in 4 American teens are secular/agnostics/atheists.
I think we should include a discussion of the hyper-religious Christian fundamentalist teens as well, because they're a very significant group, with a whole subculture organized around them.
However, there's also the backlash against the Christian right and religious extremism in general, which you can see in the popularity of all these atheism books.
I don't think there can be a clear definition on the question, because several different religious "cultures" (I'm not sure what to call them, but you'll understand) evolving differently in different parts of North America. Being nearly 17 (and therefore part of Gen. Y myself) and having lived all my life in Québec, Canada, I couldn't say if there are more religious people of my generation than the previous one, but the minority (and practicing religious people have been a minority here for a considerable amount of time) that are are definitely noisier about it than the previous generation. Since the seventies, most religion here is discreet and personal, and gradually the churches emptied and most of them were mostly filled with older people. Nowadays, a pretty visible (if relatively tiny) minority of people aged from their late teens to early 20s are appearing and being much, much more vocal about their religious beliefs than most other people. The majority of people my age would still qualify as either atheists or nonpracticing, (a fair number could be qualified as actively hostile to most religion) but there is certainly a greater number of people taking it to the streets, so to speak, in ways that previous generations didn't. Most of the people I know on the Internet are Gen. Y as well, and generally from the U.S. or other parts of North America, and it's pretty clear to me that they're less religious than the previous generation, if only because, as an atheist, the people I argue with on Christian forums are usually at least twice my age. I have zero sources other than personal experience, however.
On a personal note, I also object to the notion that there must be something to replace religion with. There are religious people who get their children baptised nonetheless. My whole family is either clearly atheist or completely nonpracticing, and thus most of us (by which I mean my level of the family; my brother (who was born either at the very start of Gen. Y or the end of Gen. X), cousins and myself) have never been baptised, and those who have aren't particularly Christian, and in fact don't own a Bible. Yet we celebrate Christmas because it's long stopped having any direct relation to Christ, as with everything you named. There are parts of life that were derived from religion but aren't religious in themselves anymore, and those can hardly go, if only because Best Buy makes great money on tghe last few days of December. Circumcision, just like baptism, are a choice based on religion. Those who are religious will (or may) do it, and those who aren't won't. It's that simple. Where does the notion of "replacement" come in? --Ryke Masters (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you please pick an age and stick with it?"
StaleThere are a couple of problems that I see with these "so-called" generations. The first is that it does not apply outside of the United States (for the most part), and this needs to be mentioned in the article. Second, would someone come up with some concrete measures on exactly who is Generation Y. I have seen it dip as low as 1976 and a high as 1984. It seems to me that by most readings Gen X was 1963 to 1974 (no one considers anyone born after 74 to be part of Gen X) and Gen Y was 1975 to 1987, but that is by no means a standard.
This, however, has recently changed with a media blitz by some ad agencies to turn the Gen Y culture into a group that either starts in 83 or 85 (see being defined by marketing). Interesting read.
I agree i am born 1981 and fit into the Y catergory, there needs to be a defined date, I think 1980 - 2000 is appropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzyjessie (talk • contribs) 06:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, pick dates and stick with them. I don't understand the "(xxxx-xxxx) - (yyyy-yyyy)" range. Shouldn't it simply be "xxxx-yyyy."
I agree as well. It cannot be from the 1988 to 2000 as posted as generation X shows up to 1982. that would put the mellenial generation at 1983 and up. General concensus I would say should go X up 79 and Y starting at 80 or the articles won't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.251.158 (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
For years, the Baby Boom Generation was clearly defined, 1946 - 1964, and that is how the Baby Boom generation is defined by Wiki. So, why is the Millenial or Generation X here going to 1963? (Minor point).
As for the question on Millennials when I think of the term I get a religious feelings, those weird people that are waiting for the end of the world. I, however, have no idea what the difference is.
Ive never heard of anyone born earlier than 1980 (probly 1972-1980)called anything but generation x. (1974? 1963? are you high? you CANT be serious? or just out of touch?)--71.97.164.222 06:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1975 should be the earliest possible date of Gen Y. If 1975-1979 births are identified as XY cuspers by Howe and Strauss, then there's a high possibility that a significant number of them identify not as cuspers per se, but as Gen Y wholesale. The same could be said for 1975-1979 births who identify wholly with Generation X. The ranges of possible years for both generations once reflected this fact, but someone has apparently changed them for unknown reasons. I move to place Generation Y at (1975-1980)-(1995-2001). Lothar76 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont know when Generation "Y" is or what it is, but why people keep lumping them in with the "Millenials" I'll never know. The M Generation consists of people born in Early November 1986 plus between 10 and 20 years. Why november? Because that generation is defined by their lack of voting ability in 2004. Their first election where their voting block began to take effect was the 2006 midterm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.137.16 (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are you all sticking with "Generation Y" instead of "Millennials?"
ResolvedJust curious since most literature in the library/education fields seems to prefer the term Millennials, and I was curious why the majority on here must prefer Generation Y (or is this a bad topic?) I'm just curious about what makes people choose one name over another, and whether there has ever been an edit war over this issue... 68.216.83.80 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- At a guess I would say because "Generation Y" is the accepted term in the USA and as the wikipedia belongs to only americans and no one else in the world can have an opinion that differs from this, then we have to all call it "Generation Y". Unless, ofc, Bush decided he likes the term "Millenial" then they will let us call it that. Isn't that so nice and caring of them - to actually allow us to think in a certain way? Ah now that's modern thinking! 90.152.12.130 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I absolutely hate the term "Generation Y" to the point where I find it offensive. It implies that we are just the generation "after X" rather than a seperate generation. "Millenial" is not a fantastic term, but its certainly better than pegging it with a letter because no one can figure out what to call it.
- I think that generations X Y and Z are intimately tied together by virtue of coming of age during a period of rapid evolution of human civilization. Things are changing so rapidly that we may not even be human anymore by the time the generation after Z (Generation omega?) comes of age. I support using Generation Y for our generation because I am hoping that in retrospect, the generation names will make sense for us as the last generations before post-humans.Kevin143 (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as a date range is concerned I think it would be appropriate to say 1980 to 2000 - anyone born after 1980 that was able to watch Sept 11 on television.68.165.179.177 01:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
-->There are books out there (which are of course INCONSISTENT with each other) that describe the earliest of we Millenials as 1977 or 1976. I disagree completely, and so do all of you apparently, since our generation is split into two -- the latter "half" ending as late as 2001 is completely bogus. The Wikipedian article needs serious research. As well, I learned months ago from Wikipedia that the Millenials are the people AFTER Generation Y. Well, I see the reasoning with calling us the Millenials, but what will we call the babies born on the onset of the new millenium when the time comes? ->Next, I learned in grade school that the population is aging (or shrinking...). Why then are we called the 2nd largest generation alive? Is it because our parents -- the baby boom -- gave us relatively more siblings? If so, generation X and the oldest of us aren't having a lot of babies on average either, compared to our parents. And umm... why are the baby boomers called baby boomers? Is it because there were a lot of them, or was it because they procreated like mad? Nothing I've seen has elaborated on this(I've yet to re-read the baby boomer article). Hence why I am confused as to the relative sizes of our generations. ->One last thing, why does all of this seem to pertain only to [North] America? The U.S. comprises 5% of the global population: your generational "distinctions" mean nothing to the rest of the world. ->I myself was born during the "middle years", in 1987, btw. -JRK, unregistered (on Wikipedia).
I've never heard of Millennials. In Australia generation Y is used. The millennials sounds like a good name for a cult that's waiting for an alien ship to take them away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Gen Y, or Millenials, is 1977-1994
Stale
I am torn between the first year for the Millenials - at 1977 or 1982.
If you are to start with 1982 then you have to start with 1977 because the 77-82 age group shares many of the same cultural experiences growing up in the 80s and 90s.
But I am currently reviewing/updating my start dates (in this Apr 2007 segment) to be more congruous with my later statements (dated August 2007). My later statements make more sense to me.
Thanks jlh629 18:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Gen Y is 1977-1994. Technically the college graduating class of 2000 (high school class of 1996), born 1977-78, are the first Millenials. The 77/78ers were the first group (in the 90s) to be considered the future young adults/leaders of the 21st century - entering college as the first graduating class of the new millenium (technically the millenium started in 2001, but the year 2000 was celebrated as the beginning) - which puts you in a different mindframe when coming of age.
Tulgan (and others) got the dates correct, 1977-1994. They better understand the childhood experiences, mind set(s), goals and aspirations (career), motivations, views on technology, and world views of this demographic. The majority of this group grew up in a time of economic prosperity (1990s, Clinton era). They do not feel jaded about career opportunities, and perceive limitless opportunities for achievement (existing and self-made). They expect relatively faster career progress, job promotions, and are more entrepreneurial. http://www.nasrecruitment.com/TalentTips/NASinsights/GenerationY.pdf
S&H on the other hand, are 4-5 years off in both directions of their Gen Y definition. 1996-2000 does not soak up Gen Y. They grew up under the internet. Gen Y is mostly defined by the internet. They will have limited to no memory of 9/11.
S&H see the Millenial generation through the lens of a Baby Boomer - the children they wanted in the 80s.
The younger the member (of gen y), the more exposure to internet/cell phone technology while growing up, (and the less sharing of Gen X attitudes and cultural tastes). 77/78ers were teenagers (seniors in high school) and using the internet at home when windows-95/AOL came out. I (b. June 1978) remember in the 8th grade using internet sources (with prodigy/promenade ISPs) for my english papers and my teachers rejecting those sources. Of course this was way before the internet was widely used and in its more prolific form, starting in the mid/late 1990s.
Early Gen Y in the late 1990's, early 2000's
Early Y used the internet heavy in college (and at home) as a tool for academic instruction and personal use, (vs. the rare occasional use of non-internet related, computer-based instruction in high school), were the first group of youngsters (of age, 18 or older) to participate in online social communities (myspace is the second wave for us), and the first age group to start internet companies (file sharing, selling/trading music (i.e. napster, audiogalaxy), beats, beanie babies, etc.) in the late 1990s.
We were also the first group to use computers to make music (cool edit, fruity loops, etc.), and were heavily criticized by Gen X artists for not making music the "real" way (i.e. not using an MPC, SP1200 samplers). Comparatively, Generation X was criticized by Baby Boomers for their primary use of samplers to make music vs. composing melodies or playing musical instruments to build a song. Generation X sold tapes of their music, Gen Y sells CDs, etc..
The 24-29 year olds (of today) took music and pop culture to the internet (myspace, youtube, etc.). You want to know where the real, underground hip hop movement is? It is on myspace.
Noted differences from Gen X
From a technological standpoint, one of the markers that separate gen x from gen y is coming of age during the rapid shift from analog to digital technology during the late 80s (about 1989) - through the 1990s. Those born in 1977 and later watched as adolescents through their teenage years, video games get increasingly more advanced and are accustomed to the fast changing technology (of today) and come to expect it.
Short product lifespans and rapid obsolescence are what defined and shaped Gen Y's experience growing up. That is why this generation is not loyal to any one product. It will be obselete and not "cool" in half a year or less. Hence the attitude/perception formed towards technology among (especially Early Gen Yers) is "everything is always changing, nothing is stable, so adapt quickly, or disengage".
Younger Gen Yers ('85 and beyond) however remember and can appreciate the technological changes of the 80's and 90's, but are more used to the current form(s) of digital media, since coming of age during the "hyper-speed" technological revolution during the mid/late 1990's.
The 1977-78 delineation is also based on this group's embrace and application of the internet/technology in their late teens/early 20s in the late 90's (which has continued with younger Gen Yers into the 2000's), as compared to their Gen X peers just a few years earlier.
The Early Gen Yers ('77-'83) were heavily influenced by Gen X, but as teens and adults were and tend to be more laid back and understated, and started many of the trends seen today in the younger Millenials.
For example, Gen X (and younger Baby Boomers) transformed the internet by changing mainly the way the adult society conducted day to day business, and in general the adult way of life - with the advent of the dot-com boom. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of internet-based companies were created during the late 90s, that more so targeted and catered to the lifestyles of the older generations (i.e. Oprah's promotion of AOL, web van, expedia, yahoo, etc.).
Early Gen Yers however (in, and entering college at the time) adapted and embraced the internet as a medium for personal and cultural expression and exploration, in addition to using it as a business tool. Therefore they perhaps percieve the technology as more personally adaptive and useful in that way, than the preceeding generations.
Early Y began building personal webpages (stand-alone, and as part of early social networking websites) upon being introduced and learning HTML for the first time, in the mid/late 90s (1996-97). Having, and using, this new and interesting "internet tool" for self-expression and experimentation, along with having a wider audience to view their creations (the "World Wide Web", WWW was a heavily used term at the time, versus just "internet" now), during the exploratory period of young adulthood (18-21), set the stage for how this group in particular would percieve and then transform the medium into a tool dominantly used for personal expression, self/group promotion, in addition to earning profits, into later adulthood (24+). These personal webpages were the precursors to today's blogs, personal videos, myspace pages, etc.
Early Y, (including the first half of Gen Y) is not "defined" by the internet. Early Y however was the first group to percieve the internet in a lighter sense, as a "toy" to play with - versus the more aggressive profit-driven outlook and approach among corporate Gen Xers and Boomers during the same time. This mentality and embrace has continued into the 2000s, with websites like youtube (i.e. the founders are in their late twenties, 27-29), which boasts of being an outlet for public expression, versus mainly chasing profits.
Gen Y, particularly Early Gen Y, arguably still holds the point of view of the internet as a personal "diary" (versus Gen X more so as a profit tool, and Gen Z seeing the internet as having "always existed"), considering the time frame in which it was introduced to them. This is one of the main cultural differences between Gen X and Gen Y. The internet however has further exposed each generation to the world around them.
Cultural Movements
The Early Y cultural movements were the late 90s "rave" (electronic/techno/house music, neon sticks, ectasy, etc.), hip-hop, alternative rock (please correct me on the rock aspect), and were the youngest members of the early 2000's neo-soul movement (i.e. singers Bilal, Music Soulchild). These movements ended around 2001-2003.
Gen X cultural movements were punk/grunge of the 80's and early/mid 90's, rock, and house music, particularly the first (mother) style of house music, Chicago house music, which started around '79 through to the golden era '86 -'95, with DJs/producers like "Jackmaster" Farley, Frankie Knuckles, Kerri Chandler, Lil Louie Vega, Armand Van Helden, etc..
Gen XY
I also completely agree with being a member of XY. I can relate to those born in the 70s to about 1985. Also those born up to about 1983 resemble Gen X more so than younger members of Gen Y. Gen XY does not share or relate to the attitude of being culturally "overshadowed" by the Baby Boomers, or are resentful towards them.
Past the 85ers, I do not relate to the late-80s ('87-'89) revival in fashion (neon colors, curly-braced eyeglass arms, bright red lipstick) I'm seeing today with the current 16-18 year olds.
Generational Characteristics
Core X - teens (13-19) of the urban 80s (1965-76) - "More excited, angst (in youth), more intolerant/rejecting of "Silent/Boomer-influenced" society, hence percieved more negatively by older generations. Resentment stems from lack of or minimal parental attention (latch-key child), percieves parents as more selfish and self-serving, and perhaps sees Boomers in general as an overbearing generation - Gen X is highly ambitious and fiercely independent as a result, looking to overhaul (stifling) Boomer-influenced society and change the status-quo in their own way"
Twixters (Early Gen Y) - teens of the urban 90's (b. 1977-84) "More laid back, more indifferent towards, and mistrusting of "Boomer-influenced" society, more optimistic, looks more internally for gratification - Early Gen Y is highly ambitious and fiercely independent as a result, sees current society as an open, clean slate to be shaped and molded, regardless of who is currently running it.
This attitude possibly stems from percieving the larger society as unable to protect Early Y during the early/mid 90s from adult crime/attacks, and therefore this group had to depend on themselves for protection, so Early Y could view the larger society as "unreliable, weak, and diffused"."
Core Y - teens of the urban 00's (b. 1985-94) "More excited and happier, optimistic, more accepting of/engaged with society, more (positively) externally affected - highly ambitious as a result, sees Boomer-influenced society as more congruous/less restrictive with their future plans.
"Helicopter Parenting"
I would also like to note a concern, that the "coddling, helicopter parenting" experienced by younger Millenials today is still a selfish, self-serving behavior known of Baby Boomers (the same sort of self-serving behavior, except at the opposite end of the spectrum now, like the parental neglect felt/experienced by Gen X). And, by and large, this parental behavior (Mommy wars, trophy kid syndrome, parents reeming college admission committees for denying child acceptance, etc.) however seems to not be percieved as such.
As these millenials reach adulthood (26yrs.+) and begin to deal with others in the world who do not offer such attention/micromanaging, and start to tackle life's problems on their own, there may be some resentment towards their Boomer parents for not instilling in them a deeper self-awareness, or allowing them to develop critical problem-solving/life coping skills.
Twixters (YZ) - teens of 2010's (b. 1995-2000) - TBD - Primarily children of Gen X, and of the youngest Boomers
Core Z - Generation 2020 (b. 2001-?) - TBD - Children of Gen X, but mostly of Gen Y
Lyn629 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
JRK: I would like to add to this, that the Generation 2020 traits could easily apply to people born in the late 90's, thanks. People born 1977-1980 are following suit with ideals and behaviour statistically normal for GenX, it does NOT seem to me that they are SETTING the trend for Generation Y (which is what would happen when you're the oldest of a generation). I for one know that my peers, in my cohort and the cohorts closest to me, value the world in a different way than people who are already running it (i.e. people nearly 30). People 27/28-30 are simply people wishing to get on with their lives and go to through life's stages one by one, looking forward to the next thing (a car, an education, a house, marriage, kids, etc. etc.). People born in the 80's and after suffer from SERIOUS ANGST. We're comparatively emo. ....We should not end the generation past 1994. One book in particular mentions that, I'll grab it later. First, people born in 1995 would've been 5 in 2000. Anyone born after that would've been little tikes at the dawn of the new millenium. (Btw 5 the age most children "finalize" their behaviour until they reach puberty, where a second slew of mental, physical and emotional changes begin). What I am suggesting is that though many of today's young children will not remember the turbulent times of the late 90's to the present day, these times were marked by their births as much as our births marked, say, the 80's. They were the children of these times -- not us (though some of us really were kids when 9/11 happened). Thus, young tikes at the dawn of the new millenium do not remember it, and certainly not people born after (2000-present). WE CAN, even the people who were 6-years-old in 2000. In any case, people born in post-1994 exhibit behaviour and trends that is similar to ours, but different in the extent that they take it to NEW LEVELS. I know this because I frequently interact with children as old as 13-14, and those who are 13-14 appear to be noticeably different than people even as old as 12. Who knows what that means statistics-wise? Cut off the Millenial generation at 1994 please, and segment it better. The "MTV Gen" and "iGen" classification skewers it into very unequal parts, and it seems the only reason why we're including the MTV with the iGen is because the pocket generation of 1976-1985 (which is about the same length of GenX btw) seems to be too lonely, too small to be on its own. I disagree with cutting the 80's in half as well. The iGen should start as early as 1982 or so (and you have people like Kristen Keuk and Allison Mack and who knows whom else on other popular shows playing people born after 1984-1985 and they're pretty close to that age anyway and people that age are the same as people born as late as 1988-89!). Go on MySpace and see why. .... We should also not start the generation before 1980 or 1979 at the earliest, like I said before. Though the books I've seen make good arguments as to why people b. 1976-1979 should be included with us (they are, after all, less than thirty for the most part, and were part of a resurgence in the annual # of births following a lull that was GenX), I do not know anyone, including myself, that really connects with them. The oldest Millenials have been our teachers in school (my professors and TA's in college), and they've experienced cultural trends and phenomena that pre-date anything we can remember (by "we" I mean people b. post-1980/1981)... they're more GenX than anything else. Too much to go into now. -JRK, unregistered
I strongly agree that 1977 or 78 is a good starting point. I was born in 1980 and have been part of the "internet generation" my entire remembered life. Maybe those of us at the older end of this group may be a little out of touch with the younger (still playing our video games on consoles rather than portable games, for example), but we have almost nothing in common with Gen Xers -- many of them are only a few years younger than our parents! The music most of my age group listened to in middle/high school is still the popular style of music, and while the younger group may not see it, the fashion of high school kids now is remarkably similar to the fashion that kids born in 1980 wore 10 years ago in high school. (Recently, a 15 year old girl told me my bangs reminded her of "her hero" Bettie Page. I sadly had to break it to her that we old folks are the ones who brought Bettie back into fashion.) Most of my pals have MySpace accounts, listen to indie music, and are still trying to find a niche and feeling remarkably angsty -- we're just old enough to have a sense of humor about it. (That's age, not generation.) 129.106.169.61 (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)eeakin
is this the way to write in a encyclopedia?
Stale
"Generation Y is not an accepted label by the members of this group, the correct term for them is Millennials, because members are separate from Generation X and basically don't want anything to do with Generation X." - I was born in 1988, and I enjoy very much the artists and, generally speaking, the people from generation x. This is not the kind of sentence you expecto to read in a encyclopedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surpreendido (talk • contribs) 11:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
I disagree!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzyjessie (talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree 150.203.11.219 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
//I agree as well, I was b. 1987, altough I don't enjoy music and art from people in our generation (come on, Rihanna, Bow Wow, Chris Brown, Lindsay Lohan? Yawn!)... lol! Does anyone else think Wikipedian discussion "forums" have a really SUCKY format? The real reason we're called GenY is because we proceed GenX. That's it. Although GenX was originally coined perjoratively, or so they say -- but that does not mean GenY is perjorative.// --From JRK
- I agree, I prefer Gen X's music over Gen Y's music (With the exception of DragonForce). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.105.92 (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of "Pharming Parties"
Resolved
I find the inclusion of "Pharming Parties" under the Trends and Problems associated with Gen Yers heading to be misleading and erronious and would like to propose its removal. As a member of Gen Y I have never heard the term before, nor been exposed to anything remotely resembling the supposed "Pharm Parties". More importantly, in my admittedly cursory research I could come up with only one source from which all of the evidence I saw cited was gathered, an article by Carolyn Banta in the August 1, 2005 edition of Time Magazine. Considering the general lack of credible evidence, it seems likely that these "Pharm Parties" are merely sensationalist conjecture akin to that which brought us the Satanist menace in the early ninties and those silly gel-bracelet sex favor thingies a few years ago. Admittedly kids and young adults of my generation do drugs, and many of them are prescription drugs. In fact, I know many people personally who do abuse prescription drugs, often with other people, but the existence of a social phenomenon as structurally definite as these so called Pharming Parties rubs against the more plausibly organic way in which people build their social worlds. Of course, by framing drug abuse (or satanic ritual, or teen sex) in a rigid, institutionalized framework with a NAME, it robs the phenomenon of its human (i.e. personal) aspect and makes it more removed, less understandable, and more menacing. I don't think we as editors need to be involved in sensationalism of this kind, especially as it pertains to defining an entire generation. Maybe we need to acknowledge that Gen Yers are turning more to prescription narcotics than previous generations, but we need to contextualize it as such and not as this kind of institutionalized debauchery. (I'm not even going to get started on how this perception threatens the ability of establishment figures to dictate social structure and institution. But let's let our wheels spin on that.) There is an excellent article on Slate regarding this. http://www.slate.com/id/2143982/. Thanks.
Osamadonosmond 23:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)osamadonosmond
- Agree entirely - I personally have never even heard of this term before, and if it does exist it is a fringe activity at best, and not worthy of inclusion in a topic about this generation. (JNI07 16:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
I like what Lyn629 has to say...
StaleI agree with Lyn 100%...my theory behind the 'X'-'Y' delineation incorporates what she said. One thing I question...if you think the "College Class of 2000" and proliferation of the internet before adulthood are important for separating the generations, then why do you include the '77 births in Gen 'Y'? Unless they are from a school district in which the kindergarten cutoff was not December 31, or they were held back, people born in 1977 would have graduated high school in 1995...just before Windows 95 and the rapid increase of Internet use, and they would have graduated college in 1999 (assuming it took them four years...that said, there are relatively few college students that graduate in the "traditional" four years, so the average 2000 grad actually was born in 1975 or 1976). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HurrMark (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
I am also part of generation y, but more on the fringe side. I have heard of pharming parties, my friends occaisionally attend them as well. I dont believe that it should be deleted, but it should be pointed out that its more of a fringe thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.158.82 (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary of Gen Y ?
StaleI read a comment/quote (thought it was on /.) that GenY has been described as skeptical, indifferent, and cynical. i.e. "don't know, don't care, doesn't matter" which is actually paraphrasing Albert Einstein's and Jack Kerouac's quote "I don't know. I don't care, and it doesn't make any difference." Anyone else seen this?
Michael.Pohoreski 02:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I love being a cusper - b. 1978
StaleI would also like to add that I love being a cusper. No one can truly define you. You cannot be categorized as this or that, "lame" or "cool", or be associated with a more coalesced generational identity in history. You're sort of the "Lost" generation, more flexible in attitude and perception, and kind of anonymous. It's really cool.
It is interesting to witness an entire generation's (Gen X) reign of influence on popular culture but be too young to fully participate in it and claim it as your own, and then reach adulthood (20-24yrs) and see the next core generation, with new and different spirits, take over popular culture. It's like watching a projectile fly over your head where the highest point in its path is directly above you. You're right in the middle, and can understand both sides. It's quite a unique (and sometimes weird feeling) position and experience.
We are the bridgers - the current late-20s crowd - not core X, not core Y, the first soldiers deployed in iraq, the first young adults to delve into digital technology, the first to wear flip flops and scarves in the workplace as a fashion statement - and we are being completely looked over! It's great!
Lyn629 06:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I was also born in 1978, and I completely agree with this. Although, it can at times be irritating since we're effectively a lost group. There's not many people that can identify with us.
I must state that I believe that we're a lost group, and that Y doesn't start at 77, but more like 85. 77-84 is a generation gap, or a transitional period if you will. This is supported by low birth rates during this time. We're part of both X and Y and part of neither at the same time. I can identify with both groups and "speak their language" so to speak, but I can't fully identify with either.
From X I get crap about "not being old enough" to remember the 80s, times before technology took over everything, the Cold War, etc. This is incorrect.
From Y I get crap about "being too old" to not be able to fully immerse in internet culture or relate to how they see the world (which is very anti-boomer in nature). This is also incorrect.
We're 80s kids, 90s teens, and 9/11 era 00s 20-somethings. I feel that we have a unique perspective to add society at large.
My friend is only 5 years older than I am, and he's definitely a typical X, although a young one. My brother was born in 82, and he's very similiar to me. My youngest brother was born in 90, and he's definitely a typical Y. How interesting it is that anyone outside of the narrow range of 77-84 is so different.
There were some interesting pages here on Wikipedia about our group. Proposed names were "XY Cusp" and "XY Gappers." It was deleted though because it was "original research." Well, there IS no research on us because we're such a small group! No one cares to spend the time and energy on us because we're too small of a group to market crap to us I suppose.Yorath (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Eye for an Eye principle?
I don't quite understand what is meant by this, or its relevance in the context. To me, "an eye for an eye" suggests that members of Generation Y are motivated by retribution and revenge. This doesn't seem to fit in the context of subservience/rebelliousness. If, instead, "eye for an eye" suggests that baby boomers don't see positional authority or age as delineating due respect, then that would make more sense. Also, I think that's more true than the idea that Generation Y are vengeful or grudge-holding. The use of this phrase seems ambiguous, and it's not soft-linked. I think it should be removed, replaced, explained or at least softlinked to an article that will explain moreso what is meant by its use.
150.203.11.219 02:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Didn't see an "eye for an eye" in the article (didn't look), but I think you have a fuzzy idea of lex talonis and objective justice. - MSTCrow 03:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
//The eye for an eye perspective is a construct of the extreme case of balance. Most of our IMMEDIATE endeavours to solve current problems, Generation Y's included, are acts of balance. We are trying to balance the system of equations as much as we are trying to solve the system (I'm a scientist/mathematician btw, forgive me if I use appropriate metaphors and analogies). When we are not balancing, then we are solving (or making worse) our problems. But doing that wouldn't constitute IMMEDIATE actions: true solutions to life's problems are very likely nearly always, and thus practically always, long-term in nature. Long-term, neutral, and from an outsider's point of view.
The undertaking of charitable endeavours are mostly acts of balance.
Other acts, like ecological and economical concerns, are short-term when considering the context of your argument. Following David Suzuki's advice on conserving energy in your own homes and the workplace are short-term feats: scientific research for new, renewable energy sources (and new fuels!) are long-term solutions. Monetary and human aid and goods donations to poverty and war-torn countries, and doctors/engineers without border programs, are short-term. I cannot even conceive of long-term solutions to economic problems, as the global economy itself is very imbalanced, despite it being stable. For one thing, capitalist creed virtually dominates: capitalism and imperialism in general actually caused much of the economical imbalance directly (the rest of the cause is attributed to wars, for whatever reasons that precipitated such wars: and some of the wars were caused by imperialistic invasions).
The sollutions to our industrial polluting of the planet are short-term: because of the nature of the pollution problem, there's no such thing as vindicating a long-term solution. We have to WAIT and see whether our pollution solutions are long-term or not, which ends up yielding a series of adapting short-term solutions instead of a few, general and simple long-term ones.
The only problem that doesn't have a short-term solution (and probably because of its definition), is the overpopulation problem. However, solving the over-population problem automatically reduces the pandemic problem, and the famine problem!
Most of these problems carried over from earlier in the 20th century. Note that the Cold War didn't carry over to the 21st, and that was pretty much it.
We're always constantly reacting, and hardly anticipating (except, maybe for the global climate change and the energy crisis).
Ok, I've digressed enough. You're probably wondering what the heck I'm talking about. Let me connect this back to the topic at hand.
Tryng to solve a problem decisively leads to the realization of what to do with the CAUSE of said problem. Much of the time, that realization leads to the [bad] successive realization that we need to ERADICATE or VANQUISH the cause from the world. This usually ends up in a long and drawn-out war (where at the end you forgot why the fight started in the first place, thus never having solved the problem since you forgot the problem and the problem resurfaces 20 years later in your children... and those who fight cut loosed in battle so many times or were shellshocked enough that they never come home the same: they are forever darkened, and lesser evil has a chance to live on through our darkness). It also ends up with incompetent and dangerous dictatorships, bad fascism, radical movements, theological conflicts...and a new round of prejudice.
"Eye for an Eye" is an extreme case of balance. "Eye for an Eye" can come from trying to solve life's problems but some bloke blocks your way and pokes your eye out, so you accordingly associate that bloke with the root of your problems. Everyone needs to place a face on their attacker so they can mount a counter-attack -- and retaliate. We wrongfully presume that placing a face on our problems is the same as affecting a long-term solution. It is right to assume that an "Eye for an Eye" is more a short-term thing. Violence begets violence.
I won't even go into the major example of our time which does not explain my arguments -- rather, my arguments are based from this major example. We all know what it is.
Now, consider that we will take the previous generations' attempts at solutions to new levels -- be them higher, unattained levels or lower levels skipped or forgotten. This is because in the time of their crisis we are being indoctrinated, trained, and are probably BORN to solve or excacerbate their problems, the same as how our parents solved or excacerbated their parents'. Their problems then become OUR problems.
With that being said, Generation Y is most of major age now. This means that, (A) our parents' problems are now ours as well (and eventually ours altogether), and (B) the fight has already to begun to keep to a new rhythm -- for all we know, like I alluded to earlier, we were probably BORN to dance this dance (and the dances following that).
Whether that rhythm is better or worse than the last one is up to us. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, right?// --JRK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.33 (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
"The Rise of Wikipedia"
Is wikipedia really culturally significant? J'onn J'onzz 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd say definitely yes. Go to Google and type in almost anything and wikipedia will probably have at least one article in the top two or three, usually more. Google search is ranked by popularity, so a lot of people in modern culture use it, so it is culturally significant. Not to mention the way the news and the scholarly world discusses it (take a look at Friedman's discussion of it in his book "The World is Flat"). Wrad 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say it is, but the problem is it doesn't even mention Google in that section, surely Google would be more "important" than Wikipedia when it comes to the internet, or at least it would be more popular. Wikipeep 494 19:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the new way in which Gen Y kids access information is one of the most significant generational differences and you'll see it in most profiles and descriptions of this generation. Wikipedia and Google are important--as are social networking websites.
//Wikipedia, and Google, is the culmination of the 20th century: the Information Age. Google and search engines have not only increased the frontier of our knowledge, but it has radically changed the way we handle information as well. Wikipedia is a massive storehouse accessible to everyone: truly the aim of the Information Age, which was largely characterized by HOW data was handled, HOW MUCH of it being handled by everyone, and WHERE TO PUT IT. The gem of the Information Age (or at least its logo), IMO, is the Internet. Everything lead up to that, in a way.
In my perspective, it therefore comes as no surprise as to why the people of the twilight years of the 20th century popularize its final endeavours. --JRK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.33 (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Me Generation?
This article states that Generation Y is the "Me" generation. Yet virtually everybody but the baby boomers refers to the baby boomers as the "Me" generation.
Examples,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-02-we-generation-edit_x.htm http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/15/babyboomers.planning/index.html http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:adNYtN-5D5UJ:www.anchoragepress.com/archives/document7749.html+Me+generation+baby+boomers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us http://seniorliving.about.com/od/retirement/a/newboomerretire.htm http://www.reason.com/news/show/120293.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17888478/site/newsweek/ http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/the-ailing-or-wailing-baby-boomers/
All of these links refer to the Boomers, not Generation Y as the "ME" generation. In fact the only people that I have ever heard refer to anybody else as the ME generation would be the boomers. As virtually nobody but the boomers refer to Generation Y as the "ME" generation, I think that this example should be edited out of the article, and added to the baby boomers article. 216.201.33.24 19:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the baby boomers hate Gen Ys :( Wikipeep 494 19:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
--> Yes, that does seem to cross my mind at times. Old people always hate (rather, dislike or have no patience for) the young. I find this mildly funny, since many of our parents ARE the boomers. I think many people hate GenXY in particular - including ourselves. GenXY combined, and for simplicity's sake, the children born after 1995, comprise most of the population. From a cynical perspective, most of the population is rather inward, lacking strong moral fibre and very soft (i.e. we exhibit various degrees of "emo" and are more or less decadent). Most of the petty crime of today occurs in our two generations, GenY or Millenials in particular. Most stupid accidents (not most accidents, just the really stupid ones that could've been avoided), namely of the traffic and vehicular kind, are due to Millenial behaviour. Most (and if not most then the more-apparent) night-clubbers, glamour models and their unscrupulous photographers, adult industry stars (both sexes), drunk party-aholics, videogamers (whom do nothing but game, that is), casual drug-users, are Millenials. Rap & Hip-Hop and punk rock are mainstream for us -- which of course an older generation will likely hate. We wile away our time on the WWW, which is a pretty lonely and (in the context of it being lonely) selfish thing despite the reason of its creation. Many movies and TV shows that are popular are geared for us, and made even more popular and successful because of us. Our parents indulged our whims and needs and have spent a *relative* FORTUNE on us (especially when you include college tuition), and yet despite our would-be attempts at independence and enlightened thought, we are still very much incomplete and dependent. When you are incomplete (in personal and character development, that is), you are very much concerned with yourself (and not in a bad way of course). It is no wonder why we are the ME generation. This post-modern world was built for us, will be repaired and expanded by us, and is largely enjoyed (or feared) by US. It is, in essence, OURS. In name only does it belongs to the previous generation -- we just have yet to formally claim it. --JRK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.33 (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Dispense with defining range altogether
It is my opinion (offered because this discussion appears to consist entirely of opinions, as does, for the most part, the article itself) that, since the media are going to persist in creating these arbitrary demarcations in the interest of having something about which to write inane human-interest articles on slow news days, that we continue to allow the article to list the various arguments for one range or another instead of stating a particular range. The only fact about Generation Y is that no one can agree on its parameters. The article, for encyclopedic purposes, should therefore reflect the controversy. The controversy, in fact, helps define the attitudes of the "generation" itself. Mordant Kitten 20:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
-->Well said, however, consider that instead of going with one extreme over another (defining ranges proliferately or not doing it at all), we should strike a balance. The authorities on this subject -- the definition of the Millenial Generation, the "last" of the previous millenium -- are NOT people from Generation Y. We need to be authorize our own definition. We need to be definitive in general, have something(s) worthy and common amongst us! What is this with some outsider generation labelling US and WE having to critize THEIR terminology? It should be the other way around!!
-JRK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.33 (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
My Two Cents
I think that Gen. Y should be defined as late 70s-early 90s.
I'm not too certain about when it would begin, but I'm pretty certain about when it would end, which I think should be around, 94-95 or maybe even 94-96.
It's been said before, but one of the things that define Gen. Y is the ability to recollect what happened on 9/11. As a 94er, I'm able to recall what happened on that day. I remember my classmates being picked up early by their parents on the day of the attack, and I remember one of my classmates whose dad died in the attacks. I'm not too sure about 95, but I'm pretty sure you could squeeze them in too, maybe even some with good memory who were born in 96.
I don't know why this article defines Gen. Y as people who were born as late as early 2000s, they would barely have any or no recollection at all of the events of the first half of this decade, such as 9/11, Afghanistan, first bombings in Iraq, Columbia disaster, etc. They'd probably only be able to recall Hurricane Katrina and the Indian tsunami only very very slightly, and the most they can remember about this decade would be the events that will happen around this year to 2009.
And what about the technology? Things such as cellphones, MP3 players, and the internet were some things that defined this generation. If you were too young to use these things around this decade, I don't think you should be in Gen. Y. For example, I don't think you'd see a 7-year-old walking around talking to her girlfriends on her cellphone, or listening to music on her iPod.
In the end, I think the end of this generation would be around 95-96, but no later. Wikipeep 494 19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
--> Eloquently put my friend (and even more impressive considering you are circa 13). I agree with you completely, except about it starting as early as the late 70's, which would place the oldest of us ten years older than the most of us, in a time more than a little different from what marks most our generation's childhood: the mid-80's to the late-90's. Here we have it folks: straight from the horse's mouth. We have a person here whom was literally from the waning years of our generation wishing the end date to cut off well before 2001. -JRK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.33 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Merge Generation Y Culture with this article
The separate Generation Y Culture should be re-merged with this article. Splitting this article up into 2 different articles has proven to be messy and factually inaccurate. It just wasn't a good idea. The 2 articles should be merged together, under the conditions that the run on information from the Generation Y Culture article is shortened and cleaned up considerably. Rumble 74 24 June 2007.
"Flagship TV shows?"
I think the "flagship" television programs go against the neutral point of view. I mean, who exactly voted on this? I doubt that all Gen Y'ers such as myself agree that "Laguna Beach" is the flagship drama of our generation, and much of the other flagships could also be debated. I'm going to delete them, butif you disagree feel free to revert my edits, and then please respond as to why you disagreed. ~ Ludo716
Its only 2007!!!!
This article does not make any sence what soever. I think that it is too early to judge gen y yet. Mybe around 2011-2013 when all of them have finished school. But this article needs to be rewritten to a more simple view. And I lot of this stuff really isnt even true!!!! MarkDonna 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this article is awful, written entirely out of self-interest by generation y'ers trying to define themselves on Wikipedia. A good chunk of gen. y haven't even reached college age yet, there hasn't been enough time for anything significant to come out of this generation. And why does this article keep referring to "cult" things as popular? The most popular movies are cult movies, popular TV shows are cult hits, if they're popular they aren't cult! --72.191.122.214 04:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Well, I'm generation y'er and I didin't use IM in 5th grade.
- everything is cult to gen y. they have to be cool. there's no such thing as cult anything anymore.
Generation Y (1977-94), Millenials (1982-2000)
1977 is the start date for Gen Y (especially the college class of 2000), which makes sense. Tulgan, Strauss and Howe (and many other scholars and analysts), use 1977 as the first year of Gen Y as well.
Except the fact that at 22 you graduate college, meaning those born in 1977 graduated in 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.22.234 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The millenials start at 1982, which makes sense as well, although I think 1982-84/85 are cusper millenials, and 1986 and beyond are the core millenials. I also think that 1995-2000 is a cusper group, that includes the earliest born members of Generation Z.
Those born in 1982-85 grew up in and more solidly identify with the pre-internet age of the 80's and early 90's. They grew up with and identify more with the earliest born members of Gen Y, late 70s-early 80s born ('77-'81).
Going back further, and 1977-81 is also the true gen x/millenial cusper group. They can relate to both generations; they feel apart of both the 90's culture and the 00's culture, and were impressed by the anticipation, excitement/angst for the approaching new millenium and its offerings, back in the late 90's.
This group ('77-'84) sees this time as their "era" to shine as young adults.
Also 1976 (and possibly 1975) can be considered the bridge between Gen X and Gen Y. This cusper group can relate to both generations as well.
Much of the behavior and trends of the millenials were shaped and started by the early Gen Yers in the late 90s and early 2000s (young entrepreneurship (internet companies), musical and cultural tastes, fashion styles, etc.)
Gen Y is currently under 30 (or just beginning to turn 30 this year) in the late '00s decade. They are the current 18-30yr old young adult age group, and today's pop culture icons.
Famous first-born Gen Y members (that immediately come to mind):
Kanye West (b. 1977)
Tom Welling (b. 1977)
Usher Raymond (b. 1978)
Cold Play (b. 1978)
Kirsten Dunst (b. 1982)
John Krasinski (b. 1979) ("the office")
B.J Novak (b. 1979) ("the office")
Generation Y (18-29 year olds) is the focus of today's presidential election because there are so many of them, and they tend to be democratic.
They will be the ones to vote Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton into the presidency in 2008, and change the world.
Thanks
- Hey, um... none of us are fans of Hillary Clinton-- Ron Paul is a candidate who TRULY is in line with the outlooks and perspectives of this generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.105.92 (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
jlh629 16:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know what your point is with this post, but most of it is original research and not appropriate to add to the article itself (ie, things that "immediately come to mind"). --ZimZalaBim talk 17:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by your post. Please explain.
jlh629 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- What you've written above, where you reference some intent to "update my previous post soon".--ZimZalaBim talk 19:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I still do not understand what you mean.jlh629 18:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
//Ok, what you've said here in your post points out two things: "Generation Y (18-29 year olds)" means that anyone born 1990+ is not our generation. It also means that people born 1977-1982 or so (people 25-30) are in our generation (people in their teens to early 20's), which would muddle everything further since Generation Y is split up into two somewhat disparate sub-generations (not necessarily cusper groups, though the late 70'sers are a cusper group): the cusper group as described above, and the generation 'proper' or the 'core Millenials'. You've also clearly said this earlier in your post, I just wanted to point out that that one quote I took from you kinda muddles everything. People born post 1994 must in no way be considered Millenials. They aren't the last of the 2nd millenium A.C.E, they are the first of the new (with 1994-2000 inclusive being the cusper cohorts). They will clean up our mess, or help us run it as our apprentices and whatnot, the same as what we're doing with the baby bommers and Generation X. GenX's definitive struggle is this modern terrorist war: those of us in Generation Y who fight this war aren't DEFINED by it, because it is only our FIRST trial. First trials are only first trials, never the real. Consider them initiations.
- you are young, and wrong
Whatever Generation X has learned in the past now comes to a last-hurrah-style test, a final exam or the defense of their Ph.D thesis if you will (leading to the rest of their lives, the waning period, the twilight, where they pass the torch and guide us as mentors). At the "conclusion" of these events in the next few years, we will know whether Generation X applied what they knew -- and whether they learned anything or not to begin with.
What comes after the present struggle (which might be REALLY BAD) is what will define our generation. Not only will we clean up our parents' and our predecessors' messes, we'll be making our own for our successors to follow suit. We'll have the veterans and leaders of GenX to guide us through that, the same as how their elders are guiding them through today's wars. --JRK
Changed Dates
I have changed the dates as listed in this article and will later try to rewirte the opening paragraph to include the fact that the actual dates are simi-debateable... but one way or the other I can cite tons and tons and tons of articles that put the start of the generation somewhere at the turn of the decade between the 70's and 80's and ending somewhere in the early to mid 90's
If someone can find references to suggest that anyone is actually calling generation Y as being later please feel free to edit it again and cite your references, I wont edit it back but either way this article deserves to be accurate and should reflect what reliable verifyable articles are defining the generation as, not how someone feels the generation SHOULD be defined. It amazes me how much debate there is over this stuff considering that it is very easy to find clear references that define the date ranges of most generations even if the number vary between publication to publication one way or the other in a range of about 3 years. I've done alot of research on this subject and read many articles on it and can tell you it was not until I read this article have I ever seen generation Y defined as starting in the late 80's. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 21:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Original research: Music & film
The Music and Films section of this article reek of original research - what is listed there belongs more in a Music of the 2000s article than here. If these items have a particular connection to "Gen Y", they should be cited. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- We can add the TV and Literature sections to this too. As it is, I've already trimmed a bunch of arbitrary laundry lists of tv shows, films, etc. Again: Anything listed here are being uniquely Gen Y needs to be cited as such. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm now moving large chunks of the original research from the article to Talk:Generation Y/Original research. Before any of this is moved back, their relevance and connection to "Gen Y" must supported by citations from reliable sources. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm moving the Politics section too - all original research with arbitrary musings. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- As does the Technology use section. It's cited, but I am having a hard time swallowing those stats, I even erased one that said "all people aged sixteen have myspaces", which I know personally to be untrue. The online library at my school is down right now, when it comes back up I will pull up the article that is cited and check it out for myself. L'Aquatique 02:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Millennials
Can someone please add a section about the Millennial generation (those born in 1982-200?) in here? Also source information from Strauss and Howe's books/articles so it isn't considered original research. Thanks. Haynsoul 06:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Generation Y's Parents
The Article says Generation Y follows Generation X yet it also refers to the parents as baby boomers yet generation x is the generation proceding baby boomers therefore the information is wrong somewhere I personally find the entire system of using years of birth to determin generations proposterous but it should atleast be consistant within its own naming conventions --71.131.23.180 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most of Generation X were still teenagers or young adults while Generation Y was being born while most of the Baby Boomers were in their 30's or pushing 40 so it makes sense that the parents of the earlier part of Generation Y were Baby Boomers. Generation X probably were parents of kids born in 1994 and later. 72.234.129.164 04:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I fit the definition used for generation y and my parents fit the definition of generation x and his parents predate the babyboomer definition.--71.131.31.243 22:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- And when were you and your parents born? 72.234.129.164 09:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I fit the definition used for generation y and my parents fit the definition of generation x and his parents predate the babyboomer definition.--71.131.31.243 22:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Me 1985 ParentsApril and December of 1965 --71.131.31.243 06:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well I did say generation X were still teens or young adults when we were being born. Most of the baby boom echo was due to the baby boomers making kids in the 80's and early 90's. Your parents were an exception. 72.234.129.164 11:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
my parents are Dad 1946 and mother 1949 so i guess my parents are the extreme end of the spectrum. I was born in July of '86 so i guess that makes me a bubble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.118.108 (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- My mother and father were born July 1956 and November 1952 respectively. I was their first child and I was born in July 1992 and my sister was born December 1995 --Candy-Panda (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Video games!!
Huh, how come there is nothing about video games in this article? Generation Y is THE video game generation. I was born in 1981 and for about as long as I remembered I had video games. I used to have an Atari 2600, Nintendo Entertainment System, then the Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis and so on. I would add a section on video games and their impact on the generation if I was a more skilled writer. Maxtro 00:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Still too early to guess
I believe it is still to early to properly analyze Generation Y (I prefer "Millennials"). Many are just now coming of age. Who knows what they will contribute? A noted scholar puts them under his "Hero (Civic)" generation category. Perhaps the article should reflect this fact. - Cyborg Ninja 09:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Generation Y & Millenials
Millenials are NOT Generation Y. These are totally different things. Millenials are those who grew up with Internet, iPod and all other marvels of today's world and Generation Y is the preceding one. They have virtually nothing in common.
Generation Y: mid-70s to 2000 Millenials: 1998-today
--Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.75.170 (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- No the term Millennials were first used by William Strauss and Neil Howe in their book "Millennials Rising" (or it could be from their earlier book called Generations so correct me if I'm wrong) and they specified the birth dates as 1982 to 2001. 72.234.129.164 04:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Distinction for this generation in the United Kingdom?
While this generation in the UK will have been exposed to a lot of the same cultural trends and experiences, such as the growth of video games, the rise of the Internet and cellphones, reality TV etc etc etc, there are also many aspects of people within this agegroup which are unique or at least more important within the UK.
For example, this generation in the UK will be the last generation to remember the conflict in Northern Ireland, and the bombing campaign on the mainland. They will also have participated in or have memories of the 'Cool Britannia' movement of the mid-late 1990s when Britain was rebranded as youthful and vibrant, helped in part by things such as Britpop, the Spice Girls, winning the Eurovision song contest and the optimism surrounding the election of Tony Blair and coming out of the era of the Conservative government which had ruled for almost two decades.
They will also be the first generation to witness the most recent extension of the EU (and the wave of immigration following), the opening of the Channel Tunnel, the introduction of the European currency and the strengthening of ties between Britain and the mainland.
Culturally, while people of this generation in America tend to identify more with hiphop/rnb and goth/emo cultures and music, the focus of popular music in the United Kingdom has been more inclined towards genres such as indie and dance. Coupled with this has been the resurgence of sales of vinyl records and a greater appreciation of songwriting and instrumental abilities as opposed to the more manufactured pop scene in the USA. Also, this generation appear to favour sounds and fashions that are throwbacks to various eras in modern history (see: popularity of 60s and 80s-style clothing, resurgence of older genres/styles of music in recent years, from 50s/60s soul and jazz to 80s style synths).
This generation are also the first to be made celebrities on the Internet - artists such as Lily Allen and the Arctic Monkeys found notoriety online and this translated into record sales. Also notable is the fact that the current generation have witnessed downloads being included in the official UK Top 40 Chart, as well as things such as Prince giving his new album away in a newspaper, and Radiohead releasing their album where fans can choose what price to pay. (JNI07 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
______________________________________________________________
this article is a rambling mess. terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.0.190 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Misspelling of 'Millennial' as 'Millenial'
If you key in 'millennial' (the correct spelling) in the Wikipedia search box, it takes you to the article titled 'millennium' and not to a disambiguation page, which I think is what is needed if you search on this term.
But if you key in 'millenial' -- which, as I have noted in the subject of this posting, is a misspelling -- you are taken straight to the 'Generation Y' article. I think that this spelling too should bring you to the same disambiguation page as searching on 'millennial'.
In other words, both 'millennial' and 'millenial' should take you to a disambiguation page which points both to 'millennium' and 'Generation Y'.
EK 68.103.200.138 09:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the article?
This article is practically down to nothing now. Rather than try to improve the article and find sources, it seems people just deleted the article, one section (or sometimes several) at a time. This article needs help badly.
This ain't no small topic that we can just let fall by the wayside. This is an article about a cohort of tens of millions of people...the current generation. The generation that is currenlty coming of age and will be the dominant one running the government, the workplace, and so forth, and making decisions that affect all of humanity 10, 20, 30 years from now. Granted the Baby Boomer parents are still largely in control, even going so far as to write college essays and negotiate job salaries for their GenY children, but they aren't going to live forever. It's obvious this generation already takes on defining characteristics, many of which may be stereotypical and not necessarily apply to every member of the generation, but which are well-documented nonetheless.
But I hope the members of Wikipedia can collaborate and cooperate and give this topic the good article it deserves, and not just leave it as the pathetic, piece-of-crap, two-section article that it currently is. 24.14.105.100 04:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- It appears that the article was systematically vandalized down to nothing by one person over a dozen or so edits, and was improperly repaired afterwards. We now have bots and a couple of others trying to arrange the deck chairs on the titanic. I'm rolling the entire thing back four days to before it was completely butchered. Jonathansfox 07:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The Generations, Defined
I've been perusing this talk page, trying to get a better perspective as to where my parents, me, my kids then THEIR kids (not too soon, though!) fit in to the "Generation ?" map. Here's what I've figured out;
My parents belong to the Baby Boomer generation. My dad was born in 1939, my mom in 1947. They had me in 1969. I belong to Generation X, so does my spouse (1970). Our oldest son would be a "Generation Y" kid, born in 1988. If HE were to have a kid now (it's possible, he's 19!), what would we call HIS progeny? Generation Z? I also have a daughter that was born in 2003. Now SHE could be called a "Millennial" (let's spell the word CORRECTLY people, from "milli" and "annum") as she was born three years into the new millennium. However, she's a child of Generation X'ers...
I've given you all this scenario, so that you can rhuminate over it, process it, and draw some new conclusions as to the content of the article. Oh, and as for the "unverified sources" tags at the top of the article, it's probably because Generation Y is still in the process of defining it's self, and it's place in the world around them! Let's just hope we GenX'ers have raised them well enough, with a sense of purpose and community, or else that definition could easily take on perjorative tones and ominous implications! Edit Centric (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your dad is actually part of the Silent Generation. Also I don't think there's an actual name for the babies being born right now. They're too young to even come up with a name with yet. The only exception was the Baby Boomers. Haynsoul (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Too much focus on "Gen Y is whiney because they were praised too much" in the employment section.
Basically, because they grew up in an era of liquidated pensions, zero-tolerance policies, etc., Gen Yers don't trust authority/the system like Boomers so they expect concrete rewards instead of vague, long-term compensation.[1] SteveSims (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, though I wouldn't necessarily say boomers trust "the system". I hope someone has done a study to that effect though and I'll endeavor to find it if it exist. Someone ought to do one if hasn't been done, so we'd at least see if we're right.
Leodmacleod 6:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
the stats are bunk
97% do not own a computer. i don't believe that 3% of the population of twenty somethings don't have computers. 97% of college bound or college educated students have computers that's much more accurate. As a member of this generation i know FAR more people with a phone and no computer. Why do you think txt is so big, computer on your phone. 97% probably have ACCESS to a computer since you know there's lots of 20 somethings checking up on myspace from the library and wowing us with their spelling.
Cold War?
Could you add to the discussion that Generation Y is the first generation to grow up without the threat of cold war looming over one's head - I know that some limits suggested are the 70s/early80s, but if you go with the early 80s, then the children that grew were not influenced by the cold war since it was beyond their understanding. I am sorry for my lack of clarity, but I'm trying. But anyway, like a four year old child would not be influenced by the cold war since they were too young to understand, its not part of our social consciousness. Or you could add that is a trait that is part of the Generation Y. Sorry again for the obscurity.
-Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.53.68 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was born 1982 and I have memories of the Cold War. I am also aware of the Russian Nuclear Meltdown, and I can vividly remember the TV and Radio news as well as the talks the "parents" are discussing about the Cold War, Nuclear Meltdown, etc. during my early years in this world. Was I affected? Yes and a lot. But I clearly belong to Gen Y and proud of it. And I'm from the Philippines to begin with. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 12:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the early/mid Generation Y-ers still have enough knowledge of the Cold War to say it affected them somewhat. Not nearly as bad as the Gen X-ers, but even as someone born in 1983 I still have some pretty solid memories of the end of the Cold War, at the very least. The Berlin Wall coming down was a pretty big event, even for a 7 year old. It definitely helped shape my early childhood, and it was always something you'd hear about in popular culture of the time, even through the early nineties.
I suppose when you say "threat of cold war looming over one's head" you mean the more direct threat that the conflict could escalate into open warfare, but to say we didn't understand the end of the Cold War would probably be incorrect. I would think that the fall of the Berlin Wall affected us more than you'd imagine. At least the early end of the spectrum, up until children born in say 1983.
--Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.85.62 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was born in 1982 and I agree with Rob. While I certainly didn't grasp all the nuances of the Cold War at that age I was at least aware of the Soviets and Eastern Europe-bad, Americans and Western Europe-good dichotomy and watched with great interest the crumbling of the Berlin Wall and of the Soviet Union, institutions that I (and I suggest most people of my age) assumed were a simple fact of life that would last forever.
That's why I consider people of my age (say 1978-1985) to be XY cuspers - some definitively Gen X experiences, some definitively Gen Y experiences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.140.66 (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As someone that hails from 78, I also agree with this. I believe that 77-84 or thereabouts is a generation gap. Part of X and Y and part of neither at the same time. If you fall outside of this gap, you're very different than us. Best friend, 74, typical X. Brother, 82, just like us. Youngest brother, 90, typical Y.
We're a very small but unique group. It's too bad Wikipedia keeps deleting the pages on us since we have nothing but "original research." Someone should tell Wiki that there is no research because very little exists. No one cares to sink in money on research to market crap to us, I suppose.Yorath (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Culture
Why is there absolutely no mention now of the culture that ties this generation together? It looks like it was written by a Baby Boomer or Generation X member. "How to Deal with Generation Y in the workplace". What is that? That's not encyclopedic...it's just a rant written by someone in a magazine about how to deal with those damned young people. Gimme a break.
I know there used to be mention of cultural things that define this generation (video games, internet, iPods, etc.) and famous people that are members of this generation (Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, etc.), but somebody probably deleted it all in the name of "being bold". No mention of historical references either like The War on Terror, Hurricane Katrina, school shootings, and the other things that define this generation. 70.131.48.129 (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- because there were no reliable sources--it was just a list of individual things editors here thought relevant. You're welcome to have a go at it. As for the lack of importance of the present content, you do have a point there....DGG (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sources for workplace section
I have removed the section on Peter Sheahan's book and dvds; they are self-published, and i see no evidence at WP or from his web site [2] that they are Reliable Sources per WP:RS. do not add them back without discussion here. A good way would be to try to write an article about him & see if it would be accepted--I strongly doubt it. DGG (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Changes and additions made to page
Still new to this wikipedia thing. Today I removed some of the unverified info on the page Generation Y and added a considerable amount which is all referenced. Would someone who has been making wikipedia entries for a while give me some feedback? Much appreciated!!!--Emily Wolfinger (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome Emily and we appreciate your work and we thank you for your efforts and help. Everything seems good. However, i am still checking the references used. So far I replaced references to mccrindle.com.au as it is a service company and that is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article on an interesting topic. You can read more about this at Wikipedia and reliable sources or else here where you would understand why such a website would not be appropriate as a reference. Please let me know if you need any help. Again, welcome. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
"Builder" Generation?
Who are the "Builder Generation"? They appear to be the generation before the Baby Boomers but all the links go to either a disabiguation page for the word "builder" or an article about an episode of Fawlty Towers... --Candy-Panda (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The Builders were born between 1920 and 1945 in Australia and earlier in the USA. In the US, they are followed by the Silent Generation; in Australia, the Boomers.--Emily Wolfinger (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
table
The table in section 2 makes no sense as a table. The rows are meaningless. It should be written in paragraphs, and I'd like sources to show that each item on it is regarded generally as iconic. DGG (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand either table that was put in the article. What does "Digital Aliens" and "Digital Immigrants" have to do with anything? It's only talking about the generations before Gen Y. 66.75.126.7 (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I did provide a source for the table on trends, developments and events that shaped Gen Y, but it was removed (have put it back, though).--Emily Wolfinger (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Digital aliens/digital immigrants table - The para before the table refers to Gen Y as 'digital natives' If you read this para, the table does make sense and does have relevance.--Emily Wolfinger (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Cut-off date
I definitely think the cut-off date for Generation Y should be earlier than 1996. As someone born in July 1992, I feel I can relate much better to the childhood experiences of people born 4 years before me (1988) than people born 4 years after me (1996) and I think these 96ers will end up having more in common with those born in the year 2000 than they do with us. Kids born in 1996 don't even remember life before the internet (or Nintendo 64!), and probably don't have much recollection of the turn of the New Millenium or 9/11 either. I would happily except those born in 1994 as part of my generation but not those born in 1996. My sister, born in December 1995, is still debatable... --Candy-Panda (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- There won't be an agreeable cut off date until several decades from now so there's no point trying to come up with one. It'll just turn into a long meaningless argument. 66.75.126.7 (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, an 'official' (if you will) cut-off date won't be established until after the Gen Z make themselves known which is still decades away. But for the sake of argument, in my PoV and personal research, the Gen Y cut off is more appropriate to be from 1977 to 1994. Before and after that are either generation gaps or the previous/next generation overlaps. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 12:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup
I restored the last reasonably clean version. I know there have been a few essential fixes since then; please replace them, but there was so much junk and misformatting that this seems the only way, short of stubbifying and starting over entirely. Please do not add:
- multiple quotes fro one particular consultant of borderline notability.
- multiple synonyms--in fact, I think all the syonyms shoudl have at least two sources to show they are not just one persons imaginative invention.
- randomly added defining attributes--can anyone find a list from a good RS--not self published, not oriented towards one nation only?
DGG (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If vandalism continues, it may be necessary to semi-protect. DGG (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Apology for additions made to Generation Y
Dear David and Wikipedia patrons,
I am writing to apologize for the additions and alterations that were made to the “Generation Y” article in the past two months. At no time was Peter Sheahan aware of the edits being made on Wikipedia. Any information uploaded to Wikipedia in future will adhere strictly to the Wikipedia guidelines.
Yours sincerely, Samuel Michael Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Michael Carter (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
table of iconic figures
There have been so many changes in this that it's clear it cannot be included without some real source showing what is generally accepted. Please do not reinsert on the basis of IKNOWABOUTIT. DGG (talk)`
Douglas Copeland
What did he say about Generation Y? He's the one credited with the term, we should hear his opinion. 155.138.250.7 (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This thing needs editing...big time!
I'm not an expert, but I know more about this than whomever originally wrote it and has been editing it. I found in my Marketing Management book (I'm graduating with a Marketing and a Management degree in May 2008) the dates that the authors used for Gen Y. Gen Y are NOT a part of the Millenials. Why would there be a generation gap between Gen X and Gen Y (6 years or so in this article).
This needs some serious updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roben.anderson (talk • contribs) 19:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Separate Gen Y and the Millennials
I wasn't even sure where to start. This is a very weak article.
To begin, Generation Y is separate from that of the Millennials. This is one of the few places I have seen them so blatantly clumped together. Generation Y is typically defined as a buffer generation between Gen X and the Millennials which shares aspects of each. In general Gen Y has had no meaning outside of this.
The Millennials are a very well studied phenomenon and barely any of that literature has made it into this article.
With so many flaws, the first helpful suggestion I can offer is to create two separate articles for Gen Y and the Millennials. Before that occurs, this article will not be cleaned up.
Full disclosure: As someone born in 1979, I have paid very close attention to this distinction. As a librarian i have dealt with multiple studies and talks on how to deal with Millennials. Between these two exposures to the topic, I am confident that these generations are not clumped together anywhere legitimate outside of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibmi (talk • contribs) 00:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
people born in 1979 are gen x--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope. 77-84 is a generation gap between X and Y. We're part of both X and Y and part of neither at the same time. Low birth rates during this period support this. I'd elaboroate on this more, but I've already done so previously on this page.Yorath (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
birth rates are not the only determing factor in a generation that is how baby boomers were determined that does not every generation will be figuered out this way, there are many sources pointing in different directions about generations but there may be some element of trth to what you say,but most articles i read match pretty much with some that i see on wiki gen x run from 1965-1981 and gen y from 1982-1997 genn x cant run only 11 years that is to short of a time period to be an entire generation unless you are talking about a sub genre to a bigger generation like gen jones or the mtv generation, gen x can not only run 10 or 11 years,and that bridge generation already exist and its called the mtv generation and it runs from 1975 to 1985--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Millennials?!?!?!?
Born in 91, everyone I know uses the term Gen Y to describe roughly 85-95, and I do not know ANYONE who uses the term Millennials, except to describe the people born after 2000, because that's what that means. The term doesn't make sense as 85-95 (ok we lived during the turn of the century, but so did Baby Boomers and gen X, and most of us didn't see what the big deal was when it happened, as opposed to the gen x and baby boomers who had 20 years or so of build up), and I've NEVER heard it used in that sense. I find it offensive to be defined by a meaningless shift in the year of our lord, because I couldn't care less when it happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.249.74 (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- the problem with that is a quick google search brings up this and a quick google news search gets this I think the reason people threw that name on the generation is based on the time frame of when they(we) first hit the workplace. I personally hate the term and agree with you that it's no good, and I dont like the term Generation Y either. But it's there and it is indeed how reliable publications are referring to the generation. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 04:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
"one in two marriages now end in divorce in the US"
Unless I'm mistaken, that's a clear misunderstanding of the divorce rate. Electric Knight 1:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Possible wikiproject?
I know that there has been quite a bit of discussion and debate over various things as far as articles about generations go so I thought I would propose a new Wikiproject, if you are interested in joining please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Generations %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 05:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have redirected the article Echo_boom_generation here
it was clear even by the sources in the article that Echo_boom_generation should be included in this article. So I edited the page to direct here instead of nominating for Deletion. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)