Talk:Millennials

When does it start?

I've always heard that Generation Y started on January 1, 1982. This makes sense because I've always heard that Gen Xers become adults before the turn of the millennium (So you'd have to be born before 12-31-81 to be an Xer)

Where is the line drawn...It's in 1976, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1985, and even 1986...Where is the distinction? I believe it ought to be January 1-1982 to September 11, 1996 as Gen Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.66.130 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm currently pulling out all my references to support this. I was born in 1981 and I'm an 80's child having lived throughout the decade. My earliest memories are seeing ET and Ghost Busters in the movie theatre. I've always had a really good memory. While I'm also an early 90's kid and late 90's teen, I'm at the tail end of Generation X. You can't really be an "80's child" if you're born after 1982 - not really. If you were older than 16 in 1980 you aren't an 80's kid through the whole decade. However you would be part of Generation X. Generation X is made up of those born in the 60's, 70's and up to 1981. While those born in mid-80s or late 80s and early 90's had 80's reruns (barely), 80's kids were more familiar with late 60s and 70s reruns as well.

I'm not sure why people born in late 80s and 90s are changing the dates to include 1980 and 1981 in Generation Y. Generation Y starts with the "Millennials" - those who graduated high school in 2000 or born in 1982. Try the yahoo search phrase "Generation Y" "1982" (separate quotes). I have a ton of sources, and from sociology articles as well as marketing and research. While people born in the late 70's up to early 80's can also be part of the Internet revolution period, Generation Y encompasses a larger group than that. There's a reason why they are called the Millennium Generation.

Again, while I agree that people had siblings who influenced what they listened to or watched, etc., you're not part of Generation X if you don't remember when CDs came out, weren't around or don't remember Ronald Reagan, missed the Challenger explosion, etc. Generation X is usually 1961-1981. The students who graduated in 2000 marked the coming of age of the Millennials.

I wrote my thesis on Generation Y, it is those born 1980 and after..(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

I will be working on articles for both Generation X and Generation Y with sources. However, I'm sure there will be people who keep deleting them. The general consensus is that the year 2000/1982 birth year marks the start of Generation Y.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

STOP CHANGING THE DATES. MILLENNIALS REFERS TO GENERATION Y/CLASS OF 2000, 1982 BIRTHS! THIS IS REPORTED IN MARKETING DEMOGRAPHICS AND UNIVERSITY PAPERS.--99.5.246.114 (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Things that can fit into the article somewhere

I'm going through and cleaning the article up; it is unwieldy and redundant and oftentimes goes off topic. Here is one reference that doesn't fit immediately but can probably go somewhere.Kevin143 (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The child poverty rate was still relatively high in many Western countries throughout the 1980s and '90s.

This is another paragraph I deleted. The Google Answers list has some good references that may be able to be integrated, but we need to be careful about broadly describing Generation Y, especially broad descriptions from non authoritative web sources like about.com or self-published sources.Kevin143 (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Generation Y Psychographics

To understand the Gen Y mindsets , you need to understand the time in which they were born (around 1978-1998, although sources differ). Gen Y came of age during an unprecedented time of growth (late 1990s), when technology was rapidly growing in investability and popularity (think dot com bubble). The environment in which they grew up expected more of them. They needed to be faster and more efficient (with the advent of better technology), smarter (increase in college enrollment), and more available (40-60 hour work weeks) than Boomers and Gen X. Therefore some of the defining characteristics of Millennials are tech-savviness, family-centric, achievement-oriented, team-oriented and attention-craving.

These two sentences are well cited enough but I don't think these sources refer to Generation Y and it is a misciation. They've gotta be a miscitation, Millenials were just too young to have eating disorders in 1988 and 1993.Kevin143 (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Anorexia in Gen Y

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

Terrorism

While I don't feel that 9/11 had any impact on generations themselves, I do feel that one of the main things about Generation Y is growing up in a time of terrorist threat and the different images being pushed around in regards to that from both the Government and the media. It's also the first time in history in which terrorists have used the internet and television to bring their threats directly into the living rooms of the people. I think that one of the significant cultural images is the image of Osama Bin Laden on his many videos. I'm not a wiki editor or anything, just think this should be included somehow. 130.88.186.26 (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah uhm under re-reading this article it's clearly written by non-generation Y people. I understand the need for citation but the article is ridiculous and pretty much anyone who grew up during the 80s and 90s will agree. It's like we all went on the baby boomer article and put that they all had a gambling addiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.186.26 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Parts" Criticism

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

Generation

What determines whether someone is in Generation Y?

If it is taken as a group of people born between 2 time periods, what makes these 2 time periods the correct line at which to draw the distinction between generations? Why not a year later, or a year before?

Are people trying to say that a person born on one day may belong to one generation, then a person born the day after belongs to the "next" generation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by the definition this would be true..(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

IM

Why is the discussion of IM behaviors necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.59.249 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is included to show that Generation Y is drastically different due to the internet. Maybe including a section about technological progress and its effects on Gen Y?

  "Millenials are growing up as familiar with computers as Boomers were with television.  In fact , more of today's teens say they can live without a television(28 percent) than without a computer(23 percent).  With computer ownership becoming more essential, gender and income gaps are narrowing"

Howe, N. & Strauss W. (2000). Millennials Rising : The Next Great Generation. NY: Random House.

I think this should be added... What do other people think?(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Why not make it scientific and graph it?

Why doesn't anyone graph the birthrate for America? The baby boom of the late 40's to early 60's was how they defined the boomers, so why not do that with the Xers? If you strictly go by the graph, the boomers are from 1945 to 1959, X is 1960 to 1975, and Y would be 1976 to 1991. This creates some problems, because the "boom", which really started in 1946 due to the huge increase from the previous year, was still going, despite it starting to decline, as more than 4 million babies were born each year from 1960 to 1964. Also, the births in 1976, 1977 and 1978 were still below the 3.5 million mark, and don't reach it until 1979- if you round. So, looking purely at the numbers, the three generations would be:

1946-1964: Boomers; 1965-1978: Gen X; 1979-1994: Gen Y

Here are the numbers from the U.S. Census report:

1940: 2,559,000; 1945: 2,858,000; 1950: 3,632,000; 1952: 3,913,000; 1953: 3,965,000; 1954: 4,078,000; 1955: 4,104,000; 1956: 4,218,000; 1957: 4,308,000; 1958: 4,255,000; 1959: 4,295,000; 1960: 4,257,850; 1961: 4,268,326; 1962: 4,167,362; 1963: 4,098,020; 1964: 4,027,490; 1965: 3,760,358; 1966: 3,606,274; 1967: 3,520,959; 1968: 3,501,564; 1969: 3,600,206; 1970: 3,731,386; 1971: 3,555,970; 1972: 3,258,411; 1973: 3,136,965; 1974: 3,159,958; 1975: 3,144,198; 1976: 3,167,788; 1977: 3,326,632; 1978: 3,333,279; 1979: 3,494,398; 1980: 3,612,258; 1982: 3,680,537; 1983: 3,638,933; 1984: 3,669,141; 1985: 3,760,561; 1986: 3,731,000; 1987: 3,829,000; 1988: 3,913,000; 1989: 4,021,000; 1990: 4,179,000; 1991: 4,111,000; 1992: 4,084,000; 1993: 4,039,000; 1994: 3,979,000;

Plus, those born from 1979 on were the first cohert to come of age (21) starting in 2000.

What's this (US Only) crap in regards to Generation Jones?

Oh... I get it! 1954-1964 only happened in the good ol' US of A. Yanks.... just keep on offending the rest of the world with their self-centred crap. Or should I type, CENTERED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.208.43 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

centred could be mispronounced as cent-red so is demonstrably less efficient and more error-prone than centered

different countries have different names and generations that is all--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Post WWII Baby-boom is the start of discussions about Generations in the US (and Western Europe). To say thus was world wide is to be a typical ignorant Euro. I mean can you say the WWII had any of the same effect in India as it had in Germany? 76.181.171.165 (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not really the place for your ill-advised insults. Generation Jones crap? I haven't a clue what you're talking about, but GenJones has not just developed a large following in the U.S, but also in many other, particularly European countries.

I’ve removed the Strauss and Howe chart, which belongs only on the Strauss and Howe page. By putting that chart on each generation page, it gives a false impression to readers that that chart represents an official or widely-accepted list of generations, which is certainly not the case. While Strauss and Howe have contributed to our knowledge about generations, their theories are still very controversial, and have become very discredited in some circles. Many generations experts, for example, strongly disagree with the long length of their generational constructs. In any event, it was very misleading to put that chart on other pages than theirs.

I’ve also added in the reference to Generation Jones because it was incorrect otherwise; Gen Xers are primarily the offspring of Baby Boomers, while Gen Yers are primarily the offspring of Generation Jones.Wendy 2012 (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Here in the Philippines and the Asean Region as a whole (formerly known as South-East Asia Region), Generation cut-offs and names are the same as the rest of the world. Even though some will argue there are differences, but if we go deeper and understand and analyze things objectively, we start to see and realize how similar the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere. First video game there? Same year here. High birthrate? Same year here. The list goes on. So I for one believe the "US Only" should be removed or re-worded or be defined more clearly as to "what IS" "US-only". --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 12:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The article may have been US-centered before, but the International section nowadays does not read like I understand Wikipedia should. I am not an editor, but I added a cleanup tag to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.51.7 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record the second world war had a massive impact on India which paralles Germany in many ways, the war is a key factor in Indian independance and the partition of india.(82.3.44.176 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

A Conversation from the talk page of %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me)

Thanks I've added another reference justifying the point about Generation Y being labeled as 'Civics' and 'Nation Builders'. It is a common label they are often given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreconomy (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

you provided a really great link there! which is to a well-worded article. but I dont think it really goes in line with the terms "civic" or "federation generation" perhaps between the 2 of us we could come up with a good way to rewrite the statement to reach what it is that you are trying to say. I think if we drop the reference to Federation generation and instead say something to the effect that:

The generation is sometimes defined as "Civics", characterised as wealth creators and nation builders. They are sometimes described as an "overachieving, overscheduled" generation

with a single ref that points to the smh article... what do you think about that? shoot back a revision if you think there should be a way to word it better.

by the way, perhaps we should take this to the article's Talk Page what do you think? %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me)

Thats fine, but I think the quotations from the authors (the "civic minded heros") should stay in there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreconomy (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel that the phrase is so important? part of why I question the phrase is because it really is on the edge of being a problem for NPOV. what if a reader were to come along who is critical of the generation and they read that and the entire credibility is shot for them because they see it as oppsing to their point of view? It really is best to abide by WP:NPOV because it adds the best tone possible to articles %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and made the edit. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, thats fine, I agree with your change —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreconomy (talk • contribs) 07:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ever revolving time frames!!!

Ok, I understand that the time frame on Gen Y tends to be defined differently by several publications, but something I constantly see on this article is one person changes one of the sets of dates, and another person comes in and either changes it back, or worse only changes part of it and then another person still comes in and edits it to some other set of dates.

What is really bad about this is that the generations time line is not consistent throughout the article. All I am asking is 2 things. If you change one of the sets of date ranges on the article, please either edit them all. If not, please make it clear when editing one of the time frames that it is an alternative view than other dates on the page.

Also, Please give refs on your dates! too many of these dates are being edited per WP:OR. all I am asking is that you please consider that this article is likely to be read by people who are interested in reliable information not opinions. Perhaps if we can clear that one thing up we could also start to improve the article to a point where it is more encyclopedic. In the mean time I am going to tag this article with wikify cleanup and will try to come back and write a properly referenced section about the time frame of births of the generation and how they tend to vary. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to mention which sources give which dates. I don't know what the primary sources for the dates are, though... journalists and authors have used various dates, but I don't know where they're drawing their information from.--Father Goose (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

True, which is why I plan to write a new section for the article explaining the variance in reported dates... the same thing could potentially help out other generation articles as well actually :) %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 22:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good plan. Right now the dates are 1980-1994, but according to some accounts that even overlaps with Generation Z. We need a section to explain different dates, or how certain Generations can overlap give or take a few years. For instance a child born in 1990 to a mother who was in Generation Jones probably has more in common with Generation Z, who were born to Generation X which was only a few years apart from Generation Jones, Jones was sandwhiched between X'ers and the Boomers. Thats much different than say a child born in 1984 or 85 to a Baby Boomer who is now in their early 60s and nearing retirement.Rumble74

Please change the Gen Y start date to 1977

This will include ALL members of this generation. No discrepancies.

The youngest members were born in 1994.

There are 3x sub-cohorts/waves to this generation:

1) 1977-1983(4) (Core Net Generation)

2) 1984(5)-1990 (Core Millenial Generation)

3) 1991-1994 (Core/Cusper Millenial Generation)

Each of these sub-groups share roughly similar life/cultural experiences, and attitudes towards work, technology, politics, religion, etc.

What demarcates the (American) Generation Y from previous and subsequent generations is their coming of age during (b. 1977-85), or their strong memory and capacity to appreciate (b. 1986-94), the transition into the digital/information age. Most members can still appreciate the pre-internet/digital society.

Individuals born after 1995 (when internet became mainstream (i.e. AOL)) are of a different generation because they are (currently) coming of age when digital/internet technology has been firmly established and deeply integrated into society. Even if they could remember a time before 9/11, (as adults) they may perceive their experiences differently based on the cultural climate in which they were born.

For example Millenials tend to be 1980's culture revivalists, along someone who was born in the 1970s, who may be more inclined to celebrate 1970's culture.

A generation tends to want to revive the decade in which it was born.

Added a few sources here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4467/is_2_54/ai_59949724
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259995
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2008/03/net_generation.html
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/27/politics-and-the-dotnet-generation
http://www.jasondorsey.com/geny_info.html

jlh629 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you 100% and have always heard of the start date as late 70's (with 1977 being the most common) I think that the internet is publishing different information than what I had seen previously. Unfortunately I couldn't find any of the sources that I had read nearly 10 years ago about generation y so I just went with one of the sources that I could find, one that included the majority of what I know it to be. The reason I insist on a reference for this is because this article has constantly been up for debate on 2 major things. The first being the name (which you can see by browsing this talk page) and the second being the date range (which I have seen some argue is as late as the mid 90's). I will do some more searching again later, maybe collect some reference material in part of my user sandbox and will try to find something more reliable than what is currently up there. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 19:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source: http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.123.218 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you use that article as reference you'll have to put the start date for gen y at 1976 not 1977 because that article date is from 2005 and states people who have not turned 30 yet hence people born in 1976 had not turned 30 yet in 2005,lets give a halt with this insistance with the inclusion of people born in the 70's as gen y starters, first off there is a bridge type generation already,its called the mtv generation people born from 75-85 these are people from gen x and gen y who share some bonds in other words cuspers some gen x will have a little gen y in them and vice versa. I can hardly believe that that would include only 2 years of gen x and 8 years of gen y,also a good reference for the start of gen y is gen x if you check a lot of the end dates for gen x it ends some where from 1980-1982 even on the gen x article now there are 2 reliable sources that would conclude the start date for gen y either in 1980-1982 gen y starts with the 80's most likley 1981 or 1982--TheGrailHermit (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a major clean-up. The start of Generation Y is WIDELY ACCEPTED as those born between 1977 and 1994. Even the Gen-Y blog site makes this reference. The Washington Post states: "Lumped under millennials or generation Y, some in their 20s and early 30s..." (Washington Post). Furthermore, Inc. Magazine refers to Gen Y-ers as those born between 1977 and 1994 (Inc. Magazine). The O.C. Register also puts Generation Y as those born between 1977 and 1994 (O.C. Register). The Post Gazette echoes this sentiment: "Age is the obvious difference between the two: Generation X consists of those born between 1965 and 1976, Generation Y between 1977 and 1994" (Post Gazette). The Boston Globe define the generation the same way: 1977 to 1994 (Boston Globe). Not to exhaust the point, but The Chicago Tribune also states that Gen Y-ers are "those born between 1977 and 1994" (Chicago Tribune). --USLeatherneck (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold up you can't use terms like widley accepted particulary when we are talking about generations which is highly debateable people are still debateing the baby boomers and generation x start and finish dates,we should include all all sourced material on this subject, like some of these which have various dates for start date of this generation

[[1]] early 1980's

[[2]] 1981 or 1982

[[3]] 1980 or 1981

[[4]] 1982

[[5]] 1982

[[6]] 1981

[[7]] 1980

[[8]] 1981

[[9]] early 1980's

[[10]] 1981

[[11]] 1976

[[12] 1976

[[13]] 1976

[[14]] 1976

[[15]] 1979

[[16]] 1979

with all that said there are to many sources going in a 100 different directions there is no general consensus by sources on one start and finish date of millenials/gen y, so all dates must be used in the article in other words in the begining of the article have a span of possible starting states which would span as early as 1976 and starting as late as 1982(and everything in between of cousce) and ending as early as 1990 or as late as 2000 the article must contain all souced points of view on this sort of subject being generations are very subjective--TheGrailHermit (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Im not trying to play dueling sources but im just trying to bring out that there are enough varying differing opinions to include all sourced years--TheGrailHermit (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the best approach. I just didn't like how the entry prior to the revision defined the generation as 1982 to 1994, considering many articles claim it spans before that (e.g. 1977). --USLeatherneck (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I want gen Y to include the entire 1970s so I don't feel so old! Seriously though, if you remember the cold war you are gen X or earlier. Quite whining!

Prepping for Archive

I am prepping this talk page for archiving soon. I am marking old discussions either stale or resolved based on my personal opinions. please review what I have marked above and remove or change tags as you feel fit.

Next sunday August 10 2008 I will be moving all topics with stale or resolved tags into archive 3. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow I will be doing this archive. I will be including everything that doesnt have discussion in the last 29 days (the reason it's 29 and not 30 is because there is one topic right there on the edge and I would rather just take care of it tomorrow instead of waiting another day to clean this talk page up. Anyway this will include all discussions on this page from "I have redirected the article Echo_boom_generation here" up with the exception of "What's this (US Only) crap in regards to Generation Jones?" %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK this archive has been completed %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's Herbig?

This sentence in the intro

Generation Y are primarily the children of Baby boomers, though some are the children of Generation Jones or older members of Generation X .

has a reference to "Herbig et al 1993". There is no other reference to Herbig on the page, so no indication of what (if anything) Herbig wrote that associated Generation Y with the Baby Boomers, Generation Jones, or Generation X. Google doesn't show anything for Herbig except for other references to "Herbig et al 1993" which I'm guessing are because of straight copies of this wikipedia page. If there is no Herbig, the sentence should be removed. Patrickbowman (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw that as well and considered removing it myself. I think it would be best just to get rid of it but hesitated and while I try to keep WP:Bold in mind, I tend to resist it rather often. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with bold, revert, discuss, if you haven't already. Once you realize that you are allowed to do anything on Wikipedia as long as you accept that anyone else is allowed to disagree and reverse your actions, you'll see that you're free to do pretty much anything. Just be sure to explain your thinking with every edit (in edit summaries, or on talk pages if it's too complex). If you share your reasoning, no one can fault you, even if they disagree with you.--Father Goose (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read that one before but never really took it to heart. I think this article is a good example of how that process could be very valuable. Thanks for pointing it out to me again! %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality

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

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

Timespan

We really need a proper definition of Generation Y.

Some thoughts

• Anyone born before 1977 is certainly not Generation Y.
• Anyone born post-1995 is probably Generation Z.
• A human generation is either 20 or 30 years, depending on which source you go by (though 20 years more reasonable).
• The majority of Gen Y are generally in the teens or 20s now.

--Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Certainly agree - I tend to think of a Generation as 18 years - the generally accepted time to maturity and adulthood. The start date of Gen Y and demarcation with Gen X is a problem area, no one seems to agree upon. However - I believe the enddate of Gen Y and start of Gen Z is clear, to qualify as a Gen Y you have to be able to remember (in a very basic sense) what the world was like before terrorists brought down the twin towers, which of course happened in September 2001. For the record, I am not American, but that even did change the entire course of human history, that is surely indisputable.

• • Given that, I would say anyone younger than 5 or 6, at the time of 9/11 therefore does not qualify as Gen Y - they are by definition part of the next Generation, Gen Z. That to me puts the end date of Gen Y at about (Northern) Summer of 1995. If you extrapolate back from that date by a Generation (of 18 years) you get to 1977.

• • Younger than 5 should work, I was 5 the year of 9/11 and can remember it vividly.

• • Given all that, it seems perfectly reasonable to mark Generation Y as "generally accepted" as those born between 1977-1995. (Summer to Summer if you must)

• • Personally I think there are other factors in play, and they go largely to the ages of your siblings. If you are the youngest sibling in a family of 6, and your 3 brothers and sisters were born in the early 1970s and you were born in 1977 or 1979 or even 1981 - you are far more likely to identify strongly with Gen X themes because of the influence of your siblings.

• • If, however, you were born in 1975 but had three or four younger siblings born in 1979, 1981, 1984, 1986 for instance, you have been far more heavily influenced by more Gen Y themes. This is where the bridging explanations come from and why people of the same age may very well belong to different Generations. It is about environment as well as just date of birth - but that is far too complicated to go into properly when no one can even agree on when the basic parameters of Generation Y start and end. - I do plant my flag for 1995 as the final year of Generatio Y though, and I stand by that demarcation strongly.

• • Sorry to dissagree, but the end should be the Summer of 1996. 9/11 is a good point when the world changed and people born before the summer (Including myself in January) can remember 9/11, but people born afterwards in late 1996 or 1997 cannot.

• • I believe that Generation Y spans January 1, 1982 to September 11, 1996. I was 6 when 9-11 occured and I can remember it very well (I was born in Jan. 1995, and I consider myself to be a member of Generation Y.) I had a sister in Dec. 1999 and I consider her to be an member of Generation Z because she cannot remeber the 9-11 attacks. Also, I think that 9-11, the two wars in the middle east, and the election of Barack Obama have made a larger impact on Gen Y than the rise of digital technology... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.56 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

202.139.104.226 (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this article

3 years ago I came to this article and found that it was a complete mess. No scratch that, it was a complete and utter fucking pathetic excuse for an encyclopedic article. Being a (begrudged) member of "generation y" I actually found the article insulting. It basically read like it was telling me what I'm supposed to be, listing a bunch of stereotypes presented as facts, dubiously sourced statistics, partisan screed, and a laundry list of "reasons" why generation y are a bunch of moronic, consumerist, shiftless layabouts who are contributing to the downfall of society. It was just trash talking from top to bottom.

I was so incensed by this trashy article that I came onto the talk page, and totally slammed it. I got a comment on my talk page from one of the contributors saying that he'd fixed some things, but I ignored it. I thought this article was a lost cause, and to be honest I felt like starting a vote for deletion.

3 years later I've returned to find an interesting, informative, non-assuming statistics based article. No wild claims are made, no questionable conclusions are extrapolated from statistics, no insults or derogatory commentary masquerading as encyclopedic fact.

I'm really genuinely proud of you guys, you've won over a hardcore skeptic. Keep up the good work, stick to Wikipedia's rules, and this'll be a fascinating, front page article yet.▫Bad▫harlick♠ 23:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a big mention should be made about the gross stereotyping seen on Gen-Y. Here in Australia, all media categorize this whole generation (including I) as law-breaking, rude, lose-moralled, criminal, trouble makers. It is really over-bearing. We are being treated with disdain for no apparent reason. Probably because of 'What Corey Worthington Did'. Sick Of It All. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.255.133 (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

in America, you're mostly characterized as a generation of whiners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notchdoctor (talk •

Sounds like the fault of the parents for being lazy in raising us.Richco07 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

contribs) 15:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Let's not cite blogs in general, but especially on articles like this where entire generations are being characterized and there are weird interests at play (I feel baby boomers and even gen X sometimes like to nitpick gen Y, i dont know what thats all about). I'm removing "characterized by a heightened sense of entitlement, of comfort, and of rights and privileges" from "Trophy Kids" until this sort of characterization can be backed up with a study. (April.s (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

Mentioning the Me Generation

Although it may deserve its own page, this page should at least mention the Me Generation or Entitlement Generation – other names given to this generation and (to some degree) Generation X. I'd add it myself, but I'm busy with other Wiki work. Sources include: Boston Globe: The New Me Generation and Generation Me. I'm not trying to be biased, just pointing to other terms and views that this encyclopedic article should address. –Visionholder (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Generation Me does not deserve its own article. It should be merged here or deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Generation Me does not exist as an article, nor is it mentioned here. Hence my suggestion to some aspiring editor to mention it. It's just a suggestion. –Visionholder (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh you've got to be kidding me, there are two of these? Fine, this one should be deleted or merged immediately. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Most popular web sites for gen y

See [17] Wrad (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition

According to the New York Times, Generation Y is the generation "born after 1980". [18] Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

1976 is Gen X

It seems that 1976 is too early for Gen Y. It should be the final year for Gen X, since it was the last group to graduate from high school (1994) before the internet came out.

Kh298 (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The internet came out in 1991 and grew each subsequent of the early and mid 90's and exploded in the late 90's(your just counting when windows first came out)and did kids born in 1975 and 76 not benefit from the internet as college kids? i think people born in 1975,76,77,78,79,80,81 and maybe even possbly in 1982 and beyond will never be considered hard gen y's or hard gen X's because people born those years have a little of each in them culturaly, just like with barrack obama he is not considered quite a baby boomer but not quite gen x he is considered gen jones which is a bridge generation between bommers and xers and i believe gen x and gen y may have there own its called the MTV Generation--TheGrailHermit (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There used to be an entry for MTV Generation that referred primarily to the Generation XY Cusp, but someone redirected it to refer to solely Generation Y. Speaking as a 76er who is most assuredly on the cusp, I feel disenfranchised. Lothar76 (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Banners added

For all the reasons above banners have been added to this article. We seem to be unsure as to when Gen Y starts and ends and while it may start in (for example) 1981 in the US it may start in 1982 in the UK or 1981 in Canada. Who really knows. And since this article is not bassed on strauss and Howes work we can argue dates all day long. Also, do not get confussed with a marketing group (several in links) telling when a group starts and ends. They are not doing research for history they are doing it to find a target group to sell things to. --Mickey 14:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing 1977 for 1978

I have noticed that some of the reasoning for defining the beginning of Gen Y to 1977 actually points to 1978. This is not a claim whether or not 1977 or 1978 is an actual generational border. However it is an examination of the evidence that may lead to a later generational break.

1- The College Class of 2000. Considering that the bulk of those born in 1977 graduated in 1995, then they were generally the class of 1999, not 2000. That distinction belongs to the class of 1996 who were born on 1978.

2- Bruce Tulgan was associated with the idea that Gen Y ranged from 1977 to 1994 according to the USA today article. http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htmhe However he defines it in his writings as being only between 1978-1984. http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Generation-Y-Carolyn-Martin/dp/0874256224

3- As an earlier contributor has noticed, the article states that Gen Y was the under 30 set. Yet when the article was published in 2005, this also included those born in 1976.

4- Finally the idea of the internet being a definitive break is fuzzy as well since there is no one definitive start of the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet Also the use of the technology is not exclusive between people born between Dec.31st 1976 and Jan. 1st 1977

5- Many of articles referring to 1977 being the start of the term may in fact be due to simple repeating of the USA today article. This is because the article as of Nov.30th, 2008 is and has been in the top 3-4 Google and possibly other search results for Gen Y. http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS299US303&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Gen+Y. While the 1977 to 1994 date was an established concept among many others beforehand, there does seem to have been an increase of the use of that term shortly afterwards.

6- Finally as a previous contributor had proposed, a generation is 18-20 years in length. If 1977 is used as a starting date, then if Gen X is confined between 1965-1976 it would be the only 11 year generation in history. Using 1961 as the beginning would require the justification used by Strauss and Howe which state that the full generation spans from 1961 to 1981. Also if such a sharp and unnatural division exists (normal span generations are long enough to include overlapping cusps and waves), then who claims what culturally belongs to people born in 1976 and 1977 who grew up, are at the same stages in life, and are friends and classmates with each other. Or does this mean that those born in 1976 only had one year of youth and became out of touch and outdated as soon as those born in 1977 became teenagers the next year? (Wyn (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC))

End Date September 11, 1996 or January 1997

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

• • And people born in early 1996 were entering school a few weeks before 9/11 so they were able to interact with peers about the attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffy2032 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Low quality section

The last three paragraphs of "Generation Y in the United States" seem to be chock-full of original research, and the whole thing could use more citations. Anyone agree? --71.203.252.169 (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This is probably the most unsourced and biased article I've ever seen on wikipedia. What's up with this "America"-stuff? Everybody else in the western world use those terms as much as any american would. Whole sections without a single source, so where ARE you people getting this info from? Right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.50.229 (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree... Specifically, who put up this stuff about September 11 marking the end of the generation? I don't think I can even begin to list the number of reasons why this is an absurd theory, but if somebody has a reputable source, I guess we could include it. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I cut a lot of unencyclopedic, unsourced, speculation, in an attempt to improve the quality of the article Peregrine981 (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same, as I browsed the first couple of paragraphs - Americans this, Americans that: The term Generation Y could refer to much of the western, specifically english speaking, world. What happened to the UK & Ireland, Oceania, Canada, etc. etc.? It ought to be rephrased to reduce this ambiguity. It seems some use the term "Americans" to simply mean "people" sometimes. --Icecold.trashcan (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, get over it! Wikipedia is an American website, its going to have an American point of view...why most of its written by Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.58 (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GenY is clearly the offspring of GenJones and Boomers. Not only have many written that, but is also axiomatically true, just do the math: if you look at the ages of Yers , and then at Jonesers and Boomers, it is obvious that these two latter generations are the parents of Y. Far more Yers are the offspring of Jones, as far more Xers are the offspring of Boomers, but for now, I won't distinguish who the "primary" parents of Y are. I'll instead just say that Y is the offspring of Jones and boom, which is clearly true.TreadingWater (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Doing math is original research. There is no "clearly" and there is no "obvious". Only reliable sources WP:RS. Personally, I don't find the Richmond Toyota Scion website reliable.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Trophy Kids?

No, that is the wrong definition of "Trophy Kids". It has nothing to do with Gen-Y or Gen-Next kids getting trophies (Good Heavens).

Instead, think of the term "trophy brides". Hmm? Get it?

'Trophy Kids' -- like the trophy bride that a rich man gets -- refers to the fact that many affluent "30-Something" couples in the 1980s looked at each other, and their myriad possessions, and said something like:

"Hmm, we have the Beemers, the summer-house, the Carib vacations, the Ethan Allen furniture, the Gucci bags, the Rolex watches, the Sub-Zero, the ...

... wait!

We're missing something. What could it be, what could it be ... hmm ... let me think ... hmm ... Oh, I got it --

-- we need a kid !! "

Yep, that's the 'trophy'. Having a child is just another notch on the gun for the urban yuppies. Another -- uh -- 'trophy', if you will.

And that's a 'trophy kid'. So there.

Btw, terrible grammar in this section too: "..have too great expectations from the workplace and desire to shape their jobs.." Again -- Good Heavens! Who writes this? A Gen-X? Gen-Y?? Gen-Next???

Better: "..have expectations of their workplaces that are too great.." And: "..a desire to shape their jobs.." --Atikokan (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that Generation Y does not deserve to take the blame for the "everyone's a winner!" mentality. After all, it was their coaches and their parents (ie: the baby boomers) who made the decision to give out trophies to everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.141.129 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Nineties kid

The few facts there which are not WP:Original research should be here. I can't even find a source for the name, but I'm willing to allow that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly think that the 90s Kid article should be merged or deleted. If you can't find a source for the name, I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to make the name. I'm a 90s kid myself, but I never hear the term. And I see no article for 80s Kid, which is even more significant. Belasted (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Correcting Problems in the Millennials Section

When someone gets a chance, the Millennial section of this article has an obvious date error when it says that Howe and Strauss identify these years as "Generation Y": (1932-1995--i guess maybe someone made a typo, or was just being 'funny').

Additionally, it seems someone's introduced uncalled for label-bias in using the term "Generation Y" when Howe and Strauss do not use this term much (16 references to "Generation Y" vs 120 references to "Millennials" in their book "Generations"). Not only do Howe and Strauss prefer the term Millennials, many who fit this cohort also do! Please consider revising this section to reflect this. In fact, please consider revising the entire article to reflect this. The article may better be redirected to Millennials, rather than the current redirect of Millennials to Generation Y. Thank you!

Peter Bright (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Tween (generation)

There's only one source identifying 'tween' as a generation cohort, as separate from an age cohort. It looks like everything that isn't OR in that article can safely be merged with this one. Webbbbbbber (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I support deletion; I was a tween when I was... well a tween (ages 8 to 12). It is an age group, not an entire generation. The defining tween as stated in the article fits well with Generation "We..." or the Generation Z, after Y, and does not seem at all connected with those who categorize themselves Y, such as myself. The Nineties kid article I helped someone else perfect is noted for being a subculture within of GenY, but I think that the person who posted this article had not done there research before posting.(Tigerghost (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

• Oppose merge. The info in the Tween (generation) article is unique and sloppy, possibly from a single source and original research. All it would do is muddy the Gen Y article even further. There is no advantage to a merge.--Knulclunk (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• I nominated for deletion. It's pretty much entirely OR, so nothing can really be merged. AS has been pointed out it's not a 'generation'. --neon white talk 21:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is facebook here? If facebook is here, let's add "myspace" as well.

what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkymonkey987 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make All "Letter" Generations 15 years

The number of conflicting year runs on these generations is endless, so I suggest Wikipedia recognizes these:

Gen X: 1965-1979 Gen Y: 1980-1994 Gen Z: 1995-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiramiNew (talk • contribs) 04:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary. These are loosely defined terms with different authors defining them in different ways, so it isn't up to Wikipedia to pretend that the definitions are established and concrete. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

15 year gap between Y and "new silent" in box?

how can Y end in 1986 and Z begin in 2001? what's in between?

i suggest we change them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.85.14 (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Institutionalized racism?

In the " Multiculturalism", " Worldwide" section it says "Institutionalized racism in countries such as South Africa and the United States was abolished by the time Millennials grew up, and they know of it only as history."

no source and i wouldn't say it was _abolished_, just reduced

Starglows (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what it means is "legalized ethnic discrimination", shall we change it?--Knulclunk (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Time Spans of Generations

Baby Boomers (1946-1964) Anyone born after WWII, but before the start of the Vietnam War. Adopted culture of the 60s and 70s.

Generation X (1965-1981) Anyone who can remember the world as it was before the fall of the Soviet Union. Adopted culture of the 80s and 90s.

Generation Y (1982-1995) Anyone who can remember the world as it was before 9-11. Adopted the culture of the late 90s and 2000s.

Generation Z (1995-present) Anyone who can remember the Bush Administration and the Wars in the Middle East, but not 9-11. Will adopt the culture of the 2000s and 2010s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republican95 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And you don't recognize how astoundingly arbitrary that is? —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Do Generations Really Have Time Spans?

In my opinion, the year doesn't matter. Your parents are a member of the previous Generation (for my parents, Generation X) you are a member of the next generation (Generation Y) and your children will be members of the next Generation (Generation Z). So it is impossible to have people who are siblings who are members of different Generations. You can't just take a time span and say that everyone born in that time span is a carbon copy of each other. According to this article I am a member of The Late Generation Y (I was born in January 1995). However, I embrace the culture of the 80s and 90s (I love 80s and 90s pop and think of preppiness in the more traditional sense), when, according to this article, I should embrace the culture of the 2000s. So you have to look at generations on a family by family basis, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republican95 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, generations don't generally work that way. I was born in 1987, my dad in 1953, my mom in 1956. They are Generation Jones, not Generation X; meaning they're two generations before me. I don't plan on having a child until my late twenties or early thirties, meaning my kid won't be Generation Z; meaning they'd be two generations after me. Of course, older members of a generation could have kids who are younger members of the next generation, but this is the exception not the rule. You identify a lot with popular culture of your parents' generation? That's actually a trend amongst us Generation Y kids due to the "be your child's friend" style of parenting first made popular by the Baby Boomers (but utilized by Generation Jones and Generation X) combined with our high familiarity with digital technology. For example, my favorite band is Led Zeppelin. It's almost as though labeling generations is based upon recognizing overlying trends of a group of individuals based upon birthyears. l2Sociology, noob. ~_^ -- R'son-W _{(speak to me/breathe)} 07:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was born in 1985 and I agree that most of it is bullcrap. I have a brother born in 1979 and my closet cousins born 1971-1987 and to me we are all part of the same generation with our parents born in the early to late 40's. I don't much of a difference between my brother and my cousins as much I see a different in my parents and my aunts and uncles. - JoeA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.241.210 (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Millennial Generation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Books on Generation Y

Sorry, I'm just a little confused... if Gen Y is the most protected generation, then who exactly is fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been going on for the greater part of this decade? Any clarification would be appreciated.

Also, I'm confused as to how the Millenials can be so demanding in the workplace if they do not have jobs. Perhaps this could be clarified as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croato87 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama Generation??

Is it fair to say that Gen Y is the Obama generation? An overwhelming majority of these voters voted for Obama, first in the Democratic Primary, then even more so in the general election. Since it says on the Gen X page that it is associated with Ronald Reagan, I think it is worth pointing out that this generation has been associated with Obama. It goes along with the theme of multiculturalism already mentioned in the article. It is quite symbolic that 2008 was the first presidential election that many Gen Y members could vote in.

Only if mainstream sources (Like the New York Times) have used the term and have used it INSTEAD of Gen Y or Millennial. --Knulclunk (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

When does it start?

I've always heard that Generation Y started on January 1, 1982. This makes sense because I've always heard that Gen Xers become adults before the turn of the millennium (So you'd have to be born before 12-31-81 to be an Xer)

Where is the line drawn...I've also heard 1976, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1985, and even 1986...Where is the distinction? I think it ought to be January 1-1982 to September 11, 1996 as Gen Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.66.130 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good ideas are irrelevant. Sources are what matters. And the fact is, even if you find a source that says, "Gen Y starts at 1980," some other source is going to say "1985," so don't worry. It's ambiguous, and that's okay. If you really want to, you can compile a series of sources that make different date claims, and then in the article, say, "here are the proposed starting dates and here are their proponents." Fredgoat (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is up with this: The Baby Boomers Are the Parnents of Gen Y???

I was born in 1995. Under most definitions, this is Generation Y. My mother and father were born in 1970 and 1971, that makes them, under most definitions, a member of Generation X. So, why are the parents of Generation Y called the baby boomers? My grandmother's a boomer (she was born 1950). THERE IS NO GAP!!! You can't make generalizations like that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.66.130 (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I was born in 1987. Under all definitions, this is Generation Y. My mother and father were born in 1956 and 1953, that makes them, under most definitions, Baby Boomers. So, this is why the parents of Generation Y are called Baby Boomers (but also Generation Joneses and Generation Xers). The article doesn't state that Baby Boomers are the only parents of Generation Y, but that they are parents of Generation Y. The article says this because it is true. -- R'son-W _{(speak to me/breathe)} 07:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, your parents and grandmother had children at a younger age than most people; that's just bound to skew your whole take on how generations are named. -- R'son-W _{(speak to me/breathe)} 07:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is all very interesting, but unfortunately completely anecdotal. We need verifiable sources. Personally, I don't really see how relevant this topic is, unless we can attach some sort of extra significance to it. Of course those born 20-40 years before a given generation, in this case, roughly ca. 1940 - 1980 depending on your definition, will be the parents of a given generation, here meaning boom, jones, X. What does that really tell us? Unless we find some sources laying out theories as to what the implications are, I suggest dropping the topic altogether, as it it seems kind of banal. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Queer propaganda

Why is so-called "homophobia" (a misnomer itself) labeled as a "problem"? If some Y-ers are reluctant to accept the notion that queer sexual perversions are to be considered perfectly natural or normal, can't that reluctance be due to a perfectly natural and normal revulsion that 98% of the world's people experience at the thought of such practices? Isn't there a more neutral term to use here, rather than calling statistically normal thinking a "problem"? Aren't our children being inundated with enough queer propaganda already, by all forms of media, without Wikipedia contributing to the problem? Naas-T (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a misnomer; at least 10% of the world's persons are homosexual (which is not to say that they might not have self-revulsion, but the 98% figure you quote is obviously bogus), etc. I suppose I'll need to check your edits to see if you're adding homophobic propaganda to Wikipedia articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hah. It got deleted anyway, prolly because it was uncited fluff. So there you go, another victory for normal-thinking people and protectors of children like Naas-T against the horrible, perverted, extra-gay media and its queer propaganda. Fredgoat (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chime In If You Agree With Me

I've been doing my homework on these Generations...and these are the definitions I have concluded that best represent the generations...

• • The Baby Boomers (1945-1953)
  • Generation Jones (1954-1964) I think the line between Boomer and Jones is that Boomers were old enough to fight in Vietnam, Jonesers witnessed it as children.
  • Generation X (1965-1981)Xers became adults before December 31, 1999.
  • Cold Y Generation (1982-1986) People who are too young to be an Xer, but can remeber the fall of the Soviet Union, which occured in 1991.
  • Generation Y (1986-1996)Generation Y can remeber the 90s and the 9-11 attacks.
  • Generation Z (1996-?) Gen Z cannot remember the 9-11 attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.58 (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No; you haven't been doing your homework. "Cold Y" is a subset of GenX or GenY, depending on who you talk to. Any independent identity seems to be WP:OR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, since it cannot be officially classified into X or Y it deserves to be considered its own segment, not a generation, but a segment that doesn't belong to either X or Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.36 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not Relevant; Logic is Meaningless! Citation is Truth! Big Wiki is Watching! Obey! Seriously, though, it doesn't matter what's a "good idea" - that's not how this works. Fredgoat (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do agree with you. jlh629 (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Change of Thoughts - 1977-1981 is late Generation X

Generation Y starts in the 1980s. Beginning year of 1982 or 1983 is still debatable in my opinion.

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

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

1977-1981 is the tail end of Generation X. This group is the "silent" digital natives, predominantly ignored in mass media. As they are Generation X, they possess characteristics similar to the next generation, (or shall I say the next generation possesses characteristics similar to young Gen-Xers, as they did come first.) This phenomena is seen across history, similar to the Generation Jones (1960-1964). They act very similar to Generation X, but are Baby Boomers.

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

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

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

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

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

I will add more information, and sources, to legitimize my position.

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

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