Talk:Millennials

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          Article history
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Removed Sentence[edit]

I removed this one line from a section in the Gen Y page. It claimed that Millennials were sometimes referred to as the MTV Generation because of MTV's influence on the millennials.

This is unsupported. MTV dominated the 1980's, but has largely become just another channel since then. The oldest millennials were in high school in the late 1990's, and therefore were not all that influenced by MTV. Furthermore, there is scant evidence to support this. Of the three sources, two of them described Gen Xers, not millennials. The one that did use the term MTV generation to describe what appeared to be millennials (it was not clear who it was referring as the MTV generation) appears to either be a misinterpretation of what the author was stating or a single usage that is an outlier. No one else refers to millennials as the "MTV Generation."

Like members of Generation X, who were heavily influenced by MTV, early members of Generation Y are also sometimes called the MTV Generation.[1][2][3]

References
  1. ^ Silverman, Stephen M. (January 15, 2002). "Colin Powell Joins MTV Generation – Colin Powell". People.com. Retrieved August 24, 2010. 
  2. ^ Tahman Bradley (October 29, 2007). "Obama Unplugged – Obama Talks With the MTV Generation – Political Radar". Blogs.abcnews.com. Retrieved August 24, 2010. 
  3. ^ Kolbert, Elizabeth (April 20, 1994). "Frank Talk by Clinton To MTV Generation". The New York Times. Retrieved April 2, 2010. 

MTV was still huge in the late 1990s. Both Generation X and Millennials have been called the "MTV Generation." Mister Tog (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

MTV was losing its influence in the late 90s and it only regained its influence in the late 2000s. Millennials are not normally called the MTV Generation, however if you find a source perhaps the article can be changed. Frmorrison (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Further Reading section[edit]

This section may not be in line with Wikipedia's goals. Here are some of the guidelines:

"Please do not add a work to the Further reading section if you are an author or publisher of the work. All editors are expected to comply with the Conflicts of interest guideline. Bookspam (the addition of content for the purpose of advertising a work) and other promotional activities are prohibited".
"When the list needs to be trimmed, preference should normally be given to notable works over non-notable works. (Depending on the medium of the work, see a specific notability guideline.)"
"Like the External links appendix, the inclusion of a Further reading section is optional, and many good articles, and more than half of all featured articles, omit it entirely. This section is present in fewer than 3% of Wikipedia's articles.

The section currently reads:

Further reading[edit]

Espinoza, Chip; Mick Ukleja, Craig Rusch (2010). Managing the Millennials: Discover the Core Competencies for Managing Today's Workforce. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-470-56393-9. Espinoza, Chip (2012). Millennial Integration: Challenges Millennials Face in the Workplace and What They Can Do About Them. Yellow Springs. OH: Antioch University and OhioLINK. p. 151. Stephanie F. Gardner (August 15, 2006). "Preparing for the Nexters". American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 70 (4): 87. doi:10.5688/aj700487. PMC 1636975. PMID 17136206. "born between 1983 and 1994" Furlong, Andy.Youth Studies: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routlege, 2013. Burstein, David (2013). Fast Future: How the Millennial Generation is Shaping Our World. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Millennials hit 30: It's the economy, not us (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/millennials-hit-30-its-economy-not-us-2D11981954).

Adding term "ageism" to "See also" section[edit]

As I stated in my edit summary, the content of ageism seems to bear only a tenuous connection to the specific topic of this article. --NeilN talk to me 23:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's follow the Wikipedia guideline which I will post when I get a chance to look at it.172.250.31.151 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm still looking at both articles before commenting further ... for now, here's the link: MOS:SEEALSO
The guideline states that the links "do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose ... is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". However, the same section also states that links included in the section are "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." and that links added to the "section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibility of Millennials Having "Silent Generation" Parents[edit]

Formerly Oldest Gen Y people wouldn't have "Silent Generation" parents

The article mentions early on that the phrase "Generation Y" was first used in a 1993 article that split youth into three groups: Gen Y were the future teens, then-current teenagers were an unnamed crowd (I call us "XY"), and the 20somethings were Generation X. Later on, the WP article claims that the oldest of the Gen Y crowd would have "Silent Generation" parents -- but that numerically doesn't work: Gen Y supposedly stops at 1980 at the earliest, yet the overwhelming majority of parents of the unnamed late-70s birth group were Baby Boomers (I've met *one* person with Silent G parents, and she was born in 77 after 5-6 siblings). (I've seen statistics on it before, but unfortunately I don't recall where.) —xyzzy 07:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The above information from xyzzy isn't correct. Per the Wikipedia article for the Silent Generation, these people were born during the Great Depression and World War II. So, a person born in 1945 (the end of WWII) would be part of the "Silent Generation." If that person had a child in 1980 (the beginning of the Millennials), they would be 35 years old at the time. Plenty of people have children when they're in their mid 30s, thus making it accurate that the youngest Silent Generation members are the parents of some of the older Millennials. —Heeerrresjonny (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Millennials start in the late 70s[edit]

First, in response to Xyzzyavatar, I was born in 1978 with one Silent Generation parent and one Greatest Generation parent (born in 1920).

I have found a site dedicated to marketing and employment according to generation that places the Millennials from (1977-1998):

PDF Breakdown by Generation - https://multco.us/file/14298/download

Their "Citations" page - http://www.thelearningcafe.net/newsstand/citations/

As someone who had a computer at 5, read Family Computing and Enter magazines then, had a computer class in first grade, I see many more Millennial ideals in those born in the late 70s than even the mid 70s. Herb Riede (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The article covers the range of possibles of when Millennials start and stop and since people will likely never agree, we as article writers cannot decide the start. Frmorrison (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ref candidates[edit]

67.100.127.2 (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the rest of them that were removed from "External Links". There doesn't seem to be a need to list endless articles about the Millennials under "external links". Anyone can just use Google news for that.

Adding Gen Z to Introduction[edit]

I propose that a link to the article on Generation Z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z) should be added to the Introductory paragraph. Generation Z is defined as those born from 1990 to the early 2000s, further distinguishing this cohort from Generation Y, those born in the late 70s or early 80s until the early 90s (see each respective page). 24.141.63.220 (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Paul

Thank you for your contribution. The approximate birth dates for Millennials are discussed in great detail in the "terminology" section of the Millennials page, with many good sources. Why is there a need for a link to the Gen Z page in the introduction -- that would be confusing. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Millennials are between the Years 1984 and 2000[edit]

There is evidence Millennials (or the Generation Y) are born between 1984 and 2000. How could I gather evidence of that? What proper sources can prove Millennials were born between 1984 and 2000? Can somebody please help me? Angela Maureen (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The article already gives a range of birth dates, with many reliable sources, that cover the dates you have mentioned.104.173.225.10 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding a word to a direct quote[edit]

The question is: Can Wikipedia editors add a word using parenthesis (into a direct quote) if the new word means the exact same thing (or helps clarify a quoted word). Under the Millennials terminology section see the quote "In 2012, Ad Age "threw in the towel by conceding that Millennials is a better name than Gen Y".

The proposed word to add into the quote is "name" after "placeholder" because it clarifies that we are not talking about a placeholder that means any of the following things:

1) One who holds an office or place, especially as a deputy, proxy, or appointed government official.

2) In a mathematical or logical expression, a symbol that may be replaced by the name of any element of a set.

3) In the decimal form of a number, a digit that is not significant.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk)

There's absolutely no need to "clarify" the quote as anyone can understand the context. --NeilN talk to me 21:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
That may be the case (for you) but you can't preclude an editor from doing so according to Wikipedia guidelines.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
See WP:CONSENSUS. --NeilN talk to me 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS does NOT trump policy.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS is policy. --NeilN talk to me 22:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I see no need to add the word, it seems pretty clear to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for clarification. 104.173.225.10 is mistaken with this addition. Are we really arguing this? Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • To justify clarification in a quote like this, we'd have to show both that it was unclear before and that it was made clearer by the clarification. I can't see that this addition meets either. It's just not needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your creative argument Andy Dingley but as you know we need the guideline (not what you wish it to be). Where is the policy you're referring to? And the quote is a bit unclear because the word "placeholder" is not defined in the quote. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh god, I thought you sounded familiar. --NeilN talk to me 23:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Andy Dingley, where is the policy you're referring to? The quote is a bit unclear because the word "placeholder" is not defined in the quote. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia "must involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns.

Here is a direct quote from WP:CONSENSUS

"Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines".104.173.225.10 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with everyone else that there is no serious ambiguity in the quote, the answer to your original question is no, never. You may not misrepresent a quote by changing it, and thus foisting on readers an unfaithful reproduction of what someone actually said. You might (if it was warranted, i.e., not the situation here) clarify what a word in a quote meant by adding a footnote providing further information.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok thank you. However, using parenthesis in journalism "indicates that the material inside the parenthesis has been added by the writer". See https://books.google.com/books?id=BN1S9PwMZQAC&pg=PT305&dq=parentheses+in+journalism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=haLiVJeZIo6pogTgpYDIAg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=parentheses%20in%20journalism&f=false
and, this source says to "use parenthesis in a DIRECT QUOTE to impart words which are NOT the speakers". See https://books.google.com/books?id=41yv2iSBDpMC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=parentheses+in+journalism&source=bl&ots=ye8A_R0F_p&sig=dM2X1faxh7qB29bF4ZsCf0BLong&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KKLiVNLvLcPZoATI3YIY&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=parentheses%20in%20journalism&f=false
That is incorrect (Yes I looked at your two sources but they are wrong and outre, do a search using <"never parentheses" brackets direct quotes> and you'll see. Brackets ([]) may be used to impart insertions, never parentheses, but they should really only be used to indicate things like changes to pronouns because of the way the quote is being and to clarify missing information when there's nothing missing here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The latest edition of the above source is 2009 (hardly "outre"). I've given you a link to a textbook written by two distinguished authors in the field of journalism -- in that source it says "using parenthesis in journalism indicates that the material inside the parenthesis has been added by the writer". In addition, the source says that parenthesis "can ALSO be used to add additional information to make the quote more complete". The source says nothing about your argument that it's only allowed when "changing a pronoun" -- for ex. "he (Fuhgettaboutit) edited Wikipedia".
Where is your link to your source? Please post it. Otherwise, it appears that I have the right to use parenthesis in this way, within reason, on the Millennials page.104.173.225.10 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious why we are still entertaining this idea, we have one editor who wants to do this and a number of others who don't. Let's move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Because consensus on Wikipedia is Decision-making involving an effort to incorporate ALL editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" -- not just an opinion of a small group of regular users.104.173.225.10 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There is already a very clear consensus here; your wishes are not part of it. The consensus is that no parenthetical clarification is needed in this case. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Since consensus is clearly against you, if you change the article again incorrectly you may be blocked from editing. Please focus your efforts on a different matter. Frmorrison (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The next step is to bring it up on an admin board. That is the process as you know. Whether or not it's a good use of editors time is another question. Thank you all for your contributions. I think we at least answered some important questions today. Cheers! 104.173.225.10 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
What "admin board" opines on content? --NeilN talk to me 18:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Is your question rhetorical? Look it up. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well my question is not, where is this admin board that decides on content, can you provide a link? Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I never said there was an admin board that decides on content. But there are a few who will hear a dispute over the question does consensus trump an editor's right to edit the site if his/her edits are within Wikipedia's policy? Again, consensus on Wikipedia is Decision-making involving an effort to incorporate ALL editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" So far this little discussion has not accomplished that.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Notice the word "effort"? And because Wikipedians in general are not idiots, we have the sensible: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached." --NeilN talk to me 21:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@104.173.225.10 I think you are either trolling us, or are being willfully obtuse. Sorry, just the way I see it. I only see these two possibilities because you write with a degree of intelligence that makes me discount the possibility that you could really misunderstand the concept of consensus and the actual consensus here so profoundly. The strange actions at my talk page and your recent post there, of course, did not help my impression--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit YOU however, never answered the following question: The latest edition of the above source is 2009 (hardly "outre"). I've given you a link to a textbook written by two distinguished authors in the field of journalism -- in that source it says "using parenthesis in journalism indicates that the material inside the parenthesis has been added by the writer". In addition, the source says that parenthesis "can ALSO be used to add additional information to make the quote more complete". The source says nothing about your argument -- that it's only allowed when "changing a pronoun" -- for ex. "he (Fuhgettaboutit) edited Wikipedia". Where is your link to the source? Thank you. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe you are for real and so I will waste little more time on this. You can perform the search I explicitly pointed you to, which will find multiple reliable sources stating directly that you never use parentheses for this, or not, but it's all beside the point distraction. I now take it you are the same person who wasred everyones' time with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive816#IP_insists_on_double_voting, and who trolled me with this nonsense (both IP's geolocate to Los Angeles).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Both IPs geolocate to Los Angeles -- that's ridiculous that you would even say that. I'm not going to search the web to prove YOUR argument -- why would anyone do that?104.173.225.10 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead Problems[edit]

Hi,

There are at-least two problems in the lead section of this article:-

1) It is too short. It does not summarize the article. It only contains two sentences. The lead should be a concise summary of the article.

2) The following sentence is a vague-attribution:-

... Researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s

This sentence should be reworded to clearly explain who is saying that. Claiming that "researchers and commentators" say that is too vague. The sentence should clearly state who says that, and it must be supported with verifiable references. Wikipedia must contain statements of fact, not opinion. Therefore, if a claim cannot be substantiated with valid references, then it must be removed from the article.

I thank you for your understanding,

--Hrbm14 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

1. If you think the first two sentences are not a good summary, what is it missing? Perhaps traits could be added, but with the generation so new it is hard to pin that down.

2. The first section clearly states whom have decided the dates. Wikipedia allows the opening section to ignore listing references as long as they are in the body of the article. There are no opinionated statements in the first sentence, it only has facts. Frmorrison (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Firstly, thank you for your response. The bold text were the questions asked by Frmorrison, which I have tried to answer.

If you think the first two sentences are not a good summary, what is it missing?

Please see this article to get an idea of the things you need to include. The following is from that article.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[1] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

The first section clearly states whom have decided the dates. Wikipedia allows the opening section to ignore listing references as long as they are in the body of the article.

Are you sure? Please see quote below from Manual of Style: Lead section.
The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.

I thank you for your understanding,

--Hrbm14 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with all of your points. Also, the IP editor this morning also agrees with me, so there is some consensus that you are mistaken. Frmorrison (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk)