Talk:Millennials

Lead Problems

There are significant problems with the lead:-

1) Vague Attributions and Generalizations - For example, "Most researchers and commentators...". This needs to be rewritten to clarify who is saying that. Otherwise, it can be challenged. It isn't cited anyway.
2) The lead is too short and does not summarize the article. In other words, a person needs to have a brief understanding of the topic by reading only the lead.

--Hrbm14 (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of Article

Hi,

I would encourage each one of you on here to avoid generalized statements and opinion in this article. This article like all articles on Wikipedia needs to be supported with reliable secondary sources. The statement, "There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends; most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s." in the lead is too general and has no supporting references. As a result, editors are changing the dates as they see fit, disagreeing with the date range given (cf. history log of article). The first citation in the lead points to an unreliable advertising / news site, considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. Editors are encouraged to use more reliable references.

--Hrbm14 (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Further Reading section

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).

Years

For some reason I've come across a lot of different sources that state that it starts either in the early 1970's, others in 1984, and some state that this generation ends in 1995, while others either 1999 or 2000, which one is true? This article barely gives any straightforward definitions, are there any? --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

there's no agreement about the dates, so there's just no straightforward answer. The article used to have more in depth discussion of the date issue, but I see it's been cut at some point. You're right the earliest dates given are around 76 to start and some as late as the late 80s, with end dates from the early 90s to the early 2000s somewhere. Basically the problem is that no one really agrees what exactly the "millennials" are, so it's an ongoing argument that has no apparent resolution in sight. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

So Kanye West the other day referred to himself as a Millennial, even though he was born in 1977! There is no agreement on the definition of The Greatest Generation, The Baby Boomers, or Generation X either. Believe me, we GenXers get just as offended when someone born in the 50s is called GenX as you do when someone born in the 70s is called a Millennial. The fact is the transitional groups are "lost." That 70s Show is neither about Boomers nor GenXers. And I've always heard GenY and Millennial separated, as in people born in the 80s were Gen Y, and people born in the 90s as millennials--no one born in 1981 is considered a millennial or a GenX. I think at its core it's a question of whether birth age or rite-of-passage age is the question. If you ask me, GenXers are those who never knew a world without computers, and Millennials never knew a world without the internet. So GenX is 1970s; GenY is 1980s; Millennials are 1990s; and later than that hasn't been named yet because they don't spend money yet.--Mrcolj (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a rule of thumb, if you've ever used the word "hypocrite," you're not Gen X.--Mrcolj (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course I've used the word hypocrite. And Baby Boomers are usually defined as Jan 1, 1946 to Dec 31, 1964) and Gen X after that. Generation Jones is about 1954-57 to the end of the Baby Boomers. Those are the That 70s Show kids born in 1959 and 1960. I thought 1995-something is Generation Z but no one knows yet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that the very concept of these modern generations is fairly flawed. No one can agree what they are because they don't really exist in the way they are discussed in the media. They blend into each other to such a degree that making a really distinct separation between "generation X" and "millennials" is fairly useless. There's not much that truly unites a generation today; I think there's more in common between people of similar backgrounds but different generations than within a generation. That's less true for Baby Boomers who really were shaped by a major demographic and political event (the end of WWII). Exactly as you mention above, generally people born in the late 70s or early 80s "fall through the cracks" and may have equally as much to do with someone from either end of those two decades depending on their personal circumstances. And I think the same will be said of many people born at different times. Anyway, just my two cents, so doesn't count for much, but IMO helps explain why this article is such a pseudoscientific fraud. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The years listed here are simply wrong. I'm Generation-Y and I'm NOT a Millennial. There were countless articles written on Generation-Y long before the term Milennials came about. They are simply not the same as this wiki page wrongly states. I explain the difference between Gen-Y and Millennials on my blog. [[[User:jackal242|jackal242]] (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You and I are not experts are deciding who is what the generation name is going to be. However, the sources in this article have decided on the name. --Frmorrison (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

A generation should be 18 years. Baby Boomers are considered to be born in the years after WW2 to 1964. Generation X from 1965 to 1982. Milennials 1983 to 2000. Generation Z is anyone born after 2001 to 2018. Too easy. J Bar (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Lede sentence

The sentence about "broad consensus" is original research. We don't know for sure. There actually might be a broad consensus out there in the media. Without a source for this particular statement it's making a broad statement of fact that isn't supported.64.183.42.42 (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

To make that statement we do need a source that states there is no achievable consensus; simply having several sources that reach no consensus and inferring that consensus can't be reached is WP:SYNTH. LjL (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There are at least 12 sources that all say something different on dates, and all of them have different backgrounds. How is saying there is no broad consensus by comparing these 12 sources original research? If there were only four sources, I would agree that is an original thought saying no one can agree, but 12 is a lot of differing thoughts. --Frmorrison (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

... no? 12 and 4 are just numbers. There is a clear document at WP:SYNTH that explains that you can only report what sources say, not reach conclusions based on your own inferences from statements made in different sources, nevermind by counting how many sources agree or disagree. It's just not a conclusion you can write on Wikipedia without a source actually reaching it. Note that the claim being made on the article wasn't that "there is no broad consensus", but that "broad consensus is impossible". Which is obviously an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. LjL (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Heartbreaking

That enough people have decided Y and its subset Cold Y are the same as Millennials... My God. This is a travesty. I was born in early 1983. Millennials are nothing like my peer group. Cold Y suited us close to perfectly. We are not Millennials. This is just wrong... Jersey John (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your personal experience with your peers is not a sound basis to build an encyclopedia. If you have sources to bring to the table, feel free to do so, otherwise it's just idle chatter. LjL (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Illustrations?

Are there any good illustrations that could improve this article? Charts specific to this cohort, etc? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I cannot think of a chart that would be suitable. The only picture I think of adding is Strauss and Howe's photos. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, just thought I would ask others to think about possible illustrations. I would think there would be charts with population statistics, demographics, etc., or graphs showing political trends, ideology, etc. I'll keep an eye out. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Proper Nouns on Wikipedia

Person(s), places or things (proper nouns) are capitalized on Wikipedia, correct? 2606:6000:610A:9000:3968:BEB2:7F68:886D (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That is correct. So Millennials is always capitalized, since it is a proper noun. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright cool thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:7904:687E:7A58:C172 (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Grammar question

Is the word "for" needed in the lede sentence as follows: There are no precise dates for when the generation starts and ends". Don't think it is. 2606:6000:610A:9000:2148:C4CF:FD5F:E50 (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is, but before reverting your removal of it, I asked on ##English on freenode, and other people confirmed they thought it was needed. It is a legitimate doubt since there can be a time or date when something happened, but in this case, I think we're trying to convey that sources don't come up with specific dates for when it starts and ends, rather than simply that the generation itself doesn't start and end on some given dates (which seems even more obvious). LjL (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it wouldn't "flow" correctly with out it. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Two names One meaning

Regretfully, being part of the biggest pansie, cupcake coddled Generation in history, b.1990, i think i'm inclined to give my input and opinion, and to probably vent a little steam. Lets just label both Gens Y and Z as clearly "Millennials":

(1) Its own seperate page with both Gens

Millennials (generation) (Generation Y (1977/78 - 1993/94/95) (Generation Z (1994/95 - 20xx)

(2) Seperate page for just the "meaning" to describe the Generations

Millennials (meaing)

(3) Two seperate pages for each respectful Generation

Generation Y Generation Z

(4) To hell with it, do away with the the whole BS articles together!

This whole argument "naming" and "label" process has for years gotten out of hand, and very rediculous. The sad fact, is that its more than likely two different Generations under one single label! Also, simply just listing Generation Z with its own page is in of itself selective (as if Y dosn't come after X or berfore Z), and what many would see as spiteful. Either give the first half of the Mill/Gen its well deserved and appropriate alphabetical letter; and leaving Generation Z with its own page, or put both of them under the same, and practically correct definition. Also, does anyone know just WHO the hell came up with the term "Millennial" in the first freakin place? Its probably one of the most lamest and pathetic names for a Generation label i've or probably others have herd of! Its like naming a specific group of people after what sounds more like a sandwhich or TV channel!