Talk:Millennials

Dates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facts

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

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

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

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

Agreed, ESPECIALLY with that previous user Educatedlady saying you need SOURCES to say that in 1992 those born in 1976 were 16. LIKE, DUH ANYONE WITH A BRAIN CAN SEE THAT THEY ARE!!!--75.0.35.23 (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Criticism of Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Music

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

Generational eras based on conjecture

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

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