Talk:Millennials

OIF / OEF

I was surprised when I read this article that there is no reference to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, September 11th, or The Global War on Terrorism. A lot of service members belong to Generation Y, and everyone of us who are still in the service either freely enlisted during a war or re-enlisted during a war. I think you could make a solid case that the current all volunteer military, which is provided by Generation Y, saved the country from social chaos that would have ensued if a draft became necessary after OIF became unpopular. I think those that keep this page up could give us that little bit of pride after bashing us for being a bunch of over-privileged liberal childish internet addicts. (Bkmalone86 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

I can't say that I don't disagree with the rampant liberalism, however, what you are proposing is definitely biased. Do you have any legitimate sources to back up your statement? I am not pro-war, but neither do I disagree with getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He was an evil man who murdered my people as well. I think a lot of people had a problem with how the war started. I am not passing judgment, however, because initially, I supported the war, though I was still unsure. After September 11, a lot of things changed. But anyway, the only reference I have found to Generation Y in the military is an article that is associated with the U.S. Army. I have that somewhere, but I have to dig for it. It's been a while since I've read it, but I think it discusses the number of Generation Y members in the military (as mentioned in the article, born since 1982) and possibly their feelings about serving their country. I can get back to you on that. I don't think it's appropriate to bring in military terms on this page, but I guess that depends on the context used. If you have any sources you'd like others to look at, please post links to them here, or list them. They can't be personal blogs or biased opinion pieces, but some newspaper columns (not referring to acceptable newspaper articles, etc.) may be permissible.

Thank you for your service to our country. My father served as a medic in the Air Force, and one of my cousins served in the Air Force in Afghanistan, and is now finishing college. God Bless you (no offense if you're atheist). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What can I say except that the Baby Boom is out to discredit our good name?- unsigned because I don't know how to sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.246.136 (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this article about a generation? Your suggestions are almost exclusively American-oriented. This also goes for the religious section which quotes some narrow American-based studies as if they represented world trends. Mr. Shean (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Needs Amending

Gen Y, if we are to accept a graduation year of 2000, begins in 1981, not 1982 (as falsely stated). Here’s the proof that an academic start year begins in September the previous year through to August the following year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_term

"In most countries, the academic year begins with the start of autumn and ends during the following summer."

So, are any editors going to amend the 1982 error? You know, the one that uses the blanket statement that if you’re born in 1982 you graduate in 2000? It’s false because an academic start year begins in 1981 for a graduation of 2000. And those born after September 1982 would graduate in 2001, not 2000 also.

And can anyone quote Strauss and Howe to see if they account for an academic start year beginning in September 1981 and onwards for a legitimate graduation date of 2000? IF they did not mention 1981 as a legitimate start date, then their 'research' needs to be criticized in the main article.

IF they did mention it, then whoever has been using the blanket statement of 1982 as a start year should simply alter the dates to reflect the facts.

If we are to accept Gen Y begins with the class of 2000, then we must also accept 1981 (after September) is the real beginning, not 1982. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.201.205 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

1) The graduating year is flawed. 1981 is the true year not 1982 for graduates of 2000.

2) Using just graduating years is flawed also. It focuses too much on the USA and not other countries (like the UK) where there is no graduation at 18 from highscool.

The focus should be more on the digital age and when people would have been influenced by growing technology, i.e. the rise of the Internet and social newtworking/forums. This became mainstream around 1996, which would mean anyone born around 1980 would have been teenagers and thus more influenced by modern technology than people older, i.e. Gen X'ers born in the 60s or early 70s.

I propose we start Gen Y as 'roughly in the late 70s or early 80s' and that Gen X basically fades out late 70s or early 80s'.

Who agrees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.201.205 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please get a registered account. I have already mentioned the spoofing program traced to this IP address and you have not responded. Which makes me think you are the person who was previously warned of being banned (several times). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that academics should not be used in determining boundaries of Generations. This is NOT done with the Baby Boom Generation. We do not hear 1979 is the last class of the Baby Boom Generation. Generations should be based on culture and similarities with individuals in relation to that culture. There are too many people who graduated late, dropped out, graduated earlier, etc. to base these generations on academics. Educatedlady (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this needs to be addressed here as well: Considering that the majority of current sources end Generation X in 1981, and Generation Y/Millennials start in 1982, why should such a vague date range be added back in with all reliable sources pointing otherwise? No blogs or youtube videos, or information from DNA professors. The consensus was agreed upon based on the standards used today. Standards being the key word. It's ridiculous that this is even brought up every other week. So, we need a consensus once a month to make everyone happy? The date ranges and sources support the most widely acceptable date ranges. Millennials are those who came of age in 2000. And the Generation X label was already pretty well-defined before the year 2000. 1982, 1983, 1984 or 1985 have never been nor are they Generation X. The consensus decided on the most acceptable date ranges based on reliable and commonly accepted evidence. Only one published book used 1983 as the start of Generation Y, and he is not well-known with his research widely accepted. That source REMAINS on the Generation Y page. That information does not belong on this page. Other editors have already reverted EducatedLady's edits and restated the previous consensus. If blogs, youtube videos, or personal research papers are added again, or Edward Carlson's Generation Y work mentioned on here, they will be removed. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

CreativeSoul, you HAVE NOT been able to refute the fact that an ACADEMIC year begins in September, which makes 1981 the actual start date for the class of 2000. You even admitted this was TRUE a few days ago! And yet, you still persist in saying 'it's 1982'.

You say this issue comes up all the time: well, I'm not surprised.

Millions of people are visiting Wikipedia every day, and there will be a portion that are interested in Sociology/Generation Phenomena etc that will come to the same conclusions as I, EducatedLady, and the various others who visit here come to.

YOU are ignoring the facts, yes, I even included a Wikipedia link proving when an ACADEMIC year begins! Yet you won't change the article to reflect this.

Also, NO OTHER generation is defined on graduation dates, and the more I think about this topic, the more convinced I am we should use generics as Gen Y is typically associated with those who grew up with the Internet/social networking/cell phones etc. All these things became mainstream in the mid '90s, more specifically, 1996 if we are mainly focused on the 'net.

People born in the 60s and early 70s would have already been adults by the mid 90s, but those born around 1980 would have been just teenagers when the 'net became popular.

This is why the emphasis should be on shared cultural experiences, NOT just on graduation dates stated by Strauss and Howe (and even that is not right if they don't account for 1981 as an academic start year for graduates of 2000), and certainly NOT just focused on the USA, which is where most of this 'research' seems to be concentrated on.

If you think a website like Wikipedia, with millions of visitors a day, are going to ignore facts (like the one I already explained to you several times now) then you are mistaken. It is common sense that people will dispute these 'studies', because 1982 is NOT an academic start year for 2000 graduates PLUS Gen Y is NOT about graduation dates as a whole. It is a factor, but it is NOT the principle defining factor of what makes a person Gen Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.201.205 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think like with the Generation X page their should be a range of when Generation Y begins. There has not been enough research on this generation at all to determine any dates. If a researcher is going to begin this generation with the class of 2000 then yes they would have to add those born towards the end of 1981. Many studies begin Generation Y around 1976 and ending in the early 1990s. Perhaps adding a range to the page of the mid 1970's to early 1990's until more research has been conducted to make a true determination. However I don't think this will happen anytime in the future. There has to be more studies done.Heavymetal81 (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The wording of this article was decided by a consensus, which is what the current date range is in place (no dashes, etc.). The references included already show possible 1976 start dates by some sources. However, most current sources use 1981 as the last possible date for Generation X. I have made my explanations for the reasoning very clear. The terms Millennial refer to those who come of age in 2000 and after. The term Echo Boom refers to the 1982 boom in live births. It's all there in the article. A couple of posters whose edits were reverted by myself and other editors are trying to get their information in through other means. One such person even said that they would keep trying to get it in, then yelled at me and two other editors. She was asked to calm down, and didn't, and was warned several times. The other anonymous poster was pretty much banned. I can't be hundred percent sure it's the same person, but why else hide behind an IP address that is linked to an IP spoofer site? Is it a coincidence that the person came back on Wikipedia to try his tactics again anonymously? This person also spammed several talk pages with his rants. We are using the standard terminology and widely used date ranges. We are not going by "feeling" or personal research. No blogs, youtube clips, and personal sites created by average people. I think this is clear enough. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the idea of the millennial generation starting with those born in september 1981, technically you can't use that either. There are some people I know who were born in September 1981 who graduated in 1999 because some districts use October as the start date of an academic year. There are even some who use November.70.178.26.108 (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter

I didn't find any reference to Harry Potter. I've often heard this generation referred to as the Harry Potter Generation because most of them grew up reading it and watching the movies all the way into adulthood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.210.182 (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Me Generation"

Hell Yeah (Montgomery Gentry song) refers to Generation Y as "the Me Generation" unless I've misidentified what that term means.

BTW Harry Potter is more Generation Z I think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter is more general age range. My parents are early Baby Boomers (almost Silent Generation age really) and they love the Harry Potter movies.

Also known as "Generation Entitled" 174.117.174.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

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 CreativeSoul7891 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 CreativeSoul7891 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)

William Strauss and Neil Howe

This section is poorly written, even if anything it has to say is accurate, which from the discussion is questionable. It reads like a horoscope and has no place in an encyclopedia. If anything, the multi-paragraph inanity should be reduced to a link to the article about the book. There is no need to include a full description of the theory in an article about generation y. Even that might be too much. Honestly, the text relating to this theory should just be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.216.159 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with the recent edits made to the Strauss and Howe section. These authors are recognized for their generational research and paved the way for other authors and researchers. Judy Woodruff of PBS Newshour acknowledges Neil Howe's expertise, and other authors/newspapers have mentioned these authors extensive influence. I don't have all the sources right now, but I have provided two showcasing their importance (even one that is critical).

The article does not read "most influential," but "very inBold textfluential," which is a true statement. Just because one writer for the Boston Globe thinks these authors are silly, does not erase the authors' years of work and the respect given to them. William Strauss has unfortunately passed away, but his parter continues their legacy, and Strauss still gets praised for his contributions today. Howe continues to publish almost every year, and is frequently consulted by newspaper journalists, TV journalists, universities, etc. I would say that is "very influential." Even the few who may disagree with some of their research have obviously been influenced, as they are making money criticizing their research in their own works. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You found articles that validate that their work has been very influential so I am not disputing that at all. I made the edit because no source backed up that claim, so therefore it was more opinionated. I have no problem with the article stating they are influential as long as a source supports this statement. While I respect their efforts, their work is inaccurate on so many levels. And there is not a few that disagree with them, there are many sources that are no longer use their somewhat biased and promotional research (just my opinion). Reason being Strauss and Howe started their research when we persons born in 1982 and those born in 1981 were kids. Its hard to coin a generation before a person becomes an adult and its expressed what influenced a person during childhood and adolesence. Their work is almost borderline fiction. Other researchers are not necessarily criticizing Strauss and Howe, they are just pointing out facts. How can these two men know anything about persons born in 1982 when they have not lived our lives or walked in our shoes? There are basing an entire generation on ONE graduating class, based upon interviews at 4 schools in Virginia. In their book Millennials Rising? It clearly states that their research was done on the class of 2000, it does not specifically state if they surveyed persons specifically born in 1982. Therefore more than likely their faulty research consists of persons probably born in 1981 as well due to Kindergarten cutoffs and students flunking grades. As Wikipedia states majority and minority views can be included here, not just the popular sources. I want to help improve this article, and I think we can work together but we need to realize that Generations X and Y do not begin or end with the work of Strauss and Howe. Other researchers deserve respect too. Happy Holidays. Educatedlady (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have their books. It does in fact mention the Millennials and 1982, both. In fact, one chapter in Generations is devoted entirely to the new generation, Millennials, and the authors use 1982 as the starting point. Several places throughout their books, they use 1982. Every book I have read by these authors (and I have read several), as well as research papers, newspaper articles, and other interviews (on television), mentions 1982 as the starting point. They are very clear. You say, "How can these two men know anything about persons born in 1982 when they have not lived our lives or walked in our shoes?" Well, you can say that about every single book written about every other generation. Strauss and Howe are generational theorists and considered experts. They are also very educated and have experience researching many generations, not just the Millennials. No matter your opinion, or the few who criticize them, Strauss and Howe are considered the most well-known researchers. Their work influenced other writers and researchers, including those who disagree with them, and effectively launched the "Millennium" business. Moreover, Neil Howe wrote more books after Millennium Rising; one was just published in 2010 on Millennials and the workplace. Some of the critics base their criticism on just Millennium Rising. Howe continues to publish his research, and he is consistently asked to consult on Millennials (and other generations)- not just by universities; but by journalists, companies, etc. around the worldStrauss and Howe are highlighted on Wikipedia, because they are the most notable regarding generational research. More than another other author or researcher (though again, most authors on the subject use 1982 in reference to Millennials/Generation Y), their work is consistently referenced by other media. You don't have to agree with their assessments, but even today, they are held in high regard.

Strauss and Howe are not the only authors using 1982 as the official birth year of the Millennials. I already mentioned the authors of The M Factor and Millennial Makeover, but a recent published work by a well-known British psychologist (as mentioned before) on Generation Y and religion also uses 1982 as the starting birth year. This source is used throughout the UK, Australia, and North America by churches in their articles on Millennials. Currently, Millennial conferences in both the U.S. and Canada (I know Canada's conference included researchers, marketers, CEOs, and others from various backgrounds and countries around the world) use 1982 as the starting year for the Millennials, as well. They may or may not reference Strauss and Howe, but the itinerary from one of Canada's conferences included sources from around the world - I saw statistics from Canada, U.S., UK, and Australia. Sources may use different date ranges, but the majority of well-known sources use 1982, whether they cite Strauss and Howe, or not.

I'm glad you placed the Elwood Carlson information between the Strauss and Howe paragraph and the content on Australia. It didn't make a lot of sense for it to come after the Canada reference, since he is an American author. I had to remove the italics because it was not a title of a book, but a quoted term from the author's book. I had to look it up in the google book search to see if the phrase was used as the author's own terminology - which it was. Could you open the link to this book? I just checked, and it's working for me now. It was probably a glitch earlier. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I tried the link on this page for the Carlson's book and its working for me too.

I know Strauss and Howe are not the only authors using the 1982 start date. However many are referencing to them, and not doing their own research. Also if you google the dates for Gen X 1965-1982 there is an emergence of reseachers that are using this date range. For some reason other demographers are pulling away from the S&W concept. What makes their research questionable in Millennials Rising is while they are citing 1982 throughout the text they specifically stated that they surveyed 600 persons in the class of 2000 at 4 high schools in Fairfax county, Virginia. However no where they indicate how old these persons are. They must have known that not everyone in the Class of 2000 was born in 1982. Out of 600 people someone was bound to have been born in 1981 because Virginia has a kindergarten cutoff of September 15 and again its a reality people flunk grades. The reseachers do not specifically state that all 600 persons were born in 1982. I am really suprised that these notable authors are so off the mark with their research. While I believe they deserve respect, they certainly should not be the spokepersons (or person now that Strauss is no longer with us) for a generatioin. I really don't think they understand the mind of a person born in 1982 or 1981 for that matter. Educatedlady (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is your proof that many are referencing them and not doing their own research. That is your opinion and there is no evidence for that. Considering that Australia and Canada have their own sociologists/demographers/marketers and demographers, there is no indication that they are doing something illegal and not citing Strauss and Howe. Neil Howe has written other books besides Millennials Rising, so please stop referring to this book. He is constantly consulted on a regular basis regarding his generational theories. You read the quote I provided by Judy Woodruff regarding his expertise. Most people who graduated in 2000 were born in 1982 - that is a fact. What you say about Generation Y/Millennials, you can say about all generations. It is not up to you if Strauss and Howe are spokespeople for generational theory and especially the Millennials. That has been decided years ago by the media. They are also the first to make generational theory so popular. It is out of your hands. And I don't see any move from referencing Strauss and Howe. As I mentioned before, new authors Lynne C . Lancaster and David Stillman have written The M-Factor about Millennials in the workplace and are making a name for themselves. And two other authors, one who worked under former Vice President Al Gore, are very popular today, having recently spoken at Harvard University. They also run a Millennial Conference here in the United States. They are also constantly quoted by newspapers, especially regarding the politics of Millennials. All four of these authors use 1982 as the start of the Millennial Generation. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not tell me what to stop referencing to. I will reference to what I please I SAID some authors are not doing their own research by referencing to Strauss and Howe. I have read countless articles that continue to reference to them. I am NOT saying other authors are not doing their own research, but you have stated yourself that Strauss and Howe lead the path in generational research so it is common for other researchers and reporters to reference to them, especially for articles. This issue is NOT out of my hands as I have the right and ability to conduct research as well. You cannot tell me what is "out of my hands" because it is not. Strauss and Howe do not have the patent on research no one else can stop another researcher from examining this topic. I am slowly (but surely) making a name for myself with my own research and recently spoke at RICE University about this same topic, and I have been invited to a few other engagements as well, to dispute the theories made by these authors. I am not trying to disrespect them, but you don't coin a generation for marketing purposes. You don't know my credentials nor my connections. I have made contact with several media outlets and they are recognizing that my research is indeed valid. The only reason why I am not promoting my research fully is because it is no where near complete. I would like to work with people like yourself who support the Strauss and Howe theory, as I respect your position Creative. I am not trying to get you to change your mind. But I would appreciate if you respect my position as well. And just for your information, I do not refer to myself as a member of Generation X or Generation Y, but rather the XY Cusp. Educatedlady (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh and furthermore you don't see a move????? The move is the number of sources that I posted which you ignored that use Generation X dates 1965-1982. These are sources that I did not make up.Educatedlady (talk) 05:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

To Educatedlady, many who use 1982 as the start year are using Strauss and Howe as a reference, no one else. I personally don't agree with Strauss and Howe at all. Not only do they use 1982 as the start year, but they act like there is a significant difference between those born in 1981 and those born in 1982, instead of the one year difference it is. Heck, I become the same age as those born in 1982 for a time(I was born april 1981). William Strauss has been dead for three years now, and both Strauss and Howe were both older men who came from a previous generation. They don't really understand us as much as they think they do..or in Strauss' case-did. Why they may have had some expertise on generations, they are dead wrong on quite a bit of stuff. I don't expect the guy you are arguing with to agree, but the doesn't change the facts.Bjoh249 (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing with Strauss and Howe is that they are trying to reconstruct the memories and experiences of a person born in 1982 to validate their almost fictional argument about persons born in 1982 being part of a different generation. Have you read their work? In one text they claim that persons born in 1982 have no memory of the Challenger explosion, even though we were 4 (or turning 4) when this happened. Of course a 4 year old can have memories, and pretty vivid ones at that. I do. While I think the boundaries have to be drawn at a certain point Generation Y should begin around 1984. I am pleased other researchers are using different dates now. My goal is to get these sources and mine to become even more mainstream. Educatedlady (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Gen X,Y,Z dates in perspective

Gen X is 1965-1981 (5-year Cusp, 1977-1981)

Gen Y is 1982-2000 (5-year Cusp, 1995-2000)

Gen Z is 2001-2020 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.32.126 (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

2000 is a little too much for Generation Y. I was born in 1985 and I don't look at kids born in 2000 (or 2001, as some put the stop year) as my peers but in terms of "that could be my kid". I like the different generational subdivisions myself. Here are how I divide up Boomers, X, Y, Z (this is just me, so don't quote me on this). Baby Boomers (Early Baby Boomers actually but let's just simplify things) were born in 1945-1957, Generation Jones (the late Baby Boomers) were born in 1958-1967, I pick those dates because they can call themselves either without sounding silly. Early Generation X is 1968-1974, the XY Cusp is its own generation, birth years of 1975-1985, also known as Generation MTV. I just do that because there's so much dispute over the end date of Generation X (I'll go along with 1977-1980 as the end), and I could call myself Generation X or Y without sounding silly (I was born in 1985), Generation Y starts sometime around 1980, but the non cusp part is 1986-1996 or 1997. Generation Z starts in 1998, they were too young to remember a world before 9/11 and may not even remember 9/11.

User this is personal research, not cited articles you are posting. Wikipedia only allows reliable sources from a majority and minority point of view. Sources have ended Generation Y in various years including 2000 so therefore that is why the intro is the way it is. In regards to persons born in 1998 they were 3 years old when 9/11 occurred, old enough to have vague memories. I was born in 1982 and I was 3 when the Challenger explosion happened in 1986 and I have vague memories of that. We do not have the ability or even the right to determine what each and every person can remember, that is case by case. If you look up psychological reseach in terms of memory you will see our formative years are during the first 6 years of our lives. Educatedlady (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Generation Jones ending in 1967? I don't buy that at all! People born in 1967 were not even teens in the 70's and didn't start high school till Reagan's second autumn in office. They are among the first true "Gen X'ers" if anything. Generation Jones should end in 1964, not 1967. 1964 was the actual end year of the postwar baby boom and people born then would have spent a considerable portion of their high school years in a 70's-esque Carter environment. You could also call it a swing year, with people born then identifying either as X'ers or late boomers/Joneser's (depending on the individual) but based on their ages during the critical period (late 1970's), a case can be made for putting them outside of the X'er range. I also think you begin Jones at a late date. I don't see people born in 56 and 57 as core boomers. They are the first Jonesers, coming of age after Vietnam. Afghan Historian (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Economic reasons for leaving parents later

The statements in the article about the reasons young people live with parents longer (no-one can afford to pay rent) do not make sense. It would follow that life is harder now than it was a hundred years ago or before the war. That is obviously untrue. Huge advances in technology and medicine mean that life is much easier now than even in the 1950's. Real economic reasons might involve facts like modern young people wanting to live in the big cities and near commercial centers, where the rent is obviously very high - but even in New York you could find a cheap place to stay easily if your standard of comfort was the same as for an immigrant in the 1920's. It seems, after all, more a mentality thing, a certain addiction to comfort that young people find it ever more harder to give up. One has always had to give up a certain amount of comfort at the point of leaving one's parents, but with the aforementioned advances in technology, the comforts have become ever more appealing.212.93.97.136 (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Any sources? This is a dangerous topic because there are a lot assumptions being made on all sides, so you are probably right to say that it is over simplifying to say that people are staying at home later because of simple economic reasons. However, I'm not sure that "addiction to comfort" is a completely satisfying explanation, though it may play a part. I could equally argue that it is an increasing attachment to family and sociability that causes it. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No sources, just saying :) You're right, it is also true that people now are less individualistic than they were, but in a certain way that is also due to technology - TV, one of the comforts I mentioned, has also addicted us to constant company, albeit virtual. And it's strange how the new social technologies, which are made with the specific purpose of allowing you to socialize with your friends from anywhere, actually contribute to a lack of mobility. People become scared just to be by themselves, while the idea of circumstances of actual NEED is like a horror beyond all horrors. A hundred years ago at least in literature you could make poverty SOUND romantic and a starting point for a rags to riches story - these days if the author would say that the hero of the story is poor, the reader would think "What, doesn't he have any FRIENDS?" - with growing horror. Really, I don't think this article even begins to capture the complex psychology of this whole matter. Or the complex sociology - 90% of Americans and Western Europeans, judging by the actual circumstances in which they live, would've been considered the upper class in the 19th century. Again, going by actual circumstances, rather than relative social position. As such, it would actually make more sense to compare them to upper class people of 1880's or 1920's, and in that case unwillingness to suffer hardship becomes easy to understand (as well as the increased sociability you mentioned - just read any Maupassant or Fitzgerald novel :) 212.93.100.153 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Generation Y and Multiracial Identitiy

I have been reading a lot of articles lately about Millennials (Generation Y) being very proactive in identifying as Multiracial in terms of race identity than generations prior to them (especially Baby Boomers). This would be a very interesting characterstic to add to the article. I am posting a few sources to cite what I am referring to. Let me know what you think. Educatedlady (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09034/946461-44.stm http://www.lewisfreelance.com/lewisfreelance.com/Diversity_Talks.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/us/30mixed.html

Request from Admins about standards of behaviour

It is extremely unhelpful if people delete each others comments. Please would no one delete anyone else's comment whatsoever. If a comment is so bad as to be a personal attack then please let an admin or uninvolved experienced editor remove the attack (but not the whole comment). Thanks. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Creativesoul reported

The user has been harrasing me on my talk page after making edits. I have reported the user to administrators. 75.148.160.76 (talk)

Just ignore him. He is very arrogant and full of it.Bjoh249 (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Religion Section

Does anyone know why the religion section has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality? I dont see any discussion on this talk page. Perhaps the tagger doesn't like the findings? --NDState 16:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)