Talk:Millennials/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5

Why does this article still need "cleaning up"?

Here is a list of all the substantiated facts available/presented to us in this article:

-Human beings give birth to other human beings. -Human beings born anywhere between 1983 to the present day fall under the catagory of "Generation Y". -Generalisations and stereotypes are annoying.

This is not enough for people who just want facts, rather than some 1000 word essay on the common stereotypes plaguing the American youth.

If you're going to "clean up" this article, then do us all a favour and add some valid statistical data.

The major restructure of this document has sagely included a piece about why the majority of discussion regarding generations is inherantly stereotypical and therefore useless to all those who intend to garner some kind of factual information from the article, but does not provide any facts to satisfy their needs.

Please consider this carefully.

--Badharlick 03:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC) >>>Thanks, but this article no longer resembles anything close to what it was when I cleaned it up before. I don't, however, think a purely factual entry about a concept as nebulous as a generation is even possible. I tried to be objective but this is a classic example of wiki gone wild. 04:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

>>> Let's try wrapping our heads around this, ok class? Men come back from war and make babies. This began in 1946. This is the "Baby Boomer" generation and it ends in 1964. (Remember this: 18 years) The Baby Boomers have kids. Born between 1964 and 1982 - they are "Generation X." (Did you notice the 18 year span?) "Generation Y" (or whatever you want to call it) would include everyone born between 1982 to 2000. If you're born in one of the "limbo years" - 1964, 1982, 2000 - you belong to whichever generation your attitude, ideals, and upbringing cause you to identify most with. The generations are in 18 year spans because that is when you are considered an adult. You come of age, go off to college, make your own decisions, and it is an age at which a lot of people have kids. If you stick to the 18 year span, you can't really get lost with when a generation begins and ends. I hope this helps those of you who seem to be absolutely lost.

- November 18, 2005

Major restructure

Hey folks. I'm someone who has taken a very strong interest in generational theory and plan on writing a thesis based partly on this generation. I'm also an adult member of the generation (age 23). I did a massive restructuring of this page hoping to neutralize it as well as remove some glaring grammatical and organizational problems. I hope that if there is some consensus, we can consider moving this page to "Millennial Generation" and having "Generation Y" lead to that page, but that will also require another major edit of this page. I hope people can agree on what I've changed... one of the major edits was clarifying the difference between "Generation Y" in the US and its counterparts in the UK, who are the same age and often called Generation Y, but there are some slight differences due to national events shaping generations (and therefore obviously different countries can't have exactly the same generations). I hope this is an improvement.---Biddy5637

This title is offensive

This article title is offensive. We are not just copies of gen-x. This article has pissed me off for a long time, now I finally have something to run with. Your own people this age groups call themselves Millennials, see [Category:Millennial Wikipedians]. Other publications like Stauss & Howes's Millennial's rising is the definitve study about is generation. This article's content is also highly biased and stereotypical. This article should be at Millenial and have include better informastion. -The Masked Millenial

Followup Note: Some people search by Gen Y and know it by Gen Y per the media, it may be an appropriate title.

  • No, I agree, this isn't a good title. You might as well call us the Beavis and Butthead Generation at this rate. My preference would be for the more neutral Echo Generation title. --BalooUrsidae 10:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm Generation Y too, and have never heard the phrase "Echo Generation" used. I've only heard "Millennial Generation" or "Millennials" used once or twice, with "Generation Y" being by far the most common way of referencing my generation. I don't see how "Generation Y" could be offensive. --Jacj 18:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I like "Millennial Generation" with members of said generation being refered to as "Millennials", but thats most because it sounds incredibly cool. I mean, all the previous generations have more formal names and I doubt Generation Y will be ours.--Kross | Talk 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't like it either, and I do find the term somewhat pejorative, as it implies the generation is not distinct from Gen X. I created the above user category and a more nuanced outline of my views can be found here. However, I think we can all agree that their is not "as of yet" an agreed upon title like Baby Boomer or Gen X. While it might be a bit sterile, why don't we move the article title to Last generation born in the 20th Century, it may be a bit prosaic, but its also neutral and accurate—even if the last cohorts of the generation are born in the 21st century the title would still be accurate. Perhaps by the time people born in the latter part of the generation are old enough to care what they're called, one of the names will be more established. -JCarriker 07:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah... I do hate the "Generation Y" label. Makes me feel like Generation X is somehow the YARDSTICK FOR ALL GENERATIONS! Maybe after us will be Generation Z, huh? I seriously think a GenXer made that up. I definitely prefer "Millennial Generation" - it makes sense, and it doesn't make us feel like "Generation X: Part 2." -- MasterXiam 06:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Naming a generation is a tough task, and the generation in question is so young that truly defining characteristics have yet to emerge. I think hastily slapping up a name that people agree on now may be a mistake in the long run. People of "Generation Y" may turn out to have more important qualities than their place at the turn of the century. -- Link0612 06:06, 7 February 2006 (EST)
  • I agree with Link. Also, I hear Generation Y more than I hear the term Millenial Generation or Echo. I was listed as a Millenial Wikipedian mainly because I couldn’t find a Wikipedian Category for Generation Y. And yes, the generation following Millenial Generation/Generation Y is sometimes called Generation Z. I think one reason there isn’t a definitive name yet for Generation Y is because many in this generation are still relatively young, and most of what has been accomplished by this generation has either been largely ignored or just is yet to make a big impact. The older generations have names because they are older (they are history to us) and many in these generations have done important things already, and have been named after a trait they are remembered by. Our most memorable achievements await us, and that is probably what this generation will be named by. Mred64 01:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment On the other hand, what happened to the introduction that listed most of the names of this generation? Mred64 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

But this is like --- Baby boomers

This article is not offensive. I know everyone is unique but this is just a term to describe all people of a certain generation. So I see no offense from this.

And what will be my generation? I am born on 1990 and I believe I have the traits of common Genration Y people. I am also born under Thatcher's reign, mind you.

Gen X is a historical thing, the people who grew up "in the shadow" of the Baby boomers, their children. I'm not sure there's any real significance to a Gen Y other than people like to name things for naming sake. --DanielCD 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Britpop movement?

You missed completely the early 90s Britpop movement - especially from a UK point-of-view. I was born in 1980, and so my formative years were full of bands such s Oasis, Blur, Suede, Pulp etc. Guitar based music was becoming popular for the first time in years, and the UK was back on the map for music - how could you miss this out?

It's listed in the Generation X article, although one could say that it was just as important for the XY cusp.

I would like to bring to your attention the factual inaccuracy of this encyclopedia entry

This article, as you can probably see, is full vague and impressionistic generalisation, stereotyping, and general patent nonsense. The author seems to have absolutely no idea what he is talking about, and presents his information as though he is plugged into some kind of godlike all knowing intelligence.

You cannot generalise and stereotype the beliefs, thoughts, attitude, manner, lives, parents, and interests of an entire generation of millions and millions of people without just making things up. There is absolutely no way you could get that sort of information unless you consulted every single member of Generation Y on an individual basis.

Therefore I move that the section of this article describing Generation Y in the US be removed as it is national favouritism and contains far too many generalisations and stereotypes to be considered a factual document. I also vote that any sections puporting to be describing "Characteristically" (generalising) the nature of Generation Y be removed in favour of sections which actually contain substantiated fact, actual statstics, and real information. I strongly insist that the section titled "Musical Subcultures" be removed as it is a shameful stereotype, based not on the interests of the generation but rather on whatever crap is being pumped out by the media industry. I seriously doubt that the author would know what a subculture or culture was even if it hit him in the face and tattooed the meaning of the word onto his retina, judging by the way he writes it.

Also "Current Problems and Trends Among This Generation" is an outright disgrace and should be removed immediately. It is probably the most massive stereotype/generalisation to've been allowed onto Wikipedia and is a violation of everything this site stands for.

Other than that the whole article is laced with stereotypes and generalisations, which should be removed. I recommend a thorough examination of the "facts" and a banning for the author. I cannot believe that this article has already been here so long and I cannot believe that nobody has questioned the neutrality and factual accuracy of the document already.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a storybook or propaganda leaflet.

--Badharlick 07:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Generation ended 1993? That seems wrong it should have ended in the 1989.... --Andrewcool 20:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Millenial Generation"? I thought they were called generation Y. The title is incorrectly capitalized BTW. Yup, I was right: Google finds 37,500 hits for "Generation Y" and only 322 for "Millenial Generation". I will make the move now. --mav 03:03 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)

Generation Y is not very popularly used in my experience. It seems to be used more as a term when nobody can think of anything else to say. The term 'echo' is more popularly used. Peregrine981 22:41, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Moved. --mav

A generation's name should have no bearing on the name of the immediate succeeding generation. Every generation is post-something (Boomers were postwar, X was post-Boom, Y is post-X). Ergo, Millenials. -- Gregory Pietsch

Is it just me or are all these "generation articles" essays rather than an encyclopedia article? --Robert Merkel 04:03 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It ain't just you. I made a serious effort to edit one of them into something half-decent a while ago, but after 20 minutes of so I realised that there wasn't anything much left of them by the time I took out all the vague and impressionistic generalisations. In the end, I just hit "cancel" and threw the changes away. I should re-read them to see if they merit listing on VFD, I suppose. (PS: Hi Robert, haven't seen much of you lately.) Tannin 04:10 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think this article should be eliminated. Is there any real sociological or scientific thought about this generation yet? Is there any point in including every generation that has no real distinguishing characteristics, other than the simple fact that they lived in a seperate time period from all preceeding generations, in an encyclopedia? The term 'generation' is only useful if there is a real point of commonality between most of its members, or it had and important effect on society as a generation and not simply as a collection of individuals. This article is full of jargon and is very un-focused. Even if there is a point in discussing this generation, I think that it is far too early to talk about a 'generation' that is still being born. Peregrine981 19:37, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone know what "Awakening-era" and "Unraveling" and other such terms used in this article are supposed to mean? The first half of the second-to-last paragraph is virtually unintelligible. If someone could explain it to me, I'd appreciate it. Or, rather, if you can explain it to me, you can explain it in the article. That would be a better solution. -Branddobbe

Is there any reason for the celebrities list being restricted to US-born people? Because that seems pretty pointless to me. -Branddobbe 04:27, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. That seems like a silly distinction, since the definition of Generation Y that we are folliwing says it is a western phenomenon, not limited to the USA.
On another note, you asked earlier what phrases such as the followin mean?
Where child Generation Xers had once been the castoffs of Awakening-era euphoria, Millennials have become symbols of an Unraveling-era need to prevent the social hemorrhaging before it could damage another new generation.
This is a very theoretical, and "fluffy" description to include in an encyclopedic generational description. We should focus on facts and concrete sociological description rather than that kind of junk. Its an amateurish description to include, so unless I hear any objection soon I'm going to cut it out, I don't believe its worth improving. It says nothing of value.

Peregrine981 14:31, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about the value of the "special baby" section:

culture in the United States began stigmatizing hands-off parenting styles and recast babies as special. Child abuse and child safety became hot topics, while books teaching virtues and values became best-sellers.

Were babies ever "not special" to a large portion of the population? I think I can see where the author was trying to go, but I think this could be reworded. Certainly children started to receive more special attention, in terms of "programs" and so on during the 1980s, children have become more "scheduled" in many western societies, but it would be good to have some stats. Basically I think it needs to be reworded and refocused.

Peregrine981 21:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that there hasn't been sociological or scientific thought on this generation. "Echo Boomers" or "Echo Generation" seems to be the more scientific name for it, and I've found a lot more information under the former. That also satisfies Pietsch's suggestion that a generation's name should have no bearing on the name of the immediate succeeding generation. This CBS News article provides a lot of elaboration [[1]], some of which I have incorporated so far.

Google hits statistics at the time of writing:
Echo Boomers: 18,400
Echo Generation: 676,000
Generation Y: 4,910,000
Millenial Genration: 49,900

with "quotes" (more accurate... Google treats things in quotes as one word):
"Echo Boomers": 4,070
"Echo Generation": 1,900
"Generation Y": 67,100
"Millenial Generation": 7,870

Appearently one year makes a big difference.... --Macrowiz 00:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the Demographics article seems to alternatively call this N generation, on a google search (with "brackets") this comes up with 10,300 results, although a lot of these seem to be associated with the video game final fantasy, rather than a demographic group. Also "millennial generation" now has 19,300 results. --vierstein

I find this page to be very accurate actually, I am definately of Generation Y and as I study my peers I see the things around me everyday that are mentioned in this article. And by my peers I mean my fellow fourteen year olds. Although I am one of those who like old rock such as Zeppelin, Hendrix, Floyd, Queen, and many other old rock bands I genuinely feel as though the author of this article knows what he's talking about.

--Roberto De Birmingham 10:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Date Problem, Big One

"60 million people were born between 1979 and 1994 in the United States ... This generation is the first to grow up with computers at home, music downloads, instant messaging and cellular phones."

Now I don't know of anyone born prior to 1985 that grew up with music downloads, instant messaging, or cellular phones. Computers, sure, if you count the old 386s and 486s.

I was born in 1983 and am a very proud member of Generation X. I am neither a Millennial nor a part of this "Generation Y". If you assume 22-year generations and put the beginning of Generation X as far back as 1961, then the end of Generation X is still 1983. And read the Gen X article; I don't think anyone would seriousely consider Demi Moore, Jim Carrey, or Courtney Love members of Generation X except perhaps for themselves (as hangers-on to a more youthful generation, and to separate themselves from their fellow baby-boomers). Furthermore, culturally speaking, those born between 1980 and 1985 have far more in common with those born between 1975 and 1980 than they do with those born between 1985 and 1990. Those born in the early 80's grew up on AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Guns n' Roses, were not generally exposed to computers until their teens, and are very securely part of the "Gen X Culture", whereas those born post-1985 are very securely part of Generation Y, with their instant messengers, cell phones, and 3-digit-bit videogame systems.

Those born in the early 1980's don't tend to think or act anything like Generation Y, and although at the lower end of the spectrum, could not accurately be described as anything but Generation X. This seriousely needs to be corrected. --Corvun 07:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is the whole problem with these generation articles. Generations such as X and "Y" aren't really defined by exact dates or even an really properly shared characteristics. A kid born in 1988 might feel much more at home with AC/DC than N'sync, and somebody born in 1978 the reverse. Similarly a child born in a rich family in the late 70s could easily have had a computer, just as a child without much money today could easily not have a computer, let alone cell phones etc... These "cultural traits" are pretty fluffy, and are absolutely not common to an entire generation. Personally I think they describe a segment of society fairly well, but not a real generation. I suppose this is true of many described generations, but with X and Y, perhaps becasue they are so recent and we can therefore see their reality, seem particularly bad in this respect.
Peregrine981 13:01, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
I certainly agree both with the sentiments that generations can be characterized and that they can be generalized (which are significantly different things). What I think is important is to fixate on a date (or provide the popular POV's surrounding the date) and cover the various statistics (with respect to the proper demographic) that display a trend in the generation. Particularily what ills me are the portions of the article that make rather large, fixed claims about popular choices with regard to various artforms -- most of these described are highly popular amongst many age groups, not just those that are discussed here. With the (well-researched) propensity for age groups to emulate their elders, it's not surprising that many of the films and music here falls under my personal taste, and I am definitely not of Generation Y.
--A reader
Firstly, I'd like to apologize for any emotional charge present in my statements. My reaction was not at all befitting a Wikipedian. However, I think with Generations X and Y, there needs to be some overlap, as with the Babyboomers and Generation X. Saying that one generation ends exactly one year and another begins the next seems a little unjustifiable to me. I think people born in the early sixties, compared to younger Gen Xers, could easily be classified as Babyboomers, just as people born in the early eighties often consider themselves members of Generation X.
Would there be any objection to having Generation X encompass, say, 1961 through 1986 (1961 being the earliest date ascribed to Gen X and 1987 being the latest possible date, assuming a 22-year generation and the year 1964 for the beginning of Gen X), and then having Generation Y encompass 1980 through 2002? There would only need to be a short paragraph on each page stating something to the effect that people born in the period of overlap may classify themselves as being part of either generation. I'd think this would be the most accurate reflection of how the generation are characterized and characterize themselves. After all, a cultural "generation" is nothing more than a social construct anyway, so the views of society as a whole should be just as valid as any "expert opinion".
Come to think of it, both the social definitions/perceptions and the "expert" definitions could be contrasted, and these generation pages could actually start to resemble something of encyclopedic entries rather than just run-of-the-mill articles.
Thoughts? --Corvun 01:37, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
We should mention that there are many different ways of defining the generation, demographic, sociological, and popular. I like your idea of having overlapping years for the different generations, as this gives a more realistic view of the field. Giving specific dates is a bit of a trap as far as I'm concerned, there'll always be someone unhappy, but I guess we need to nail it down a bit. One of the big problems in defining the generation is that people born in the 1980s and 90s have parents of very different ages, giving them different perspectives on life. Their parents could be born anywhere from the early 40s to the 60s or early 70s.
Peregrine981 03:59, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Yankelovich Partners and Bruce Tulgan have done some excellent research on "cusp" groups; bill themselves as not Boomers and not Xers, those caught in the middle born 1960 - 1965.

I agree with Corvun's thoughts on the dates. I was born in January of '82, and it strikes me as ridiculous to think that if I were two weeks older I'd technically be part of a different generation by some guidelines. I, too, feel more of a cultural divide between myself and those who were born in the mid- to late-80s than between myself and those born in the late-70s. I did not have a computer in my house until halfway through high school, and didn't have internet access until a year later. No one I knew had cell phones until buying them sometime in college or even after, and about half of my friends grew up without cable tv. So it seems silly to me to be lumped into a generation that is majorly defined as "growing up" surrounded by advanced technology. I also remember a lot more social and cultural things of the 80s and 90s than my brothers who were born in 1984, 1986, and 1990. It seems that, at least with the past few generations, if you were born in the early years of an odd-numbered decade you are right in the "core" of that particular generation, but if you were born in the early years of an even-numbered decade, you tend to feel borderline and not fully part of either (early 50s= core Baby Boomers, early 60s = borderline Baby Boomer and X; early 70s = core X, early 80s = borderline X and Y; early 90s = core Y). I read somewhere a few years ago about a mini-generation labeled "Generation Jones" that described people born in the late-50s to early-60s who didn't feel like they belonged in either generation they were on the cusps of, so maybe there is something like that going on with the late-70s through early-80s people. I think somewhere I was reading characterized "Generation Y" as being separate from both Generation X and the Millenial Generation, although (of course) their dates on this "in between" generation varied from mid-70s through late-70s to late-70s through mid-80s to anywhere in between. I don't know if other people around my age feel that the time we were born is sort of a transitional period between one generation and the next, but that is how I've seen it. Narrowing it down to a specific year seems wrong, especially when you're born on one of the years on either side of the divide, whereas saying more general things such as "early 60s through early 80s" allows for a bit more leeway in either direction.

Februarystar27 23:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

To add, I agree as well. I was born in June of '82, and do not fully consider myself as part of Generation X or Y. I identify with most people between the lowest-high limit of Gen X ('77) to the highest-low limit of Gen Y ('85), but not so much outside this group. Fëaluinix 06:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Please forward your attention to MTV Generation talk page, and help contribute to the article in order to define our isolated and forgotten generation which seems to be suffocated between Gen x and Gen Y. Piecraft 19:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


Another matter for discussion is getting rid of a lot of the stupid names mentioned here. If its allright, I'm going to weed out a lot of them. Y, millenial, and echo seem to be fairly common. Others much less so.

Peregrine981 04:03, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

"Cultural Endowments"

What is this "Twelve (novel, Nick McDonell)"? Is this really a "major cultural endowment", or is it just some guy seeking publicity for his book? Has anyone here heard of this before? If it really is some seminal work for our generation, hopefully someone can add an explanation of its significance, either here or on the wikipedia page for the author


I believe that we should include a bit of information about the various subcultures listed namely: goth, rave, indie rock and emo. The rave scene in particular seems to define a lot about the nature of this generation (technogolically adept and open about sexuality and drug use).

It seems like there should be some mention of grunge music and its effects, notably a distain for high fashion and preppy music.

Anthem for the Year 2000 by Silverchair does a good job of representing the backlash against our apathetic, corporate culture that so full of conformity, disillusionment and cynicism. Sheep that just follow the crowd.

The music section isn't written well, so I changed some of the bands mentioned. The groupings just aren't that coherent, there are more than 4 major musical subcultures. And, being an "indie rock" (or at least as defined by this article) kid myself, I like one of the bands that is mentioned in "indie rock" (Interpol). The Killers are too mainstream (they're on a major label, they have been from the start!) and Hawthorne Heights are definatly too emo to be considered indie rock. Indie rock kids are defined more by what music they like (music that is broad and tends to just be GOOD) rather than a collection of specific bands. Maybe some good bands to talk about liking for indie rock would be bands like Pavement or The Black Keys: your averege indie kid knows who thye are and they don't have much manstream appeal.

"Isolated Generation?"

"Few seem to be content to simply lead youthful lives, instead opting for greater things. They have mostly been fairly sheltered, exposed to great amounts of knowledge through a feeding tube."

I disagree with the idea that we are sheltered and would invite someone to change this. I believe that it is quiet the opposite. Our innocence died young with the spectur of STDs, school shootings, terrorism and war. The invention of the V-chip and net nanny were a back-lash against the information rich culture.

As a child I remember growing up watching to nightly news hearing about murders and arison. In grade school my classmates would "accidently" go to . Knowledge wasn't entering through feeding tubes but rather news papers, TV, computers and personal experience.

Information should be included about the effect of the AIDS epidemic.

School shootings have also influenced this generation. I remember lock downs through out my education because of students bring guns to school or nearby gang fights. This was in the suburbs, not the inner city. We are hardly sheltered from the world.

I remember living through the September 11, 2001 attacks and watching the planes chash into the towers again and again. The Columbine school shootings were likewise nationally broadcast live as Generation Y watched realizing that this could happen at their schools too. The WTO protests in Seattle show an underlying anti-corporate backlash against our consumer society, while others completely buy into the latest fads.

Let's changes this article to truly reflect the nature of our generation and the events that have shaped who we are.

I have to agre with whoever wrote the above comment. Whatever we decide to call Gen Y, we're not isolated. If you want to consider "involvement" as political action, then the only reason this generation is "isolated" is because so many of its members have yet to reach legal voting age. But this generation is very active in its world, for better or for worse. We always seem busy. We are at school, in extracurricular activities, and working where we want to. After 9/11, my school raised money for a charity. Don't surveys show how involved this generation is in their communities, with volunteer work and service hours? I also think members of this generation who still have to reach voting age (by the way, I'm using 1994 as the end of the birthyears because the article lists it that way)understand politics very well. I'm not gonna deny there are some idiots who wouldn't know current events to save their souls, but many know what happens in government and are very vocal about it, or at least where I live. Mred64 18:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I think the point was " They have mostly been fairly sheltered, exposed to great amounts of knowledge through a feeding tube."" Many members of the generation have been exposed to vast amounts of knowledge, information, current affairs, etc... But, they have usually absorbed it mostly through TV, school, and to some extent the internet. At the same time large numbers are being driven to school, ferried from one extra curricular to the next, playing on safety council endorsed playgrounds, etc... The point being they are supervised to a large extent, and while they may have much information at their disposal, they aren't as free as previous generations, at least during their youth, and this may or may not have an effect on them. Peregrine981 03:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
But isolated compared to what? Previously information was largely delivered in the US by way of censored newspapers and television. I think it would be safe to say that more unfiltered information is available by way of the internet than ever before, so calling the generation "isolated" doesn't seem to make much sense. On the other hand, the internet does allow people to become more reclusive in their local community and more active on a global scale. But the internet can of course also increase community connectedness. Theshibboleth 13:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


I don't know about anyone else but I was born in May 1982. Someone stated that they were born in 83' and considered themselves Generation X. Generation Y starts with the earky 80's. We don't realize how much more we have in common with our younger peers than Generation X. As time goes on older Y'ers will realize the similarities between our ninties born counterparts.

I agree--I was born in '83, but I consider myself Gen Y, oddly enough. :) The kiddos who are 15-18 now I can relate to a lot easier than most of Gen X, those buncha slackers. (kidding!) 14:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I was born in 1978. I agree that there is a transition period. People in the Late 70s have the opposite problem of relating to Gen Y and not Gen X. I also agree that similarities will become more visible as people grow up. In the past, Xers didn't want to include the late 70s. But now, they WANT to include 85! August 2005

Follow up....Basically, people stuck in between are a lost group of people. Someone from 1968 can call me an Xer, but they don't know nothing about what I went through. People from 1996-8 and 1999-2005 still have yet to determine which generation they identify with. Right now, someone from 1996 is in 4th grade and 2004 is still learning how to speak. By the time they grow up, they won't remember anything that happened in the 00s or 10s except for Spongebob. But there is already a tradition in place where older people determine younger people's identity without considering their views. I don't understand the use of that oppressive tradition. Give them a chance to grow up and speak for themselves. No offense, I'm just saying. I guess publicly everyone can say 1978 is X (even though I don't identify with them) or XY or something else. I don't want to impose my identity on others younger than me or change the agreement on 1982 start date. But, in my heart, 1978 will never be X. Never ever let Gen X swallow up the 80s. They have to learn their generation ends mid 70s. Meanwhile, there is such a thing as an in-between generation. September 2005

Generation Y: 1982-2001

Hi, I was born in 1989 and am a part of Generation Y, and believe that these dates represent this generation best.

For one, Generation Y should start somewhere from 1981 to 1983 because the cut off from Generation X was actually the Video Game Crash of 1983, and video games are a big part of Generation Y society today as well as alternative music.

September 11th should be the cut off date for Generation Y because it effected us physically, both GenX and GenY.

It dosen't really matter where X or Y begin or end any way, it just depends on where you wish to be. Like if you was born between 1978 or 1985, you could be both. These kind of topics kind of overlap, so when it starts and where it ends, you could be Generation XY. The same applide for the "2nd Lost generation"(1964 - 1970) which were people born in-between the Baby Busters and Generation X, they had mixed pop culture. And the same applise for Generation Z, the end for Y could be 2001, but the start of Z could be...1999.

Therefore GenY starts (1979-1983) and ends (1999 - 2005). List of Generations

  • If one uses the terrorist attacks as a cutoff, then it can't be the actual day of the attacks (stupid symbolism) but rather the age at which a person could reasonably be expected to have first-hand knowledge, remembrance and understanding of what happened. That would be at least, say, six years of age. FCYTravis 03:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

EXACTLY! If you were born in 1999 then September 11th holds absolutely no meaning for you as a point of reference. You simply can't possibly remember it! Using 9/11 as a point of reference to end the Generation suggests that those born up until 1995/96 are members of Generation Y, but those born after a from the next generation! jkm 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

lol. I'm from 1978. I've read articles telling me that I'm not X at all, but the start of the Y's (Time magazine had an article saying it begins with those born in 1977), and I've read articles telling me that I'm the tail end of the Xers. To be honest I relate more to the Xers, but only just, just because I relate more to alienation and anticonsumerism, then to technogidget consumerism.

I was into grunge and funk metal as a teenager (X music) and the subculture that fused hippy and punk, and also industrial rock (Y music) and the rivetgoth suculture, and classic 60s and 70s rock like Cat Stevens, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, the Doors and Zeppelin (Babyboomer's music) - all of which I listened to simultaneously, I never liked Nu-metal, nu-ska, or Californian pop punk (because they were purile and commercial).

My brother and sister were squarely in the X category, but my friends' brothers and sisters were often squarely in the Y category. My Dad was the tail end of the silent generation, but had elements of baby boomer and my mother was the start of the baby boomers but had elements of the silent generation.

I vaguely remember seeing the Challenger explode - I think I was six at the time, and only just remember the effect of cold war politics on action movies, bomb shelters and the Olympics - but I was well out of high school by the time of the September 11 attacks. I grew up with a computer in my house - an Apple IIc, and had the internet and its related bomb recipes and pornography before I was out of high school, but didn't see people carrying mobile phones everywhere until my third year of University.

In high school I felt akin to people born 1975-1981, now I feel akin to people born 1970-1985.

As someone who's always fallen between the gaps I feel these generalizations to be too all encompasing. If they alter the definitions to allow for overlap so that I am both X & Y, or if they say that I'm an in betweener fine. If they say that I'm one generation and someone a year younger than me is another I think it's a crock. 09:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Me61.68.24.115 09:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the gen y range of birth years is WAY to large. Right now it is being characterized as people born from the late 70s to 2001. People born in the early-mid 80s lived MUCH different lives (musicwise, technology wise and other differences) than someone who was born from 1993 on. In fact, the parents are from two different generations. Children who were born in the late 70s, early 80s have parents from the flower power generation of the 60s and 70s, while children who were born from the mid 90s on have parents who grew up in the late 70s/80s...obviously they will have different values as well. Flyerhell 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Generation Why?

I always thought it was called Generation Why? Also the term "Generation Why?" gets 43,600 Google hits. --Kitch 16:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, people...

... but there's no other way of saying it: this whole thing is a giant, factually inaccurate, insulting piece of s**t! -- Imladros 03:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Amen brother!

I am researching the topic of generation y because i am being forced to write a piece on it for a university application for admission. this is all a whirlwind to me.

You really need to fix up the Music & Subculture paragraph...

The mention of the pop revival is important but the whole section gets too specific about liking Why don't we stick in pure statistics - birth rates for the supposed time period this generation encompasses, populations, etc; also, instead of saying things like "marijuana use is on the rise" actually cite statistics for drug use trends in the generation (you might find that drug use has gone up in this generation as compared to generation X)

also, events which shaped the generation around the world - wars in the middle east, terrorism, etc. etc.

Current problems of the generation

From what i've seen in statistical evidence the use of marijuana in high schoolers has remained about the same for the past 30 years, same with sex if i recall, i dont have a source so i wont edit but its something to ponder. --Cptbuck 02:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that though the "Current Problems" section makes note of some valid problems (the ineffectiveness of the D.A.R.E program, underage alchohol abuse, and similar problems in parallel areas) many of the other listed problems are just sweeping generalizations with little or no facts to back up the claims. Measures should be taken to provide valid statistics, otherwise get rid of the statements.

Generation Y? Give me a break

The definition is simple. The generation under discussion is simply "the generation which will one day get rich via the spurious invention, slick packaging and feverish marketing of 'Generation Z'" Adambisset 01:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • It should be noted that some of the first labels for Generation X included 'Post-Boom'. It's just a term, I'm sure it'll be obsolete when we come into power.
"Come into power"? Hehe, I like the way that sounds. >:D--Kross | Talk 05:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This term sux teh roxors!!!1!! We need to change the title, as my generation, (born in 89) doesn't care about what we're called. All we care about is getting out of high school. Nice to drop in on ya, boys! Battrarules edits

I've reverted most of the "Firsts" added by and am considering removing the last 3. Most of these claims are completely unsupported. I don't have a problem adding some of them back in some capacity provided sources for these claims are posted here in the discussion page.--Isotope23 19:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

'ME.first' generation

While I have no concrete research to backup this statement I feel it necessary at least to contribute my own research and observations so that at some point in the future once the boundaries of Gen Y are satisfied this may also be considered.

Predominantly in the western culture a possible sub culture that, in currently unsupported research, has developed is what an increasing number of individuals are beginning to refer to as the 'ME.first' generation. Initial speculation inicates that they could be crudely characterized as children of the early Generation Ys (possibly late Generation Xers) parents who, along with teachers, society and information technology have spoiled their kids to the point where they posses no patience, no consideration for others (ie. "Me First") and maintain the constant and ongoing expectation to have their needs meet before others. First online sighting for this term was viewed here.

-While no other data is currently available to support these claims it should remain here for possible use in future cleanup efforts. Reviewing the current talk on this topic it is clear that boundaries of this generation may not likely be defined for sometime. Nevertheless, once the time comes if this point is still valid this may the first mention of it.

Gen Y Queers?

Perhaps it's daft to expect such in-depth coverage on my generation, but regarding alternative sexualities and the like does anyone have any info on how this generations' queers differ at all from previous generations? For instance, I read not too long ago on MSNBC that same-sex experimentation is highest amongst young women than ever before, whilst same-sex experimentation is nearly the same amongst young males. Should this be considered a unique trait of our genration or just a result of social conditioning? I find "gay activism" to be less prevelant in Gen Y queers than those born in a different demographics as well. This is mere speculation, but this could be due to the fact that Gen Y as a whole remains fairly apathetic towards activism in comparison to previous generations. Even when faced with discrimination during adolescence there seems to be an ambivalent feeling toward "gay agendas" amongst Gen Y queers. Also, the growing popularity of bisexuality/bi-curiousity amongst Gen Y people needs to be addressed somewhere, in my opinion, as it seems very popular now amongst fellow college students (both male and female) and especially with females in the latter years of high school.

Just food for thought.

Because they are still adolescents, it is still too early to come to any conclusions about the sexual attitudes and practices of Generation Y. The Baby Boomers and Generation X were far more tolerant of homosexuality than the preceeding generations; however, I see some signs that Generation Y may be less accepting. In particular, there is widespread use of the word "gay" by Generation Y-ers to indicate disapproval or as a synonym for "strange" (e.g. "That is so gay!" or "U R teh ghey"). Many males identify themselves as "metrosexuals," perhaps in an attept to distance themselves from homosexuality while still affirming their sensitivity.

Generation Y as parents

A month or so ago I added the discussion about Generation Y as parents. Today I noticed that ALL of this has been deleted.

This new phenomenon really needs to be discussed, because significant numbers of Yers have been parents for some years now or are currently becoming parents, and the relationship between them and the younger generation (now usually called Generation Z) should be examined.

Many of the other discussions look like they've been chopped off as well, indeed, this article now has much less content than it did before.


I concur. I've known a lot of teen mothers come of late and the complete change in parental style is astounding. This shouldn't be covered up just because it's not the majority.

There needs to be an established end date for this generation so we can settle on a beginning point for Generation Z. I think 2002 seems fair enough as an end to Gen Y?

This way we can all agree on a beginning point for Generation Z or Generation Fat or whatever.

P.S. I also think Gen Y should begin at '77. We're just going to have to accept that even within this single generation there are going to be a multitude of experiences /slash/ perspectives thanks in large part to living in completely different times than generations before us. Those that were coming of age during the tail end of Gen X's grasp on pop culture are obviously going to relate differently to those that did so during 9/11. And so on and so forth. Right?

"Music and subcultures" is silly

This whole section is pure conjecture.

First it relies on the false idea that marketers only recently started targeting teenagers with marketing music at them. The monkees were a pure marketing music phenomena in 1966 and they weren't the first either.

There is no evidence for the following wild claims.

The musical tastes of some Generation Y have fragmented into various countercultures As usual, the subcultures have aligned themselves along musical lines, with some refusing to put on the aesthetic expression of counterculture, yet remaining significantly detached from the “mainstream.” It is important to note that although many bands and acts attempt to engage Generation Y, there is little authentic representation of the generation in popular culture that is not engineered and marketed by older generations. This is a seldom articulated point of contention that may explain the generation's relative ambivalence to pop culture.

Please edit. --Capsela 21:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

1983 - Generation Y? bollocks!

I along with a multitude of others I know who were born in the early eighties do not consider ourselves Gen Y at all, which was a term that was only recently coined prior to the Millennium. I believe that the Gen Y'ers are those who were born right before the Millennium and whose childhood consisted of living through the late 90s through the millennium and teenage years are currently in the New Millennium.

None of the attributes listed on this article relating to Gen Y are what I consider myself or my peers associated to in any way. My childhood was lived through the 80s thus being influenced by it, of which I remember seeing the most important events which were the fall of the Berlin wall and the Gulf War. Most kids who grew up past 1985 don't even remember these events or managed to see them - whereas I and others have. Also the fact that most kids of the 80s were teens through the early 90s up until mid 90s proves that we were more open to the music of that time, unlike indie rock and nu-metal which if anything has nothing to do with the growth of our own generation but more so an element relating to those born post-1985. Music which was relevant to us was grunge, eurodance (techno), gangsta rap as well as retro pop (the pre-Britney era of music) just to name a few. Piecraft 02:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The effects of the Bush-approved and widely criticized RAVE Act in America.

Strange. When I follow the link to the RAVE Act, I find no mention of George W. Bush. The only name that is mentioned is that of Senator Josheph Biden (D-DE). Yes, it was signed by Bush into law, but nearly ALL law is approved by the President, since few bills have the popularity to garner a two-thirds majority to overcome a veto. Should we go through Wikipedia and note every law that some may find unpopular and label them as approved by that President, unless they had been vetoed by the President? If we do that, there will be some very surprising and unpopular laws that were approved by Bill Clinton. I recommend removing the "Bush Approved", or even better is remove the entire entry since it has very little noticeable affect on culture in the United States.

Gen Y The First Gen With CD's?

That is not true; the Compact Disc was introduced in 1983 supplanted vinyl in '88, was the clear winner by 1990 and overtook cassette in 1992; when the oldest Ys were just starting high school and the youngest weren't even alive yet. Gen X was the first generation to have CDs, thus I have taken away the note that Gen Y experienced CDs frist DVDs are Y though and Gen Y is more or less totally unfamiliar with vinyl records, even though they were around up to the early nineties.

Serious Problem

I can't believe this hasn't come up yet, but the fine folks at Pepsico have already resolved the generational naming dispute. I propose the title be changed to "The Pepsi Generation"

Who, What, Y?

I added this article as an external link. It covers some points that I don't think the wiki entry has. Maybe someone can take some stuff from this article.

Some interesting stuff I saw was the anti-political corectness thing and also this bit:

Huntley agrees: “Organised religion used to provide a moral framework to react against, which is what the boomers did. They created a counter-revolution against everything society had said should be done a certain way. That some of their children, who grew up with the resulting moral relativism, are looking around for an ethical code shouldn’t surprise anyone. That is the appeal of organisations like Hillsong which provide an entire lifestyle and clear guidance about the choices people should make.”

I know a lot of my peers (I was born 1982 but these kids were 85/86) with no real family religious background seem very confused about things like morality, ethics, reasons of life and have thrown themselves into church.

Also, I think I am listed in Gen Y but I think I relate more to Gen X. I think Fight Club is a definitive gen x movie/book and I really related to it....

INCOHERENT Bush/Kerry election results

Paragraph from article:

"The 2004 Presidential election was the first election in which Generation Y was able to vote in significant numbers. John Kerry received most of the votes. Notwithstanding, the ratio between young voters voting Democratic or for the incumbent George W. Bush remained relatively stable, suggesting that Gen Y may in fact be reflective of American society as a whole rather than a defined independent generation in itself."

Now what does that last sentence mean? If Kerry received "most" of the votes of this generation, then how was the ratio within Gen Y of Bush to Kerry votes even remotely close to that ratio for American society as a whole (by which presumably they mean American VOTERS as a whole-- two different things), when not only did Kerry receive way less than MOST votes, he also received fewer than Bush did! I'm not a Bush supporter or alleging POV violation, I'm just wondering what whoever wrote this was trying to say.

-I think what it's trying to say is, if you look at any election in the twentieth century, the people who happen to be in their late teens/early twenties at the time of the election are more likely to vote liberal, and therefore, it cannot be stated definitively that liberal politics are a characteristic of Gen. Y, but that they are a characteristic of being young, regardless of the generation.