Talk:Millennials/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Why not make it scientific and graph it?

Why doesn't anyone graph the birthrate for America? The baby boom of the late 40's to early 60's was how they defined the boomers, so why not do that with the Xers? If you strictly go by the graph, the boomers are from 1945 to 1959, X is 1960 to 1975, and Y would be 1976 to 1991. This creates some problems, because the "boom", which really started in 1946 due to the huge increase from the previous year, was still going, despite it starting to decline, as more than 4 million babies were born each year from 1960 to 1964. Also, the births in 1976, 1977 and 1978 were still below the 3.5 million mark, and don't reach it until 1979- if you round. So, looking purely at the numbers, the three generations would be:

1946-1964: Boomers; 1965-1978: Gen X; 1979-1994: Gen Y

Here are the numbers from the U.S. Census report:

1940: 2,559,000; 1945: 2,858,000; 1950: 3,632,000; 1952: 3,913,000; 1953: 3,965,000; 1954: 4,078,000; 1955: 4,104,000; 1956: 4,218,000; 1957: 4,308,000; 1958: 4,255,000; 1959: 4,295,000; 1960: 4,257,850; 1961: 4,268,326; 1962: 4,167,362; 1963: 4,098,020; 1964: 4,027,490; 1965: 3,760,358; 1966: 3,606,274; 1967: 3,520,959; 1968: 3,501,564; 1969: 3,600,206; 1970: 3,731,386; 1971: 3,555,970; 1972: 3,258,411; 1973: 3,136,965; 1974: 3,159,958; 1975: 3,144,198; 1976: 3,167,788; 1977: 3,326,632; 1978: 3,333,279; 1979: 3,494,398; 1980: 3,612,258; 1982: 3,680,537; 1983: 3,638,933; 1984: 3,669,141; 1985: 3,760,561; 1986: 3,731,000; 1987: 3,829,000; 1988: 3,913,000; 1989: 4,021,000; 1990: 4,179,000; 1991: 4,111,000; 1992: 4,084,000; 1993: 4,039,000; 1994: 3,979,000;

Plus, those born from 1979 on were the first cohert to come of age (21) starting in 2000.

If we did that, then there's not a debate, and people LOVE to argue, saying they're right, and everyone else is wrong! Really, the 15 year span that Newsweek quoted in 1999, the 1979 to 1994, probably will eventually stick, but assumes all get along, and until there's something like an election of a black president in the United States, where people are separated into the over 30 and the 18 to 29 demographics, then we'll continue to argue. WAIT A MINUTE! There was an election of a black president, it was in 2008, and that's the exact demographic Zogby used! See, really Gen Y's demographic is those born from 1979 to 1994! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.42.167 (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Generations

Okay, first off, I'm a grad student studying sociology and the impacts of generations on societies, and I was born in 1977. I thought I would throw my 2 cents in. I have heard Gen Y being those born anywhere from 1975 (yes, 75!) to 2001 (yes, 01!). That's 26 years, and WAY too large, because you and your baby can NOT be the same generation! I'll focus on what I've heard recently, the 1977 to 1994 one.

Now, I can tell from personal experience, to say 1977-1994 is wrong. Here's why. Their parents would be represented by FOUR other generations! Here's how. I went to school with other kids born in 1977. Most had Boomer parents, but some had parents born in the 1930's, making them Silent Generation. I know one personally, who had a brother born in 1955, and he was born in 1977 after their parents decided to have another child! Now, look at 1994 babies. Those born in the 1970's could be their parents, meaning X-ers. Let's say someone born in 1970 had a baby in 1994, that's an Xer having a Y baby. I also had a person I know born in 1977 who had a baby in 1994, when they were 17. If 1977 is also Y, then both them and their child are the same generation!

Recap, if the 1977 to 1994 demographic is used, the parents of that generation would consist of Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, X-ers, and Y's themselves! That's FOUR generations that could parent Generation Y! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.42.167 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, lets not base generations on who the offspring parents were. I mean it is completely possible for a 9 year old to have a kid! - Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.125.116 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of all this demographication, saying you were born this year, you're this generation. Look, EVERYONE alive right now, reading this is part of the same generation! We're all living in the here and now, making us the generation looking at the ending of 2009, and the beginning of 2010.

What separates us by age is what we lived through. In looking at the babies born in the 1970's, they grew up either late 70's/early 80's, or 80's, or late 80's/early 90's. For the most part, Carter, Reagan and Bush were their childhood presidents. They ALL turned 10 at some point in the 1980's, the first of the "big" birthdays, they all turned 20 in the 1990's, and 30 this decade. They all survived the early 2000's recession, and are surviving this one. Really, those born in the early 80's do have some shared perspective to those born in the late 70's, but they will never be able to claim they lived every second of the 1980's!

What also separates the generation of adults is the memories of those shared perspectives, like that one person said about voting for Clinton in the 1990's, something no 1980's baby would have been old enough to do. The other thing to keep in mind is that false memories can be implanted. A 1983 baby who was in diapers running round the front yard in Jan 1986 the very moment Challenger blew up may see a video of the Challenger explosion years later in school, and think they have a memory of it, when in reality they don't. Just because they lived it, doesn't necessarily mean they remember it.

To be old enough to lay claim to a decade as yours, you HAVE to reach at least 10 in that decade. If you're just 5-8, your memories of that decade will overlap the memories of the following decade, and you won't be able to separate the 2 as easily. If, however, you made it to 10, you should be able to separate the end of one decade and the beginning of the next. Psychology shows that the brain begins to really expand between 10 and 12. That being the case, those who reached those ages in the 1980's can lay claim to that decade as theirs. In other words, if you were born in 1977, and you were 10, 11, and 12 in the 1980's, you're going to have clear separation memories from 1989 and 1990. You're going to remember 1989, and remember events from that year personally, becuase you would have been in 7th grade and in junior high (even in 6th you're still in junior high) that year.

This being the case, the true separation for those who lay claim to the 1980's as their would have been born between 1977 and 1979, meaning those 1980's babies would be a whole new breed. Also, keep in mind every baby born in the 1980's entered this decade a teenager! The first ones turned 20 on Jan 1, 2000- they never made it past their teen years in the 1990's!

I saw that Newsweek article from 1999 talking about the current teenagers, and they used the classification of Generation Y to be those born from 1979 to 1994. I personally would have something like 1980 to 1989, as THEY were all the adolescents that year! To me, Generation X would be those born from 1970 to 1979, Generation Y would be 1980 to 1989, and the Generation Z I hear about now would be 1990 to 1999.

Ending this though, I will say that we are all a generation of humans living in the here and now. Only when we start separating those with the same perspective do we get into "generations". In all fairness, you can't use the children of one generation to count as another, because one as large as the Baby Boomers would be able to parent generations for decades! Thanks for reading, have a great day! --JC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.163.42.18 (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that generation Y should be from about 1979 to 1993 or so. To me generation Y grew up in the 1990's. I think that anyone one younger isn't going to remember before the internet became popular, and they probably don't remember the 1990's and the Bill Clinton days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.146.192 (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New Propsoals for the Generations (So at least the articles on them will be consistent)

The Baby Boomers; Early 1940’s to Mid 1950’s Generation Jones; Mid 1950’s to Late 1960’s Generation X; Late 1960’s to Mid 1970’s Generation Y; Mid 1970’s to Early 1990’s Generation Z; Early 1990’s to Mid 2000’s Generation Obama; Mid 2000’s to Late 2010’s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.213.47 (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is Gen X, not Gen Y

The article states the following:

In most parts of the world its upbringing [Gen Y] was marked by an increasingly neo-liberal or market oriented approach to the politics and economics.[25]

I would argue most vehemently that this is a defining feature of Gen X, not Gen Y. The late 70s and 1980s was the era of neo-liberal reforms. The 1990s saw a slight move back to the left as the neo-liberal 1980s was moderated by centre-left governments such as Labour in the UK, and the Democrats in the USA. The environmental movement became stronger at this time also. I am speaking from the POV of English speaking countries. Reaganomics and Thatcherism is not really something Gen Y associate with their childhoods IMO. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, as the article supporting it says, "The ascendancy of neoliberalism has occurred through a series of interconnected transformations that began with the economic turmoil of the 1970s, the rise of New Right governments across the 1980s, and the deepening internationalization of the circuits of money and industrial capital, modes of communication, and governance structures in the 1990s." I believe that neo-liberalism was firmly entrenched in the 1990s, as even nominally "left" governments such as in the USA, UK and Canada adopted very corporate friendly policies. This orthodoxy went well beyond Reagan and Thatcher, and has only recently been fundamentally challenged. Neoliberalism certainly marked the upbringing of Gen X, but also Gen Y. I think that the source cited does a decent job of explaining the situation. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Peregrine. Although not Neoliberalism, I will say there is a disconnect between Gen X and Gen Y in terms of social interactions. Gen X can remember the social conservatism era of Reaganism and the sexual relations are slightly more different compared to Y. The 2000 election of W. Bush after being Clinton kids must have been baffling to Y.--121.219.168.3 (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe my post was deleted, and not archived

I stated that LATE Generation X was born from 1977 to 1981. Did that sound too much like the TRUTH?

1977 is Gen X
1978 is Gen X
1979 is Gen X
1980 is Gen X
1981 is Gen X

Thank you.

jlh629 (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Who changed the start date to 1983? Are you kidding me? I was born in 1981, graduated in 1999. One of my best friends was born in 1982 and graduated in 2000. She was part of the MILLENNIUM generation aka Generation Y. We were the last of Generation X. I'm sorry to those born in 1982 or 1983, you are NOT part of Generation X. Read the book The Millennium Generation and The 13th Generation by Howe and his research partner. MTV Generation makes up the last of Generation X and those at the beginning of Y. There's a difference. I grew up in the eighties and can remember a lot from my childhood. If you were born in 1983 you are Definitely part of Generation Y. I grew up always being part of Generation X, and can remember being called the LAST of my generation, Generation X before the Millennials' Generation, or Generation Y. Please stop changing the dates. I am reverting back to the last page with 1982 as the start date and kept the introduction with a general start date as AGREED on this talk page since we have to wait a while before these dates are set in stone. The paragraph on demographic that I contributed to, as well as others, was in regards to the most well known research and should be left alone. Thanks.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that the smartest thing to do is to use a broadly defined set of dates to mark the generation. As is demonstrated here on a daily basis, there is simply no consensus on specific, or even general, dates for this generation. If you have some reason to believe that 1982 is the consensus start year, please provide some reasoning and citations to prove it. There has never been anything close to a consensus for this. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As a further comment. This issue seems to be flaring up again, and I think that we would be better off discussing the dates, rather than reverting each other constantly. Perhaps we should agree on some new wording? Perhaps something like:

"There are no precise dates for when the Millennial generation starts and ends. Commentators have used start dates as early as 1974, and end dates as late as 2001, with suggested ranges varying greatly between those dates."

This should be referencable, (1974 is from the original AdAge editorial, should we use it?) and doesn't make any claims it can't back up. We could add further detail, with regard to specific, influential proposals later in the article.

Alternatively we could say, "There are no precise dates for when the Millennial generation starts and ends. Commentators have used birth dates from the mid 1970s to around the year 2000, with suggested ranges varying greatly between those dates."

Any other suggestions? Peregrine981 (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I moved the Elwood Carlson's contribution to end of paragraph in Terminology since research is after 9-11. That belongs at the end, not in the middle of the paragraph. This is later contribution. I left it in though, I think the research doesn't have much support, and also, I contacted the U.S. Census recently, and they are moving to change the end date of Generation X as 1981, and the start of Generation Y as 1982. But, again, I left that in the article. It should, however, not be moved back to the middle of the paragraph.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your problem with research done after 9/11. Since the generation, by most accounts was only "ending" around then anyway, wouldn't almost all credible research be conducted after 2001? Do you think research done on baby boomers after the 1960s should be given less weight? I completely agree that a large number of sources cite 1982 as a beginning year, but equally a large number do not, so we cannot simply say that 1982 is THE beginning year. In fact, I am generally opposed to assigning a single start year to any given generation, especially these later generations (X,Y,Z) because the idea is absurd. Are people born in 1980 really so different from those from 82? No. The borders are fuzzy. That's why I favour a generalized statement, fx, early 1980s, late 1970s. You'd think that would also prevent some of this constant bickering over years. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem I had with this is he is the only one who uses those specific dates to describe Generation X. Plus, it does not flow with the rest of the paragraph and was added as an afterthought. I left it as ONE researcher's view and left it at the end because 9/11 is just one of the current significant events in U.S. history. And there were plenty of other significant events growing up before 9/11. I remember when the Challenger tragedy occurred, the Berlin Wall falling, etc. And no other researcher claims 1983 as Generation X. Way off.

Well, the dates will stay as 1961 is the earliest date, and 1981 as the latest date used for Generation X by reliable and established researchers. It's not about how much as changed for those born in 1980 and 1982. Rather, it's how one has been cultivated and certain outlooks and expectations. The Class of 2000 has always been the Special graduating class because they are the start of the New Millennium. There was and is a lot of expectation for that graduating class. Graduating in 1999, that's all we heard, we were the LAST of our generation, and people (media included) commented on the Millennials and a New Beginning. That has always been the case. Read the numerous articles on the Class of 2000 and the Millennials. 1999 are NOT Millennials/Gen. Y. There are subgroups within the generations, as I mentioned the MTV Generation above. However, this is not a subgroup. This is widely accepted. And the term Millennials refers to those from the Class of 2000 and later. It has always been so. The dates will be left the way they are since they do not reflect 1961-1981 as set in stone since there is some argument by some people. However, the way it's written fits with the proper references. Please don't change the dates again as it was previously established. We're not starting another date war. People are already vandalizing this page again. It will be reverted each time this happens.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Except, of course, that the Class of 2000 graduated during the 2nd millennium/20th century, not the 3rd/21st; the latter two began on Jan. 1, 2001. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What? Class of 2000 is always referred to as The Millennials. What does which Millennium have to do with this article or Generation Y? Random.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Timespan

We really need a proper definition of Generation Y.

Some thoughts

• Anyone born before 1982 is certainly not Generation Y.
• Anyone born post-1996 is probably Generation Z.
• A human generation is either 20 or 30 years, depending on which source you go by (though 20 years more reasonable).
• The majority of Gen Y are generally in the teens or 20s now.

--Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Certainly agree - I tend to think of a Generation as 18 years - the generally accepted time to maturity and adulthood. The start date of Gen Y and demarcation with Gen X is a problem area, no one seems to agree upon. However - I believe the enddate of Gen Y and start of Gen Z is clear, to qualify as a Gen Y you have to be able to remember (in a very basic sense) what the world was like before terrorists brought down the twin towers, which of course happened in September 2001. For the record, I am not American, but that even did change the entire course of human history, that is surely indisputable.

• • Given that, I would say anyone younger than 5 or 6, at the time of 9/11 therefore does not qualify as Gen Y - they are by definition part of the next Generation, Gen Z. That to me puts the end date of Gen Y at about (Northern) Summer of 1995. If you extrapolate back from that date by a Generation (of 18 years) you get to 1977.

• • Younger than 5 should work, I was 5 the year of 9/11 and can remember it vividly.

• • Given all that, it seems perfectly reasonable to mark Generation Y as "generally accepted" as those born between 1977-1995. (Summer to Summer if you must)

• • Personally I think there are other factors in play, and they go largely to the ages of your siblings. If you are the youngest sibling in a family of 6, and your 3 brothers and sisters were born in the early 1970s and you were born in 1977 or 1979 or even 1981 - you are far more likely to identify strongly with Gen X themes because of the influence of your siblings.

• • If, however, you were born in 1975 but had three or four younger siblings born in 1979, 1981, 1984, 1986 for instance, you have been far more heavily influenced by more Gen Y themes. This is where the bridging explanations come from and why people of the same age may very well belong to different Generations. It is about environment as well as just date of birth - but that is far too complicated to go into properly when no one can even agree on when the basic parameters of Generation Y start and end. - I do plant my flag for 1995 as the final year of Generatio Y though, and I stand by that demarcation strongly.

• • Sorry to dissagree, but the end should be the Summer of 1996. 9/11 is a good point when the world changed and people born before the summer (Including myself in January) can remember 9/11, but people born afterwards in late 1996 or 1997 cannot.

• • I believe that Generation Y spans January 1, 1982 to September 11, 1996. I was 6 when 9-11 occured and I can remember it very well (I was born in Jan. 1995, and I consider myself to be a member of Generation Y.) I had a sister in Dec. 1999 and I consider her to be an member of Generation Z because she cannot remeber the 9-11 attacks. Also, I think that 9-11, the two wars in the middle east, and the election of Barack Obama have made a larger impact on Gen Y than the rise of digital technology... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.56 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I personally think that Digital Technology has had a much larger impact on GenY than 9/11. Iraq, Afghanistan, and September 11th, they're just news stories, essentially. Watching the twin towers fall when your 6 won't change your attitude towards the world... because there'll be no attitude to change. But the internet... if your entire life has been in a digital world, you will have a completely different attitude towards your friends, family, information, socialization, and so on than anyone before you. I've heard that kids born in ~1994-95 were using MSN messaging when they were in grade 3(03-04). When I was in grade 3(99-00, not long before 03-04), nobody would have been interested in talking to each other on the phone or internet, we would much rather play fort. And if you were to go back 10, 20, 60, or even 120 years, there would have been the same rough attitude. The internet is probably the most significant generational cut off point since WWI. I would say Gen Y covers the years 1978-1993.bob bobato (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you to an extent. However, this is all purely speculation and our own personal opinions. Personal anecodtes will be very different from person to person. We need to find reliable sources to back up and reinforce opinions in the article.Peregrine981 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Bob bobato, I was born on Oct 1989, and there is absolutly a noticeable difference between someone born, for instance in 1990 than someone born in 1995, of course the problem would be the lack of reliable sources to back up my personal point of view. I'll take my time to look up several sources and statements on the internet.. --Fercho85 (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(This is kind of related to what you guys are saying, so...) I have a problem with the following statement: "most commentators use birth dates ranging somewhere from the late 1970s to the late 1980s. [6][7][8][9]". Source 6 defines Gen Y as those "born between 1976 and 1994". Source 7 states the "millenials" as those "born between 1976 and 2001". Source 8 reads "Gen Y (those born between the years 1976 - 1990)". Source 9 states Geny Y as being anyone "Born between 1976 and 1994, more than one-third of Gen Y is still under 18." (-Source 9 was written in 2005). If this is what the sources say, why the heck is the accompanying statement so contradictory? It looks to me like the editor who defined it as being from late 70s to late 80s may have just assumed/made it up. Until adequate sources are provided defining Gen Y as solely 70s/80s born people, I propose changing it to something similar to "mid 1970s to the mid 1990s" or perhaps just "to the early 1990s". Also, if anyone is against changing it, I greatly urge someone to change the citations. Bear is mind that Wikipedia doesn't allow original research or POV articles, so citation is a must. So no one edit for reasons like "I was under the impression that-", "I always thought-", "It's always been-", etc. Also, we should try to avoid using terms like "most" -unless you can prove it. _{Sorry for my bad grammar} -- Gilly of III -I'll sign properly the next time I log in...

I disagree with the above. I don't think you necessarily have to remember everything of the 1990's that clearly to be part of "generation y". If we can have "late Gen X'ers" or cuspers between Generation X and the Baby Boomers, or between Gen X and Gen Y, than I certainly think there should be a cusp between Generation Y and Generation Z. I'd say Generation Z proper would encompass the boomlet of children from the mid 2000's onwards (boosted in part by the state of the economy). Anyone born post 9/11 is definitely Generation Z, more accurately. Basically 2001-2014 or 2016 at the latest. As a Gen Y'er, I was born in 1988. I put my generation as being between 1984-1994. to be perfectly honest. At the latest 1995 or 1996. The last Gen Y high schoolers will probably be graduating around 2013 or 2014. Thus perhaps 1996. My brother was born in 1992, and he very much sees himself as part of the same cultural cohort as me and my friends. But yes, as per births from the mid-90's to 2000, there should be discussion of a "cusp generation". Though what qualities overlap betwen both will be questions for discussion obviously. I'd say technology was quite similar between 98 and 2003 (when those born in the early-mid 90's (late Gen Y) were learning the computer. You see much more advancement with the Imac onwards. (this is just a schematic approxmiation not exact). More specifically the revolutionary Imac G4 (as opposed to the earlier G3 and other standard computers). Anyone that remembers the pre-advanced Imac/ipod computer years of the late 90's and early 2000's is definitely Gen Y (I was in middle school then, my bro in elementary). So early-mid 90's are definitely Gen Y. Here's my own rough list: Baby Boomers: 1945-1955 (give or take some years) cusp - 1956-1962. The so-called "late boomers" or "Generation Jones". Obama is part of this one. Generation X: 1965-1975 (give or take some years) cusp - 1976-1983. Basically anyone who came of age in the mid-late 90's. Generation Y: 1984-1994 (give or take some years) cusp - 1995-2001. Generation Z: 2001-today. Put an end around 2013 or 14. Hopefully that was somewhat reasonable. Afghan Historian (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A consensus was already reached on the date issue. And Generation Y's earliest start date has been 1982. 1981 is the LAST date used by most respected researchers and demographers for Generation X. To use 1984 as the start date for Generation Y is ridiculous. The Class of 2000/Millennials are generally considered to be the start of Generation Y. However, the opening paragraph with sources best represents the consensus reached, so PLEASE do not change the opening paragraph again. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out again that if you were born in 1981, and especially if you graduated in 1999, you are Generation X, not Generation Y. The Millennials are 1982/Class of 2000. The Class that graduated a year after me was always referred to as the Millennials - we, the Class of 1999, were not. Both birth years, however, are also part of the subgroup MTV Generation (those born in the 1970s until around 1984.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Alert - This page will be under consideration for Semi-Protection--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I will wait to see if there is more vandalism before I submit a request for Semi-Protection. I have corrected vandalism in the opening paragraph of this article, as well as in the Section:Terminology, first sentence. The sentence should read " 'Generation' first appeared in August 1993" NOT 2000 BC, and "teenagers of the upcoming TEN years" NOT ten thousand years. This vandalism wasn't caught earlier. Also, someone keeps changing the dates in the William Strauss and Neil Howe section under Terminology.

Re-signing my post. See above.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The mention of manga was also on the Generation Y page, so it was also added on the Generation X page. Previously, the Generation Y page made it seem that the manga boom started with Generation Y, when the article mentions it starting with Generation X and being popular with Generation X AND Y. Please do not vandalize these article pages. This section will be expanded upon, but manga is part of popular culture. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, manga has little to do with either Gen X or Gen Y. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This is part of POP CULTURE. It belongs in that section. This article encompasses many aspects of Generation X and Generation Y. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if it were generational culture, and if it had a credible reference to that effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you do some research on manga and anime. They ARE a part of pop culture. Not everyone has the same interests. Not everyone likes Harry Potter for instance, but the Harry Potter boom started with Generation Y. That doesn't mean adults don't like Harry Potter. It is just referenced to pop culture for Generation Y youth. The number of conventions for science fiction/fantasy, manga/anime in the U.S., Europe, and Japan and other Asian countries is astounding. Ever hear of Comic-Con in San Diego? How can you not see how popular manga and anime are. The BIG BOOM in the industry started with Generation X and continued with Generation Y. There isn't so much of a "boom" for Generation Z. Star Wars is also part of Generation X and Generation Y. Just because something continues to be popular in another generation, doesn't mean it is associated with it. The mentioning of what is part of pop culture mostly has to do with when something was at it's peak. Also, this wasn't my own reference; someone else added it to the Generation Y page. The article is written by a development specialist at Johns Hopkins HealthCare LLC. This is research. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The pop culture section is entirely trivia based on either original research or a synthesis of sources to promote a particular point of view. —Farix (t | c) 02:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I added this to the Generation X discussion as well. That is one article that mentions both Generation X and Generation Y. Others mention dates, or a specific time period, which encompasses those generations. Why does all pop culture have to be mentioned in a scientific journal? Doesn't the history of manga and anime support the fact that manga (and anime) are part of the pop culture of these generations? Manga started becoming popular in the 1970s and 1980s and throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. It continues to be popular, but the great "boom" occurred during Generation X and Generation Y. Also, if we go by what you say, then no mention of music genres, Harry Potter, or other references to pop culture should be on either Generation X or Generation Y without "scientific research". I think the reference was a decent one. Doesn't anyone remember the huge popularity of Hello Kitty growing up in the 1980s? I was born in 1981, and I watched a lot of anime. Here are some other links (not major references though) that touches upon the history of Japanese art. http://www.contemporaryartproject.com/cap/otherCONTENT/superflat.htm http://artradarasia.wordpress.com/category/styles/anime-styles/ http://artradarasia.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/takashi-murakami-on-why-the-war-helped-create-japanese-pop-culture/ http://www.thegreenwolf.com/pcmreviews.html

Also, the book Japanese Visual Culture: Explorations in the World of Manga and Anime by Marc W. MacWilliams http://www.anime.com/Japanese_Culture_and_History/ Both anime and manga were becoming more mainstream in the 1990s. I'd also like to mention (but not use as a source obviously) that this is in a 1990s article on Wikipedia itself. If manga and anime boomed when Genereation Xers and Generation Yers were growing up, it should not be left out of pop culture.

I'd be more than happy to read these books and others to expand the articles, as well as the anime and manga pages on Wiki. You don't always have to use the terms "Generation X" "and "Generation Y", though that article used first did because it was a research article. If it falls in line with the dates for the generations, that should be fine. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I let the other editors know that I am aware of the three-edit rule. I do not plan on adding anything back until further discussion. I respect the input from everyone involved in this discussion and will agree to the consensus until further review. I am glad the reference was removed from the Generation Y page as well. My main concern was pop culture references that started in Generation X having no acknowledgment of that on the Generation Y page. I understand the concern for valid references on Wikipedia. I still think the source is a good reference, but maybe it can be used as a secondary reference to back a "published source"? I don't see any harm in secondary sources if it is research that supports a stronger source.

I only ask that the the above links be looked at, and the history of anime and manga and popularity and rise of both in Generation X and Generation Y be taken into consideration for possible later addition to both articles. I acknowledge that the article pages for both manga and anime somewhat touch upon the history of both, but still think they are an important pop culture. The enormity of Comic-Con attests to this. I added one reference I found on the subject that incorporates the dates within Generation X and Generation Y; the book Japanese Visual Culture: Explorations in the World of Manga and Anime by Marc W. MacWilliams. Right now, I can't think of others, but there are some tied into Japanese History/Modern History, and how anime and manga became popular not just in Japan and Asia, but in North America, Europe, and around the world.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I for one, do not have any problem with including Manga as an aspect of Gen Yculture, provided that we have the sources demonstrating its relationship with the generation, and not just as a generalised cultural phenomenon. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

But the source used also shows it's a part of Generation X as well as the manga and anime craze/boom started with that Generation and continues with Generation Y, though it remains popular today even among Generation Z. The boom though was during Generation X and Y. However, I discussed this with other editors, and they all decided that the original source provided wasn't a reliable source. I thought the researcher of the article was good source, but they said a scientific source was required. I'm not sure how that works since Harry Potter was mentioned as part of Generation Y (though it is popular among older generations), since the boom was part of the youth culture of Generation Y. I agreed to leave things alone, but would try to find and study other sources. I mentioned this on the Generation page as well. I thought it was a given part of both generations, seeing how popular both manga and anime are, Comic-Con popularity, etc. I don't recall seeing a scientific source for Harry Potter or other references in pop culture. I don't know where we go from here except to discuss this and try to find good sources.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, we don't exactly have an iron clad source for the Harry Potter ref. it seems to be an NYU journalism magazine. I think it is fine, as a basic source myself, unless someone is seriously going to dispute the fact that Harry Potter was popular with Gen Y. I would also strongly agree that Manga is popular with both X and Y, and would have no problem including it provisionally, with a "source needed tag." Incidentally, the manga acceptance continuum between X and Y, is I think another example of how there really is little meaningful differentiation between the two generations. ;-) Peregrine981 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well we disagree there lol. I believe while there are some similarities between the end and beginning of a generation, there is an overall general way a group has been cultivated that separates one generation from another, for instance, Generation X and Generation Y. There was and is a great deal of expectation for the Class of 2000 and their birth year marks the beginning of Y and is used by most researchers and demographers today. People are often confused by the difference among the generations and their overall outlooks; (Generation Y is overwhelmingly more liberal than Generation X, and tend to be more concerned with civic duty than Generation X. Though there is always a bit of overlapping among the end and beginning of generations, there is an overwhelming majority that tend to follow certain traits. We're individuals, but a generation represents a group of people that tend to be influenced a certain way and grow up with certain similar characteristics. I can't tell you how different I am from one of my best friends who graduated in 2000, even though we share some interests. Our outlooks are so different. On the other hand, her sister, who is ten years older than me, are like soul mates. I know I'm not explaining this quite well. I was born in 1981 and graduated high school in 1999, though I started working in the mid 90s. There were other significant events before 9/11 even happened that shaped our generation. I remember watching the Challenger tragedy, grew up loving Ronald Reagan and remembering the Just Say Know program in school, and then later remembering the Cold War issues and the final fall of the Berlin Wall. People confuse the generations with the sub-generation MTV Generation, which encompasses Generation X - early Generation Y. That is why there are some similarities between the two generations. Psychologists show learning differences between babies of a couple of months, babies who are 8 months old, those who are almost a year old, and children who are only a year apart. So why wouldn't there be a difference between one year, especially when expectations from teachers, media, etc. all influence a group of people. The Class of 2000 was constantly bombarded with these expectations growing up - especially in the formative teen years, and last years of high school - which are highly influential. Once the Class of 1999 graduated, it would be a year before the Millennials/Class of 2000 would graduate. I remember many schools besides our making a big deal about this as ours was the "last of Generation X". But anyways . . .

In reference to the manga and anime topic, I agree with including a "source needed tag", but you'd have to bring that up with the other editors as I agreed not to add anything without more reliable sources. I never thought to remove Harry Potter - definitely not - from the pop culture reference, especially considering the phenomenon. However, wasn't the manga/anime Generation X/Y article written by someone from Johns Hopkins? I could be wrong, but wouldn't that make it reliable enough? I am making a list of books to read and will hopefully find something substantial to add here. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "there is an overall general way a group has been cultivated that separates one generation from another." But I disagree that there is a really strong differentiation between X and Y (and I guess we'll see about Z). I think overall influences on X and Y are quite similar. When referring to "Westerners," both grew up in media saturated, post-industrial societies, both have experienced economic booms and busts, both experienced relatively open societies, and did not have to struggle for basic political rights. Both grew up somewhat in the shadow of the baby boomers, or the idea of the baby boomer. While there are certainly details that vary between growing up in the 1960s to 1990s, the basic outlines of your life would be much the same. Certainly, the differences within a generation, regarding class or geography, will be much greater than between people born 20 years apart in the same class and place.

Regarding the point of the class of 2000: You mention that the media hype and expectations surrounding this class make them quite different from others. However, this to me can't possibly define the generation. How would it effect the class of 2005, that the class of 2000 had a lot of hype surrounding its graduation? they would have been 12 or 13 at the time, and this media sensation would not likely have made a big impression on them, leave alone the class of 2010. It just seems to me to be beyond improbable that the slight hype surrounding the single event of graduating in a round numbered year would be so incredibly important to succeeding years, that it would mark the singular point of departure for an entire generation, and major shift in mentality. On a personal note, I would say that in my experience, while people thought it was cool to be graduating in the year 2000 (or 1999, or even 2001), I don't really remember the hype around the change of calendar being particularly overwhelming, but then that is just my own personal experience, and I don't discount that maybe in the US things were different. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true about the Class of 2000. I distinctly remember the term Millennials being very popular at the time. They were always touted as "special" for being the beginning of a new generation. It's always been so as long as I can remember. I kept thinking, so we're just referred to as "the last" of our generation? LOL. Anyways, I don't think we'll get anyone else to agree about the manga and anime topic without sufficient proof, so we'll just have to do that then.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we rename this article to "Millenials"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.64.151 (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because Millenials is actually a name that should apply for Generation Z. To Creative, you have to understand when the author of the books were writing the Generation theory, they wanted the new generation to be neo-conservatives like them. They realised that the young adults in the 90's(Gen X) weren't conservative or don't care about politics(this is very similar to today). In their books, they tried describing the "Millenial" generation and civics and hard working people, which imo is the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.125.116 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no sources to back up such claims.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The source you cite for the demographic, Howe and Strauss, believed that generation will be conservative and will clean up the mess caused by previous generations. It's 2010, and so far we saw nothing. I think it is safe to disapprove their sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.125.116 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Generation Y can be considered conservative in some ways, regarding family for instance, even though they may be more liberal socially. And sorry, but just because all predictions that were made didn't turn out, it does not mean the demographics were incorrect. The fact is that high school graduates of the Class of 2000 were the first Millennials. Nice try though. The predictions that this generation's members focus on civic duty is true. Generation Xers are part of the Nomadic Revolution. Please thoroughly read all the books written by Strauss and Howe before making blanket statements.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

I realize that the starting/end dates are a debate of much discussion. However, I suggest taking a look at the Generation X article and the Generation Z article. Not only do they read MUCH better (Generation Y looks like a jungle in comparison), but they have pretty clear dates. Generation X is stated to go from 1961 to 1981. Generation Z is stated to go from mid-1990s to late 2000s. (I would argue that Generation Z ends on or around 2015 but that is a topic for another day and we have a few years to figure that one out). Well, going by the above, is it not completely reasonable to say that Generation Y will start in 1982 and end in 1995? It is confusing when you read that Generation Z starts mid-90s and then come to this page and read that Generation Y ends in early 2000s. I know that there is a bit of 'leeway' between generations but frankly I think we can ALL agree that the offset is between 1992-1995. Not 1995-2000. Adding on to the confusion and inconsistency, if you read that Generation X ends in 1981, it is annoying to then read that Generation Y started in the 1970s.

And finally, what's up with "This generation generally represents an increase in births from the 1960s and 70s...". Call me stupid but to me this reads as a way of saying that early Generation Y members were born as far back as the 1960s. Otherwise how would this generation represent an increase in births in the 1960s if members were not being born in those years?

It seems to me that this article can be greatly improved by going with the MAJORITY of sources that agree that GenY will start ~1982 and end ~1994. Just because we have one or two sources which say that GenY ends in 2000 or starts in 1970 (or even 1960???) doesn't mean we have to ruin the article by including them. If we had to use every source available, encyclopedias would be extremely confusing. The fact of the matter is that most people agree that GenY is 1982-1994. I am certain that we can find loads of sources backing that up. We don't need to go crazy and make the article read how it's currently reading just because we found one source that stated that GenY ended in 2000.

173.73.53.79 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there is simply much more disagreement about the start dates of Gen Y. It's not simply one or two sources that cite different dates. If you go through the sources, you will find a wide variety of dates cited. Not only that, but several influential sources disagree with each other. I think the main problem is that Gen Y is still really being defined, and no settled definition has been found. Another problem is the thicket of citations. However, if you remove any of them, you will invariably have someone come along demanding triplicate proof of whatever new dates have been decided on. We cannot force consistency on the article, if there is no consistency between our sources.

As to, "This generation generally represents an increase in births from the 1960s and 70s...". It is meant to mean that in most areas, more children were born during Gen Y, than had been during the 60s and 70s, when the actual number of births decreased significantly from the 40s/50s. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what is being said. Most sources and respected researchers use 1982 as the start date for Generation Y, and Generation Z early dates from the mid-1990s/late 1990s to early 2000s-generally 2001 as the start date for Generation Z. I think the mid-1990s to late 1990s start is almost like a sub-group. Again, there always seem to be sub-groups between generations. I think that 1990s births are mostly attributed to Generation Y. The graduation of Generation Y in 2000 seems to signal something new . . . a birth of a new Generation fits will at the time as well. Time will tell, however. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Generation Y, as per the original Strauss and Howe definition, spans 1981-2001, with the graduating class of 2000 being the first young people of a new generation, according to many sources. I say we use this definition for Generation Y. After settling on a definition, many use certain years in between to define the "core members" of this generation. For Generation X (1961-1981), the core members were born between 1965-1975, with those around it (1961-64) and (1976-1981) being subgroups or cusping with the previous and successive generation. We can do the same with Generation Y. Those born between 1985 and 1995 are pretty much the core Generation Y'ers, the kids shaped by the first decade of the 21st century. The early 80's-born kids are kind culturally cusping with the Gen X 90's kids and the late 90's-born kids can cusp with the Generation Z'ers, differing due to their unique trait of remembering the 2000's as opposed to other Z'ers (who can't remember the 2000's or not much of it). There is a reason we are called "Millenials". We were shaped by the first decade of the Millenium. Strauss & Howe originally defined Generation Z as being from 2001-2021. I'm not defending these dates definitevely as the boundary is always more fuzzy than these dates suggest. But I agree that Generation Z proper defines children born during the first decade of the mllenium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.187.41 (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize with a desire to simplify wikipedia's definition of Generation Y, and indeed all of the generations. The problem is that it is simply not the place of wikipedia to "decide" on one definition over another. As long as there are valid, competing, notable definitions of what constitutes Gen Y, we need to report on them, even if you prefer the Strauss and Howe definition. Incidentally, Neil Howe has now amended his original definition of Gen Y, extending it to 2004, and possibly beyond, depending on events yet to come. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to agree with you. The poster above you tried simplifying it through parallel divisions, which isn't wise when you consider the events taking place. For example, it makes no sense for someone born in 1963, the year JFK was shot, different than someone born in 1965 all because we can neatly place groups together. It ignores facts.

For facts, Bruce Tolgan defined Generation Y as 1978-1990. http://www.amanet.org/training/podcasts/7117.aspx I think this should be added somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.125.116 (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)