Talk:Millennials/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Lede

Do we need to mention the abbreviation "Gen Y"? Why is that important? It makes the lede more awkward. Or why not just use "Gen Y" in the lede and remove the words Generation Y?

Right now it reads: "Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation[1] or Generation Y, abbreviated to Gen Y". 2606:6000:610A:9000:A5A0:9546:81CE:A4E1 (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Two names One meaning

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

(1) Debate and all that other BS, rename and permenently revert the page

Millennials back to Generation Y

(2) Its own seperate page with both Gens

Millennial (generations) (Generation Y (1977/78 - 1993/94/95) (Generation Z (1994/95 - 20xx)

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

Millennials (meaning)

(4) Two seperate pages for each respectful Generation, and argeeing to get rid of this stupid moniker once and for all, all across the board.

Generation Y and Generation Z

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

This whole argument "naming" and "label" process has for years gotten out of hand, and very ridiculous. The sad fact, is that its more than likely two different Generations under one single label! Also, simply just listing Generation Z with its own page is in of itself selective (as if Y dosn't come after X or berfore Z), and what many would see as spiteful. Either give the first half of the Mill/Gen its well deserved and appropriate alphabetical letter; and leaving Generation Z with its own page, or put both of them under the same, and practically correct definition. Also, does anyone know just WHO the hell came up with the term "Millennial" in the first freakin place? Its probably one of the most lamest and pathetic names for a Generation label i've or probably others have herd of! Its like naming a specific group of people after what sounds more like a sandwhich or TV channel! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.243.13 (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone claim Millennials/Gen Y and Gen Z are the same generation - they are clearly different. However, those born ~1995-2000 are in a very "grey" spot, in that some marketers claim they're Gen Y, and others say they're Z. Similar to how 1961-1964 has been said to be both Gen X and Baby Boomer years, or 1977-1984 is the cusp between Gen X and Gen Y.--Phil A. Fry (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree Millennial is a stupid name as it may have ended after the millennium, I think Generation Y is a better name alas it seems that the name is here to stay. Gen Y and Z are most definitely different there is still a grey region as to where they end and start (somewhere between 1995-2005) but they are still most definitely different. TheGamingMaverick (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You know, speaking as someone born in 1983, I've found that when someone from Generation Trophy/Generation Privilege/Generation No Dodge Ball Because It Teaches Aggression and Singles Out People speaks up "lamenting" the "others" in his or her generation and how they "are not like that," I've found they are typically the worst offenders in actuality. Just saying...

The way I see it "Generation Y" covers a definitely period from 1980-1999 (even though I sometimes say that people born from 1977-1979 on the cusp there are still definite Gen Xers). The "Millennial Generation" is a bit more vague and have seen starting dates after 1980 and ending dates before 1999. I don't think the Gen X cusp goes until 1984 at all since I was born in 1983 and have never considered myself a Gen Xer (nor have I ever heard anyone from my age call themselves so).

I also very much agree on the "Baby Bomber" cusp, I have always started Generation X in 1960 (which is typically its earliest date) but some people start it later.

Reliability of Article

Hi,

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

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

We should put the most extreme dates so that everyone knows the possible range. TheGamingMaverick (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Year Range

The statement "Most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to around 2000" should be changed to say "Most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from as early as 1976 to as late as 2004" as this more accurately represents the earliest starting year and latest ending year. http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/millennials-millennial-generation

TheGamingMaverick (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The current lead seems better. Extreme dates shouldn't be described with the qualifier '"most". Also note the recent and widely reported Pew Research study (which found that Millennials are now more numerous than Baby Boomers) used the birth years 1981-1997: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/ This seems to fit better with the current lead. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Most likely they would not be "more numerous" than the Baby Boomers if you cut them back to a 97' end date. 2606:6000:610A:9000:A5A0:9546:81CE:A4E1 (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It depends on when you decide to end the "Baby Boomer" generation, as I define it 1959 is the last year of that generation and Generation X starts in 1960 (and ends in 1979). I think that Generation Y goes up to and including 1999, but the "Millennial" Generation may end earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.122.79 (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel that the earliest starting date and latest ending date should be stated as the generation has yet to be defined and for that reason it would make sense to show the most extreme dates. TheGamingMaverick (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Possibly although quoting "Generation Y" (and even more extreme for the "Millennial" Generation) as from 1976-2004 does seem like rather too much since I don't think that any Generation has ever been defined to cover 29 years (which this would be inclusive of both 1976 and 2004) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:C503:1979:8F7E:4819 (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hence "starting as early as 1974" and "ending as late as 2004" it is almost definitely not both of the extremes or necessarily either but the point is that the dates are not clearly defined and therefore the whole range should be shown. TheGamingMaverick (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Very True and it is also possible for the years to change over time, for instance I was born in 1983, when I was very young I can sort of recall some people saying that someone born in my birth year where in "Generation X" but by the mid-'90s it was always "Generation Y" (the name "Millennial" hadn't been coined yet at that time), I think what happen was is that they pushed up the end date of the "Baby Boomer" generation which thus pushed up the end date of "Generation X" and the start of "Generation Y", now there is no doubt that a person with my birth year is in "Generation Y" (although there can debate as if we are solidly in the "Millennial" generation or just on the cusp of it). This also brings up the idea that I had earlier in that while the letter generations (i.e. X, Y, and Z) cover a definite period of 2 full calendar decades there may be sub-generations both within them and crossing between parts of them, one of them could be the "Millennials" which might begin sometime in the '80s and end in the mid-'90s. I am not saying that I am lobbying for 2 separate articles for "Generation Y" and "Millennials" but it is worth looking at to see if the 2 generations are interchangeable with one another or if one (i.e. the "Millennials) is a smaller sub-generation within the larger one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:8D44:E562:DD5F:EE02 (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ad Age definition

What is "those who were aged 11 or younger as well as the teenagers of the upcoming ten years who were defined as different from Generation X" actually trying to say, in the Ad Age definition? "Teenagers of the upcoming ten years" is plainly a subset of "those aged 11 or younger", who will all be aged 10-21 after ten years. I can't check the source because it's an offline one. --McGeddon (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

My take on this

Wikipedia is not a forum; talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, based on sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1906-1915 = Interbellum Generation 1916-1925 = Greatest Generation 1926-1935 = Silent Generation 1936-1945 = Pre Boomers 1946-1955 = Baby Boomers 1956-1965 = Generation Jones 1966-1975 = Generation X 1976-1985 = MTV Generation 1986-1995 = Generation Y 1996-2005 = Millennials 2006-2015 = Generation Z What do you think? At the end of the day though, these generation classifications are just approximations. It's not like being born in December 31st will make you different from someone born in January 1st. Obviously a year or two difference won't be significant. Also, all rules people use to determine the cutoff for Gen Y are flawed. For example, the internet rule. Some say 1995 is the start of Z because that's when modern internet (Windows 95) came out, but someone born in 1990-1994 would not remember much or anything before Windows 95 came out, so that rule is obviously flawed. Another example, the 9/11 rule. This rule is just flawed all around, everyone's memory works differently, I've met people born in 1999 who can remember the event, as well as people born in 1996 who don't. Plus, just because you remember 9/11 doesn't mean it would've affected you. For example, someone born in 2002 who was conceived before 9/11 and lost a father in the attacks would've definitely been more affected in the longrun by the event than someone born in 1993 who lived in a rural town during the event and lost no loved ones in the towers. Plus, 9/11 had much less significance outside the US, especially outside the Anglosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.229.114 (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Thanks for your thoughts, but Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for discussing our own takes on things - they're for discussing specific improvements to articles. --McGeddon (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC) I'm not really sure if what he is saying is not 100% irrelevant. I think he might be on to something, however he seperates Generations X, Y, and Z from some of the other sub-generations such as Generation Jones, MTV Generation and possibly the Millennials. I can tell you that the first 2 are sub-generations that are inclusive (not exclusive) of the Baby Boomer Generation (Generation Jones) and Generation X (Generation Jones and MTV Generation). The Millennial Generation there is some discrepancy on if it is the same as Generation Y or a sub-generation within it, I can tell you though that I think his dates are well off. I am starting to think that the Millennials only go from around 1985-1994 which would make it a sub-generation within the larger Generation Y (which I believe goes from 1980-1999), so for instance everyone who is a Millennial is also a member of Generation Y, but not everyone who is a member of Generation Y is a Millennial (they could be a pre or post Millennial). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.121.112 (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC) We'd need sources though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I see it the Baby Bomber generation ends on January 1, 1960 and Generation X begins. Generation Y (I prefer that over Millennial) is from 1980-1999, and Generation Z is from 2000- today (scheduled to end at the end of 2019) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:E9E3:3D31:5CF4:E311 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The latest generation to be clearly defined is the "Baby Boomers" all generations that follow have yet to be defined. Some say Generation Y ended in 1995 others say 2005, some say Generation Z will end in 2019 others say 2025. We should point out what the most extreme dates are so that everyone knows the possibilities. TheGamingMaverick (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Even the "Baby Boomer" generation hasn't been clearly defined, at least its end date hasn't, while I usually end the Generation in 1959 (and start Generation X in 1960) some people have it going all the way to (and including) 1964 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:C503:1979:8F7E:4819 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The end date has been defined as 1964. TheGamingMaverick (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about that, I still say 1959, plus Baby Boomers where supposed to have born in the afterglow of World War II, by 1960 the country was very much removed from the aftermath of World War II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:A8F8:EE4F:B134:A005 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The boom in babies being born ended in 1964 and is so far the latest generation that has a definitive end date TheGamingMaverick (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a big heated debate on this so this will likely be the last I say on this but the way I (and many other people) see it is that 2 key characteristics of a "Baby Boomer" (in addition to being born in the afterglow of World War II) is that they grew up at the height of the Civil Rights movement and the defining moment of their childhood was the Assassination of John F Kennedy, you really can't say that about someone born in the early 60's. I guess we can at least agree on an overlap from 1960-1964 and that people born in those years can also be considered part of "Generation X" (and to me seem like they more belong there than in the "Baby Boomer" generation). Also for the record by 1960 the birth rates where already in decline after being at a relative high rate for most of the 1950s (with a huge spike in the late 40s right after the end of World War II). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:99FA:284D:2C1D:1380 (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dates moved out of "Date and age range defining" section and into "terminology" section

User:Wwwma, I don't understand your recent revert to move the Howe defining dates out of the section titled: "Date and age range defining" and back into the "Terminology" section. I don't really get your edit summary that the dates are very important to the Howe definition, considering that Howe himself said the end date is tentative specifying "you can’t be sure where history will someday draw a cohort dividing line until a generation fully comes of age." http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2014/10/27/introducing-the-homeland-generation-part-1-of-2/#7e14a9354fdc. I don't get how a tentative date needs to be included in the terminology section.

I think the following text should be moved into the date range section: "Strauss and Howe use 1982 as the Millennials' starting birth year and 2004 as the last birth year. Howe described the last birth year of 2004 as "tentative" saying, "you can’t be sure where history will someday draw a cohort dividing line until a generation fully comes of age."--DynaGirl (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but just curious if you've read any of Strauss and Howe's books? They all say that 1982 to 2004 are the Millennial's birth dates. In the Forbes article, Howe is discussing the start of "Homelanders" (or Gen Z). We're getting into synthesis to write that Howe is now saying (in only the Forbes piece) that he is revising the birth dates used in Millennials Rising, Millennials and the Pop Culture etc. If you absolutely want to use the Forbes article I think it's a bit unfair to the readers because if you look at the entirety of their writings -- they use 1982 to 2004.

Here's a quote from Howe's Lifecourse website http://www.lifecourse.com/about/method/def/millennial-gen.html: "The Millennial Generation (Hero, born 1982–2004) first arrived amid “Babies on Board” signs, when abortion and divorce rates ebbed, the popular culture recast babies as special, and hands-off parental styles were replaced by Lamaze and attachment-parenting obsessiveness. Child abuse and child safety became hot topics, while books teaching virtues, values, and team-playing citizenship became best-sellers. As Millennials began reaching their teens in the late 1990s, youth volunteering and community service surged—while teen rates of drinking, smoking, and violent crime declined steeply. As they began entering the workforce in the early 2000s, cutting-edge employers implemented safety, feedback, mentorship, and career advancement programs in order to retain their best and brightest. Today, even as they live with or near their parents, first-wave Millennials maintain high hopes for their future in the face of record-high youth unemployment. (AMERICAN: Mark Zuckerberg, LeBron James, Miranda Cosgrove, Michelle Wie, Miley Cyrus, Christopher Paolini; FOREIGN: Prince William, Justin Bieber)". Wwwma (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The article Neil Howe wrote for Forbes was written in 2014 , much more recently than his book on Millenials. Howe's recent comments on dates should be included in the article. In the Forbes article, Howe is describing the generation he says comes after the Millennials (Homelanders) with their start date coming the year after the Millennial's end date.--DynaGirl (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, but we would need to include 1982 to 2004 in your revised statement with a caveat from the Forbes article. Because I will find newer articles than the Forbes piece where he uses 82' to 04' again. In fact his website is the most current to date see the page on Millennials http://www.lifecourse.com/about/method/def/millennial-gen.html

Howe also said this: "The reason I chose 2005 exactly—and again, this remains tentative—is that kids born in that year and after will recall nothing before Barack Obama’s presidency, the financial meltdown of 2008, and the seemingly endless Great Recession that followed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwwma (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If you can find something more recent than 2014, where Howe retracts his statement that the end date is "tentative" and instead declares them now definitive, it would seem reasonable to delete that statement. As of yet, I haven't seen such a retraction from Howe, and it seems unlikely this will come any time soon, considering that would contradict his statement "you can’t be sure where history will someday draw a cohort dividing line until a generation fully comes of age." Without such a reference, it seems unreasonable for you to continually remove this text and it's associated reference. Also, it seems all of this should be moved to the date range and defining section, considering these are date ranges we're talking about. --DynaGirl (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

My reference is the Lifecourse website as stated above, it's the most current. What if he changed his mind and posted that to his website recently? We don't know for sure without speaking to him. If you want make a proposal here about how to rewrite this paragraph and I will add my comments to the draft. Thanks. Wwwma (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No where in the link above does Howe retract his statement in Forbes that "you can’t be sure where history will someday draw a cohort dividing line until a generation fully comes of age". It seems unreasonable of you to continually delete this statement, along with the reliable source (Forbes) which references this statement.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia status quo and talk page policy please make your proposal here first on the talk page and I will make my comments too. Thanks. Wwwma (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe status quo applies to the changing longstanding content, while here you are repeatedly deleting recently added on topic text, and you are repeatedly deleting a reliable source (Forbes) from this article with no policy based justification that I can see.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Check the history, the statement "Strauss and Howe use 1982 as the Millennials' starting birth year and 2004 as the last birth year" has been in there since at least 2013, that's long standing content. Just make a proposal and we can work things out here. Wwwma (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not what we are discussing and I never deleted that statement from the article. Instead, I added a 2014 reference, in which Howe wrote in Forbes that the end date is "tentative" saying "you can’t be sure where history will someday draw a cohort dividing line until a generation fully comes of age". Please explain your rationale for repeatedly deleting this statement and it's associated reference from the article.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, please look at what you titled this talk page discussion, you clearly said it's about "Dates moved out of "Date and age range defining" section and into "terminology" section". So listen, instead of wasting alot of more time please just add what you want or make a proposal here first. It's not that big of a deal. Wwwma (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No way people born in 2004 are Millennials they weren't even born at the start of the Millenium — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.122.79 (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Who said Millennials had to be born at "the start of the millennium"? Who defines what the start of the millennium is, anyway? Does only 1 January 2001 count for instance? Your comment is neither here nor there. LjL (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems like most people define Millennials as those who grew up (and more specifically came-of-age) at the start of the new Millennium, which is why I agree that it may end before 1999 (as many people) and may actually be a sub-generation within Generation Y and not used interchangeably with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.113.223 (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Millennials is just a name for generation y just like how "baby boomers" was the name of a generation. The generation however is not defined as having to end before 2000 just because of a name and many place the ending year between 1995-2005. TheGamingMaverick (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Possibly but it should be noted that there are sub-generations (usually lasting for a shorter period of time than a full letter generation), such as "The Beat Generation", "Generation Jones", and "MTV Generation" which in some cases combine memebers from 2 seperate "defined" generation (i.e. "Generation Jones" includes some members of the "Baby Boom" Generation as well as some members of "Generation X") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:C503:1979:8F7E:4819 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That one of the more prominent definers of the generation has something to say about "where history will someday draw a cohort dividing line" seems entirely relevant here, for a recent generation. I can't see that it's undermining or contradicting anything to the point where a WP:STATUSQUO is an issue. --McGeddon (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The new quote is wrong, the article actually says :"Why was 2005 chosen as this generation’s (Homelanders) first birth year? The 2005 date remains tentative". It should be rewritten, as mentioned above it's synthesis to add your own interpretation. The Forbes article is about Gen Z (Homelanders) not Millennials. Anyway the date is wrong for sure. Wwwma (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on the text move; it's important to mention the "link to the millennial year 2000" when discussing the coining of "Millennial", but not the start and end dates. In fact, the current article doesn't mention Strauss and Howe's dates at all in the "Date and age range" section, which seems like an oversight. --McGeddon (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

McGeddon Strauss and Howe's methodology is based on birth years. Why is it important to move those facts out of there? You can always add something else under dates. And please remove the misquote based on the above because you added it back today. We shouldn't just make stuff up. If you see an error then just fix it. Wwwma (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The defining feature of the millennial generation is that they came of age when the world entered the new millennium (the year 2000), and that they have some recollection of that event/time, including some recollection of both the former millennium and the new millennium as children/youth. Most authors agree that the millennial generation comprises those born from 1980/81 until the mid 1990s, often defined more precisely as ending no later than 1996 (although the "core millennials" could be said to be the generation born in the 1980s and early 1990s). Someone who was born several years after year 2000, and who has no recollection of anything before 2010 or something, is not a member of the millennial generation. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree although I might put the start date in the mid-80s for the Millenials, for instance I was born in 1983 but I really don't consider myself a Millennial (although I do consider myself a member of "Generation Y") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:99FA:284D:2C1D:1380 (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Pending Changes protection

This page has been through the gamut of protections (lots of unsourced additions and disruptive editing) - I've put in a PC protection request, this should help prevent the type of disruptive editing we've been dealing with. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Dates in Lead

I've noticed recent dispute regarding dates in lead. It seems the current lead which states cohort ends at "around 2000" doesn't really reflect the totality of sources currently in the date range and defining section. I suggest lead be changed to "There are no precise dates for when the generation starts and ends; most demographers and researchers use the early 1980s as starting birth years and use the mid 1990s to the early 2000s as final birth years."--DynaGirl (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Based on the totality of sources, it seems more accurate to use a wording like "the early 1980s as starting birth years" and "the mid 1990s or 2000 as final birth years" (alternatively "the mid 1990s to 2000 as final birth years", although sources tend to use either the mid 1990s (often 1996) or 2000, and seldom years like 1997, 1998). Most sources seem to agree that millennials are those born mainly in the 1980s and early 1990s, with 1980 or 1981 as the most widely cited starting years and 1996 as the most widely cited final birth year. A minority of sources also include those born in the late 1990s and the year 2000. Very few sources seem to include anyone born after 2000, who have no recollection of the defining experience of the millennial generation. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

According to the 12 demographers/researchers currently in the date range and defining some do not specify end date and 4 say 2000s. Among the other sources, 1 uses early 1990s (which seems to be an outlier); 4 use mid 1990s and 1 uses late 1990s. Given these sources. I think reporting the typical final birth year range as between "mid-1990s to early 2000s" seems clearest way to word this. I get what you're saying regarding we could say "mid 1990s or early 2000s", but I think that's really unnecessary and drawing a fine line because the 1996 sources could be considered late 90s by some people and we do have the 1998 source in between there.--DynaGirl (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Bjerrebæk regarding your recent change of "early 2000s" to specifically 2000, this doesn't seem accurate. Only 2 sources say exactly 2000, while others say 2001 or 2004 and some do not yet specify an ending date. --DynaGirl (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Bjerrebæk I see you changed it again to your preferred version absent consensus. Saying lead shouldn’t include minority opinion. But you added a minority opinion to the lead. Saying exactly 2000 instead of “early 2000s” seems inaccurate because very few sources end the Millennial generation at exactly 2000. I restored the longstanding version of the lead for now, which had been stable for a long time prior to the recent dispute. Please note there’s inline text following the dates in the lead which says “please seek talk page consensus before changing”. Let’s try that. I think the text in the lead should be changed to “Demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and use the mid 1990s to the early 2000s as final birth years for the Millennial Generation.” This seems to accurately summarize the sources in the date range and defining section.--DynaGirl (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems Bjerrebæk has dropped the talk page discussion. Does anyone else have any objections or concerns regarding my suggested wording of “Demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and use the mid 1990s to the early 2000s as final birth years for the Millennial Generation.”? --DynaGirl (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016

Please include a link to Agnosticism in the religious section near the first mention of non-religiousness. The demographics section of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Demographics is a good cross-reference point for this paragraph and gives a proper name to the concept being discussed...

208.64.206.4 (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Done nyuszika7h (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Statistics Canada dates

I recently removed this text from article: "In 2015, the official body of Statistics Canada defined 1992 as the last year of birth for Generation Y"

I removed this because it's was sourced to the popular press and when I checked Statistics Canada for more official reference I saw that Statistics Canada doesn't actually recognize a Millennials cohort. They instead have a combined GenX/Millennials group which they named "Children of baby boomers born (1972-1992)" which follows a five year "Baby bust" group (1966-1971) [1]--DynaGirl (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop acting like everyone in this generation loves Bernie Sanders.

It's really bad stereotyping of Millennials and it reflects the liberal bias of habitual Wikipedia editors.96.235.152.241 (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There's not much text in article about Sanders and the statement that he was the most popular candidate among Millennials and the quote from Washington Post are reliably sourced. That being said, feel free to add reliably sourced content regarding preferences among Republican/conservative Millennials to the article as well. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly most people classify myself as a "Millennial" and I can tell you that I despise Bernie Sanders (and know many other people my age who also do so) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:99FA:284D:2C1D:1380 (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I would say that when it comes to politics you may say that this generation is more willing to vote for a Third Party candidate than any previous generation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:2024:53E:21AE:D43F (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

That would be interesting content for the article if there's a reliably sourced poll which shows this. --DynaGirl (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Change the lead

In the lead section of this article, can someone change "ending dates ranging from the mid-1990s to early 2000s" to "ending dates ranging from the mid-1990s to MID-2000s"? Strauss and Howe consider the Millennials to end in 2004 (mathematically a mid 00s year), and I've seen many demographers and researchers go with their '82-'04 figure. I've also seen many go with 2005 ending year as well (strangely though, I've never seen anyone use 2006 as an ending year).

Also, the Gen Z article says "mid-1990s to mid-2000s as starting birth years", so I think the Millennial article should be put "in line" with the Gen Z article.--2601:980:8000:F92:2986:5C15:C68:5C2B (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You say you've seen many demographers and researchers use 2004 or 2005 as the ending date of the Millennials. Can you add some refs from them to the date range and defining section? Currently, only Neil Howe defines Millennials as ending this late (2004) and he describes this as tentative. 2004 can also be considered early 2000s, so It seems undue to change ending year in lead from early 2000s to mid 2000s based on just this, but if there are multiple notable researchers/demographers who define ending date as 2004 or 2005 this would seem a reasonable change.--DynaGirl (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Generation What

Is this 'Generation What'? (see for example (in Italian) http://generation-what.rai.it) --5.170.98.59 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

More information in English here. The first question says it's about the "Y Generation". But I'm not sure it's saying that "Generation What" is an alternative name for millennials. It looks like it's just the name of a large-scale survey aimed towards millennials. clpo13_(talk) 23:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Further Reading section

This section may not be in line with Wikipedia's goals. Here are some of the guidelines:

"Please do not add a work to the Further reading section if you are an author or publisher of the work. All editors are expected to comply with the Conflicts of interest guideline. Bookspam (the addition of content for the purpose of advertising a work) and other promotional activities are prohibited".

"When the list needs to be trimmed, preference should normally be given to notable works over non-notable works. (Depending on the medium of the work, see a specific notability guideline.)"

"Like the External links appendix, the inclusion of a Further reading section is optional, and many good articles, and more than half of all featured articles, omit it entirely. This section is present in fewer than 3% of Wikipedia's articles.

The section currently reads:

Further reading[edit]

Espinoza, Chip; Mick Ukleja, Craig Rusch (2010). Managing the Millennials: Discover the Core Competencies for Managing Today's Workforce. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-470-56393-9. Espinoza, Chip (2012). Millennial Integration: Challenges Millennials Face in the Workplace and What They Can Do About Them. Yellow Springs. OH: Antioch University and OhioLINK. p. 151. Stephanie F. Gardner (August 15, 2006). "Preparing for the Nexters". American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 70 (4): 87. doi:10.5688/aj700487. PMC 1636975. PMID 17136206. "born between 1983 and 1994" Furlong, Andy.Youth Studies: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routlege, 2013. Burstein, David (2013). Fast Future: How the Millennial Generation is Shaping Our World. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Millennials hit 30: It's the economy, not us (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/millennials-hit-30-its-economy-not-us-2D11981954).

The most widely used years range from 1980s to mid 1990s or early 2000s. I'll leave the lead alone for now but the following will be changed later. {Wikiman8999} Wikiman8999 02:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs)

Get up to GA

Anyone else thought about working on this article to bring it up to GA standards? It would be interesting to see, considering Millennials are such a controversial topic in the media.--2601:980:8000:F92:B5C2:5546:8CB:2811 (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a good goal but I think it would be challenging with a generation that continues to be defined in real time. It doesn't look like any article on a generation is at GA standards, but it would probably be a lot easier to get Generation X or the Baby Boomers there than this article. Kevin143 (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Recomendation for later. Reply

Due to the most widely used birth years, lead will be left alone for now. But the millennials born early 1980s to mid 1990s to early 2000s will be changed in the lead later on.

{Wikiman8999} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The dates in lead are suppose to reflect the referenced text in the body of the article. Changing the dates in the lead later on requires the balance of dates from researchers/demographers has changed and that this is reflected in the referenced text in the date range defining section.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You guys have just today and tomorrow I will be changing things up to impove the article. Along with new references.

1. http://projects.scpr.org/timelines/american-generations-timeline/ 2. http://www.marketingteacher.com/the-six-living-generations-in-america/ 3. http://www.talentedheads.com/2013/04/09/generation-confused/ 4. http://www.npr.org/2014/10/06/349316543/don-t-label-me-origins-of-generational-names-and-why-we-use-them 

Why? Because to help suggestions and to improve the article. --Wikiman8999 17:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Wikiman8999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs)

Haven't had a chance to closely look over your sources, but if they include dates for this generation from notable researchers/demographers, please add them to the date range and defining section and specify which researcher/organization uses these dates (link to wikipage if possible). Please do not add dates from non-notable journalists or newsbloggers, or add new dates directly to the lead, or change the dates in the lead so they no longer accurately summarize the dates in the body of article. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

changed the lead, but kept the previous sources the same while adding a new reference and citation. more to come on the way. Comment

adding the following: to come later. --Wikiman8999 16:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Wikiman8999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs)

I restored the longstanding version of the lead. As mentioned above, please do not add refs directly to the lead in order to change the dates in the lead. The dead link ref you added to the lead has been removed. If you can find an active link for this source, and if it's from a notable researcher/demographer, please re-add it to the date range and defining section instead of the lead. The dates in the lead are suppose to summarize the bulk of the dates in the date range and defining section. Also, the source you added to the beginning of the date range and defining section to say: "The most widely used date and age range for the Millennial Generation, is widely defined as those born 1980-2000 or anywhere from the early-1980s to early-2000s,and the adult Millennial as ages ranging from 18 to 35 years of age" has been removed: http://www.marketingteacher.com/the-six-living-generations-in-america/http://www.marketingteacher.com/the-six-living-generations-in-america. I can't open this. It appears to be redirecting to the www.marketingteacher.com main page which doesn't summarize multiple researchers coming to that conclusion and also marketingteacher.com does not appear to be a particularly notable website for us to use to summarize the entire section here.

However, I do think you bring up a legitimate question regarding whether or not the late 70's dates should be mentioned in the lead as they are in the minority, but this should be opened for discussion first on talk page. Does anyone have any opinions on whether or not it's due weight to include mention of the late 70s starting dates in the lead for Millennials? Any thoughts? --DynaGirl (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a few interesting sources that may have not yet been added. (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/technology/corporate-america-chases-the-mythical-millennial.html), (https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36821582?client=safari) and (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/social-issues/there-isnt-really-anything-magical-about-it-why-more-millennials-are-putting-off-sex/2016/08/02/e7b73d6e-37f4-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?client=safari) just examples. I more reliable sources use 1980-2000 as the time span more than the lates 70s to early 00s span. {Wikiman8999 21:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs) I

Dates from the popular press usually aren't very helpful because any given journalist or newsblogger's opinion on specific dates isn't very notable, and any of the wide range of dates can be made to look like the most commonly used by selectively adding multiple popular press refs to the article. However, [[[https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36821582?client=safari| this source]] references the dates used for research purposes by Resolution Foundation, Dates used by research organizations are notable. I added these dates to the article along with an original source from Resolution Foundation (which actually doesn't give years but rather age ranges). --DynaGirl (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

2000s

please change ((2000s)) to ((2000s (decade)|2000s))— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:68e8:8bd3:fb97:5133 (talk • contribs)

 Done. Thank for for noticing this and making the suggestion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Birth dates:

Rather than making it so complicated that it has to be figured out on paper, why not just write: "Millennials were born around 1990", or even "Millennials were born in 1990 +/- 10 years". 71.139.161.30 (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Should late 70s dates be included in lead?

I asked this in the section above but decided to start a new section, so it doesn't get lost in discussion. Is it due weight to mention the late 1970s dates in the lead?

The lead currently says: demographers and researchers typically use starting birth years ranging from the late 1970s to early-1980s and ending birth years ranging from the mid-1990s to early-2000s. Do you guys think the typical starting birth year should be changed to just early-1980s? There are currently dates from 12 different notable researchers/demographers in the date range defining section. Two use late 1970s and ten use early 1980s.--DynaGirl (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

well judging by the by most late 1970s is generation x. plus, I added more references for you to decide if they are worthy enough

--Wikiman8999 01:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Wikiman8999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs)

@Wikiman8999: Please stop changing the dates in lead absent consensus. I've started this talk page section to get feedback regarding your desired change. If others agree or no one objects, removing the late 1970's in lead would be reasonable, but seriously, could you please stop ignoring previous feedback. Please don't add references directly to the lead to change the dates in the lead. The dates in lead are supposed to summarize the referenced text in the date range defining section. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm experimenting. It seems no one has replied yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

We should go by what the majority of the references to determine the lead. So late 1970s should not be in the lead but only in the date and age range only. Date and age range does not determine what the lead is. Only 2 sources say late 1970s so it should only be mentioned in the date and age range section or terminology section in my honest opinion.{Wikiman8999 19:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs)

Two sources saying the late 1970s is enough to include that in the lead paragraph. There are more sources that think it started in the late 70s, if you are uncomfortable with two sources. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I say it should only be mentioned in the sections below. 2 sources isn't cutting it. I say it should only be in the age range section. Not the lead. If gen x ends in the early 1980s, then why start the next one in the late 70s? I don't think overlaps really work in the lead. {Wikiman8999 22:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs)

I think it is more of a "cusp" issue, late '70s babies (sometimes) fall into the early part of the Millennials the same way early '80s babies (sometimes) fall into the late part of Generation X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:81F3:D46D:19CA:6E2D (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes true, but I think that should be in the generation x article. We are talking about the most widely used start dates for millennials. I say the lead should say early 1980s to mid 1990s or early 2000s. But talk about the different definitions in the age range section (late 70s I think should only be mentioned there instead of adding it in the lead). Regardless of the sources in the references say, most usually say early 1980s to early 2000s.

{Wikiman8999 11:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs)

The wording of the lead indicates this is the typical range. It seems late 70s starting dates for Millennials isn't typical. It appears notable researchers and demographers typically start this generation in the early 80s, with most of the debate here being which early 80s date. I tend to agree that the late 70s dates should probably just be mentioned in the body of the article (and I like the current structure where the dates are given in chronological order, so they're mentioned at the top of the date range section). --DynaGirl (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking too. Like the two sources for late 70s starting date are fine (nothing against them as I have seen some use late 1970s starting date but most agree that they are generation x born 1960s to early 1980s or just 1965-1980). But most reliable sources like BBC, New york times, USA Today from my results almost never use late 1970s but almost always use the 1980-2000 range. This is not made up I will give you links. {Wikiman8999 12:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs)

But like you said, it should be in the age section which I have agreed on. {Wikiman8999} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much what individual random journalists from USA Today etc use for dates. If I searched long enough, I bet I could find multiple journalists from all of the newspapers you just mentioned who also use late 1970s as a starting date for the Millennials. The issue here is the dates notable demographers, researchers, authors etc use (the people who are actually studying generations, not just causally reporting on them). --DynaGirl (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible, but I usually use what the majority use and the majority say early 1980s. Sure some might use late 1970s but the majority don't. If a good amount use one starting date more than the other than I mostly go by that. In this case its the early 1980s that is used more. I research this everyday believe it or not and i'm not joking, I do. Google news is where I find my results along with just regular research (not using the google news section as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

In theory, the most common dates from the popular press and newsblogs etc could be significant with respect to due weight, but in practice, this is a complete mess. This cohort gets tons of press. With literally 100s of popular press articles and opinion pieces each month, editors with preferred dates can just come here armed with 20+ sources for whatever date they happen to like, and try to put it in the lead. In the past, there have been multiple edit wars over this, which led to article being semi-protected longterm. This sort of manipulation and misrepresentation can't be easily accomplished using dates from notable researchers and demographers. There are far fewer of these sources, and they seem to shape the opinion of the popular press journalists anyway. --DynaGirl (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the lead should say just early 1980s. Then in the date and age range section it should talk about that other definitions start it at the late 70s to show that some use different age ranges instead putting in the lead where the most common one is. Wikiman8999 18:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs)

Wikman, please stop trying to force this "Millennials = 1980-2000, definitively" idea. That range is arbitrary; people born in the late 90s and 2000 are not going to remember the September 11 attacks and other events that are considered to have defined the Millennial generation. You may argue that 2000 is an important ending date because it was the turn of the millennium, but ask anyone and they'll tell you 9/11 was much more impactful than the turn of the millennium, and that the millennium culture wasn't really "here" until then.

True, a lot of sources use 2000 as the end date, but a lot of other sources use 1994-96 ending dates; i.e., cutting off with the last people who remember 9/11.--HolUp (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Some people remember things as early as 2 or 3. Everyone's memories are different so its subjective. Plus, 9/11 was an american event, not a worldwide event. Someone who was born in say 1993 that lived in england wouldn't have remembered it. Someone born in 1993 might not remember 9/11 but someone born in 1998 might remember it more. Some people have better memories than others regardless if one is older or younger you were both born in the 1990s, born before the 21st century, both were of young age at the turn of the millennium. Difference is insignificant between someone born in 1993 and someone born 1998/1999. Millennials means a person that came of age at a very young age when the 21st century began and in my opinion that include being between ages 0-18 when 2000 began regardless if one can't remember that year. 9/11 is not very accurate. Plus, I was born in 1996 and live in the U.K and I barely remember 9/11 and I doubt someone born in 1992/1993 would remember that much either. But thats because I don't remember alot from ages 8/9 I guess. --Wikiman8999 13:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Early-1980s to mid-1990s to early-2000s to be in the lead. Changed to old layout. Age range section to mention late-1970s.--Wikiman8999 19:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs)

There are start and end dates all over the place, although speaking of 9/11 I have seen some people suggest the 9/11 itself be the dividing line between the Generations (those born before that date one generation those born after that date another generation), a website that is looking for nominees for a Millennial influence award uses a 1982-2004 date for nomination (while specifically stating that they must be a Millennial), honestly all generations are now being so muddled that no one can come to a consensus for any of them.

I also agree that everyone is different, I was born in 1983 and by some definitions I should be on the cusp between Generation X and the Millennial Generation, however since I was somewhat of a late-bloomer when it came to childhood development I much more associate with the Millennial Generation than I do with Generation X (it is at least a 90-10 split for me in favor of the Millennials). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:7117:8757:39E4:CF97 (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Now that I look into it more I think that if you want to base a Generation specifically on birth rates (i.e. the Echo Boom) than 1977 is probably a good year to start because that is the year that birth rates began to rise, in addition a end date of 1994 (often common when the start date is 1977) is also a good year because after that year birth rates started to drop (birth rates remained in the 14-15 range from 1977 to 1994). However the modern day definition of a Generation is tied into much more than just birth rates it has so many other definitions (mainly cultural identity) so I agree that the dates for the Millennial Generation can be different. In short I think that the "Echo Boom Generation" runs from 1977 to 1994 but the Millennial Generation can (and should) have different dates for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:884:417F:DFE9:141B (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Should Notable people be allowed in the article?

It seems that we are adding famous people like Justin Bieber. ~~Wikiman8999~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman8999 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should list random notable people. Seems arbitrary, and we don't see a list of baby boomers. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The current setup does seem pretty arbitrary. Also, cuspers like Malala Yousafzai and Kylie Jenner are being added to both articles. Seems the notable people section is being used as another way to argue over dates. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Which is true, what do we do with cuspers? People like Chloe Grace Moretz is mentioned in some articles to be gen z.

1)http://www.usmagazine.com/hot-pics/gen-z-it-couple-w211503

2)http://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2016/10/11/how-chloe-grace-moretz-learned-to-take-off-the-heels-put-down-her-phone-and-speak-up/#53497ce77f3a

I personally don't think we should include people born past the mid 90's, which Tavi Gevinson , Justin Bieber, and Kendall Jenner are.-68.129.122.92 ([[User :::talk:68.129.122.92|talk]]) 17:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Cuspers do present an issue if we're going to have a section like this, but Justin Bieber is born in 1994. All the sources we have in date range and defining section consider this date a millennial and if you Google "Justin Bieber & Millennial" it seems he's widely discussed as a millennial performer.--DynaGirl (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

For now until we get a consensus, I don't know if we should include cuspers born in the mid or late 1990s. Justin Bieber is born in the early to mid 1990s so we should keep him. Also Wikiman8999 keeps irrationally removing my edits and marking it as vandalism, which its not -Akhila3151996 (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Notable people 2

I've deleted the notable people list for now because it seems that Wikiman8999 and I can't seem to agree who is a notable millennial. I left the gen x and gen z page if anyone wants to add to it.It seems that we should have a discussion of who to include as notable millennials and discuss cuspers, because Wikiman8999 tends to add a lot of people born in the mid/late 1990's.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There was a list of notable people about a year ago, but it was removed because it doesn't fit. Since some people are on the cusp between generations and some people may self-identify outside their birth year, I think a list like that will never fit. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right it's better kept this way, because the generations overlap a lot so it's difficult to tell if people like Chloe Grace Moretz or Jaden Smith are millennials or Gen Z. And it's also possible someone like Chelsea Clinton, born in 1980 may identify as part of Generation X.-68.129.122.92 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Guardian & New York Times dates

I removed this recently added text: "a 2016 The Guardian article uses dates ranging from 1980–1994" and "a 2015 New York Times article uses 1980–1995" from the date range and defining section. This is undue weight. There are countless journalists and news bloggers who use differing dates, even among those specific publications. The dates in the date range defining section should be from notable researchers/demographers. The only current exception is the Time magazine cover story. This seems reasonable because Time has been instrumental in defining generations. They named the Silent Generation and have wrote generation defining articles on baby boomers and gen x. Also, that Time cover story on Millennials got a lot of follow up press and was also cited among researchers currently referenced in the article. But in general dates from specific popular press articles aren't very notable.--DynaGirl (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

1996 undue weight

WP:BLOCKEVASION by User:HolUp
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are like five different sources on this page for 1996 being the ending date for Millennials, compared to only one for 1994 and one for 1995. I get a feeling these sources were added by someone born in 96 who desperately wants to be the last of Millennials, which I feel is biased. Can someone add more sources for the 94 and 95 ending dates to balance things out a bit?--HolUp (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC) I didn't add any of the 1996 sources, but it seems weird to assume the relative lack of 1994 & 1995 dates has something to do with that editor's birthday. The 1994 & 1995 dates are the earliest dates used, and from what I've noticed, they tend to be used more rarely. --DynaGirl (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Eh, I wouldn't say it's all that unusual to assume that. I mean, the Generation X article had a lot of edit warring for years when CreativeSoul7981 (born 1981 himself) kept changing every Gen X ending date to 1981, because the media told him back when he was in high school that he would be the last graduating class of Gen X, while 2000 would be the first of the Millennials (ignoring the fact that there are also several '80 and '81 starting dates proposed for Millennials, and the dates aren't set in stone).--HolUp (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC) sorry I added the '96 dates I didn't know it seemed biased, I was just adding what different organizations said about birth dates. I found another reliable '95 source and I find a lot of sources which say 1977-1994. Feel free to add more sources though if you find any!-Akhila3151996 (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Workplace Attitudes

Thinking about adding a section on workplace attitudes after the Traits section and before the Political Views section. There has been a lot of research and discussion highlight the defining characteristics of Millennials and how it differs from that of previous generational cohorts. Thoughts? StefanO (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There is this paragraph that mentions the workplace in Traits, so if you want to move it to its own section or add to it, go for it. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC):

In 2008, author Ron Alsop called the Millennials "Trophy Kids,"[69] a term that reflects a trend in competitive sports, as well as many other aspects of life, where mere participation is frequently enough for a reward. It has been reported that this is an issue in corporate environments.[69] Some employers are concerned that Millennials have too great expectations from the workplace.[70] Some studies predict they will switch jobs frequently, holding many more jobs than Gen Xers due to their great expectations.[71] Newer research shows that Millennials change jobs for the same reasons as other generations—namely, more money and a more innovative work environment. They look for versatility and flexibility in the workplace, and strive for a strong work–life balance in their jobs[72] and have similar career aspirations to other generations, valuing financial security and a diverse workplace just as much as their older colleagues.[73] Educational sociologist Andy Furlong described Millennials as optimistic, engaged, and team players.[74]

Thanks, that's a good idea. Will move that to the aforementioned section. StefanO (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Dates from Survivor TV series

I'm not sure we should include the dates from Survivor (U.S. TV series) in the date range and defining section (in this article or for the related Generation X article).. We've limited the date range section to dates from notable demographers, authors and researchers, and while I'd imagine the producers of that show did some sort of research in deciding what dates to use, the source cited makes it sound like they picked dates so they could include interesting contestants on teams. Here's the quote from the source cited which addresses dates: "Millennials were born between the years 1984 and 1997, while Gen Xers were born between 1963 and 1982. 1963?! That seems awfully generous. Aren’t those Baby Boomers? Who cares? Older contestants often make for the most interesting contestants, so I say bring ‘em on".[2]--DynaGirl (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is fine to include since TV has a large influence on culture, so what a popular TV show does is notable.--Frmorrison (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. It’s a notable show. Although I think it might be helpful if anyone could find a source which touches on why Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X chose the dates they happened to chose, considering 1984 is a later than average start date for Millennials. Also, the current Wikipage for that show makes it sound like they might have actually chosen 1983 as a start date for Millennials, but didn't happen to cast anyone of that age. With respect to Gen X, there are a number of sources that start Generation X as early as 1961 (instead of 1965), but this is the first time I've seen anyone start the cohort specifically in 1963. Additionally, are they really saying the Millennials cohort ends in 1997, or was just not practical for them to cast someone under 18? --DynaGirl (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that the dates for Survivor are extremely subjective and I think just used years that could fit based on the contestants they had. I personally believe that Baby Boomers end in 1960 (possibly with an earlier start date than 1946, maybe as early as 1943) but still they decided to cast someone born in 1963 in Generation X so we can't say that they decided to use 1965 as the start date, then they also put someone born in 1982 in Generation X even though the vast majority of people who classify Generations end Generation X before than (either in 1981 or in some cases earlier than that). The Millennial classifying is even more interesting, my guess is they didn't want to (and probably couldn't) cast someone under 18 so that is the reason why the youngest contestant was born in 1997 (although as we know some people end the Millennial Generation before than).

What they basically did was they spliced (maybe even Gerrymandered) the Generations so that they could fit their own needs and we really can't use it as a legitimate source of classifying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4a:403:3f70:1487:f8fa:51d0:7edf (talk • contribs)

Inaccurate image

The image under the traits section doesn't even depict "Millennials", it depicts people who appear to be in their late 30s-40s-50s. Can we replace this an actual picture of people in their 20s, i.e. Millennials?--73.79.233.189 (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The image is a public domain picture of random people in New York, so the ages are unknown. However, I guess that I see a 30-year-old woman, a 25 year-old lady and a 22 year-old man. I think the picture is fine until there is a better public domain picture. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

request to add 'Generation Snowflake' as a Synonym for Millenial 141.162.159.245 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

Generation Y has become much more separated over the years as the Millennials have grown. While many researchers have still gobbed this generation with the millennials, I feel that some more clarity should be given to this as this is what the "Oregon Trail Generation" is actually made up of. There are plenty of research and papers out there that describe this. I am just asking if we could put a clearer separation of this small segment within the Millennial wiki

https://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2015/04/oregon-trail-generation/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Trail_Generation 192.91.173.36 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Antonio P.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Oregon Trail Generation is already mentioned and wikilinked in this article in the "date range and defining" section. Oregon Trail Generation is a neologism to describe those born during the X/Y cusp years, but I'm not aware of any notable researchers or demographers who have used this term, it seems primarily used by the popular press. --DynaGirl (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are people born in the late 90s/early 2000s included in the "Date and age range defining" section?

If you were born past 95/96, you don't remember 9/11 (assuming humans don't remember cultural memories before age 5 or 6). How can people who don't remember 9/11 be Millennials? Isn't that their defining moment?

If you don't remember 9/11, you should NOT be a Millennial.--73.79.232.153 (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources instead of personal opinion. There are multiple notable researchers and demographers who end this generation in late 90s or early 00s.--DynaGirl (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Late 70s

Why are late 70s dates included in this article? They're barely used by anyone anymore; the sources cited are from like 2008, which is heavily outdated. More research has been done on Gen Y/Millennials since then, with most people nowadays agreeing they begin around 1980-83.

Late 70s are Gen X, NOT Millennials.--2601:980:8000:338B:4578:D4FF:9CD7:A2A (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Some sources do start it in the late-70s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.116.127 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Issue With Article in Wikipedia App

When this page is displayed on the Wikipedia app the main heading ends with the phrase "They are all stupid" Displayed right under the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.85.174 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This was vandalism on Wikidata, it was fixed a few hours later. --McGeddon (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

Jdh21tool1027 (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK _Discuss 22:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to incorporate content from Oregon Trail Generation

Hi all, after some discussion on Talk:Oregon_Trail_Generation, I'd like to propose adding a subsection to the Date and age range defining section that incorporates the content from this Old revision of Oregon Trail Generation, primarily the Characteristics and traits section.

Once the content is in place, I propose redirecting all of the following pages to the new section:

• Oregon Trail Generation
• The Oregon Trail Generation
• Old Millennial
• Generation Catalano
• Xennial
• XY Cusp
• Cold Y Generation

For a title on the new subsection, how does "Potential differences between older and younger millennials" sound? Udeezy (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It’s does not seem appropriate to merge Oregon Trail Generation (or its redirects) into Millennials. First, there’s been no consensus to delete/merge Oregon Trail Generation, and if there were, this article wouldn’t seem to be a good target because Oregon Trail Generation refers to the X/Y cusp years (i.e. the ending years of Generation X and the beginning years of Millennials). There would be no reason to target the Millennials page over the Generation X page for such a merge. Seems the appropriate target, if the Oregon Trail article were to be deleted, would be the Cuspers article, but Oregon Trail Generation seems to squeeze by with respect to GNG, so I don’t think it will be deleted.--DynaGirl (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems content regarding older verses younger Millennials is specifically about technology (smartphones) and the financial crisis of 2008 and can fit into existing sections. I added text about Twenge saying younger millennials who came of age after the financial crisis tend to have more practical career expectations into Workplace attitudes section [3], and text about differences between older millennials verses younger millennials with respect to smartphones to the Technology section [4].--DynaGirl (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I would like to incorporate somewhere on Wikipedia the idea that there is a perceived divide between older and younger millennials based on the following: experience with technology in their youth, 9/11 as they came of age, and the 2008 financial crash as they entered the workforce. There are several reputable sources that have discussed this divide (New York Times, The Atlantic, Slate, New York Magazine). I don't remotely see this as "squeezing by" with regard to general notability.

Based on your comments, I've proposed putting this content on the Oregon Trail Generation page, a new page with a new title, and here in the Millennial page, but none of those options seem to work for you. I'm not trying to be difficult, I don't think you are either, I think we are just seeing the subject differently. Any chance some others could weigh in? Udeezy (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Udeezy, my primary concern here is that combining the few columnists who discuss various differences between older and younger millennials, with text from different sources which discuss a different subset of people, those born during the X/Y cusp years, would at this point be wp:original research and synthesis. There are currently no reliable source which connect the X/Y cuspers to the entire older half of the Millennials cohort. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The Oregon Trail Generation is a Sub-Generation that has its own article, no real reason to get in-depth with it on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:8D59:95C3:3C2:E7DC (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

the "Political Correctness" section

Can we talk about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.43.73 (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This should be changed. Political correctness is a snarl word. Einstein841 (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

PC has been mentioned many times by the media when writing about Millennials, therefore it is notable. PC does not have an alternate name. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

For sure, some curmudgeonly pundits deride a generation in loaded terms. Wikipedia shouldn't ("Millennials have brought a resurgence of political correctness"). Look no further than Wikipedia's own article on political correctness. Einstein841 (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2017

Bruce Horovitz is not established as the coiner of the phrase or even author of the article "In August 1993, an Advertising Age editorial coined the phrase Generation Y" suggests an article and not a person coined the phrase Generation Y. Should read ""Bruce Horovitz coined the phrase Generation Y in an August 1993 an Advertising Age editorial" Lilahavinger (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017

In 1992, 78% of women planned to eventually have children dropping to 42% in 2012. The results were similar for male students. The research revealed among both genders the proportion of undergraduates who reported they eventually planned to have children had dropped in half over the course of a generation.
In 1992, 78% of women planned to eventually have children, dropping to 42% in 2012. The results were similar for male students. The research revealed among both genders the proportion of undergraduates who reported they eventually planned to have children had dropped by half over the course of a generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.145.221 (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2017‎ (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2017

The current text reads: "older Gen X adults, are sometimes referred to as "Echo Boomers" due to a major surge in birth rates in the 1980s and 1990s."

This is incorrect. The baby boom (and, thus, the baby boom generation) was caused by increased birth rates. The echo boom was not caused by increased birth rates. More children were born because there were more parents (the baby boom). The echo boom was a demographic echo of increased birth rates from '45 through '65. It was not a baby boom (increased birth rates).

The text could read: "older Gen X adults, are sometimes referred to as "Echo Boomers" because they are an echo of the baby boom. The boomers are a larger group of people created by increased birth rates. So when they started having children (even at regular birth rates) the larger number of people having children led to more children being born." Nonetheless0 (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be appropriate to make that change because it's inaccurate and unreferenced. None of the referenced text in body of article regarding "Echo Boomers" mentions Gen X. References say Millennials are sometimes referred to as Echo Boomers due to increased birth rates and because they tend to be children of the baby boomers. Tweaked text to address this confusion [5]. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly some people still like to tie generations strictly on birth rates which is why they often use Echo Boomers (which is pretty indisputably 1977-1994 due to the rise and ultimate fall in birth rates in those years) interchangeably with Millennials.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4a:403:3f70:794e:a88:c37b:93ca (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry but the introduction makes it sound like the term "Echo Boomers" is a common one. I have never heard of this before and I have done a substantial amount of research on the generation for papers before. I'm not saying that this term doesn't exist, or that some don't call Millennials this, but it certainly isn't common, as the paragraphs makes it seem. Could this possibly be moved to a section further down, or eliminated entirely? 65.112.10.171 (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)User:guest

Requested move discussion on related page

Readers here might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Oregon Trail Generation#Requested move 17 November 2017. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Notable Millennials section

I propose adding a Notable Millennials section, like the one I added today[6] (reverted). Such a list would be a helpful addition for readers. I understand that the inclusion of some people as Millennials would be contentious, so there can be a sentence such as "Only people born from 1984 to 1992 can be included in this list" (this is the narrowest possible range based on the sources). KinkyLipids (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A list of notable millennials is not encylopedia type content because people have different ideas on what is notable, therefore there cannot be a fact-based list. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Quick question: is a person required to be notable in order to have a Wikipedia article? If yes, does that mean that every person who has a Wikipedia article is notable according to Wikipedia? KinkyLipids (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a person needs to be notable (so has significant 3rd party works about them) to have an article. Some articles are about non-notable people but with over 5 million articles some articles get away without following the rules. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)