Talk:Generation X/Archive 6

Wait, Stop....The 21st Century and the new Milliennium begin on January 1, 2001
You can delete this but it is not going to stop the truth from coming out. There is no reason for you to delete this. Creative Soul deleted this and called information from the United States NAVY nonsense! So what are you saying is that Strauss and Howes information is more reliable than the Navy?

I thought I would bring this to everyone's attention. Apparently the new millenninum did not begin until Jan 1, 2001, so anyone that is calling Generation Y milliennals and the year 2000 as the first graduating class of the millennium has their facts completely out of order.

According to the United States Naval Observatory WHO IS THE OFFICIAL TIMEKEEPER FOR THE UNITED STATES "Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100.

Similarly, the 1st millennium comprised the years AD 1-1000. The 2nd millennium comprises the years AD 1001-2000. The 3rd millennium began with AD 2001 and will continue through AD 3000"

And as or the media this is what THE MEDIA said about this: Many organizations knew 2001 was the start of the next millennium, but they did not wish to contradict their advertisers who all want to have "Millennium Sales." Some of these companies in the later part of 2000 planned on saying "Oops, we made a mistake. Now lets have a 'real' millennium sale." However, the public's reactions to the exploitation of the millennium sales of 1999 made most companies drop their plans for 'Real Millennium' sales.

ABC NEWS: "Since the new millennium starts Jan. 1, 2001, will it be millennium mania all over again?"

HERE ARE MY SOURCES TO BACK THIS UP:

http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/astronomical-information-center/millennium/ http://americanindian.net/millennium.html

This all proves that Strauss and Howes research is WRONG. The last class of the 20th century and millennium belongs to the year 2000. If our society wasn't so oblivious then we would already know this. Educatedlady (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the years on the Generation X Page should be changed from 1961-1981 to the early 1960's to the early 1980's. Please BRIEFLY state if you agree or disagree.
Please keep all comments brief as possible. Just stating that you agree or disagree and a brief reason and citations why is sufficient. PLEASE NO ARGUING!!! PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS USING FOUR TILDES

UPDATE**** As of Sept 26, 2010 so far three users are in favor of the change, one who is in favor does not have a registered account. 1 registered user is not in favor of the proposed changes. Educatedlady (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Generation X page date ranges should be changed from 1961-1981 to the early 1960s to the early 1980s because the specific years are still in dispute, and according to the United States Naval Observatory the starting year of 2000 for the new millennium is not accurate http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astronomical-applications/astronomical-information-center/millennium/. Educatedlady (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will say that I agree we should change the specific dates to rough dates. I am happy to say Gen X is from early 1960s - early 1980s AS LONG as Gen Y has an overlap of early 1980s - 2000ish.

You make some valid points. I have researched this myself and find that the dates are frequently disputed. Being born in 1981 myself I can say I don't think that Generation X will truly be identified in terms of birth years because research never ceases. I agree to have the dates ranging from the early 1960's and early 1980's. Heavymetal81 (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Allow me to piggyback off what I have already stated. If the dates aren't changed to reflect the range of 60s-early 80s then people are just going to come back and keep disputing what is posted. At least with stating that the years can be from the early 60s to the early 80s that should satisfy everyone while still following the standards. Heavymetal81 (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed wording. Should keep edit warring down, and is more realistic. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Creative. You repeatedly fail to address my major point to you, going back into your circular logic that "it is so, therefore it should be so on wikipedia." I ask again: WHAT ABOUT NPOV!!!! Just because "the majority" of sources use a term does not mean that we ignore all other sources. I can find, quickly, several sources with different dates:


 * 


 * 


 * 


 * Please let me know why these sources are illegitimate? And please let's see some concrete sources that claim they're illigitimate, not just your hearsay. I am willing to listen, but your blanket dismissal is getting tiring. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have stated that I would include some statement about 1965 being an acceptable start year for Generation X, but many sources still use 1961. The current date ranges reflect that 1961-1981 date range as the widest possible and widely acceptable. Also, other sources already include 1965. That ALREADY fits the 1961-1981 date range. Some people cut off at 1980 to keep the generation at an even length span, but most use 1981 as the end date and the Class of 1999. I have already stated the reasons and why the consensus has chosen this wording. Also, Douglas Coupland's book is about those born in the late 1950s and 1960s. Robert Capa was the originator of the term "Generation X."

'''And I have said several times before that Elwood Carlson's book is not widely known or accepted, or even used by most researchers or media. I left his source on the Generation Y page.''' The reasoning is all there, the consensus was already reached. We are not doing this once a month. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you think a website like Wikipedia, with millions of visitors a day, are going to ignore facts (like the one I already explained to you several times now) then you are mistaken. It is common sense that people will dispute these 'studies', because 1982 is NOT an academic start year for 2000 graduates PLUS Gen Y is NOT about graduation dates as a whole. It is a factor, but it is NOT the principle defining factor of what makes a person Gen Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.201.205 (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, you're being really ignorant.Once again, I am not refuting academic years or ignoring anything because I agree with you on academic terms. But they don't belong in these articles, as mentioned previously, for the reasons explained. 1982 IS considered the most common birth year among those who graduate in 2000. Moreover, it is the date that is used by respectable sources such as well-known researchers and journalists. It is inferred that if you born in late 1981 and graduated in 2000, you can be considered as Generation Y/a Millennial. I've said this a hundred times. We use the standard dates used that are widely used. Academic years or birth dates do not belong on any of these generation pages. Also, there are no reliable sources that specifically state the difference between those born within the first 8 or 9 months or 1981, and those born at the very end of that year. Without source backing up that statement, it can't be added to the page. I have also said that I would try to find a way to include a definition on the Generation Y page that would not violate the consensus or Wikipedia policy. I am now looking to see if one or two sources that I have would work. One source I have doesn't, because they use 1982 as the start date. I can't use that source. Plus, I'm reading several books and having to search very carefully for wording that I might be able to use. In the meantime, the Generation X page makes it clear that the last of that generation born in 1981 also had to graduate in 1999. Defining Generation Y does not belong on this page.

You are arguing in the exact same way as the person who was previously banned and refuse to answer why you won't register. That is a major red flag. Spoofing ID addresses is illegal. And EducatedLady, another editor who has been warned, isn't even in agreement with you; she wants to extend Generation X to 1982 or 1983. You are obviously just trying to stir up trouble. You have been warned about your disruptive behavior by others and myself, and I am warning you again.

1) I'm not 'spoofing' anything. By saying 'spoof' you are implying something sinister, which is not the case at all. By the way, your false claims of 'spoofing' could be interpeted as potentially libellous, just for the record. Also, using a web proxy to make legitimate comments on forums/websites is not illegal. You are blatantly lying and that is shameful.

2) I already provided proof that an academic year begins in the fall of one year up to late summer the next. You don't have to reference books on Generation Phenomena to make that distinction. I already provided a Wiki link (that contains other sources from which it is based on) that would suffice.

3) A Generation is defined as 'shared cultural experiences'. Going by graduation dates alone is not how you determine a whole generation. Also, the emphasis on the current Gen Y page is very US-centered, and doesn't look outside this very narrow scope.

4) I'm literally exhausted with this page and how you keep denying the facts. I'm done here, this is just too tiring and is a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If I turn out to be wrong, I will apologize. But, I can't really understand why you would keep changing your IP address unless you didn't want to be traced back to another account. And as I said earlier, you joined this discussion immediately after that editor was warned of being banned the next time he/she made the same edits. That person's arguments were exactly the same as yours and engaged in similar behavior. If there is nothing to hide, why hide behind an IP address then change it when I state my suspicions? As you can see, other editors have reverted EducatedLady's edits and have called her out for disruptive behavior. You are blatantly ignoring the reasons I gave for not implementing your proposed changes and saturating two talk pages with the same posts. You have also engaged in Canvassing, which is against Wikipedia policy is considered disruptive behavior and you may be blocked from editing. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just read your response (which is why this will be my last post as opposed to my previous one).

1) Probably half of all people online use web proxies to comment on forums/talk pages. Many people are just in the old habit of surfing through (the many) web proxies online as that's just what they're used to. Nothing much to say about it, only that it's just surfing preference.

2) Just because others think in the same way, doesn't mean they are the same person.

3) For some reason, you think you have to document the academic start year via Generation/Sociology books that study Generations, when in fact, Wikipedia itself has a long article outlining School start/end dates, and even goes further and mentions those in the Northern/Southern Hemispheres. Because Wikipedia itself has already stated when an academic year begins for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere, a simple note in the body of the main text should be mentioned.

4) Again, I'm finished on this page. There's too much negativity and that's not what I came here for. The whole debate of Gen Y is something we could argue about for decades because there are still many researchers arguing for a 1976 start date, which seems the most common. But again, I'm too tired to keep debating this, so I'm bowing out of this conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

'''PLEASE DO NOT POST COMMENTS NOT IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED CONSENSUS!!! Thank you'''Educatedlady (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning: EducatedLady
'''Thank you for deleting my legitimate comments on MY OWN TALK PAGE. Wow. Ian.thomson (talk), the editor you yelled at, has warned you again. I will report you once again if you continue this behavior. You have shown your true colors once more.''' CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Proof of When An Academic Year Begins
CreativeSoul needed links (it's common sense to everyone else though when an academic year begins) so here are several links that back this up. Because graduates of 2000 would have been born from Sept, 1981 - onwards, this should be reflected in the main article. Here are the links that show when an academic year begins, from various sources, even Wikipedia itself:

http://www.isc.co.uk/InternationalZone_TheIndependentSchoolAcademicYear.htm

http://www.ihes.com/bcn/tt/celta/faqs-3.html

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

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Academic_term

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

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

And yes, unless I keep being goaded and bad mouthed here, this really is the last post I'm making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop reposting the same information on the Generation X and Generation Y talk pages. I already explained about the school terms (several times, and on several pages of two different talk pages). Your behavior is seriously disruptive. And please sign your posts. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

BE Accurate: 61-81 or 1964-85 Get it right"
Dont let Boomers alter their aging process, it is anyone born after Kennedy and up to Reagan. Conservative is 61-81 whcih actually comes fromthe first book whcih delt with the notion. But really 64-81 is th most the accepted. Basically if you graduated in the 80's you are not a Boomer. Is anyone understanding that this political move regarding republicans is a generational position too? I hope people get this..... X'ers are more likely to support McCain's generation (Greatest or Korean war) than Dems boomer ticket. Xers are in many ways anti boomer or rather alternate to the Boomer worldview. For those raised or born after Civil rights and Vietnam are more capitalist in approach albeit more world market savvy. But one must realize the pragmatic nature of those in there 30's and early 40's given our consumerist upbringing under 12 years of Reagan and Bush 1; not that they as leaders were perfect but we as a voting block hold national security and economic issues in common with elder generations. This is the case where we agree with our grandparents over our parents world view. Granted we are more worldly in ethos but the first generation to be raised with computers still carry a distinct difference in values than Boomers. Please note that even Obama is not really a boomer technically (this may be debated) but he is the eldest of a new generation his whole life is a multicultural one much like those born during or after the civil right movement. Gov Palin graduated HS in the 80' she is no boomer but X 29-46 this will matter in that the boomer perspective in the market place, philosophy and politically positions are on there way out. Boomers are already on their way out, the Clintons were their last hope. Sorry. M.Cline 09/02/08

Obama graduated high school around 1979, as did most people born in 1961 (I know there are exceptions). I don't consider 70's high school graduates to be Generation X'ers and the 80's culture as we know it wouldn't have started in 1980 itself but at least a little later, say 1982-3. I know alot of people born in 1961 who don't really identify with the generation that grew up with John Hughes films, Reagan's presidency, grunge music, slacker culture etc --24.251.17.123 (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)(though there are some early 60's born people that helped start grunge in Seattle). I think births from the late 50's and early 60's consist of a sub-group of the Baby Boomers that shares many features with the up coming Gen X'ers (who were still children when these people came of age) but retain many characteristics of their older peers. Generation Jones as they say. And many Gen Y'ers, like myself, are the children of this set of Boomers, not of those who really were part of the events of the 60's. - User: Afghan Historian

The 80s culture really took off in the late 70s I would say. Big 80s stars like Blondie and The Knack took off in 1978 and 1979 and they had a lot of the style and music you would be seeing in the next decade. Grunge, metal, punk, and hard rock which was popular in the 80s, started in the 70s(60s with hard rock). It really doesn't really matter though, the 1980s decade was still 1980-1989 regardless of when the culture that defined the decade was.( Bjoh249 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC) )

None of those stars were that big until the 80's though. Rock styles always had roots in what came before them (the Beatles in this way started in the 50's with the styles of Elvis and Chuck Berry). I'm not trying to say everyone thinks this way but alot of people I've talked to who were born between the years of 1960 and 1964 consider their adolescence years to be the late 70's rather than the core of the 80's. These people graduated between 1978 and 1982 and often listened to classic rock, disco, punk and late 70's soft pop/rock rather than the music that would come to be seen as "X" formative, such as Michael Jackson, Madonna, Van Halen, etc. I had a professor born in 1964 who saw himself as being a tail-end baby boomer/Joneser rather than an "X"er. I had an uncle born in 1963 who considered his adolescent culture as being ruled by Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Kiss and such. Of course there are always exceptions and places where the generational boundaries blur beyond recognition, such as Seattle where many of the foundational local grunge artists were actually late 50's born kids in their mid 20's. The 80's culture as we know it didn't take off till around 1982 onwards. I generally would put 1964 or 65 as the real start of Generation X. It's funny actually because the term was originally coined by British sociologists in the mid 60's to refer to the British baby boomers. Afghan Historian (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

ps: The Knack were active from the late 70's to 81. Basically a cusp decade band rather than a solid product of the 80's. Afghan Historian (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning CREATIVE SOUL
'''First of all I didn't delete ANYTHING on YOUR talk page. I deleted comments on MY OWN talk page that YOU posted. I have NO reason to go to your talk page. However, IF this occurred it may have been an accident. I saw comments that you posted that contained my user name. Secondly you deleted my comments on this talk page and you deleted comments from other users. You have continously shown your true colors because you are trying to validate your life by a Generation and continue to ignore the facts and have the unmitigated termerity to call my posts nonsense. DO NOT disrespect me and speak to me like a child. The truth is coming out and you are afraid. Next time you have an issue with me go to my talk page instead of posting NONSENSE here.''' Educatedlady (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In this link right here you removed a comment that was not your's from a page that was not your talk page. You DID delete a comment from her page.  The only conclusions we can draw here are that you're either dishonest or incompetant, because we have the proof right here.  It is amazing that you continue to deny this, I recommend apologizing.  I recommend locating diffs of CreativeSoul's actions if you wish to accuse her of removing legitimate comments (which do not include personal attacks).  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And here you tried to remove proof of your misdoings. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And again. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC

I did not delete anything on your page on purpose. I discovered it was indeed an accident, as I had both talk pages opened at the same time. However it DOES NOT excuse your behavior in deleting my comments about the new milliennum beginning in 2001 and I had to repost it because YOU deleted it. AND it DOES NOT excuse other comments YOU have deleted by other users. Educatedlady (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence for that? All you have to do is go through her her contributions (link right here), click "diff" for where she did it, and post the address here to prove what you're saying, because I've gone through the first page and haven't found anything aside from removing a personal attack by an IP editor (by the way, sockpuppetry is frowned upon here). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Check the comments on this page another user mentioned their comments were omitted and my new section "Wait...Stop The New Milliennium Begin on January 1, 2001 WAS deleted. I just reposted it. So check for that. Educatedlady (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. My computer keeps saying I'm logged in, but obviously I wasn't before. I was the last editor who removed the double category. Educatedlady, please stop your disruptive behavior. Another editor has already called you out. The other editor's posts were removed and approved by two other editors because he was spamming the talk pages. I kept the comments to one page and also redirected the discussion. I followed Wikipedia rules. '''If you keep this up, despite repeated warnings, I will report you. Again.''' CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

'''AND I along with another editor are reporting you for using two different accounts to delete information from this talk page. I KNOW it was you that deleted my section, but you didn't do it using your main account. Either you did it with an IP address or you signed up for another account, and deleted our information. So I am reporting you for this''' Educatedlady (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking through this talk page's history, I found you removing more of CS's comments on Friday. In fact it appears you were the only person to remove stuff on Friday (the day you said she removed your post).  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I said I posted late Friday and it was removed Saturday morning please check the factsEducatedlady (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me. I have only one account. I have mentioned on the talk page that my login didn't go through AND made my explanation for removing double posts. I moved them from two talk pages and placed a notice of redirection. I also apologized in my edit for my login going through. It's the other  user who is using a spoof IP address. He admitted to using a proxy and would NOT explain why he didn't register for an account. His IP address changed twice after I called raised suspicions. I think it is (Bjoh249 (talk) but I have no concrete proof. He was already warned several times for engaging in disruptive behavior, edit warring, then finally vandalizing the Generation X page. I should point out that I am not in charge of the archiving of this page. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I am not responsible for anyone spoofing. I did accidently deleted comments from your page, as I had my talk page open and yours (yours was by accident because I clicked on talk for you, but I wasn't trying to get to your page). As soon as I saw my username I deleted the comment, but I had no reason to delete anything from your page, it wouldn't make sense unless you were calling me an obscene name, and that would not have been the method to get it removed. I DO NOT support any comments that are not from registered users. I feel if you want your point to come across you would take the time and register. Educatedlady (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of spoofing. I accused the anonymous user because his IP address was traced to a spoof cite. Also, he admitted to using a proxy. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ok I see nowEducatedlady (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

I still don't understand what happened to that section I added at first about the new millennium starting in 2001. You commented on it creative soul then poof! It disappeared. I know it didn't happen on its own. Like I stated before I just want the dates changed to be varying. I could care less about 1982 being added at this point. This is what I am researching on my own, not in relation to Wikipedia. Once that research has been peer reviewed, promoted and published then I will add that here. Educatedlady (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is the last time I'm posting here. The reason I feel compelled to post is because it is clear CreativeSoul has not read my response (posted above). Here it is again:

Ok, I just read your response (which is why this will be my last post as opposed to my previous one).

1) Probably half of all people online use web proxies to comment on forums/talk pages. Many people are just in the old habit of surfing through (the many) web proxies online as that's just what they're used to. Nothing much to say about it, only that it's just surfing preference.

2) Just because others think in the same way, doesn't mean they are the same person.

3) For some reason, you think you have to document the academic start year via Generation/Sociology books that study Generations, when in fact, Wikipedia itself has a long article outlining School start/end dates, and even goes further and mentions those in the Northern/Southern Hemispheres. Because Wikipedia itself has already stated when an academic year begins for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere, a simple note in the body of the main text should be mentioned.

4) Again, I'm finished on this page. There's too much negativity and that's not what I came here for. The whole debate of Gen Y is something we could argue about for decades because there are still many researchers arguing for a 1976 start date, which seems the most common. But again, I'm too tired to keep debating this, so I'm bowing out of this conversation.

Special Note: I will remind you again that I am NOT spoofing anything. You need to get your terminologies right. Using a web proxy for commenting on the 'net is not illegal and is common practice. 'Spoofing' implies something sinister/underhand and, again, is potentially liabellous.

Anyway, I expect some degree of civility here and not bad-mouthing when someone (in this case me) gracefully bows out of the conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User do you mind registering for an account so you can express your views in a valid method? Using an IP address just causes more conflict. I want you do post your sources but it doesn't really help when using an IP address. Educatedlady (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If I ever contribute to this discussion again (and that's a big IF) I will sign up and make a regular account. Because I am very busy with my university studies, I don't have a lot of free time, which is one of the reasons I never made a proper account here in the first place. In fact, all I wanted to do was show that the start date of 1982 was in error and have explained as much in a detailed manner for several days now. Anyway, just so you know, you didn't need to make the argument about the millenium starting in 2001 (it was a good argument though) as I already proved via this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_term that 1981 would have been the true year for Gen Y graduates. Those born after september 1982 would have graduated in 2001, so using the blanket statement of '1982 births graduate in 2000' is false.

Anyway, this place is way too drama-filled and it's tiring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.158.40 (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree User but the only way we are going to get things changed is if we take a united stand. Please reconsider and do not allow anyone to run you off. We all have a right to be here. And in order to avoid this site from becoming a dictatorship is if we work together.Educatedlady (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What is this person talking about ? This user is continually ignoring the fact that well-known sources attribute 1982 to the Class of 2000. The majority of those born in 1981 are part of the Class of 1999. I have said that I would try to find a way to include a note about this, but no reliable or widely used sources mention academic terms. We go by standard dates. We are not using birthday ranges on any generation page. It is already implied that if you graduated in 2000, you are a Millennial. Some can be considered on the cusp due to their birthday, but the Echo Boom also started in 1982 and is part of defining Generation Y.


 * What do you mean a united stand? A consensus was drawn up and the introductions on these pages decided, with proper definitions and what sources were considered reliable. Once again, various date ranges and birthdays do not belong here. I have already explained not using Elwood Carlson's book as a source on this page - in depth. The mentioning of the book stays on the Generation Y page, not on here. His research isn't widely accepted or used. Furthermore, I explained why it stays on that page, and why I added back after someone else removed it. Apparently, it's okay by this person that a consensus gather every month to decide on date ranges. This is why there is a protection on these pages. To stop the incessant changes with the dates and disruptive behavior. Threatening another user with adding your own research isn't acceptable behavior either.


 * Also, no one cares when the "real" millennium started. We use the Gregorian Calendar in western society, and we use the dates and terminology attributed to it. That is definitely grasping at straws. By that line of logic, you need to tell Wikipedia to change it's time stamp because it is using the incorrect year, probably the incorrect dates as well since we have to incorporate the leap years. Come on, people. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

'''I talked with an administrator and he/she gave me instructions to begin another consensus. You're WRONG! I CARE! So you are saying its okay for flawed researched to be circulating??? And here are links for others that care too about when the millennium began:

http://americanindian.net/millennium.html, http://www.staff.uni-marburg.de/~schittek/millenni.htm, http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html

'''People SHOULD care about when the real millennium begin because you are ignorant if you don't. You keep mentioning the Gregorian Calendar but you have failed to acknowledge this: According to the United States Naval Observatory WHO IS THE OFFICIAL TIMEKEEPER FOR THE UNITED STATES "Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100." You need to read and become educated. STOP trying to validate your life because you want to tell the whole world you belong to Generation X. I am not disputing that but YOU do not want additional years added because you are validating yourself with the class of 1999 incorrectly being the last class of the century and millennium. Again the truth is out. I know its hard for you take but you will get through it. Educatedlady (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are not supported by complaining about the incorrect location of the "real current Millennium." The media use the year 2000 as the start of the 21st Century, and the attachment of that graduating year with Generation Next. Take the argument up with them. You can't erase almost thirty years worth or more of the way terminology is used, nor can you erase our calendar. Like I said, by your logic, we should toss out the Gregorian Calendar (which won't happen). The truth is you are trying every which way to get in information that is not widely accepted by whatever means possible. Not going to happen either. And, making your entire post bold is hard for others to read. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Again you are ignoring the fact that ABC News stated that the real millienium began in 2001. I have already posted this. STOP ignoring what I am saying. CAN YOU READ!!!!! I MENTIONED THE GREORGIAN CALENDAR!!! According to the United States Naval Observatory WHO IS THE OFFICIAL TIMEKEEPER FOR THE UNITED STATES "Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100." And you continue to ignore that you want your life defined by Generation X. I am NOT backing down or off. You may scare everyone else off from here but its not gonna happen with me. Educatedlady (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the topic of generations and the terminology used by well-known sources? I have not read an article where it states: The Millennials first graduated in 2000. . . but wait, the real Millennium started in 2001, so they aren't the real first Millennials. ??? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. The United States Navy is more reliable than two guys looking for fortune based on INACCURATE reseearch. These men are saying those born in 1982 are graduates of the year 2000 the FIRST of the millennium. This is WRONG! This proves that the research is FLAWED and THAT is ONE of MANY reasons why the dates on the page need to be put at varying. Our society is so uninformed an uneducated its sad. I believe in order for a research study to be effective then you need to research ALL sides to the point where hardly NO ONE can dispute what you are saying. And that is where Strauss and Howe failed. They did not do their job. But I am sure they collected a hefty check for their inaccurate books, and flawed speeches, and further polluting our society with ignorance. Educatedlady (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, all the newspapers sine the 1990s that have used the term "Millennial" in reference to the Class of 2000 are wrong, too? You don't seem to get the point. It's not just Strauss and Howe who use the term "Millennial", or make references to members of the high school Class of 2000 being the first of the next generation. Media and researchers (especially popular media) have always highlighted those born in 1982, at the start of the new "boom," as special, and part of the new generation. In the 1990s, the term "Millennial" caught on, and they became "The Millennial Class." If you have a problem with the use of the term, take that up with those in the media. Stop laying the blame on Strauss and Howe - though they happen to be the leaders in their field. Your personal opinion on Strauss and Howe does not belong in a Wikipedia article. That's original research and against Wikipedia policy. The majority of researchers and members of media don't have a problem with the authors' research.


 * Moreover, like I said many times before, you're grasping at straws with the "real Millennium" argument. We have used the terminology for decades and we've used the Gregorian Calendar for centuries. You must have a problem with that, too, then. If you do, go and protest the world leaders of western society that their countries should cease using the Gregorian Calendar because it's inaccurate. Actually, you should probably go around the world and protest, since most of the world has adapted to using it, too. Oh, and every leap year, you can really make your arguments. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

YEP THEY ARE WRONG! With the exception of CNN, USA Today, ABC News and Yahoo who ALL said the milliennium started in 2001. How am I GRASPING STRAWS by telling the truth???? AGAIN YOU IGNORE THAT THE US NAVY USES THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR WHO STATED THE MILLENNIUM STARTED IN 2001. You sound like a broken record repeatedly saying "we use standard research". NO you use the research YOU want to use because again you just don't want your validation of life as a FAKE Generation Xer to be threatened. You know you really ought to start a reality show. "I WANT TO BE A GENERATION XER" Post on youtube so someone can see how you waste time arguing with people who have provided VALID FACTS because YOU again want to validate your life. I find it funny every time I mention you want to validate yourself with Generation X you ignore me. It further proves that you really need to find yourself and what your purpose is in life. You are not even getting paid to do this. If you are trying validate yourself by a generation that is known for being slackers, and lost and other negativity then you really need help. Its all about the Baby Boomers sweetie. They have run this country for years and are not willing to give it to us. Educatedlady (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In our society, we use they year 2000 as the New Millennium. I don't hear any newscasters mentioning the year Millennium starting in 2000, and then saying, "Whoops, I mean, 2001. Sorry, everyone. We have been using the wrong year." No one says, "Today is September __, 2010. Whoops, I mean, that's not the right date" either. The Gregorian Calendar is wrong." Do you get what I'm saying? We have been using certain terminology for years. Just because you disagree with people's research doesn't mean they are wrong, stupid, or clueless. And snidely responding to someone, sarcastically calling them "Sweetie", doesn't validate your points. I don't care if I'm repeating myself, because you're the one harping on the issue. We go by the terminology and years that are standard and widely used. I pointed out to another editor that even the U.S. Army uses 1982 as the start of the Millennials. Articles about the last presidential election talk about the Millennials, first born in 1982, being most likely to vote for Senator Obama. Conferences focused on the Millenials concentrate on those born 1982+. A book about the culture wars in this country (published in October 2009)and the conflict between generations, mentions Milennials being born in 1982. Regardless of the fact that you tried to insert your edits before several times, other editors, besides myself, have reverted those changes. Then you went and personally attacked me and two other editors who pointed out that you were in the wrong. You told one of them that you would bring in your personal research, and he told you it wasn't allowed on here. You threatened to not come back when you didn't get your way, yet here you are again. It was also pointed out that you erased my comment, which you say was an accident, then you accused me of doing the same to you. I'm not the one who's being disruptive. You have saturating two talk pages with this argument. We need to move on to more productive topics. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OUR SOCIETY IS UNEDUCATED, AND UNINFORMED. AGAIN you are ignoring me when I say you want to validate you life with Generation X. You are proving yourself more and more guilty of thatEducatedlady (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Explanation on Consensus
I have explained several times the reasoning behind the wording of this article. the widest ranges have been 1961-1981, and the addition of the 1999 graduation year was for clarification purposes because of complaints. The sources with various ranges are already included, and I have said that I would add a mentioning of 1965-1981 as years used, however it will most likely just be a mentioning of 1965 as a common start date due to what is found in popular sources. I'm pretty sure 1965 is already mentioned in one or two sources included on this page. In current articles, most journalists are now focusing on 1982-1995 (or 1982-1999 by some sources - enough to merit a mention), the Echo Boomers, because they have recently come of age, and many have entered the work force. Please stop changing the wording of the article when the date ranges refer to the earliest and latest years that are most widely used. The consensus was also to wait a while before making certain changes, because both Generation X and Generation Y (mostly Y) are entering significant life stages. The eldest of Generation X are middle-aged, and the youngest have started families. Most older members of Generation Y have only been in the workforce for a few years, and are just starting out. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly that was not the consensus. The majority opinion was to change the dates. I believe you are the only one discenting from the majority opinion in favour of changing the dates. You cannot block change interminably when there is a clear majority in favour of changing the wording. You have not addressed my criticisms of your positions satisfactorily. One of the fundamental problems with your position is that you are arbitrarily decreeing what are and are not the most important articles without any real backing for that position. You need some sources that say that other dating systems are out of date, not just your hearsay.


 * The sources we have cite a variety of dates. If we simply say 1961-81 it gives a false sense of definition to only those dates. Better to give a rough approximation which acknowledges the variety of opinion on the topic. Plus there are outlier dates as early as the late 50s and as late as 1983. If you really want to get into a detailed discussion of the date ranges used by different sources, we should make a separate section discussing that. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the date range was decided upon because it was the widest range commonly used today. Various date ranges are already supported by the sources. The 1965 start date for a range is also included. The clarification on the last graduation year was added because of complaints and was necessary. It is also supported. Please see my response to Educatedlady above. I mention a book on the culture wars recently published. The late 1950s is not generally accepted as the start of Generation X, even though Douglas Coupland mentions it in his book. He was also not the person to coin the term "Generation X". I have a said that with the definitions of Echo Boomers and Millennials, 1981 and the graduating Class of 1999 are commonly considered the last of Generation X. I have other sources using 1965-1981, but I am verifying them right now. I have at least three. However, that will be an addition to the page, and the wide range of 1961-1981 will be left alone - because many sources still include 1961 as part of Generation X. That was decided upon by the consensus. We also don't want several date ranges in the introduction, or a broad vague definition which would include later 1980's birth years. That's false. 1982+ are not widely accepted or used by credible sources as part of Generation X. Please stop changing dates on this page. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying CreativeSoul is that Douglas Coupland was wrong, so is Elwood Carlson (who I have spoken to recently on this issue) and Strauss and Howe are right because the media uses their info. Well the media has been wrong in the past. And because YOU want to be the last of Generation X. My question is what is so fascinating about this generation that makes you want to be part of it so much? Educatedlady (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, please see this direct quote from a wikipedia policy page:

quote:
 * Consensus can change


 * Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed.


 * Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.


 * A representative group might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact. But in all these cases, nothing is permanently fixed. The world changes, and the wiki must change with it. It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago.
 * /quote


 * My problem with the date range is that it gives a false sense of certainty about the dates. If we say 1961-1981, it gives the impression that Xers are exclusively born during those years and that no others are. As our Boomer page says until at least 1964, and the Y page says starting in the late 70s it kind of makes sense....


 * You're really testing my patience, you just keep coming here repeating your claims over and over again with this imperious attitude, saying in the third person "it will be left alone" etc... as if you alone get to decide. Your sources DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS!!!!! They absolutely do not. I have checked through them. Please provide specific quotes from the quoted sources to support specific claims. Also, several of the sources listed duplicate themselves, or simply re-quote Strauss and Howe. Several of them are also of dubious authority. And some of them speak only of Gen Y. It's a bit of a mess frankly, so not sure why you are standing by it so much, especially given the fact that several editors obviously want to change the wording. Try working with us rather than against. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The article should consider other sources of information. The information should be looked at if it is credible. There should be a discussion on the issue. There have also been other editors who believe that other sources should be considered. Rockman03 (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Reason for Consensus - Date range includes widely acceptable usage; very rare for 1982 or later to be considered a part of Generation X
Peregrine981, I am testing your patience? Your edits were previously reverted by other editors. Now you're trying to get them back in, despite the fact that a consensus had reached a decision. The problem is, the consensus was reached and every month people are wanting to change the dates. The 1961-1981 covers an acceptable date range. 1961 is the earliest used by a lot of sources, but 1965 will probably end up being the start date for Generation X - we have years to wait on this. The date range set includes sources that have 1965 as the start of Generation X. 1981 is the last acceptable birth year for Generation X, and it widely accepted; it is also most common for 1982 to be the start of Generation Y/Millennials. Those born in 1982 or 1983 have never been a part of Generation X. We are going by what is standard. There are several other sources that cite 1984 and 1985 as end dates. But they aren't credible. I'm repeating myself, but we are using date ranges that are most commonly used. By your logic, anyone born up to 1984 is part of Generation X. I'm sorry, but most researchers and journalists would disagree. The term "Millennial" refers to those who graduated in the year 2000. And none of that "the year 2000 wasn't the real Millennium." That is what we refer to as the New Millennium in our society. If people don't like it, complain to the journalists, and don't use the Gregorian Calendar either. The Class of 2000 is commonly referred to as "The Millennials," and the general start date for their generation (Generation Y) is 1982. '''I have proven that most sources use 1982 as the start date for Generation Y/Millennials. The consensus was reached on the wording of the article. Generation X is not a term used today for those born in the 1950s. Douglas Coupland wasn't even the person who coined the phrase "Generation X". The term has been used differently since at least the past fifteen years. Researchers and media today do not use the 1950s as a starting point for Generation X.'''

Breaking down the sources given and adding my own with quotes:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/25/entertainment/et-brief25/2
 * Buckingham notes that the reason summer is all about superheroes is because of a demographic perfect storm. Generation X types (born 1965-1982) tend to be cynical, the latchkey kids with divorcing parents, who came of age during an age of hero collapse: philandering politicians, unscrupulous Wall Street types and athletes pumping steroids. This is an entertainment article on superheroes. It's listed under the entertainment section, not featured or politics, etc. Really?

If you're going to use a source like that, then here is an Article - by a well-respected Scottish newspaper - June 10, 2007. "It is the so-called "Millennial Generation", born between 1982 and 2000, which is coming of age in an era of broadband internet and the mobile phone, of iPods and computer games." The article goes on to discuss how filmmakers might try to entice Millennials to go to the movies (basically reaching out to a certain demographic).

Here is a later more current LA Times article published May 10, 2009 by LA Times using 1982 as the start of the Millennials. It discusses politics. "The "millennials" -- the generation of Americans born between 1982 and 2003 -- now identify as Democrats by a ratio of 2 to 1. They are the first in four generations to contain more self-perceived liberals than conservatives."

Veteran Journalist, Judy Woodruff's work on Generation Next - article written on August 23, 2007 about the PBS documentary that aired September 5, 2007. "A unique generation is coming of age in America. They’ve been called many things, millennials, boomerang kids, generation Y … we are calling them Generation Next. They are the 42 million young people aged 16-25 who were born after the Cold War, weaned on technology, came of age rocked by 9/11 and who now face a future marked by complex global challenges." (In 2007, those born in 1982 were 25). I also have the transcript for the PBS documentary that mentions Millennials first being born in 1982.

http://issuu.com/chicagoschool/docs/insight-3-1 'This magazine quotes from the book Millennials Rising'' which is by the authors Strauss and How - who use 1982 as the start of the Millennials. If they are going to use references, they should pay attention to the dates used. The rest of that site is filled with anecdotal information.

How about the article in Psychology Today? - December 19, 2008 by Janelle Wilson, a professor of Sociology "Well, in recent semesters of my social psychology classes, I am discovering that when I discuss concepts such as the "saturated self" or the "mutable self," these terms do not seem to provoke much concern or interest among members of the Millennial Generation (that is, those born between 1982 and 2002)."

Article placed here because this author also wrote for Psychology Today Canadian Article - Is the 'Me Generation' Less Empathetic? - June 13, 2010 "In 2008, the renowned TV news program, 60 Minutes ran a story about Gen Y (born between 1982 and 2002) in the workplace and proclaimed that a “new breed of American worker is about to attack everything you hold sacred.” The program described millennials as cynical, unaccustomed to hard work and having fragile egos because their childhoods filled with trophies and adulation didn’t prepare them for the cold realities of work."

The book Parenting the Millennial Generation: Guiding Our Children Born between 1982 and 2000 by Dave Dave Verhaagen, the study "A New Me Generation? The Increasing Self-Interest among Millennial College Students" which is specifically on the Millennials and education - important article in a journal (published 2010).

I have tons more. For every one or two rare ones that include 1982 (whether a misprint or not) or 1983 as part of Generation X, I have at least 3 or more to counter them. The date ranges that were set reflect the most widely used dates. It is quite clear among most people, that 1982 is the starting birth year associated with Millennials/Generation Y. Most articles from established sources use 1982 as the start of Generation Y.

http://generationaladvisor.com/2009/03/generational-primer-gen-x/ It's not an established or reliable source and looks more like a personal blog (not a reliable one - like CNN, Fox News, or Business/Technological magazines) or a one-man research - no access to other articles (which could very well be using other dates. Here are some sources to counter it:

http://www.generations.com/about.htm BridgeWorks: Solving the Generational Puzzle. The website and research company is run by Lynne Lancaster and David Stillman, bestselling authors who are "approached regularly by the media to serve as expert commentators on generational issues and to write articles on the topic for a variety of publications. They have been guests on CNN, CNBC, and the TODAY Show, as well as on numerous national and local TV and radio programs. And, they have been featured in such prestigious print media as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Post, and TIME Magazine.quote from website is below:

-With a much smaller population of Generation Xers (1965-81) available in the work force, organizations are not only scrambling to recruit, engage and retain them, they are looking to other generations to fill talent gaps. -And finally, the leading edge of Millennials (1982-2000) is entering full-time employment with very different expectations for how they want to be engaged and managed.

'''In 2000, BridgeWorks fielded a national survey of employees across many industries that resulted in their best selling business book When Generations Collide: Who They Are. Why They Clash. How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work. (HarperBusiness, 2002).'''

Here is a whole website dedicated to the Millennials. And, here is the authors's bio Their book Millennial Makeover: was published in March 30, 2008 and reprinted in 2009. From page 1: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics "Today, our political institutions face another test from these same twin forces of change. A new generation, Millennials, born between 1982 and 2003, is coming of age in unprecedented numbers." They used surveys from Dr. David King, research director at Harvard's Institute of Politics.

Recent documentaries on PBS and CBS USE 1982 as the start of the Millennials/Generation Y Forbes Magazine article - published on November 12, 2008 regarding young voters being more liberal. "Nothing made Barack Obama's victory potentially more historically significant than his overwhelming support from millennial voters, members of the generation born in or after 1982."

Millennial Conference in Canada "Following two highly successful events in Los Angeles and New York City, Digital Media Wire is pleased to announce that it is joining forces with CMW to host Millennials Canada, our inaugural international event focused on digital entertainment trends and strategies and consumer marketing for Gen Y, born between 1982 and 2000." Further down: "By the year 2010, Millennials, born between 1982 and 2000, will outnumber both Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers and will be the most significant consumer sector for the media & entertainment industries."

The book Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Voices, and Viewpoints by M.E. Sharpe, just published October 30, 2009 - One page 212: "Historians generally recognize five generations born in the United States during the twentieth century: the GI Generation (1901-1924), the Silent Generation (born 1925-1945), the Baby Boom Generation (born 1946-1964), Generation X (born 1965-1981), and the Millennial Generation (born 1982-2003)." Notice the keyword 'generally'.

Just a few sources regarding business, marketing or Millennials in the Workplace:

A Review of the Empirical Evidence on Generational Differences in Work Attitudes. By: Twenge, Jean. Journal of Business & Psychology, June 2010, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p201-210, 10p; DOI: 10.1007/s10869-010-9165-6 "This article reviews the evidence for generational differences in work values from time-lag studies (which can separate generation from age/career stage) and cross-sectional studies (which cannot). Understanding generational shifts is especially important given the coming retirement of Baby Boomer workers and their replacement by those born after 1982 (GenMe/GenY/Millennials)."

Millennials and the World of Work: The Impact of Obesity on Health and Productivity. By: Barkin, Shari; Heerman, William; Warren, Michael; Rennhoff, Christina. Journal of Business & Psychology, June 2010, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p239-245, 7p; DOI: 10.1007/s10869-010-9166-5 "PURPOSE: Thirty states now report one in three children between 10-17 years of age are either overweight or obese. This disturbing trend will have lasting implications for our children, specifically those known as the Millennial generation born between 1982 and 1993."

Fashion Accessory Buying Intentions Among Female Millennials. By: Bellman, Lawrence M.; Teich, Ira; Clark, Sylvia D.. Review of Business, Fall 2009, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p46-57, 12p

Quote from the summary: "There is a growing trend for shoppers to customize a large purchase by combining several related off-the-shelf products. This study researched one segment of this retail trend, the in-store customization of off-the-shelf fashion accessories by young women, to analyze selected factors that may affect purchase behavior motivation and to build a profile of do-it-yourself young female consumers. A survey covering selected attitudes, behaviors and demographics was created and pilot-tested. The main study comprised female millennials (young women born between 1982 and 2001) frequenting the huge Mall of America shopping complex in Minneapolis."

Working the Generational Millennial Mile! By: Degraffenreid, Scott. International Professional Performance Magazine, 2008, Vol. 16 Issue 3, p15-15, 1p Also published August 6, 2009  "Millennials, the generation born between 1982 and 2001, are that new species. Businesses from food service to finance are discovering that today’s entry-level workforce is operating on a very different level and cannot be forced to work or to conform to the status quo."

UNDERSTANDING THE NEW GENERATION: WHAT THE MILLENNIAL COHORT ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY MUST HAVE AT WORK. By: Rawlins, Claudia; Indvik, Julie; Johnson, Pamela R.. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict, June 2008, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p1-8, 8p, 2 Charts "Starting at about the turn of the 21st century, faculty began noticing that their students -- and employers began noticing that their new employees -- were “different” from the previous cohort. They did not appear to be interested in the same things or motivated by the same rewards as previous young adults. These observations have stimulated a growing number of research studies focused on identifying the essential characteristics of the cohort now generally referred to as the Millennials. This cohort, born between 1982 and 2000, numbering 81 million, is even larger than the Baby Boomer cohort.  Over one-fourth of all Americans belong to this cohort (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006)."

JUST WISHING AND HOPING? WHAT THE MILLENNIAL COHORT ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY MUST HAVE AT WORK. By: Rawlins, Claudia; Indvik, Julie; Johnson, Pamela R.. Allied Academies International Conference: Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict (AOCCC), Apr. 2008, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p65-69, 5p "A new cohort group has been identified by a number of researchers. Those born in 1982 and after appear to have a different set of values and expectations from either the Baby Boomers or the Generation Xers who preceded them.  Increasingly referred to as the Millennials, members of this group are now joining the workforce or attending college.  This paper seeks to add to our understanding of this cohort."

Next up? Generation gap of the Millennials. By: Fassl, Joyce. Food Engineering, Nov. 2007, Vol. 79 Issue 11, p8-8, 2/3p - published November 1, 2007 "For those of you who haven’t heard, the Millennials were born between 1982 and 2002. The first ones came of age at the turn of the century and have never lived in a world without cell phones, computer gaming, text messaging or constant multitasking. Some communicate more effectively via electronic means than by face-to-face encounters."

Teaching A New Generation: The Differences Are Not Trivial. By: Meisel, Steven I; Fearon, David S. Organization Management Journal, 2007, Vol. 4 Issue 3, p287-298, 12p; DOI: 10.1057/omj.2007.28 I can't get the link to work now, but the page numbers are there.

The Millennials: Who Are these Students Staring Back at You in the Classroom? Accounting Education News, Summer 2007, Vol. 35 Issue 3, p5-6, 2p "Born between 1982 and 2001, they have grown-up with news 24/7 and email, Internet, and computers."

Wisdom for all ages. By: Holtz, Shel. Communication World, Jan/Feb2007, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p30-33, 4p "They're hiring us because they are looking at the impending retirement of millions of baby boomers and they haven't built enough bench strength among Generation X [those born from 1965 to 1981] to replace all those boomers." Further down: "That seems to be a hot topic. We've had Millennials [people born from 1982 to 2000] and Gen Xers in focus groups tell us that they couldn't even apply at some companies because they looked at the company web site and it was so bad that they felt that it must be a very slow-moving, backward organization."

The Rise of the Millennials. Futurist, Mar/Apr2001, Vol. 35 Issue 2, p7, 2/3p "Much is expected of the children born between 1982 and 1998, a cohort variously called echo boomers, generation Y, the Net generation, and now the Millennials. These kids make up the next "great generation" of American society, exhibiting many of the  positive, even heroic values of the World War II GI generation, historians Neil Howe and William Strauss claim in their latest book, Millennials Rising."

Bloomberg Article "The students they're fighting for are members of the generation born from 1982 to 2002 called Generation Y, or the Millennials."

Article on the gap between Generation X and Generation Y (An Irish website on business and technology) "However, older workers – Generation X (born 1965-1981) – take a much bleaker view of the new tough times, with nearly a quarter saying it could take up to a year to get a new job."

The M-Factor (book) - published April 6, 2010 "“Millennials” (those born between 1982 and 2000) in the workplace—what they want, how they think, and how to unlock their talents to your organization’s advantage."

Technology:

Harnessing generation Y. Computer Weekly, 10/23/2007, p28-28, 1/3p; (AN 27544550) Subjects: EDITORIALS; GENERATION Y; WEB 2.0; CHIEF information officers; CYBERCULTURE; EMPLOYEES -- Recruiting; MANNERS & customs - website busy

Computerworld Article - September 22, 2008 "Like most generations before it, Generation Y -- those born between roughly 1982 and 2002 -- has been stereotyped based on a cultural change identified with its era. In this case, the group is united by a hunger to use the latest technologies to communicate. These digital natives -- also known as millennials -- are natural multitaskers, often simultaneously texting on a mobile device and instant-messaging on a PC without removing even one iPod ear bud. Many of this generation can't conceive of communicating without an instant messaging system or social network."

Don't Market to Generation Y - January 29, 2010 "Sometimes known as the Millennials, Connecteds and Unreachables, Generation Y is compromised of individuals in their 20s and younger, or born in 1982 or later. They are an important generation to understand because they are comprised of 71 million Americans who spend over 200 billion dollars annually. They're taking over the Baby Boomers as the largest percentage of the working world."

USA Today Article on Shopping by Phone "Evans' company coined the term digital millennials to describe the technology savvy of Generation Y, generally considered those born between 1982 and 2000."

Meet the Echo Boom Hackers "They're the geek subset of the so-called Echo Boomers, a generation defined as children born between 1982 and 1995; they are also sometimes called "Generation Y" or "Millennials." The Echo Boomer name is a direct reference to the Baby Boomers, born some 30 years before, and many in fact children of Baby Boomers. According to CBS News, Echo Boomers already spend $170 billion a year of their own and their parents' money, so from a marketing perspective they're significant."

technology & politics: Wired Magazine Article - published on July 13, 2008 "It’s also a comment that puts McCain decidedly out of step with the millions of Americans who’ve woven web, wireless and social networking technologies into the fabric of their daily lives — especially the so-called Millennial Generation, those born between 1982 and 2002 . . . Unlike large portions of previous young voter blocs, this connected generation votes (at least those who are old enough), and is very civic minded,according to the researchers."

Are Millennials So Different From the Rest of Us - August 2, 2010 not a personal blog, but from respected technology veterans who have written for well-known newspapers and magazines. See here "We've been hearing for some time now that workplaces will radically change thanks to the millennials, the generation born 1982 or later that is just now entering the workforce in large numbers."

More newspapers, studies, and other sources:

Washington Times Article -October 26, 2008 "Members of Generation Y -- those born from 1982 to 2000 -- have mediocre scores in U.S. and international academic surveys, he told the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) event."

Chicago Tribune - April 2, 2010 " Who is Generation Y? Also called Millennials and Echo Boomers, they are the 75 million people born between 1982 and 1995 of baby boomer parents, according to census data. 'They're essentially the same size as the boomer generation — 75.8 million born between 1946 and 1964 — and will be a driving force in the housing market in the decades ahead,' said Walter Molony, a spokesman for the National Association of Realtors."

Millennial Generation Set to Rock the Vote - published April 20, 2008 "And the political phenomenon of Barack Obama is symbolic of the game-changing attitudes and growing influence to be wielded by the upcoming generation of "Millennial" voters - the largest and most diverse generation in American history, born between 1982 and 2003 - who already are helping to shape the race."

Article on Millennials and Obama - published November 14, 2008 "Times have been tamer since—but they never returned to what they were. If anything, gen X-ers and in particular the newly named Millennial generation (born between 1982 and 2003) disdain even the idea of an all-powerful person in a position of authority telling them what to do and how to do it."

The Harvard Crimson - published on April 16, 2009 "Authors Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, together with Kennedy School professor Elaine C. Kamarck, emphasized the centrality of a young generation—born between 1982 and 2003—to the rise of the Democratic party in the 2008 election, and said that the influence of this “Millennial” voting bloc would only continue to grow." Apparently, these authors' research is good enough for Harvard University.

A college newspaper - February 17, 2010 "Anthropologists have dubbed our generation, the people born between 1982 and 2002, "Generation Y." We have only contributed music like Fall Out Boy and the pre-packaged Disney stars like Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers. While these can technically be considered contributions to our society, they are not significant in any way because they do not facilitate the progression of our culture."

An Emory University article is already included as a source on the Generation X page. but here is another one about Millennials in the Workplace - August 13, 2010 "Celebrated by some as the second “Greatest Generation,” snubbed by others as “Generation Whine,” the Millennials (individuals born between 1982 and 2000) are statistically not any more altruistic, family-centered, or success-driven than their predecessors, despite the media hype. But what sets them apart in the workplace is their “sixth sense” when it comes to incorporating technology to interact with the world, coupled with an expectation that organizations will meld themselves to accommodate their needs, according to two Goizueta scholars."

USA Today Article on Generational Split Among Voters - July 27, 2008 "Obama is a tail-end boomer, but his political appeal is heavily focused on the "millennials" who have begun voting in the last three presidential elections. Millennials are 26 and younger, and the 100 million of them born between 1982 and 2003 constitute the largest and most diverse American generation ever."

Article from San Francisco Gate - published on April 21, 2009 "A key target will be the "millennial" voters, those technology-bred Californians born between 1982 and 2003 - part of the largest and most diverse generation in history - who helped boost Obama to the presidency, his advisers said."

Article to show variety - research is widespread "This isn’t just idle curiosity. As we embark on what I’ve called the Latino Century, great things are expected of the nation’s largest minority, and the generation expected to deliver on much of it is the so-called Millennial Generation born between 1982 and 2001. We may also see quite a bit of accomplishments from those at the tail end of Generation X, born between 1961 and 1981." Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a contributing editor to LATINO Magazine, an editorial board member of the San Diego Union-Tribune, a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, a weekly commentator at CNN, and the author of A Darker Shade of Crimson: Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano (Bantam). Contact him at: www.rubennavarrette.com

New Zealand Article - November 15, 2007 "There's been a lot of talk recently about Generation Y. Its members, born between 1982 and 2005, are known for their sense of entitlement, outspokenness, inability to take criticism, and technological sophistication."

UK Study - article published on July 22, 2010 "According to the official summary of the Researchers of Tomorrow study [PDF] commissioned by the British Library and the UK education support agency JISC, the first annual report of a three-year study into the information-seeking behavior of Generation Y doctoral students suggests "striking similarities between students born between 1982 and 1994 and older age groups."

Another New Zealand source - by Neil Shoebridge (Australian Financial Review); article was pubished on October 11, 2006. "The definitions of generation Y vary, with some social researchers and statisticians saying it covers people born between 1980 and 1994, others defining it as 1978 to 1994 and others plumping for 1982 to 1995." It shows both the 1970s start range and 1982 for Generation Y. There is no mention of 1983.

Canadian (Vancouver) Article - article published on September 24, 2009 "Born between 1982 and 2001 and between the ages of 8 and 27, the older segment of Generation Y, also known as Millennials, or the Sunshine Generation, are already in the workforce and are looking for a destination employer - one that combines trust and good management with life-work balance, says Rebecca Ryan, author of Live First, Work Second. The founder of Next Generation Consulting says accommodating the Sunshine Generation's talents is in the best interests of companies looking to hire and grow."

Project Millennials - September 27, 2007 (Guest speakers included members of prominent and well-known companies in various fields such as research, marketing, technology, etc.) "By the year 2010, Millennials, born between 1982 and 2000, will outnumber both Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers and will be the most significant consumer sector for the media & entertainment industries. Not only will they be big; they will be fragmented and difficult to reach. The increasing number of media channels - instant messaging, email, social networks, chat rooms, iPods, mobile phones, MP3 Players, P2P networks, handheld devices, digital video recorders, video games, game consoles and next generation communities and devices - through which this generation communicates and consumes media & entertainment, makes them a highly elusive target for businesses hoping to reach to them."

United States Student Association - see Wikipedia's article on the organization here "The Millennials -- baby boomers' sons and daughters who were born between 1982 and 2000 -- already have changed America's course by their participation and overwhelming support for Barack Obama in the 2008 caucuses, primaries and general election. One in four Americans -- and one in three individuals around the world -- is a member of this generation, so their impact stretches far beyond the most recent election."

An Article from The Oregonian - May 23, 2009 See the Wikipedia article on the newspaper here. "The "millennials" -- the generation of Americans born between 1982 and 2003 -- now identify as Democrats by a 2-to-1 ratio. They are the first in four generations to contain more self-perceived liberals than conservatives."

Australian Focus Group on Millennials - 2009 "The Millennial generation was born in 1982 and consists of a group ranging in age from 8 to 27 years of age."

Terminology: Here is an Article on the Millennial Generation for Educatedlady from the U.S. Navy - August 8, 2006 (My PROOF that even The U.S. Navy still refers to those born in 1982 and graduated in 2000 as Millennials, regardless of the 'Real Millennium'. Go head and call the Navy and tell them they're wrong. The U.S. Army also uses 1982 as the starting birth year for Millennials. I have the pdf link, but I have to dig for it. That article is about army recruitment statistics.

http:/www.salesmanagermag.com/Art-Mark_McCrindle-ManagingNewGeneration_07.html - See above links about business, marketing, and the workforce to counter this source, especially the links coming from Australia. There are more sources supporting a 1982 start day for Generation Y. Also, it doesn't look like it's even been updated since 2006. Here is an Article entitled The Millennial effect: Implications for academic development from Australia that shows 1982 as the start of Generation Y- by Diana Jonas-Dwyer and Romana Pospisil (researchers are fromtwo well-known Australian universities): "The first wave of a new generation of students “the Millennials”, who have been exposed to technology from an early age, have started or are on their way to universities and colleges. Universities are now facing the challenge of catering to three distinct generations of students, the “Baby Boomers” born in the post-war era 1945-1959, the sixties and seventies “Generation-X”, and new students of the “Millennial” generation born in or after the year 1982 (Oblinger, 2003). Current research suggests that the Millennial generation exhibit different characteristics to previous generations, which implies that for this new generation requirements and expectations of the learning environment are likely to be quite unlike that of previous generations (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Oblinger, 2003; Poindexter, 2003; Raines, 2002)."

'''I have a lot more sources, but I've already proven my point several times over. It's very rare for 1982, 1983 or a later birth year to be included in Generation X. The latest date they use for Generation X is 1981. 1982 is the most widely used starting date for Generation Y/Millennials. Please respect the consensus reached about the date ranges and the reasoning behind the wording of the article. I'm reverting your edits.''' CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, Thanks for your reply complete with links. However, I think I might not be articulating my objections properly. Let's take this point by point. Your quotes in italics.


 * Your edits were previously reverted by other editors.


 * Maybe so, at some point in the distant past, I really don't know. It doesn't change the merits of the case today.


 * The problem is, the consensus was reached and every month people are wanting to change the dates. The 1961-1981 covers an acceptable date range. 


 * If people try to change it every month consensus was obviously not reached satisfactorily. We should try to find something better.


 * 1961 is the earliest used by a lot of sources, but 1965 will probably end up being the start date for Generation X - we have years to wait on this. The date range set includes sources that have 1965 as the start of Generation X. 1981 is the last acceptable birth year for Generation X, and it widely accepted; it is also most common for 1982 to be the start of Generation Y/Millennials. Those born in 1982 or 1983 have never been a part of Generation X. We are going by what is standard. There are several other sources that cite 1984 and 1985 as end dates. But they aren't credible. I'm repeating myself, but we are using date ranges that are most commonly used''


 * OK, this is where the heart of our disagreement sems to lie. I would certainly agree that 1961 to 1981 are the bounds of commonly cited date ranges. However, there are outliers who do cite other dates, particularly later. At least some of these are reasonably credible. It is not our place to dismiss them out of hand, just because "they don't run with the herd." Because something is not widely reported in the mass media, and does not have a wide following does not necessarily discredit the idea. History is full of examples of things that were not "popular ideas" or considered wildly iprobable that turned out to be correct. Wikipedia should not just join the crowd and amplify the most popular ideas above more marginal theories. Obviously bounds of reason here, but I think there are enough reasonably credible sources giving 1982/83 that we can report it.


 * Secondly, I think we are being too rigid in specifying such precise years. There are plenty of sources that mention that "generational studies" is imprecise. We should give some latitude to these generations to overlap and fade into each other. This isn't just my opinion, there are several sources voicing much the same idea in the following quote boxes:


 * By your logic, anyone born up to 1984 is part of Generation X. I'm sorry, but most researchers and journalists would disagree. 


 * I would say 1984 is "mid 1980s," not early, so I'd disagree.


 * The term "Millennial" refers to those who graduated in the year 2000. 


 * I didn't find that in the links you provided. You just keep repeating it.


 * And none of that "the year 2000 wasn't the real Millennium." That is what we refer to as the New Millennium in our society. If people don't like it, complain to the journalists, and don't use the Gregorian Calendar either. The Class of 2000 is commonly referred to as "The Millennials," and the general start date for their generation (Generation Y) is 1982. 


 * That is a red herring, not really relevant to the issue. Whether it was 2000 or 2001 is immaterial.


 * I have proven that most sources use 1982 as the start date for Generation Y/Millennials.


 * I am not disputing that 1982 may be most common. It may or may not be, as it is hard to prove in this kind of forum that something is "most common." Again, it doesn't really matter if it is "most common" as long as there are reasonable dissenting voices. Secondly, this is the Gen X article. Most of the links you posted are dealing with Gen Y, so not the most authoritative when dealing with Gen X. Defining Gen X "negatively" on what Gen Y is not, isn't the most authoritative way to do it.


 * The consensus was reached on the wording of the article. 


 * Again, please show me where this supposed consensus was agreed upon. Secondly, it doesn't matter, as WP:Consensus can change

''Generation X is not a term used today for those born in the 1950s. Douglas Coupland wasn't even the person who coined the phrase "Generation X". The term has been used differently since at least the past fifteen years. Researchers and media today do not use the 1950s as a starting point for Generation X.''


 * Well, Coupland unquestionably popularized the term. I think it is at least notable that started the gen in the 50s. However, it isn't a point I am particularly interested in, and did not include in the intro.


 * I would also notice that you are now in violation of the WP:3RR which is considered disruptive behaviour. Surely you could discuss this in a rational manner and suggest compromises rather than just reverting everything? Perhaps we could say "born primarily in the 1960s and 70s, ending in the late 1970s to early 80s, usually not later than 1981." Peregrine981 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not in violation of the 3 revert rule. My revert was made over a day later. It's not disruptive behavior when I've proven the majority of sources use 1982 as the starting year for Generation Y - the evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor. You asked for sources from other countries? Done. Provide quotes? You got them. And from a variety of sources.


 * The consensus was reached for the reasons I have stated above. While discussion is fine, forming a consensus about once a month is ridiculous. I have proven my point and shot down Educatedlady's logic about the Navy and the term "Millennial". I have proven my point over and over, and you are the one who is being disruptive now. The discussions on date ranges are no longer productive - the dates used have been proven to be the best ranges (waiting on 1965), and 1982 is referred to as the start of Generation Y by most people. The majority of sources in the United States, England, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, and Canada use 1982 as the starting birth year for Millennials. As I've mentioned repeatedly, we are using a standard range for these article, not having a vague range that doesn't give anyone any idea of the dates used. 'The consensus was to not have several date ranges in the introduction, but to keep the sources that use those diverse date ranges (that are common, which 1982, 1983, and 1984 are not''). The sources included reflect the different viewpoints on the date range for Generation X, but it is clear that 1982 is the common birth year used when referring to Milennials/Generation Y.

Despite some sources talking about the different opinions on generational dates, they still generally use 1982 for the start of Generation Y. Also, The Washington Post article talks about the ranges going up to the early 1980s - it doesn't mention 1982 or 1983. For all we know, the author could have meant 1981 as the early 1980s in reference to the Class of 1999 being the last graduating class. In our culture, 1982 and the Class of 2000 are generally considered the First of the Millennials, and this information is common held belief. I should point out for those other two books you mention, I have at least three more that use 1982 as the start of Generation Y (books on Millennials in the Workforce, marketing, etc.) ' I've explained myself very clearly on two'' talk pages now. I have more sources to back up my points. And I think it's important to note that your edits were changed by other editors before, not just by me. So were Educatedlady's recent edits. She was also warned for her disruptive behavior by two other editors. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your 3 reverts were quite clearly within a 24 (17 in fact) hour period. You continue to throw red herrings into the discussion and do not address my points. Are we REALLY going to have to get someone else involved???? You haven't even addressed my point about shading from generation into another generation, or the class of 2000. Nor have you addressed why the consensus cannot change. Nor have you given a link to the supposed consensus. When was this discussion? With whom? When were my edits reverted? You haven't provided evidence of any of that. What do you think of my compromise proposal? Yet you manage to take time to address arguments I have never made (when the millennium is, denying 1982 is a common start year.) Please, address my arguments. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Peregrine lets face it Creative Soul is running out of ideas AND out of gas, we both have provided VALID research that conflicts the dates on this page. I already spoke with an administrator about the consensus, IF the majority rules for a change then just that will occur. A change. Creative Soul cannot do anything about it. She keeps bringing my name into it and I have not said a word in a few days. Its old Creative Soul. You are repetitive and are consistently putting your personal agenda into this. But she has yet to deny that she is. Educatedlady (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Attention! The 'Just so We're all Clear' Check-list
After reading all these points, can someone tell me if this is right?

1. Not everyone born in 1982 graduates in 2000. Some are technically born in 1981. Therefore, on this evidence alone, the article needs adjusting.


 * sure, but the whole graduation year argument is a red herring. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

2. You can't rely on JUST the sources that support Creative Soul's argument. For every link she uses, others can be found to show that academics use 1976 to start Generation Y. Even if some take Generation X all the way up to the early 1980s, there is an overlap here, just as there is an overlap in the Boomer generation (it ends in 1961 or 1965 I believe and overlaps the start of Gen X).


 * agree.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

3. I spent most of today reading this page, and the Generation Y page. The consensus seems to be is that the pages needs changing. Only one editor here wants the information as it stands to stay the same. Therefore, she is in the minority. The consensus is that the Generation X (and by the same token Generation Y, as much of the conversation here overlaps) needs to be altered to reflect consensus.


 * agree.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

4. You can't just rely on graduation dates to determine a whole generation. The term Generation Y was first used in 1976 and didn't care about graduating in 2000.


 * agree with first sentence. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

5. Generation Y effects people from other western countries, not just the US, where much of the talk on graduation in 2000 occurs.


 * agree, but again the graduation year is irrelevant.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

6. Even academics are not in agreement as to when Generation X starts and ends, much the same as they are not in agreement to when Generation Y starts and ends either.


 * agree.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

7. The whole concept of Generations is not a real science. It's not factual. It is open to interpretation and debate. Sociology is very much a soft science and getting absolute definitions for social phenomena is problematic, if impossible.


 * agree.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

8. Where are the administrators here? This article needs to change as the majority clearly seem to want it. How do we go about changing the article, as it seems that every time someone tries, there is a block on such an attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.192.249.21 (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * i have requested assistance from Editor assistance/Requests Peregrine981 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have fully proven the reasoning behind the consensus and the wording of the introduction - which shows the common usage of the term today. I already explained the birthday circumstances at great length. And the information about subculture does not belong in the opening of this article page. It is already mentioned in the section on Origins where it belongs. Quite trying to add this to the opening. My sources and quotes fully support me and the consensus that was already reached. John M. Ulrich's reference and source remains where it has always been. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You have repeatedly refused to answer my direct questions. Until you do I will not consider you to have even attempted to "prove" the reasoning behind the "consensus" of the wording. Why does the subculture text not belong in the intro? It is sourced in a reliable book. It seems entirely relevant to explain past uses of the term in an introduction so as to avoid confusion. You still have not given a reliable source disputing Ulrich. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ulrich's source is from 2003. It does not belong in the introduction because the introduction is used to define the term by the common usage today. I have explained this already, several times. I have used countless sources from 2009-2010 proving that 1982 is generally used as the starting date for The Millennials/Generation Y, including a recent book published in October 2009 about culture wars (and differences between generations) which support my points. Sorry, I thought Ulrich's quote was already in the paragraph; I must have gotten confused as I saw it listed as a source for the Capa information. I re-inserted the quote and information (which cites Douglas Coupland) in the appropriate paragraph for that reference - in the Origins section where it belongs. Please leave the introduction alone. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So you think that 2003 is hopelessly out of date? Strauss and Howe's book is from 2000. Shall we reject it as well? More recent does not necessarily make it more authoritative.


 * I'm sorry if I'm coming off as the rule enforcer here, but please see WP:LEAD. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences." I'd say that a brief overview of historical usage is entirely relevant to a mini summary and establishing context. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not going to revert again today because I am well aware of the rule. You don't need to warn me. I didn't notice the number of changes I had made since some of them were late in the evening. The reasons I gave fully support the consensus reached. Most sources today use 1982 as the start for Generation Y. The date ranges reflect the earliest and latest acceptable (widely used) dates. So, the vague phrasing doesn't belong on this page. We're at a point now where the oldest of Generation Y have entered the workforce. I have even previously included a recent article within the past week that used 1982 as the start date for Generation Y. The dates used match the terminology we use today. The first Millennials were born in 1982 and/or graduated in 2000 (most were born in 1982 an that is what most sources use). I have clearly laid out the reasons for why the consensus was reached and why the introduction was phrased that way. Every month, someone comes and changes it again, and we have to explain the reasoning and the consensus. Discussion is fine, but when I have proven my points several times over with overwhelming evidence, you shouldn't changing the introduction again. Saying early 1980s implies 1982, 1983, and 1984, which are not a part of Generation X, nor have those birth years ever been widely accepted for this Generation. This is just another way to try to get those birth years in the article without being explicit. If I have to wait another 24 hours, so be it. But, I am going to revert further changes. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

1984 is not the early 1980s. It is the mid 1980s. SEE you just admitted why you don't want the wording changed to the early 1980's. Because it would include 1982, and 1983. But we don't want to include the actual years JUST EARLY which would account for all sources. Educatedlady (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me further point out that the consensus decided to leave the sources with various acceptable and widely used date ranges in the opening, while using the earliest and latest dates that were common (and, again, widely used), or standard, in the introduction. Your wording that you keep adding back in is too vague and not acceptable. You asked for my sources, I gave you a ton of them (some still sitting on my desk), and provided quotes. I also recently provided an article written September 2010 that uses 1982 as the start of the Millennials. There is also a book I mentioned earlier on the culture wars and differences between generations, published October 2009. Why won't you accept that 1981 is the generally accepted final year for Generation X? The sources all include the earliest dates and various date ranges, and 1981 is the last year. The Millennials coincide with the Echo Boom. The Echo Boomers are not part of Generation X. Even two research conferences on the Millennials (the U.S. and Canada), both use 1982 as the starting date. Why are you being difficult? And what do you mean more is not authoritative. That's exactly what it means. More sources support a point and the information is widely accepted enough in various countries to be used. Strauss and Howe wrote other books, and Neil Howe (considered one of the top authorities on generations) published at least four books since 2008. The last book, Millennials in the Workplace: Millennials in the Workplace: Human Resource Strategies for a New Generation, was published in March 2010. His research team continually publishes and is referenced by many people, as are the authors of the book The Millennial Makeover (and project).CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous consensus is not final Creative Soul. Educatedlady (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why then did you reject my compromise proposal citing 1981 as the latest commonly cited end date?

I have several questions that I would be much obliged if you would address. And please do not give me more links to articles citing 1982 as the start of Generation Y. It is well established that many sources use that year. I am NOT disputing that many cite that year, so please don't use those sources to say that you've "proven" your point.


 * . What is your understanding of the term consensus? What does it mean to you?
 * . When, EXACLTY, did the consensus on the opening occur. Please provide a link.
 * . Why does the old consensus override the majority opinion of today's editors? Especially if you acknowledge that the consensus is so tenuous that it has to be re-litigated every month.
 * . What is your position on keeping the origins sentence in the opening in light of my explanation of WP:LEAD above.
 * . What source are you relying on to prove the importance of graduating in 1999 for the definition of Generation X.
 * . What source are you relying on to reject the conclusions of Elwood Carlson.
 * . What is your answer to NPOV policy which states that we should fairly represent all credible points of view?
 * . What is your opinion of the quotes I provided that state that generations do not have hard and fast end and start dates at all? Strauss and Howe themselves are perfectly frank about this as well.

PS i said, more RECENT does not make it more authoritative NECESSARILY. Your sole objection so far has been that Carlson's book was written (*gasp*) 7 years ago, and that it is not widely quoted. But you still have not provided evidence that it has been rejected by the community at large. I would go on to say, on a philosophical point that just because an idea is popular does not make it right. We have an obligation as wikipedia editors to represent the world as it is. So we can say, idea X is widely held, but there are those who believe in idea Y. We are not qualified to make editorial decisions to outright reject the conclusions of published authors simply because we haven't found many sources that follow their logic. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you stated PeregrineEducatedlady (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just Some Sources that Use 1981 as the Start of Generation Y (which gives Generation X and Y a crossover)
http://www.cahootsmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=337

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpposted/archive/2009/03/25/generation-y-will-evolve-leadership.aspx

http://chiefmarketer.com/demographics/gen-y-071405/

http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/76194/property_tips/home_buying_preference_of_echo_boomersgeneration_y.html

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Generation_Y (this source takes a broader look at various 'dates')

There are MANY sources EITHER citing 1976, 1981 or 1982 as a start for Gen Y. The main page refuses to address the many arguments presented in this Talk Page and is in URGENT need of an administrator to read this and to allow the page to be edited appropriately(most people on this talk page want this changed).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.192.249.21 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

PROPOSAL:
Let us simply change the wording to overlap the year 1981, OR to say 'Gen X ends in the late seventies/early eighties, but Gen Y begins late seventies/early eighties also.

There is overlap due to the many differing sources that argue for various start years.

It is INCORRECT to keep using 1982 as the most important start year, due to the many flaws presented in this talk page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.192.249.21 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Dates
I will be posting links that shows that again the dates of Generation X are WIDELY confused. Here a USA today article uses a DATE RANGE of the mid 1960s to the late 1970s. I will be posting more links soon. Educatedlady (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm

Now this article is interesting written in 1999, when supposedly the last class of Generation X graduation (sorry inaccurate information again) calls Generation Y 1979-1994. From Business Week a RELIABLE source: http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_07/b3616001.htm

Oberlin College: Generation Y includes those born between the second half of the 1970s and the first half of the 1990s" http://www.oberlin.edu/stupub/ocreview/2006/12/08/features/Understanding_Generation_Y.html  again this source uses a DATE RANGE

http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/GenY.htm. Now this source says Generation Y is born between 1976-1995 or 1988-2001 again a DATE RANGE

Again many sources use a DATE range, we cannot and will not rely on one source and other sub sources who are just copying and pasting information from Strauss and Howe. Educatedlady (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is RIGHT. Many sources CONFLICT with '1982' because Sociology is a soft science, and is wide open to interpretation!

Because so many sources show various date ranges, this is grounds ALONE to change the article to reflect ROUGH dates (for BOTH the Generation X and Y pages). Also, please state whether you AGREE or not with the Proposal section above. Wikipedia is supposed to be about academic facts, not slanted bias which, unfortunately, is how the page as it stands right now looks.

EDIT: Also, love the wording in the USA Today source:

"There is no consensus over the exact birth dates that define Gen Y, also known by some as echo boomers and millennials. But the broadest definition generally includes the more than 70 million Americans born 1977 to 2002. Generation X was born roughly 1965 to 1976. Narrower definitions put Gen Yers as those ages 16 to 27, born from 1978 to 1989. This narrower view is based on the thinking that as the pace of change in society accelerates, the time frame of a generation gets shorter."

Admins, please read this whole page and ensure the facts are presented in the main page, not this biased slant that currently stands. *PRECEEDING WRITTEN BY [67.192.249.21]*


 * First of all, please start signing your posts using 4 ~. It really helps to sort out who's saying what. Also, I would urge you to get an account. It increases your credibility and recognizability, which helps if you're going to get seriously involved in the discussion. But thanks for your contribution.


 * I do agree with your proposal above, but there was one exactly the same just a couple of days ago, so I don't see the point of doing another one. I think it is quite clear that the general feeling here is to change the wording of the intro. However, I will wait for CS to respond to my questions before I force the change again. On another point, it is not for admins, at least at this point, to sort out our substantive disagreements. You are free to make the changes you would like to make. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That said, perhaps I should make myself clear: I think that it is time for CreativeSoul to address the concerns of the majority here. I would include my questions from yesterday (and a couple other times as well: ). Unless you concretely answer these questions I think it will be time to move to a more formal complaint mechanism to settle this dispute. I have repeatedly tried to engage in compromise and discussion, but do not feel that those efforts have been fully reciprocated, and unless I can see that we are making some progress in discussion, or that you are at least acknowledging my arguments I will see no other route than a formal process. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal
I would suggest something like: Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Generation X, commonly abbreviated to Gen X, is the generation born after the baby boom ended. with demographers differing on the exact parameters of the group. Members of Generation X have been identified as those being born in the early sixties, with some using 1961(cite source(s)) 1962(cite source(s)) 1963(cite source(s)) etc. and including those born until 1978(cite source(s) 79 cite source(s)) 1981 cite source(s)).


 * I think this is reasonable. The only problem is that it may overload the front of the article with sources. I think overall I still prefer a "soft" definition for the intro, with perhaps a more detailed look in the "definition" section. Perhaps that would be a relevant place to discuss the relative popularity of the different dates, and include a look at "outlier" definitions as well, citing all the different dates in the way banana proposes. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the softer approach as well. If we included specific dates and there are several sources that contradict one another then its going to be the same situation over and over again. At least with stating early 1960s to early 1980s does not place an exact definition. There are going to be disputes and different date ranges about this subject probably forever. Educatedlady (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What is this?
This entire article is garbage. It spends the bulk of its length describing the definition of who fits in the category, but absolutely nothing to do with the trends and perceptions of the generation. The most informative portion is just a list of all the bad things that happened during their childhoods. The Gen Y article wasn't great, but it was much, much better than this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.52.26 (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * so fix it... Peregrine981 (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For me is pretty clear (I born in 1975), that anyone born 1980 onwards is NOT an Xer and anyone born 1973 backwards to the 60's is NOT a Millenial... from 1974 to 1979 there is a transition, some people can identify more with X or Y. I would say is a transitional stage between both generations, the border... some people call themselves as XY... i pretty much feel like that. sometime between 1974 to 1979, is not a different generation but a transitional group of people.

kardrak (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What you are using is personal research. Those at the end of a generation will always be a little different than those at the beginning. Sorry, but the majority of sources, especially recent ones show 1982 as being the start of Generation Y/Millennials (and also the start of the Echo Boom - hence Millennials being Echo Boomers). Those born in 1981 and graduated in 1999 are the last of Generation X. Those who graduated in 2000 were referred to as The Millennial Class. I have explained this in depth on the talk pages, and even included a link to a recent September 2010 newspaper article proving my point. Neil Howe, who is a leading researcher on the subject, has also published a recent book on Millennials and the workplace, citing 1982 as the starting birth year for that group. The most widely used start date for Generation Y is 1982. Also, the sources show the variety of ranges used for this generation, but the wording reflects the widest acceptable range showing the earliest and latest birth dates (that are widely used) for the generation. Even two conferences (one in the U.S. and another in Canada) dedicated to Millennials cite 1982 as the starting date. Further changes to dates will be reverted, and do not change the dates in the Ad Age reference, which is sourced. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

youre a fanatic, thats all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kardrak (talk • contribs) 05:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You have not shot down anything Creative Soul
My information about the Navy who uses the GREGORIAN calendar, is ACCURATE INFORMATION! You cannot deny that. So now you're going to disrespect our nations military for your own validation of being part of Generation X? You think because I have not posted in a few days that I am running scared??? No M'am. The other editors are not using our own personal agendas to make changes to this page. But YOU are! I could care less about myself being a part of Generation X. For years I was fine with knowing that I was a Generation Y member UNTIL research proved to be faulty, inaccurate and biased! You keep inflicting YOUR opinions in this whole ordeal. YOU think Elwood Carlson's research is not widely received. Please provide a source that states this. And if even you could just because one source isnt as popular as another does not mean the information is inaccurate. Get over yourself, and STOP trying to be part of a Generation you really do not belong to. Regardless even if the early 1980s are technically part of Generation X. We are at the END. At least with adding 1982 to the end of Generation X that makes those born in 1981 slightly more part of it which should make you happy, because then you won't be at the end of it! You're running on empty Creative Soul.

And furthermore what I find interesting about you is that you are ALWAYS contradicting yourself. When I first made the edit to this page in August you went on a rampage bragging about how you remember President Ronald Reagan, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Challenger tragedy. As if people born after you do not. However when I mention my memories of the 1980s you try to accuse me of lying and then say that the boundaries of Generation X are not based on culture but graduating classes. Make up your mind Soul! Then you claim to remember seeing ET in theatres. UNLESS you saw it on its re-release in 1985 like I did there is NO WAY a person born in 1981 could remember ET in theatres in 1982. What I think is REALLY sick is that you would brag about the challenger explosion. 7 people lost their lives and here you are bragging that you remember it, like you are superior to those who do not. First of all Generation X is not defined to the 1980s. Its part of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. You have no memories of the 1970s because you weren't here! And those born from 1980-1983 should all have vivid memories of the 1980s and 1990s.

Educatedlady (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I have proven my point and shot down your argument about not attributing the Class of 2000 as Millennials because the U.S. Navy stated that 2001 was the Real Millennium. They may have done so, but they continue to refer to those born in 1982 and graduated in 2000 as Millennials. I have proven that regardless, our society continues to use the terminology in the way I've mentioned. Deal with it. I don't really care what you think. The majority of sources and media support my points. There are two separate Millennial Generation projects that use 1982 as the starting date: one is The Millennial Makeover, based in the U.S., the other is a Millennial Conference based in Canada (both previously referenced). I have also shown research from Harvard University and Johns Hopkins professors among others.


 * Just for the record, you are also one of the rudest and angriest people I've ever met, and you have an attitude problem. How dare you accuse me of bragging about the Challenger Tragedy! God forgive you for that. That is an awful accusation. I was a little girl when I watched that on television, and it was one of the most awful things I had to witness at a young age. Thank goodness for only hazy memories now. You are just attacking me over and over. Do you even think before you write? You were the one who went on a rant. Even another editor told you to calm down. So, it's not me. I only mentioned my experiences to tell you what I remembered because you were claiming to know more than those born after you - who cares anyways if you watched more television on a school night? I never "bragged" about anything, only responding to your claims. I never said that generations were only based on the graduating class in this case. I said that culture and the graduating class affected the demarcation of Generation X and Generation Y. Again, stop making up lies. I always said culture was part of the experience of the generations, but that the demarction line was drawn between those graduating in the last year of the 20th century, and those who graduated in 2000. I have always said that.


 * I never personally attacked you, so what is your problem? I just think it's funny when people get defensive and attack others, when what's more probably is that you are mad at yourself for some reason and taking it out on me. Are you the one having faulty memories or wishing you were older? Maybe you're defensive, because you know it's you that's the one bragging. Many of us born in the late 1970s and early 1980s may have watched Dallas and Dynasty, but we only remember some storylines, and generally less than half of the episodes, because we were already in bed when it was on. That was part of being an 80s child (which doesn't even include everyone born in the 1980s). We rarely stayed up on a school night unless we couldn't sleep. Most of our parents only remember bits and pieces from the episodes. Heck, even our parents today remember bits and pieces from the shows that stood out. The only television shows we remember very clearly are shows that were in constant syndication, such as The Cosby Show, Growing Pains, Family Ties, Chips etc. I remember a lot from my favorite shows, but watching them now released on DVD, sometimes they're almost new. I find it funny that you claim to have watched practically every soap opera that aired on the three main channels. Some of them aired at the same time. And, your mother let you stay up every night until 11 pm on a school night? Okay. Whatever. No one really cares, though what you grew up watching or not watching.


 * And I do remember seeing E.T. at the movie theater and crying halfway through. Since I watched it several times after watching it in the theater, of course I remember the film in great detail. They say things you repeat seven times or more stays in your memory. Some people can remember very early memories. I loved E.T. so much, that I begged my father to buy me the film. He is not a person who cares for buying movies, so at the time it was a very big deal that he bought it for me. There a handful of memories I have from age 1 or in my early years that stand out, so I remember them. They aren't super crystal clear memories, and I never claimed they were. They are spotty. Like my memory of having an allergic reaction to a cat when I had just turned two. Again, spotty.


 * I never claimed to have memories of the 1970s (wow, what an awful argument), only that I was raised on 1970s re-runs that were on television more often than they were in the 1990s. Now, you're falsifying information and claiming I wrote things that I never did. You are such a liar.


 * You are going on and on about faulty research based on your own opinion. Who cares? Your opinion is just that - an opinion. If you have a problem with the majority of research, then take it up with the researchers and media, and stop personally attacking me for proving you wrong. Elwood Carlson is the only author who used 1983, and he isn't well-known, nor is his research well-respected or widely used. It's not my fault that Strauss and Howe are at the forefront of their field, or that other researchers also use 1982 as the start of The Millennials. I should also mention that other new authors writing about Millennials in the Workforce use 1982 as the start date for Generation Y. Here is a recent Huffington Post article about the future of The Milennials.


 * I have proven my point about 1982 being the date most associated with Generation Y/The Millennials and not Generation X by a variety of established sources. The Class of 1999 was the last graduating class before the Millennials. That is how the Class of 2000 has always been labeled. There is even a new television series now dealing with the New Generation - those who graduated in 2000, who are now ten years older. Apparently it's a popular show. Just to announce the ever "popular" "MY GENERATION" show on ABC has been CANCELLED after ONLY TWO episodes. Apparently it wasn't THAT popular. Plus the show never did state what "generation" they were referring to. Educatedlady (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)'''
 * I don't care if you "aren't running scared" or if you are. Did I say I was going to stalk you or something? Take a major chill pill and calm down.I have defended the consensus with enough sources to prove you wrong. I will continue to do so and revert any changes to the dates. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You're the liar! Lying about seeing ET in theatres and claiming to remember it. Again you are not addressing anything in my posts. And I along with the other editors have posted enouge sources to prove you wrong. I have already discussed this with an adminstrator. I know the protocol. I WILL revert any changes that you made to the article as well.

And you are one of the most stubborn people I have ever met. You are refusing to accept the act that research CAN change and that perhaps your "standard" research is faulty. NO ONE IS ASKING TO CHANGE THE DATE TO 1982!!! My proposal is early 1960s to early 1980s. Why do you keep bringing 1982 in to this?? Did something happen in 1982 to hurt you in someway??

First of all I DID NOT watch every single soap opera. I didn't claim to. Didn't I tell you my favorite was Knots Landing??? READ!!!! My sister and mom had this stuff on. In 1987 is when I was developed enough to watch stuff on my own. And as for being in bed Dallas came on Friday nights at 9 Soul. Mom let me stay up until 10. Knots Landing came on Thursdays 9:00pm. Mom knew how much I would have a fit to watch so she did. And why do you keep mentioning Dynasty??? I never said I watched that crap. My sister did, but I never gave it much attention. But the main thing I remember about that show, was Heather Locklear, Joan Collins and Linda Evans, nothing more! I don't even remember John Forsythe from that show and he was one of the main characters!

And I still don't see how in the world you remember ET in 1982. Yes I have memories of ET because its culture in 1980s lasted throughout the decade. My mother use to buy me ET cereal. But for you to say you saw this in theatres and remember it in 1982 and you were just born the year before you are either lying or have your facts wrong. ET was re-released in 1985, that is when I went to see it with my sister, and my memories of it are VERY foggy. This is probably when you saw it and just got the years mixed up. Just like I do. Again we are more alike then you like to let on. We both have older sisters, born in the 70s both watched 70's reruns, both have a connection to ET, and both born and grew up in the 1980s and 1990s, but you want to act like you are SO much older. I am happy with my age, and for you to accuse me of wanting to be older is sad. Once you get our age, not too many people want to be older, thats for kids. This is a waste of time. You have your memories and I have mine. They seem to be somewhat similar actually. So what is this HUGE difference between 1981 and 1982? In August again you lied and said that people who gradauated in 2000 you had nothing in commmon with. I don't see how because plenty of people born in 1981 graduated in 2000. Check out the Kindergarten cut off dates. Some even start before September 1 but in fact in July and August http://users.stargate.net/~cokids/kindergarten_cut-off_dates.htm. Educatedlady (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you paid attention to what I'd written, you'd see that I had a spotty memory of seeing E.T. in theaters except for certain scenes and crying. I don't have my facts wrong. It was one of my first films my mother took me to see. It's probably the only one I remember at that age. Maybe you're right, maybe it was 1985. I wasn't aware that it was re-released, or I had forgotten. But I do have early memories from one and a half to two years-old. Selective memories - not a ton. I was four in 1985. I have a few early movie memories.


 * Most people do agree that the last birth year to be a child of the 80s (being a child through most of the 80s or 70s and 80s) was 1982, but the generations split between 1981 and 1982 with beginning of the Echo Boom. So, my older family members and friends are either children of the 70s and 80s, late 70s, 80s and 90s, or like me, a child of the 80s and 90s. Those born in 1983 or later are generally really considered children of the 90s. This terminology is still different from "The MTV Generation" which I explained before is made up of those in Generation X and early Generation Y (up to birth year 1983 or 1984).


 * I never said I had a sister. I played with my younger friend who's sister was ten years older than me. I am not trying to act SO much older. Nor am I trying to diminish your own childhood memories. Why would I do that? I am using facts to back up my statements and support the consensus that was already reached on this issue. This is how we use the terminology today. I've already shot down your argument on the misuse of the term "Millennial". There is no "Real Millennium" when it comes to media and researchers discussing generations. I never said that you were wrong about scientists saying that the New Millennium started in 2001. People using the term today don't care. The U.S. Navy doesn't care.


 * And I already said that those born in late 1981 could be considered a Millennial if they graduated in 2000; the article clarifies the issues without birthdays being mentioned - because that information is not included in media and research on the subject of generations. Therefore, it can't be included. That is personal research. We don't use birthday ranges on generation pages.

The earliest start date that is common (not earliest seen) for Generation Y/Millennials is 1982, which also coincides with the start of the Echo Boom. I have proven my statements over and over again and the consensus on the subject is fully supported. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok I thought you said you had a sister for some reason. Sorry. But its not about what society is using. What society is using is wrong. Its not going to change, BUT I think for research purposes you would think the researchers would be more intelligent and get it right! I am actually shocked at the ignorance of our society. Its sad. But what you have to realize is that the years of Generation X are disputed. We can't say 61-81 is set in stone forever. Educatedlady (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)