Talk:Millennials/Archive 9

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move to .--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Generation Y → Millennial Generation – Although Generation Y was the initial name given by commentators, it appears that Millennial Generation has currently more notability. A plethora of media articles over the recent years use the word Millenials to talk about this generation. Generation Y can stay as a redirect. Vexorian (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The proposed title Millennials, per discussion below. This is is far and away the WP:COMMONNAME, while "Generation Y" has become relatively obscure. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was rather certain that was incorrect and without basis, and the data seems to support me. "gen y" produces 11,000 hits in Google news, "generation y" 8,000 Google news hits  and "millennial generation" only 1,700 hits. Google books is the same story. 107,000 google book hits for "gen y" , 53,000 hits for "generation y"  and only 18,000 Google book hits for "millennial generation".--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the generation tends to be known simply as Millennials. That might be the best title. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Show that's the case with reliable source material . I think that might work, 36,000 hits on google news for for "Millennials" and a search of the result seems to show that it applies only as a generational reference. I'd 'support either the current title or Millennials (with the pluralization).--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose "Millennial Generation" isn't such a common form. I think I'd still prefer it to Generation Y, but I'll make "Millennials" my first choice. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support only for the exact title of Millenials. Comment are we sure these two terms and the year ranges associated with them are identical? Red Slash 22:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the article, especially the Terminology section, yes. --BDD (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, on the one hand, I feel dumb. On the other, now I know why I haven't heard much about Generation Y recently. I think I can safely say I support the move. Good work, BDD. Red Slash 20:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Question - not disputing that this may well be the most common name now, but what was the reasoning behind the term? I would have naturally guessed that it meant people born after 2000, but these people were born in some indeterminate time span before the millennium.  Does it signify people who were high school age when the millennium turned or something like that? We should get the etymology behind the term 'millennial' in a source and add it to the article, either way. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Answer Til Eulenspiegel, That's a great idea. Please see what was added under terminology.172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I also support this move! "Generation Y" is quite dated and has fallen out of use. 202.166.31.191 (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, that is simply not true. Check google news, and you will see plenty of current usage. IMO we jumped the gun a bit on this move, but just can't be bothered to fight the epic fight that would be required to keep it, since most people here seem to have a personal preference for Millennials. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Sources Saying Millennials are between 1984 and either 1999 or 2000
Hey everyone, I added a source saying that the Millennial people have births starting in 1984 and concluding at either 1999 or 2000. Should this source get removed, please contact me with the reason of removal. Angela Maureen (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Angela Maureen. I've removed the text and source as a professor of Christian ministry does not seem to be an expert in generational definitions and cannot support "Many other sources..." -- Neil N  talk to me  16:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't a professor of Christian ministry be an expert in generational definitions? Do you have any idea what professors of Christian ministry are expert in or do you know any? This response seems like a bias against using any source that indicates Christianity in the source, as part of a trend of increased bigotry to get that viewpoint declared illegitimate according to wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Why wouldn't a professor of biology be an expert in generational definitions? Do you have any idea what professors of biology are expert in or do you know any?" To answer your knee-jerk response, I would have the same question about any person who makes a passing remark in one of their columns. Are they speaking as a recognized expert in the field (or have they studied the subject) or as a layperson? -- Neil N  talk to me  17:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about professors of biology, and answering with another question is not really an answer. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The quote gives you an indication of how your query could apply to any profession - why highlight professors of Christian ministry? If the source was an astronomer and I pointed that out, would you come on here writing about increased bigotry against astronomers?  -- Neil N   talk to me  17:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, we are talking about Christian ministers, not astronomers. Drawing any number of false analogies doesn't help much. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So Christian ministers automatically have expertise in this area? Please expand! -- Neil N  talk to me  17:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Members of profession A are concerned with all generations and work with them. Therefore they may be expected to have a viewpoint on how they ought to be categorized. However, I liken them to members of profession B, who would not be expected to know anything about categorizing generations.  Now that I have likened profession A to profession B, we may as well go ahead and assume therefore that members of profession A are no more likely than members of profession B to know anything about it."  Nope, that's a bogus analogy.  You may as well not liken profession A to profession B, because the analogy doesn't hold up. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * An ER doctor works with all generations. Doesn't mean we treat all of them as reliable sources for this topic. -- Neil N  talk to me  18:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Have any of them published any opinions on how generations ought to be categorized, or is this another attempt at the trusted old "analogy" strategem? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to show (without resorting to insinuations of bias or bigotry) the one sentence in the article written by Macintosh is a reliable source for, "Many other sources..." -- Neil N  talk to me  21:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the info and wouldn't have worded it like that, but would have attributed it more specifically to the source; presumably the contributor who did add it had other additional sources in mind for considering a younger generation to start with 2000 births. However it is clearly a reliable source for its own opinion, per WP:RS. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The question that remains is why does that source matter? Is this person an expert?  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if any particular field can claim to be the sole "experts" on when generations are considered to begin and end, but there's no reason why this cited and sourced opinion should be irrelevant to the topic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Terminology section has references from sources from a variety of fields - all with some claim to actually studying the subject as opposed to tossing in one sentence in a column. We don't haphazardly add all published opinions. -- Neil N  talk to me  04:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well so far there seems to be not enough consensus for it so I won't press the point as long as that remains the case. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Page Name --- "Gen Y" or "Millennials"?
GENERATION Y END IN 1991 OR 1992 THE GENERATION Z BORN IN 1993 OR 1994 , I see that User:Media67 has been slowly changing the terminology used in the article. Although the article is presently called "Generation Y", it now uses "Millennials" throughout the body. I don't think that is ideal... We should settle on a title and stick to it, either Generation Y or Millennial. Last time I checked both expressions are still in wide usage in the media and no consensus about the name had yet been established. If someone wants to present the case for "Millennials" please do so. Otherwise we should use "Generation Y" throughout the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What title do you propose to settle on? Here's prior discussion (below) from other editors on the same subject:


 * "Millennials speaks more to the group and the era in which we grew up. Like other generational titles, it's a unique name. Gen Y implies a lot of similarities with Gen X, which there isn't really.


 * Finally, most articles in recent papers and magazines use Millennials these days.


 * I couldn't agree more. The "Generation Y" usage is dated. "Millennials" (or "Millennial Generation") is the standard in the media and among demographers now.220.255.20.13 (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:RealBerserker talk) 22:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Gen Y defines a group distinct from Millennials, although Gen Y is increasingly being squeezed out by a focus on those who are in the 16-20 demographic that advertisers and coolhunters are always chasing. I would define the GenY transition from 1979-1983, with some rural areas being on the latter end of trends. I'd mark the beginning of Millennial's demographic with birth years between 1991 & 1995. Gen X were "latchkey" children due to a shift in the job market that brought took parents out of the home, while Gen Y faced a rebound of "helicopter parents". IMO, the major distinction between GenY & Millenials is the widespread adoption of the internet.

Media67 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As usual, it isn't really "up to us" what it should be called. Rather we should represent fairly what it is called in RS. I personally don't think that it is yet clear that "Millennials" has replaced "Generation Y" in popular usage. See for example:, , , , . Those are all very recent articles in the popular press. There are hundreds more like them. Considering the policy on article title changes : WP:TITLECHANGES it says "if an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." So my instinct is to not change it at this time. However, as I said I'm open to being convinced. Millennials is clearly a very popular alternative name, and if it could somehow be demonstrated that it is more accepted by sources of higher quality, then I would certainly be open to it. I think we should be quite careful however, to reflect actual reality, and not our views of reality, especially considering wikipedia's undoubted influence. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's pretty funny. Every example you've chosen (above) as proof of widespread use of "Gen Y" also uses the term "Millennials" in the text of the article (except for the auto news blog -- which isn't a great source anyway).  This is probably common --- the interchangeability of the two terms in current news articles.  So they might say "Gen Y' in the title but use Millennials in the text.  The reverse probably is less true.

-- "See for example:, , , , . Media67 (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it proves that Generation Y is still widely used, even if people don't distinguish it much from Millennials. I'm not really trying to prove that Generation Y is overwhelmingly preferred. Just that it is still in wide current usage. The above is not meant to be a scientific study of any kind, just the first links I found on google. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You will most likely find that when Gen Y is used in the title of the news article then "Millennials" will also be used in the text. BUT the reverse will not happen that much.Media67 (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe. But that's speculation. What might be more relevant would be peer reviewed journals and high quality books. If a clear majority of them, internationally, are using one or the other, that would be sufficient for me to accept the title. Obviously we can't do a scientific study, but if we could somehow find fairly broad information about that, it would satisfy me... Peregrine981 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Its an interesting question for sure. One correction about the Huffington Post article. It doesn't use "Millennials" in the text -- but the overall site (on that same page) uses the "tag" "Millennial" to idetifty other articles about them.Media67 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As lovely as this duscussion was, how do we proceed from here? Right now the article name is at odds with the terminology used in the article. Unless someone presents a plausible case that Millennials has become the new standard, we should switch back to generation Y. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The article starts with "Generation Y, also known as the Millennial Generation". So its okay to use both terms, Gen Y or Millennials, throughout the article.Media67 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really agree. Simply from a stylistic point of view I think it is best to stick to one or the other. But on the other hand, I don't want to spend any energy on this, so don't worry about it. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's why I agree with the other editors on this page about the preferred name (above quotes).Media67 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Which other editors? Are you talking about a name change, or making the usage consistent? I've already said I'm not against a name change, but only if it can be demonstrated that it is clearly the majority name and not just personal conjecture. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The other editors offering their opinion about the page name change to Millennials (above) -- although I dont know if they edited the Gen Y/Millennial page or not. What criteria is used to determine "the majority name" of this page in your opinion?Media67 (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We discussed above what the criteria would be. Some sort of relatively reliable quantitative survey of real reliable sources recently published. Clearly there won't be a "scientific" way of doing this, but some good faith effort to establish their relative weights should be taken into account. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a millennial and I have never heard the term Generation Y outside of this article. Neither for that matter has my father, who is pre-boomer. I suspect that it is merely popular among GenXers for the hopefully obvious reason that it refers to them and who happen to comprise a large portion of the media. Now, the above suggestion for a review of media and literature will probably be slow to come about because it is, if possible, statistically nightmarish. I did try a feasible alternative, though, and found that, while "millennial generation" lags behind "generation Y" on Google Trends, "millennials" has very recently begun to outpace it (and furthermore "generation Y" has usually trended with "generation X"). I suppose this is somewhat surprising to me given that I have heard "millennial generation" and "millennials" in places from last night's Colbert Report to Infinite Jest, which was published when I was five. As far as I can tell, Perhaps you should still use Generation Y, since the media and those who write books use it. But that may soon change, since as far as I can tell, Generation Y is not used by us and does not describe us, and eventually the media and those who write books will be us. Nikko2013 (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice commentary, Nikko2013. I don't think any generation gets to name itself. I'm a Gen-X'er, and I never thought "Generation X" was a very good name. It wasn't used by us and doesn't really describe much of anything. But it's the name that stuck. I expect the same will be true for your generation as well. Personally, I think "Millennial" is the right name, and would vote for such a page renaming. But maybe the trend has yet to become manifest. SeanAhern (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your research. Would it be possible to provide a link? While not conclusive, it could be interesting evidence. If we are speaking anecdotally, I have always thought "Gen Y" was a pretty stupid name, used because no one could think of anything better. But it is still quite widely used, so I think it is, as you suggest, premature to change the name of this article. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In every news articles I read in the past month about this generation, I see the term Millennials, however I saw your links to older Gen Y articles. Also searching Google+ and Twitter, and the term Millennial comes up much more frequently vs Gen Y. Per WP:Weight, I propose that the article name be swapped to "Millennials", since that is the majority view in those three areas, but the minority view of using Gen Y needs to be reflected as well, as is on the first line. We should get consensus first, which you seem to be a hold-out.Frmorrison (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Could the article possibly explain why the name "Millennials" or where it came from? I don't understand what the context of this word is. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article says where the term comes from, here is part of it, "....link to the millennial year 2000". Another reason is this generation "comes to age" starting around the year 2000 when the first of them graduates high school. Frmorrison (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalizing the sources I added years ago
I noticed someone went in and changed the dates in the paragraph I added years ago (with researched sources). They used my sources - the research study and the Australian Bureau of Statistics - to change the start date to 1983, which is wrong. The research study by Mark McCrindle titled: Superannuation and the Under 40s: Summary Report: The Attitudes and Views of Generation X conducted and published on July 18, 2005. In the table, it clearly states Generation X birth dates between 1965 and 1981 (Ages 24-40) and Generation Y as 1982 to 2000 (Ages 5-23). Do the math. I have a copy of the study myself and Mark McCrindle uses the same date ranges in his studies. Please do NOT change these dates as they are backed up by sources. I am checking to see if dates have been changed in other sections (where my sources were added). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone also vandalized the dates to the sources in the Canada section I added. I changed them back. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on your edits weren't you arguing over the year 1981 vs. 1982 (in these generational articles) alot back then. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CreativeSoul7981 I need to look for the examples of those disputes in the archives. Please stop POV pushing.  Thank you. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

copyvio
was marked for tone, is copyvio; whoever: you wanna put it in, use your own words.

A December 2011 poll showed that Socialism has more fans than opponents among the 18-29 crowd. Forty-nine percent of people in that age bracket say they have a positive view of socialism; only 43 percent say they have a negative view.

And while those numbers aren't very far apart, it's noteworthy that they were reversed just 20 months ago, when Pew conducted a similar poll. In that survey, published May 2010, 43 percent of people age 18-29 said they had a positive view of socialism, and 49 percent said their opinion was negative.

It's not clear why young people have evidently begun to change their thinking on socialism. In the past several years, the poor economy has had any number of effects on young adults—keeping them at home with their parents, making it difficult for them to get jobs, and likely depressing their earning potential for years to come—that might have dampened enthusiasm for the free market among this crowd.

174.19.174.16 (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Pew survey in news
Possibly great source for this article is NBC News analysis of a Pew survey of Millenials. FYI.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 61-1099lm added interesting info here but it's way, way too detailed and U.S.-centric for a general article. Perhaps create a new American Millennials article? -- Neil N  talk to me  15:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Political Views
I would like to challenge these statements:

A "Born during or shortly after the Thatcher era, they are less supportive of the economic safety net, the National Health Service, welfare and financial support for the elderly than older generations, and are more likely to support same-sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana."

B "The Economist parallels this with Millennials in the United States, whose attitudes are more supportive of social liberal policies and same-sex marriage relative to other demographics, though less supportive of abortion than their elders."

The source article explicitly mentions that "59% of Americans aged 18 to 29 thought that 'government should do more to solve problems'." By including statement A but excluding the American Millennials' opposing views in statement B, these phrases characterise Millennials as being generally anti-government.

The article also says that UK millennials are "unusual internationally," so I question the value of the first statement in general. If it's "unusual" for Millennials globally, why is it being used to represent their politics on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeylettuce (talk • contribs) 23:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is wikipedia following fad nomenclature ?
The term "millennials" was essentially unhead of pre-2011 and Generation Y has for the last 30 something year been the term that sociologists used for the cohort of people following Generation X. Let not turn this resource into a pop culture reference book, because it's all the sudden popular to use some new term.

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=millennials%2C%20%22generation%20y%22&cmpt=q

Google scholar has twice as many papers using the term Generation Y compared the Millennials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.228.62.98 (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Read through the talk page archives to get a sense of how we arrived at this name. Also this graph uses news articles (reliable sources). -- Neil N  talk to me  05:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Echo Boomers
"Millennials are sometimes also called Echo Boomers,[9] referring to the generation's size relative to the Baby Boomer generation,[10] and due to the significant increase in birth rates during the 1980s and into the 1990s."

This doesn't ring true; aren't they called "echo boomers" because they are the children of the boomers and hence, like an echo of the signal that slowly broadens and reduces in amplitude with each cycle / generation?

Also, there is no logical sense in saying that "echo" refers to the large size of that generation, given that an echo is much quieter than the original sound. Calling it Echo Boomer implies that it is a much smaller generation, but then the sentence says that it resulted from an increase in birthrates.

Also, the article has the phrase "G.I. generation", which is not a widely-known term, i.e. mostly unknown outside the US; I've never heard it, amd I don't know what it means.77Mike77 (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding term "ageism" to "See also" section
As I stated in my edit summary, the content of ageism seems to bear only a tenuous connection to the specific topic of this article. -- Neil N  talk to me  23:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's follow the Wikipedia guideline which I will post when I get a chance to look at it.172.250.31.151 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking at both articles before commenting further ... for now, here's the link: MOS:SEEALSO
 * The guideline states that the links "do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose ... is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". However, the same section also states that links included in the section are "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." and that links added to the "section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibility of Millennials Having "Silent Generation" Parents
The article mentions early on that the phrase "Generation Y" was first used in a 1993 article that split youth into three groups: Gen Y were the future teens, then-current teenagers were an unnamed crowd (I call us "XY"), and the 20somethings were Generation X. Later on, the WP article claims that the oldest of the Gen Y crowd would have "Silent Generation" parents -- but that numerically doesn't work: Gen Y supposedly stops at 1980 at the earliest, yet the overwhelming majority of parents of the unnamed late-70s birth group were Baby Boomers (I've met *one* person with Silent G parents, and she was born in 77 after 5-6 siblings). (I've seen statistics on it before, but unfortunately I don't recall where.)   —xyzzy 07:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The above information from xyzzy isn't correct. Per the Wikipedia article for the Silent Generation, these people were born during the Great Depression and World War II.  So, a person born in 1945 (the end of WWII) would be part of the "Silent Generation."  If that person had a child in 1980 (the beginning of the Millennials), they would be 35 years old at the time.  Plenty of people have children when they're in their mid 30s, thus making it accurate that the youngest Silent Generation members are the parents of some of the older Millennials.   —Heeerrresjonny (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ref candidates


67.100.127.2 (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the rest of them that were removed from "External Links". There doesn't seem to be a need to list endless articles about the Millennials under "external links". Anyone can just use Google news for that.


 * Millennials hit 30: It's the economy, not us (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/millennials-hit-30-its-economy-not-us-2D11981954). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Millennials hit 30: It's the economy, not us (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/millennials-hit-30-its-economy-not-us-2D11981954). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Millennials hit 30: It's the economy, not us (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/millennials-hit-30-its-economy-not-us-2D11981954). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Millennials hit 30: It's the economy, not us (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/millennials-hit-30-its-economy-not-us-2D11981954). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Millennials hit 30: It's the economy, not us (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/millennials-hit-30-its-economy-not-us-2D11981954). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Millennials hit 30: It's the economy, not us (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/millennials-hit-30-its-economy-not-us-2D11981954). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Millennials hit 30: It's the economy, not us (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/millennials-hit-30-its-economy-not-us-2D11981954). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Millennials hit 30: It's the economy, not us (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/millennials-hit-30-its-economy-not-us-2D11981954). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Millennials hit 30: It's the economy, not us (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/millennials-hit-30-its-economy-not-us-2D11981954). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Millennials hit 30: It's the economy, not us (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/millennials-hit-30-its-economy-not-us-2D11981954). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding Gen Z to Introduction
I propose that a link to the article on Generation Z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z) should be added to the Introductory paragraph. Generation Z is defined as those born from 1990 to the early 2000s, further distinguishing this cohort from Generation Y, those born in the late 70s or early 80s until the early 90s (see each respective page). 24.141.63.220 (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Paul


 * Thank you for your contribution. The approximate birth dates for Millennials are discussed in great detail in the "terminology" section of the Millennials page, with many good sources. Why is there a need for a link to the Gen Z page in the introduction -- that would be confusing. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Millennials start in the late 70s
First, in response to Xyzzyavatar, I was born in 1978 with one Silent Generation parent and one Greatest Generation parent (born in 1920).

I have found a site dedicated to marketing and employment according to generation that places the Millennials from (1977-1998):

PDF Breakdown by Generation - https://multco.us/file/14298/download

Their "Citations" page - http://www.thelearningcafe.net/newsstand/citations/

As someone who had a computer at 5, read Family Computing and Enter magazines then, had a computer class in first grade, I see many more Millennial ideals in those born in the late 70s than even the mid 70s. Herb Riede (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article covers the range of possibles of when Millennials start and stop and since people will likely never agree, we as article writers cannot decide the start. Frmorrison (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed Sentence
I removed this one line from a section in the Gen Y page. It claimed that Millennials were sometimes referred to as the MTV Generation because of MTV's influence on the millennials.

This is unsupported. MTV dominated the 1980's, but has largely become just another channel since then. The oldest millennials were in high school in the late 1990's, and therefore were not all that influenced by MTV. Furthermore, there is scant evidence to support this. Of the three sources, two of them described Gen Xers, not millennials. The one that did use the term MTV generation to describe what appeared to be millennials (it was not clear who it was referring as the MTV generation) appears to either be a misinterpretation of what the author was stating or a single usage that is an outlier. No one else refers to millennials as the "MTV Generation."

Like members of Generation X, who were heavily influenced by MTV, early members of Generation Y are also sometimes called the MTV Generation.

MTV was still huge in the late 1990s. Both Generation X and Millennials have been called the "MTV Generation." Mister Tog (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * MTV was losing its influence in the late 90s and it only regained its influence in the late 2000s. Millennials are not normally called the MTV Generation, however if you find a source perhaps the article can be changed. Frmorrison (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead Problems
Hi,

There are at-least two problems in the lead section of this article:-

1) It is too short. It does not summarize the article. It only contains two sentences. The lead should be a concise summary of the article.

2) The following sentence is a vague-attribution:-


 * ... Researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s

This sentence should be reworded to clearly explain who is saying that. Claiming that "researchers and commentators" say that is too vague. The sentence should clearly state who says that, and it must be supported with verifiable references. Wikipedia must contain statements of fact, not opinion. Therefore, if a claim cannot be substantiated with valid references, then it must be removed from the article.

I thank you for your understanding,

--Hrbm14 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. If you think the first two sentences are not a good summary, what is it missing? Perhaps traits could be added, but with the generation so new it is hard to pin that down.

2. The first section clearly states whom have decided the dates. Wikipedia allows the opening section to ignore listing references as long as they are in the body of the article. There are no opinionated statements in the first sentence, it only has facts. Frmorrison (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Firstly, thank you for your response. The bold text were the questions asked by Frmorrison, which I have tried to answer.

If you think the first two sentences are not a good summary, what is it missing?

Please see this article to get an idea of the things you need to include. The following is from that article.


 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[1] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

'''The first section clearly states whom have decided the dates. Wikipedia allows the opening section to ignore listing references as long as they are in the body of the article.'''


 * Are you sure? Please see quote below from Manual of Style: Lead section.


 * The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.

I thank you for your understanding,

--Hrbm14 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with all of your points. Also, the IP editor this morning also agrees with me, so there is some consensus that you are mistaken. Frmorrison (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk)

Adding a word to a direct quote
The question is: Can Wikipedia editors add a word using parenthesis (into a direct quote) if the new word means the exact same thing (or helps clarify a quoted word). Under the Millennials terminology section see the quote "In 2012, Ad Age "threw in the towel by conceding that Millennials is a better name than Gen Y".

The proposed word to add into the quote is "name" after "placeholder" because it clarifies that we are not talking about a placeholder that means any of the following things:

1) One who holds an office or place, especially as a deputy, proxy, or appointed government official.

2) In a mathematical or logical expression, a symbol that may be replaced by the name of any element of a set.

3) In the decimal form of a number, a digit that is not significant.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.225.10 (talk)


 * There's absolutely no need to "clarify" the quote as anyone can understand the context. --Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That may be the case (for you) but you can't preclude an editor from doing so according to Wikipedia guidelines.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONSENSUS. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS does NOT trump policy.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is policy. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no need to add the word, it seems pretty clear to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need for clarification. 104.173.225.10 is mistaken with this addition. Are we really arguing this? Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * To justify clarification in a quote like this, we'd have to show both that it was unclear before and that it was made clearer by the clarification. I can't see that this addition meets either. It's just not needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your creative argument Andy Dingley but as you know we need the guideline (not what you wish it to be). Where is the policy you're referring to? And the quote is a bit unclear because the word "placeholder" is not defined in the quote. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh god, I thought you sounded familiar. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Andy Dingley, where is the policy you're referring to? The quote is a bit unclear because the word "placeholder" is not defined in the quote.  104.173.225.10 (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia "must involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns.

Here is a direct quote from WP:CONSENSUS

"Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines".104.173.225.10 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree with everyone else that there is no serious ambiguity in the quote, the answer to your original question is no, never. You may not misrepresent a quote by changing it, and thus foisting on readers an unfaithful reproduction of what someone actually said. You might (if it was warranted, i.e., not the situation here) clarify what a word in a quote meant by adding a footnote providing further information.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok thank you. However, using parenthesis in journalism "indicates that the material inside the parenthesis has been added by the writer". See https://books.google.com/books?id=BN1S9PwMZQAC&pg=PT305&dq=parentheses+in+journalism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=haLiVJeZIo6pogTgpYDIAg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=parentheses%20in%20journalism&f=false


 * and, this source says to "use parenthesis in a DIRECT QUOTE to impart words which are NOT the speakers". See https://books.google.com/books?id=41yv2iSBDpMC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=parentheses+in+journalism&source=bl&ots=ye8A_R0F_p&sig=dM2X1faxh7qB29bF4ZsCf0BLong&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KKLiVNLvLcPZoATI3YIY&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=parentheses%20in%20journalism&f=false
 * That is incorrect (Yes I looked at your two sources but they are wrong and outre, do a search using <"never parentheses" brackets direct quotes> and you'll see. Brackets ([]) may be used to impart insertions, never parentheses, but they should really only be used to indicate things like changes to pronouns because of the way the quote is being and to clarify missing information when there's nothing missing here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The latest edition of the above source is 2009 (hardly "outre"). I've given you a link to a textbook written by two distinguished authors in the field of journalism -- in that source it says "using parenthesis in journalism indicates that the material inside the parenthesis has been added by the writer".  In addition, the source says that parenthesis "can ALSO be used to add additional information to make the quote more complete".  The source says nothing about your argument that it's only allowed when "changing a pronoun" -- for ex. "he (Fuhgettaboutit) edited Wikipedia".


 * Where is your link to your source? Please post it. Otherwise, it appears that I have the right to use parenthesis in this way, within reason, on the Millennials page.104.173.225.10 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm curious why we are still entertaining this idea, we have one editor who wants to do this and a number of others who don't. Let's move on.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Because consensus on Wikipedia is Decision-making involving an effort to incorporate ALL editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" -- not just an opinion of a small group of regular users.104.173.225.10 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is already a very clear consensus here; your wishes are not part of it. The consensus is that no parenthetical clarification is needed in this case. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since consensus is clearly against you, if you change the article again incorrectly you may be blocked from editing. Please focus your efforts on a different matter. Frmorrison (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The next step is to bring it up on an admin board. That is the process as you know.  Whether or not it's a good use of editors time is another question. Thank you all for your contributions.  I think we at least answered some important questions today. Cheers! 104.173.225.10 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What "admin board" opines on content? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Is your question rhetorical? Look it up. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well my question is not, where is this admin board that decides on content, can you provide a link? Thank you.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said there was an admin board that decides on content. But there are a few who will hear a dispute over the question does consensus trump an editor's right to edit the site if his/her edits are within Wikipedia's policy? Again, consensus on Wikipedia is Decision-making involving an effort to incorporate ALL editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" So far this little discussion has not accomplished that.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice the word "effort"? And because Wikipedians in general are not idiots, we have the sensible: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @104.173.225.10 I think you are either trolling us, or are being willfully obtuse. Sorry, just the way I see it. I only see these two possibilities because you write with a degree of intelligence that makes me discount the possibility that you could really misunderstand the concept of consensus and the actual consensus here so profoundly. The strange actions at my talk page and your recent post there, of course, did not help my impression--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Fuhghettaboutit YOU however, never answered the following question: The latest edition of the above source is 2009 (hardly "outre"). I've given you a link to a textbook written by two distinguished authors in the field of journalism -- in that source it says "using parenthesis in journalism indicates that the material inside the parenthesis has been added by the writer".  In addition, the source says that parenthesis "can ALSO be used to add additional information to make the quote more complete".  The source says nothing about your argument -- that it's only allowed when "changing a pronoun" -- for ex. "he (Fuhgettaboutit) edited Wikipedia".  Where is your link to the source?  Thank you. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not believe you are for real and so I will waste little more time on this. You can perform the search I explicitly pointed you to, which will find multiple reliable sources stating directly that you never use parentheses for this, or not, but it's all beside the point distraction. I now take it you are the same person who wasred everyones' time with Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive816, and who trolled me with this nonsense (both IP's geolocate to Los Angeles).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both IPs geolocate to Los Angeles -- that's ridiculous that you would even say that. I'm not going to search the web to prove YOUR argument -- why would anyone do that?104.173.225.10 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Cultural identify criticism
In the Cultural Identify section, the book Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation is used to provide evidence about Millennials. The problem with that source is that it was written in 2000 and was a forecast of what the author thought Millennials would be like. That's clear in the earlier usage of the book. However, the reference in this section appears to not be a forecast but an observation. Additionally, the footnote reference doesn't include the date of publication of the book, which would at least provide a (small) clue that it's not an observation. Can this sentence be deleted without creating an edit war? --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How about you write the revised sentences here, and people can agree and disagree with what you are writing. --Frmorrison (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Millennials are between the Years 1984 and 2000
There is evidence Millennials (or the Generation Y) are born between 1984 and 2000. How could I gather evidence of that? What proper sources can prove Millennials were born between 1984 and 2000? Can somebody please help me? Angela Maureen (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The article already gives a range of birth dates, with many reliable sources, that cover the dates you have mentioned.104.173.225.10 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Angela Maureen (User:September 1988) has since added "there are some information sources saying the Millennials are born 1984 or later until the early 2000s" to the article twice, once with no sources and once sourced to comedy blog CBC Punchline and a Southern Baptist Convention newsletter. The fact that simple Googling can return all sorts of "information sources" that use particular years (I can find results that support everything from 1979 to 1989 as a start year) doesn't mean we should catalogue them all.
 * The Terminology section does read a little like an accretion of "this doesn't include my preferred definition, let me Google up a source" edits towards the end. A single source that discusses the disputed date range would be more useful here. --McGeddon (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Page move
I propose moving this page from Millennials to Millennial Generation as I believe that "Millennial" refers to a person from that generation, not the generation itself. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you read Talk:Millennials/Archive_8? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox data
The years given in the infobox are not a split, rather they are showing the range reported by various sources. Removing the entire infobox to dispute the contents of two elements within it is disruptive. Discuss.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Listing exact years for Millennials' start and end dates is incorrect because historians have not picked those dates yet. Also, the image used must come from a 3rd party that proves those people belong in this group. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do we need this info there? The article already states the range of birth years.  This is confusing AND it's actually incorrect information that doesn't match the article lede. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) The reported ranges are listed as such, and the extreme ends of those ranges are reported. That is appropriate for historical context.  It is not "splitting" into separate groups. I have removed the disputed image, as I agree that it needs to be better sourced.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Splitting the group into two segments (in the info box) doesn't help. The birth date info. is very confusing the way you're proposing it there. Why add a redundancy of information and another layer to what the lede already says making it harder for people to understand? The lede was debated over a long period of time (see the talk pages).


 * In addition there is already a "notable person" segment in the body of the article now. But I don't think Wikipedia wants lists of people on it's pages unless you can show why they're relevant to the page and those people have to be sourced too. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition of the infobox. The year info adds nothing and the sources for "notable" members do not mention anything about the Millennial generation. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your disagreement. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Millennials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090714164248/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/07/10/bc-unemployment-youth.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/07/10/bc-unemployment-youth.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 23:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Gibberish Sentence on multi-ethnicity
"Since the 2000 U.S. Census, which allowed people to select more than one racial group, "Millennials" in abundance have asserted the ideal that all their heritages should be respected, counted, and acknowledged.[82][83]" <-- That sentence means nothing. Grammatically, just has no meaning. Maybe the footnotes give a hint as to what the author intended to say, but "in 2000, census takers were allowed to select more than one race, therefore millennials believe that all their heritages should be equally respected" is not a logical path. (For that matter, that whole section is just self-praise for millennials, stuff that will probably change as the millennials grow up...) --Mrcolj (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Lack of empathy
I've read a lot of articles saying that Millennials "lack empathy" but I don't know how accurate that information is. I don't consider them reliable sources. All of these articles say that there have been studies of a decrease in empathy since 1980. It appears that Millennials, for the most part, do have a lack of empathy compared to earlier generations. But I don't know why that would be.--Kevjgav (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

StatsCan
An IP user has a couple of times removed a reference from Stats Canada. They seem a good source, let's discuss this here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They've cut it twice for being about Generation Z, but the sentence plainly talks about a "last year of birth for Generation Y". Seems fine to include this to give the article another non-US perspective. --McGeddon (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The Millennials article isn't only about what Stats Canada calls the "children of the Baby Boomers" -- the Millennials article is about a cohort of people who are born within a 20 year time span -- who may have parents from the Boomers, Silents or Gen Xers. The Stats Canada source does not mention Millennials they call them Gen Y -- so the author is way behind the times -- check Google nobody calls them Gen Y anymore.  The fact you want to add is already listed on the Gen Z page.  The Stats Canada source does not define generations (that's not what they do) they count the population.


 * If fact here's exactly what they say -- Statistics Canada has said that "people born since 1993 have sometimes been designated as Generation Z or the Internet generation since they were born after the invention of the Internet". 2606:6000:610A:9000:C94D:2A22:61F7:459A (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The source being cited doesn't include that quote, and actually says "According to the Pew Research Center in the United States, the last Gen Y was born in 1997, while Statistics Canada says Gen Z starts with people born in 1993." - using a less popular term for the generation is not a reason to throw it out. --McGeddon (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The Stats Canada source is defining a generation by birth rates not by other factors (that we included on the Millennials) page like people who have shared a particular event together during a particular time span (as described in the introduction). See the definition of cohort -- the quote from the lede is: Millennials "are the demographic cohort following Generation X".  Stats Canada is using birth rates to narrowly define "Gen Y'.  That is NOT how we define it here.  Just because a source says it one way doesn't merit inclusion.  As I mentioned earlier, Stats Canada is not in the business of defining a cultural generation.  Thank you. 104.173.247.94 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually PEW said this: "In 2014, the Pew Research Center, an American think tank organization, defined "adult Millennials" as those who are 18 to 33 years old, born 1981–1996.[24] And according to them, the youngest Millennials are still "in their teens" with "no chronological end point set for them yet" So here they are not saying 1997 is the "last birth" year at all.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610A:9000:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at the September 2015 Pew source being used in the paragraph about Pew terminology, yes, it looks like they're explicitly only talking about adult millennials, and 1997 would be the cap for people who are 18 this year. I've removed the 1997 detail. --McGeddon (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Dale Carnegie Training Center
Love Dale Carnegie but this new source doesn't really meet the criteria of a reliable source. Dale Carnegie Training "serves the business community worldwide" according to their website and "The franchisees around the world use their training and consulting services with companies of all sizes in all business segments". Probably should be removed. 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is fine.  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on what policy is it "fine"? I also want to ask you if you are reflexively reverting my edits? Are you? Thank you.2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Is that what you accuse anyone who reverts you of? Under what policy is it not fine? LjL (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is not "fine" according to Wikipedia policy. It should be academic or journalistic or an expert in the field and NOT from a business consultant --- come on you know this right?  Yet the reverting editor reverted it based on "consensus" -- which was just two posts -- one from him/her and one from me.  See the double standard? There was no consensus and no time given for others to reply.  That is not consensus as the editor claimed on the edit summary.  It should be removed. 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, you are turning things around. The claim was that you had no consensus to remove the statement; you did it boldly, but you were reverted; it happens. Since you were the only one pushing for it, now it's on you to show that the source is not "fine". Just claiming it won't do it. Why is it not fine? Explain, elaborate (not all sources need to be academic or journalistic, but that could be a good starter's objection), and if people aren't convinced, go to the noticeboard. LjL (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * LjL I notice that you've never apparently edited this talk page before. Are you following my posts and presenting an argument against my edits for no apparent reason or are you truly interested in this page?2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I see you can't help asking the same question to everyone who contests your edits. (Why don't you comment on content?) Have you considered that maybe people are reverting and contesting you because your edits (and your ways, such as edit warring) are problematic? I am truly interested in all pages on Wikipedia making up a good encyclopedia, and Wikipedia itself being a nice place to edit on. LjL (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What brought you to this page and this particular discussion? 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content and not on editors. Thanks.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The original editor inserted it; you disagreed, came to the talk page, and got no support - but you removed it anyway. I restored it.  Two-thirds (2/3) of the contributors involved agreed it belongs. The lone dissenting voice has a bad case of WP:IDHT.  Dale Carnegie teaching manuals and class summaries are perfectly fine.  They are a SCHOOL that teaches on TOPICS of social impact, and this is the criteria they used for the class. Might as well question a Yale textbook.  Scr ★ pIron IV 22:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Read the about page they are "franchisees around the world use their training and consulting services with companies of all sizes in all business segments". 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, you mean the part about how they are paid to research and develop training materials for companies that need their services? Yeah, about that - if they were teaching "wrong stuff" they wouldn't last long. Your "argument" is an argument in favor.  Yes, they develop lesson plans and materials, and are paid for it.  Just like every College and university in the nation.  Scr ★ pIron IV 22:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To quote from the source 'Over the course of two years, Dale Carnegie Training and MSW Research...' I did a little googling and found. They seem to be a legit market research company. Seems to me the source is fine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you point out where they are "experts" in the area of defining generational boundaries please? If not, then it doesn't meet the criteria of a quality source 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Market researchers do market research (I guess that is obvious). They understand demographics.  Consensus is against you, I suggest you move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a business -- NOT a University. See their "clients page" http://www.dalecarnegie.com/about-us/clients/ Could you point out where they are "experts" in the area of defining generational boundaries please? If not, then it doesn't meet the criteria of a quality source and it should be removed immediately. 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Defining generational boundaries" is obviously not an "area". If you claim otherwise, then please link to an educational institution of any kind that offers a course specifically on "defining generational boundaries". Otherwise, it seems obvious that something much more generic like "demographics" is what applies. LjL (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There are experts such as Strauss and Howe who have written over 10 books on the subject, including a New York Times bestseller. We can't willy nilly include anybody who decides to write a white paper on generations.  This source doesn't meet the criteria and they are in business to make money on consulting.  It's not a University it is by their own words a business "franchise". 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I see you've started a discussing at the RSN. For now, I'll see how that pans out. LjL (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The source is self-published and doesn't qualify. Here's the policy on self-published sources. The policy states self-published sources must be "expert(s) whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610a:9000:8547:5b6e:711:e5e2 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 9 November 2015‎

Lead Problems
There are significant problems with the lead:-

1) Vague Attributions and Generalizations - For example, "Most researchers and commentators...". This needs to be rewritten to clarify who is saying that. Otherwise, it can be challenged. It isn't cited anyway. 2) The lead is too short and does not summarize the article. In other words, a person needs to have a brief understanding of the topic by reading only the lead.

--Hrbm14 (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Lede sentence
The sentence about "broad consensus" is original research. We don't know for sure. There actually might be a broad consensus out there in the media. Without a source for this particular statement it's making a broad statement of fact that isn't supported.64.183.42.42 (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To make that statement we do need a source that states there is no achievable consensus; simply having several sources that reach no consensus and inferring that consensus can't be reached is WP:SYNTH. LjL (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are at least 12 sources that all say something different on dates, and all of them have different backgrounds. How is saying there is no broad consensus by comparing these 12 sources original research? If there were only four sources, I would agree that is an original thought saying no one can agree, but 12 is a lot of differing thoughts. --Frmorrison (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ... no? 12 and 4 are just numbers. There is a clear document at WP:SYNTH that explains that you can only report what sources say, not reach conclusions based on your own inferences from statements made in different sources, nevermind by counting how many sources agree or disagree. It's just not a conclusion you can write on Wikipedia without a source actually reaching it. Note that the claim being made on the article wasn't that "there is no broad consensus", but that "broad consensus is impossible". Which is obviously an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. LjL (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Illustrations?
Are there any good illustrations that could improve this article? Charts specific to this cohort, etc? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot think of a chart that would be suitable. The only picture I think of adding is Strauss and Howe's photos. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, just thought I would ask others to think about possible illustrations. I would think there would be charts with population statistics, demographics, etc., or graphs showing political trends, ideology, etc. I'll keep an eye out. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Proper Nouns on Wikipedia
Person(s), places or things (proper nouns) are capitalized on Wikipedia, correct? 2606:6000:610A:9000:3968:BEB2:7F68:886D (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is correct. So Millennials is always capitalized, since it is a proper noun. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright cool thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:7904:687E:7A58:C172 (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Grammar question
Is the word "for" needed in the lede sentence as follows: There are no precise dates for when the generation starts and ends". Don't think it is.  2606:6000:610A:9000:2148:C4CF:FD5F:E50 (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it is, but before reverting your removal of it, I asked on ##English on freenode, and other people confirmed they thought it was needed. It is a legitimate doubt since there can be a time or date when something happened, but in this case, I think we're trying to convey that sources don't come up with specific dates for when it starts and ends, rather than simply that the generation itself doesn't start and end on some given dates (which seems even more obvious). LjL (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it wouldn't "flow" correctly with out it.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 18:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Heartbreaking
That enough people have decided Y and its subset Cold Y are the same as Millennials... My God. This is a travesty. I was born in early 1983. Millennials are nothing like my peer group. Cold Y suited us close to perfectly. We are not Millennials. This is just wrong... Jersey John (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but your personal experience with your peers is not a sound basis to build an encyclopedia. If you have sources to bring to the table, feel free to do so, otherwise it's just idle chatter. LjL (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You know full well that the very nature of the topic creates the unfortunate reality of there being no solid sources. Jersey John (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC) By the way, there are better ways to say things to people you know. But then, we're not the same generation therefore we were probably taught differently...

The New York City Comptrollers Office quote about birth dates
They're talking about adult Millennials who are working -- not all Millennials. So this is a misquote. Nobody defines a generation by a ten or 11 year span. Even the dictionary says a generation is a 20 to 30 year span.

Look at page 4 of the report (below) it says "Although the term “millennial” has been applied to different age groupings, in this report it refers specifically to people born from 1985 to 1996". And on the same page it says "People born from 1985 to 1996, who were thus 18- to 29-years old as of 2014, are referred to in this report as the “millennial” cohort. That terminology is generally in keeping with colloquial usage, albeit with a meaning somewhat more specific to this report.

So they are talking about adult Millennials who are working -- not the entire group who were born from the early 80s to early 2000s etc.

They need to define it this way because someone under 18 is not their concern for this particular report. They are talking about working age adults from 18 to 29.

See http://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/NYC_Millennials_In_Recession_and_Recovery.PDF

2606:6000:610A:9000:406B:18F1:9858:46CB (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I accepted your revision on the basis of the above. LjL (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)