Talk:Generation Y
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
| /Archive1 |
Contents |
[edit] What's this (US Only) crap in regards to Generation Jones?
Oh... I get it! 1954-1964 only happened in the good ol' US of A. Yanks.... just keep on offending the rest of the world with their self-centred crap. Or should I type, CENTERED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.208.43 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- centred could be mispronounced as cent-red so is demonstrably less efficient and more error-prone than centered
different countries have different names and generations that is all--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Not really. Here in the Philippines and the Asean Region as a whole (formerly known as South-East Asia Region), Generation cut-offs and names are the same as the rest of the world. Even though some will argue there are differences, but if we go deeper and understand and analyze things objectively, we start to see and realize how similar the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western Hemisphere. First video game there? Same year here. High birthrate? Same year here. The list goes on. So I for one believe the "US Only" should be removed or re-worded or be defined more clearly as to "what IS" "US-only". --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 12:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A Conversation from the talk page of %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me)
Thanks I've added another reference justifying the point about Generation Y being labeled as 'Civics' and 'Nation Builders'. It is a common label they are often given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreconomy (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- you provided a really great link there! which is to a well-worded article. but I dont think it really goes in line with the terms "civic" or "federation generation" perhaps between the 2 of us we could come up with a good way to rewrite the statement to reach what it is that you are trying to say. I think if we drop the reference to Federation generation and instead say something to the effect that:
- The generation is sometimes defined as "Civics", characterised as wealth creators and nation builders. They are sometimes described as an "overachieving, overscheduled" generation
- with a single ref that points to the smh article... what do you think about that? shoot back a revision if you think there should be a way to word it better.
- by the way, perhaps we should take this to the article's Talk Page what do you think? %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me)
Thats fine, but I think the quotations from the authors (the "civic minded heros") should stay in there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreconomy (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you feel that the phrase is so important? part of why I question the phrase is because it really is on the edge of being a problem for NPOV. what if a reader were to come along who is critical of the generation and they read that and the entire credibility is shot for them because they see it as oppsing to their point of view? It really is best to abide by WP:NPOV because it adds the best tone possible to articles %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ok, I went ahead and made the edit. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, thats fine, I agree with your change —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreconomy (talk • contribs) 07:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ever revolving time frames!!!
Ok, I understand that the time frame on Gen Y tends to be defined differently by several publications, but something I constantly see on this article is one person changes one of the sets of dates, and another person comes in and either changes it back, or worse only changes part of it and then another person still comes in and edits it to some other set of dates.
What is really bad about this is that the generations time line is not consistent throughout the article. All I am asking is 2 things. If you change one of the sets of date ranges on the article, please either edit them all. If not, please make it clear when editing one of the time frames that it is an alternative view than other dates on the page.
Also, Please give refs on your dates! too many of these dates are being edited per WP:OR. all I am asking is that you please consider that this article is likely to be read by people who are interested in reliable information not opinions. Perhaps if we can clear that one thing up we could also start to improve the article to a point where it is more encyclopedic. In the mean time I am going to tag this article with wikify cleanup and will try to come back and write a properly referenced section about the time frame of births of the generation and how they tend to vary. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The best thing to do would be to mention which sources give which dates. I don't know what the primary sources for the dates are, though... journalists and authors have used various dates, but I don't know where they're drawing their information from.--Father Goose (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- True, which is why I plan to write a new section for the article explaining the variance in reported dates... the same thing could potentially help out other generation articles as well actually :) %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 22:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats a good plan. Right now the dates are 1980-1994, but according to some accounts that even overlaps with Generation Z. We need a section to explain different dates, or how certain Generations can overlap give or take a few years. For instance a child born in 1990 to a mother who was in Generation Jones probably has more in common with Generation Z, who were born to Generation X which was only a few years apart from Generation Jones, Jones was sandwhiched between X'ers and the Boomers. Thats much different than say a child born in 1984 or 85 to a Baby Boomer who is now in their early 60s and nearing retirement.Rumble74
[edit] Please change the Gen Y start date to 1977
This will include ALL members of this generation. No discrepancies.
The youngest members were born in 1994.
There are 3x sub-cohorts/waves to this generation:
1) 1977-1981
2) 1982-1989
3) 1990-1994
Each of these sub-groups share roughly similar life/cultural experiences, and attitudes towards work, technology, politics, religion, etc.
What demarcates the (American) Generation Y from previous and subsequent generations is their coming of age during (b. 1977-86), or their strong memory and capacity to appreciate (b. 1987-94), the transition into the digital/information age. Most members can still appreciate the pre-internet/digital society.
Individuals born after 1995 (when internet became mainstream (i.e. AOL)) are of a different generation because they are (currently) coming of age when digital/internet technology has been firmly established and deeply integrated into society.
jlh629 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree with you 100% and have always heard of the start date as late 70's (with 1977 being the most common) I think that the internet is publishing different information than what I had seen previously. Unfortunately I couldn't find any of the sources that I had read nearly 10 years ago about generation y so I just went with one of the sources that I could find, one that included the majority of what I know it to be. The reason I insist on a reference for this is because this article has constantly been up for debate on 2 major things. The first being the name (which you can see by browsing this talk page) and the second being the date range (which I have seen some argue is as late as the mid 90's). I will do some more searching again later, maybe collect some reference material in part of my user sandbox and will try to find something more reliable than what is currently up there. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 19:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Prepping for Archive
I am prepping this talk page for archiving soon. I am marking old discussions either stale or resolved based on my personal opinions. please review what I have marked above and remove or change tags as you feel fit.
Next sunday August 10 2008 I will be moving all topics with stale or resolved tags into archive 3. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 20:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tomorrow I will be doing this archive. I will be including everything that doesnt have discussion in the last 29 days (the reason it's 29 and not 30 is because there is one topic right there on the edge and I would rather just take care of it tomorrow instead of waiting another day to clean this talk page up. Anyway this will include all discussions on this page from "I have redirected the article Echo_boom_generation here" up with the exception of "What's this (US Only) crap in regards to Generation Jones?" %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- OK this archive has been completed %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Who's Herbig?
This sentence in the intro
Generation Y are primarily the children of Baby boomers, though some are the children of Generation Jones or older members of Generation X .
has a reference to "Herbig et al 1993". There is no other reference to Herbig on the page, so no indication of what (if anything) Herbig wrote that associated Generation Y with the Baby Boomers, Generation Jones, or Generation X. Google doesn't show anything for Herbig except for other references to "Herbig et al 1993" which I'm guessing are because of straight copies of this wikipedia page. If there is no Herbig, the sentence should be removed. Patrickbowman (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I saw that as well and considered removing it myself. I think it would be best just to get rid of it but hesitated and while I try to keep WP:Bold in mind, I tend to resist it rather often. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Familiarize yourself with bold, revert, discuss, if you haven't already. Once you realize that you are allowed to do anything on Wikipedia as long as you accept that anyone else is allowed to disagree and reverse your actions, you'll see that you're free to do pretty much anything. Just be sure to explain your thinking with every edit (in edit summaries, or on talk pages if it's too complex). If you share your reasoning, no one can fault you, even if they disagree with you.--Father Goose (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- I have read that one before but never really took it to heart. I think this article is a good example of how that process could be very valuable. Thanks for pointing it out to me again! %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sexuality
This generation might be one of the most sexual in a long time, why has no one made more note of this in the article? I added a note and some cites. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

