Talk:Millennials/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

RfC about the editing the lead on the Millennials article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made a proposal to edit the lead of the "Millennials" article from saying, "There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years", to "There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s to the mid 1990s as the cohort's birth years, with some extending the end of the cohort up to the early 2000s." Recently there has been new research regarding millennial end dates. Obviously this is not an exact science, but I feel that we need to constantly update the page with the most current consensus and new findings. We are currently having a discussion at the bottom of this talk page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Millennials. Please carefully read the discussion before commenting. Another request I have is to only include reliable, well researched sources from reputable people or organizations, and to cut down WP:UNDUE sources. However editor DynaGirl is claiming that these undue sources are from notable researchers and demographers and that “they have stood the test of time.” She is yet to give proper evidence to back up her claims besides restating the same things she has already said multiple times on different discussions. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Date range in lead is suppose to be a summary of the dates used by notable researchers/demographers in "date and age range definition" section. The current wording of "...mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years" better summarizes these dates. Please see [1]. There are several notable researchers/demographers who use late 1990s or early 2000s so the proposed emphasis on mid-1990s isn't supported. DynaGirl (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Add to clarify: The date range defining section is already limited to dates only from notable demographers/researchers. This has helped tremendously with edit warring on this article because what happens is that POV editors can find enough dates from journalists/newsbloggers to support any specific date in the range which they happen to prefer, so they'd edit war to remove dates which do not fit their preference, adding ones that do. Since there are literally 100s of sources for any date (if you include dates from random non-notable journalists/newsbloggers) this was an easy thing to do, leading to persistent edit warring of lead section regarding dates. Limiting the date section to only dates from notable researchers or demographers has made it more difficult for POV editors to push their POV regarding dates into the article. Hence the above suggestion to remove references from notable researchers/demographers which do not fit their date preference. Perhaps this section could be cut down for ease of reading and to remove redundancy, but it's tricky because POV editors only want to cut out dates which do not fit their particular date preference. In past I've argued specifically for the Pew Research source which the 2 editors above want to exclusively base this article on [2], doing so in the context of arguing against editors who wanted to exclude the mid-1990s dates from the lead, and I was part of the consensus to get the mid-1990s dates added to the lead. Here, I've argued against cutting out the later dates in a similar fashion. In contrast, the 2 editors pushing for this do not have a history of neutrality or impartiality with respect to summarizing all the dates used by notable researchers/demographers for the Millennial cohort. One has been warned for edit warring against multiple editors, here and on Generation Z, for trying to base the lead exclusively on Pew research [3], and the other has history of editing only based on the early dates and appears to be using an IP sock to support theirself in discussion [4], [5]. The "undue" sources they are arguing against include dates from U.S. Census Bureau, Strauss–Howe generational theory, and Merriam-Webster dictionary. DynaGirl (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We already went over these things in the discussion above. You seem to have very selective reading. If I have to repeat the same thing over and over just like you do, I will literally lose my mind. You yourself have done questionable things as well, so baseless accusations are unfair. I am done talking to you and will let other editors decide. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Akhila3151996, you have to admit it seems suspicious. The IP has edited talk page comments signed by your Akhila3151996 account [6] and edit history shows 24.35.65.234 and Akhila3151996 edit the same topics. DynaGirl (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you bother reading my responses in the Talk:Millennials#Editing_Lead_on_"Millennials section (literally above this section), specifically the part where I said the sources in the "Dates and age range definition" section are not reliable or notable with reasons why? And that those sources are not from reliable or notable researchers, except the Pew Research Center source? Because your comment suggests that you did not. It is tedious to have to repeat the same arguments over and over again because non-neutral, biased users choose to the ignore arguments that don't agree with them. I suggest uninvolved editors read the "Talk:Millennials#Editing_Lead_on_%22Millennials" section above since every argument is covered in that section, but if you'd rather I restate my arguments here, let me know. And please don't attack users with "they have edit warred in the past!!!!" and "oh, IP is supporting themselves!!!" That is irrelevant to the discussion and just grasping at straws right now. And per my comment in Talk:Millennials#Editing_Lead_on_"Millennials you are not a neutral editor on this topic, so don't pretend like you are. Someone963852 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone963852, I have read and responded to your comments at length, above and in talk page archives. I disagree with your assertion that dates used by U.S. Census Bureau, Strauss–Howe generational theory, Merriam-Webster dictionary etc etc are not valid. I agree with you that Pew Research is an important and significant source which should be used in the article (and it is), while I disagree that it should be the primary focus and I disagree that it should be the exclusive source for the dates in the lead. Remember Pew Research outright states their dates are not definitive and that they remain open to recalibrating dates. [7]. Similarly, I've argued against prioritizing the dates at the other end of the spectrum. I haven't been pushing for exclusive focus on later range Strauss/Howe dates either, and argued for the current article text which states that the later Strauss/Howe dates are also tentative [8]. I've argued for neutrally presenting all the sources. However, if you look over talk page and edit history, it's clear that you edit and argue based exclusively on the early Pew Research dates.DynaGirl (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I gave my reasons why the sources you mentioned are invalid in the section above, and you disagree without giving any reasons why. And like I stated before multiple times, the Pew source is the only source to actually research the Millennial date ranges and gave reasons why they concluded the date ranges the way they did. If I exclusively used that source for the lead, then it would've read 1996 instead of mid-1990s, which I'm not advocating for. The Pew source should be given the most significance and precedence over outdated sources and what random companies use categorically. But if we're going with random, non-reliable, non-notable sources, most still use mid-1990s as ending years, with some using 2000, but one using early 2000s. The proposed lead is actually giving a lot of lee-way for the early 2000s when only one outdated source from 1991 used it. Someone963852 (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose To state that the researchers "typically" use the mid-1990s as the end-point does not seem to be borne out by the body of the article. A quick count of the sources used in Millennials#Date_and_age_range_definitions has 8 going with the 1994–1996 range, 3 for 1997–1999, and 8 for 2000–2004. To state that researchers "typically" put the cut-off date in the mid-90s seems to be WP:Original research based on the editor's own analysis; to be sure that such an assertion is true would require a literature review of the topic. The current version of the text is more neutral and IMO it is a more accurate reflection of the date range section. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Please see my newest comment at the bottom of the page. Also understand that it is not about the number of sources, it is the reliability of the sources. The mid 90's sources as well as the late 90's and 2000s sources in the article are all guilty of being unreliable because we are giving weight to sources with the date range used for purposes other than conducting research, that are mainly used for survey/categorical purposes. These include the Census reports, news blogs, and company reports. Companies included are not research firms, they are ad agencies, or even consulting/accounting firms (such as Ernst&Young and PWC).-Akhila3151996 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  You have not addressed my main criticism i.e. asserting that sources "typically" favors the mid-90s constitutes original research. This is a classic example of WP:SYNTHESIS: you are aggregating dates from your preferred sources and making an assessment that is not actually contained within any of those sources. As far as I can see none of the sources in use in the article individually support the claim that the mid-90s is "typically" used as the cut-off. That is simply your interpretation of an arbitrary selection of sources. Such a strong claim needs to be explicitly cited. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  You are correct in stating that the sources do not support my explanation. I am also pointing out that sources across the board are unreliable and need to be removed. This is only rated as a C-Class article and part of the reason has to do with WP:UNDUE research and/or WP:Original Research. Many users seem to be inserting their personal POV in the article with weak sources to back them up. I am not attempting to do this, and I am advocating for a major cleanup of the article. I realize that this may take a while and I feel that there are major problems in the article. I am not simply complaining about one thing, and I am looking for compromises so that major improvements could be made. It is quite a nuanced issue. Also please see sources at the bottom which appear to back up the claim I am making, but are not included in the article. I did state below that the mid 90's end range is not my personal belief, this is what I have gathered based on what I have read regarding recent research. I also said at the bottom that if presented with good evidence to the contrary I am open to changing my mind. My end goal is to improve the article to encyclopedic standards. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Akhila3151996, I am with Betty Logan here. What you need are more sources like the New York Times article[9], which says, "Demographers place its beginning anywhere from the early ’90s to the mid-2000s," and, "Marketers and trend forecasters, however, who tend to slice generations into bite-size units, often characterize this group as a roughly 15-year bloc starting around 1996, making them 5 to 19 years old now." (The point here, of course, is that the source is doing the synthesis for us, but I also note that the source supports the current lead.) -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 21:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  I feel that these are two more great articles that illustrate the difference of young millennials/generation z vs. much older millennials.

  1.https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/04/25/who-are-generation/Zd6TMLiRYKgH0xvbLNFh8O/story.html

  2.https://www.bustle.com/articles/127132-what-is-the-post-millennial-generation-called-ranking-the-possibilities-from-mtvs-the-founders-to-gen-z

  One person notes the obvious that someone born in 1982 has nothing culturally in common with a child born in the 2000s. The Pew Research Center is not the only source we should use in the article, but it should be given significant weight. It is also a non-partisan organization and one of the only organizations of its kinds to conduct extensive research on different societal trends.Here is a link here: http://www.pewresearch.org/search/?query=millennials. I am not suggesting to completely take away the 2000s end date from the lead at all as they are still culturally significant. I am simply stating that we need to adjust the previous consensus based on changing societal perceptions as well as new research. If we need to wait more time to change this, I am also fine with that. I am simply asking for a significant counter argument.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comments I found out about this RFC through the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Unless I have made a minor edit here that I have since forgotten about, this is the first time I have had involvement with this article. For now I have three thoughts:
  • To a great extent this seems to be a debate about verifiability and due weight, but most of the links I have seen so far have been indirect (e.g., links to a Wikipedia article), and in any case it is not clear to me to what extent the parties in this conflict are relying on sources not mentioned in the article. So if everyone involved could provide direct links to the sources they feel best support their position, you would be doing me (and, so I imagine, other previously uninvolved editors) a huge favor. Secondary sources and sources that make meta-claims (e.g., "Most demographers say . . ." or "Very few relevant sources claim . . .") would be extremely helpful.
  • DynaGirl, it is laudable that you want to prevent edit wars, but wording the lead in such a way as to avoid edit wars should not take priority over other Wikipedia policies. This brings us back to verifiability and due weight.
  • On the other hand, the proposed lead opens a Pandora's box that I don't think anyone wants. "Some" is a vague term that I suspect many here would find intolerably inclusive. Are all the editors here prepared to update the lead every time there are "some" sources who have a different idea about the range? It would be better to say, ". . . a significant minority extends the end of the cohort up to the early 2000s", but we would need sources that show the claim has weight. Again, meta-claims would be ideal (e.g., sources that explicitly mention something along the lines of a "significant minority"). -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 19:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources not listed in the article which support a mid 90's end range-

1.http://genhq.com/FAQ-info-about-generations/

2.http://www.jeantwenge.com/faq-items/generation-belong-birth-year-cutoffs/

3.https://msp-c.com/blog/december-2017/difference-between-generation-z-and-millennials

4.http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/defining-generations-where-millennials-end-and-post-millennials-begin/ (This is already on the page)

I will insert more if need be. The difference between these sources and other sources is that they are end dates made by notable researchers on the topic and are not simply used for catagorical or survey purposes. If we can find similar sources like this that suggest late 90's or 2000s end dates, I will be open to changing my mind.

Here are secondary sources:

1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFaEPe6T_m4

2.http://www.imediaconnection.com/articles/ported-articles/red-dot-articles/2015/feb/the-major-differences-between-gen-x-millennials-and-plurals/

3.https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/fashion/move-over-millennials-here-comes-generation-z.html

4.https://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-beall/8-key-differences-between_b_12814200.html

It seems that before when there was little research people previously lumped late 90's and 2000s babies with Millennials. However, as they are now approaching young adulthood, :::many people argue that they have developed a distinct identity.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Marie Paradox, thank you for your thoughtful reply. There are actually multiple notable researchers/demographers listed in current "date and age range definition section" [10] which use late 1990s or early 2000s. Betty Logan did a useful tallying of sources above in her vote [11] For summary reading on this talk page, a few of the notable researchers/demographers for the late 1990s and early 2000s dates include U.S. Census Bureau [12], The numerous sources used by Strauss–Howe generational theory (here's one [13]), United States Chamber of Commerce [14] and Merriam-Webster dictionary [15]. I actually agree with Akhila3151996 that the mid-1990s dates are significant and should be in the lead, but I disagree they should be the primary focus, and I disagree that the numerous late 1990s and early 2000s sources should be ignored or glossed over. DynaGirl (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As for your first and third points Marie Paradox, as it stands, the "dates and age range definition” section is basically a mess of trivial, insignificant information on what random businesses and companies use as their date range for purposes other than to study the date ranges. There’s a difference between research-based sources that actually researched the generation and their date ranges and have actual reasons to conclude the date ranges the way they did, versus what random companies and businesses use as their ranges for categorical purposes. The Times Cover Story source literally states in the article "Millennials consist, depending on whom you ask, of people born from 1980 to 2000." That article isn't even focused on researching and defining the Millennial date range; they are just using that for categorical purposes. Same with the Goldman Sachs source, the “Survivor” source, Resolution Foundation to study earnings, SYZYGY to study narcissism, US Pirg to study transportation, US Census to study demographic trends, Asia Business Units to study consumption trends, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce source literally states that “we will use the birth years of 1980 to 1999 here to define the Millennial cohort. Sources, though, are inconsistent, with as many as 21 different birth spans referenced.” Just because so-and-so site or business uses this xxxx-xxxx date range one time in their article to categorize doesn't mean they are reliable or notable enough to be added; adding random sources that aren't even focused on researching the date range to that section clusters it all up with useless trivial information. The Pew Research Center source is the only up-to date and reliable source in that section to study and research the millennial date ranges and give reasons why they chose the dates the way they did. And there is a difference in purpose and substance between using this Pew article for the date ranges http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/defining-generations-where-millennials-end-and-post-millennials-begin/ (aka actual research on the Millennial date ranges and why they chose the dates they did) versus using http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/20/black-millennials-are-more-religious-than-other-millennials/ (categorical, purpose is to study religious trends). Also, there is a line in "Date and age range definitions" stating that "A minority of demographers and researchers start the generation in the mid-to-late 1970s", which has no source and was inserted by a random user a while back. And if they could insert their opinion like that without sources to back it up, other users could also state that a minority uses early 2000s as ending years (which a minority do, similar to the mid-to-late 1970s). If early 2000s get a place in the lead, then why not mid-to-late 1970s? Someone963852 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Per my comments above in the Talk:Millennials#Editing_Lead_on_"Millennials section. The current lead needs to be changed, since it is inaccurate and misleading to say that demographers and researchers "typically" use early 2000s as ending birth years. Only one outdated 1991 source did, that is not "typically". No one equates being born in 2004 (aka 14 year olds) as Millennials. Someone963852 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If the lead actually said typically 2000s are used, and left it at that, I'd agree with you it was problematic, but the lead does not say that. It actually says demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years.DynaGirl (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No one is talking about the 2000s, and the current lead states that demographers and researchers typically use early 2000s as ending birth years (mid-1990s to early 2000s includes early 2000s). Also, there is a line in "Date and age range definitions" section stating that "A minority of demographers and researchers start the generation in the mid-to-late 1970s", which has no source to back up the "minority" claim at all and was inserted by a random user a while back. A minority of demographers and researchers use mid-to-late 1970s and early 2000s, so why is one in the lead and the other not? Someone963852 (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It is also fair to note that a source such as Pew Research Center is a nationwide non-partison think tank consisting of multiple researchers while Strauss-Howe are technically only two researchers on the topic.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose A primary source that comes from a relevant authority is of course preferable to a primary source of questionable authority. However, it is Wikipedia policy to prefer secondary sources to a Wikipedia editor's synthesis of primary sources. For example, we should welcome the information provided in the Time article rather than rejecting it. Perhaps most importantly as far as the question posed by the RFC is concerned, the lead is supposed to summarize the content of the article, and the current lead does that. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 02:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  Here is another source from Time magazine using the new Pew age range: http://time.com/5181677/how-to-know-if-youre-a-millennial/. I do not believe that one 2013 cover story should be given prominence when any author for any publication can use any dates. I have listed secondary sources as well. **See above in this section**. I am open to adding more. Also, popular/changing/shifting opinions should be taken into account. Under Betty Logan’s and your comments, I added a list of a few articles, including one that asserts that someone born in 1982 and someone born 20-some years later culturally have no common ground. I suggest other editors consider these points. Also, I still have not heard back for as to why some of the 2000s sources are generally good sources, I feel there are still no sustainable counter arguments being presented. This is why I’m suggesting clean up of the article. Some of the sources such as the US Census Bureau and Neil Strauss and Howe can be left at this current time. Other random sources need to go. We also need to understand that estimates used in one company or entity’s article can differ in another article by the same entity.This perhaps is indicative of the author and not representative of the whole firm. And another thing, Pew's research on millennials has generally been quite popular and widely reported in the press. I can list plenty of secondary sources that report on Pew's various date ranges (can't list all but many) if need be. They are obviously a large think tank and quite an influential source, just like DynaGirl keeps arguing that Neil Howe is.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2018

Betty Logan/Marie Paradox Can someone tell what what a literature review is/how it works? I've been editing for Wikipedia quite sporadically for three years now, but I am unfamiliar with what that is. Is it a special wiki function or is it simply a systematic review? Thanks.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

A literature review is a piece of research that gives an overview of the current findings or conclusions in a particular topic area within a field. See Literature review. Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

oppose - The lede should really be a summary of the prose written below. The fact that there is no actual date given should be the important factor, and the start and end dates generalized. We shouldn't give undue weight to sources, however, but we should follow what they all say. It's possible to be more specific in the prose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pick a simple range and stick with it

WP:BLOCKEVASION
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This "generation" thing is real messy, why don't people just pick ONE range and stick with it? Are Millennials 1981-1996 or are they 1982-1997 or 1980-1995 or 1977-1994 or are they 1980-2000 or 1981-1999 or 1983-2001 or 1981-2001 or 1982-2002 or 1980-2003 or 1982-2004? This generations idea falls apart when you don't have a consistent date range.--2601:980:8302:536:E8C6:78D2:8839:B7C7 (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tag for date and age rage definitions section

I changed the recently added tag on the 'Date and age range definitions' section from "excessive citations" and "unreliable sources" to "POV section". POV tag seems more appropriate as an issue up for discussion. The "excessive citations" and "unreliable sources" tags give readers the misimpression that there is consensus to gut this section of sources, when there is no such consensus. Help:Maintenance template removal says tags can be removed If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. Per above talk page discussions and input from outside parties on current RfC it seems clear this is not currently supported. The tagging has been directly tied to a proposal to change date range in the lead and remove citations from parts of the date range represented. Interested editors should please consider commenting and discussing issue at RfC [16].DynaGirl (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed tag per closed RfC in above section. DynaGirl (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sports and fitness

SouthAsianGuy891 has made a bunch of edits to the article that I consider problematic. They largely comprise of WP:SYNTHESIS with an WP:UNDUE focuson MMA fighting. I am going to detail them here and hopefully we can get some further input:

• "However Millennials have shown an increasing trend in participation of sports and fitness activities." (added to the lead)
• "Studies have found a a changing trend in terms of sports with Millennials." (first sentence of the sport & fitness section)

  Neither of these claims are borne out by the sources. In fact, the source added by SouthAsianGuy891 actually states "The sports world is in a flap – major media players are citing studies left, right and centre that show declining engagement in sports viewership and participation from every marketer’s golden target – the millennial. SouthAsianGuy is clearly misrepresenting his own source. If he wants to say that overall engagement in sport has increased then he needs to produce sources and statistics to that effect.

• "The vast majority of MMA fighters consists of Millennials. As per a 2017 survey, the average age of a ranked UFC fighter was 31 years old." (sourced to </ref> )

  For the purpose of the section this is completely irrelevant. Sport is dominated by millenials because sport is generally dominated by people under 40. This is true of any generation. It's not like baby-boomers were winning Olympic medals at 45 and then millneials starting winning them at 25.

• "Popular Millenial MMA fighters included Conor McGregor born in 1988 for mens division and Ronda Rousey born in 1987 for women's division. Millennial Jamaican sprint racer and nine times Olympic gold medalist Usain Bolt, born in 1986 is considered the fastest human ever known, setting a record 44.72 km/h (27.8 mph), measured between meter 60 and meter 80 of the 100 meters sprint of the World Championships in Berlin, Germany on 16 August 2009, which he completed in just 9.58 seconds."

  This looks like a WP:COATRACK to me. I see no reason why to highlight athletes of a minority sport (Bolt aside). Why not somebody like Cristiano Ronaldo or Novak Djokovic, authentic globally known figures? Better yet, why mention them at all? Every generation has produced great globally known athletes, so this just looks like a basic name-checking exercise to me. I don't see the point of it, and the section is too small to host images.

On the plus side, I think the basic idea of this section is a good one and adds to the article. However, it needs to accurately present what the sources actually say and it needs to stay on the point of what characterizes a millenial and what distinguishes them from previous generations. Betty Logan (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Betty Logan's removal of an example of some Millennial athletes seems unjustified. Look at the article on Generation X , it has so many named musicians with pictures. there is no policy stating that a prominent athlete cannot be used as an example to represent a generation. The viewership and participation declining is based on a weak source, there are counter sources to that which justifies that millennial participation and viewership has increased, and I had given such sources which have been removed. The intro that all millennial are technological addicts is citation less, so I am removing that tag and please be clear why some popular athletes can not be named and pictures added to this article, while in the article of Generation X there are so many named celebrates with pictures. SouthAsianGuy891 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean we have to replicate the practice here at this article. I could just as easily go over to the Gen X article and delete a load of stuff in it simply because we don't list it here. It is a vacuous rationale. What is the point of naming these people? Usain Bolt is a prominent millennial in sport, but so what? You have not said anything substantive about him, other then saying "Here is a millennial". What does the reader learn from this information, besides the fact Bolt is a millennial? There are lots of prominent millennials in many different fields, so which fields do we list and how do we discriminate between who to name and who not to? If you want an article listing famous millennials then I suggest you create a list article specifically dedicated to that purpose rather than trying to turn this article into a WP:COATRACK. Betty Logan (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok my respect to you Betty Logan as a senior editor. But the whole article seems to have a stereotypical assumption dtating all millennials are lazy technological addicts. Well I used MMA just as an example to show higher participation of millennial as a sport, and the source I provided supports it. It is impossible to include every sports in the world, but regarding participation and viewership there are contradicting rports and most of the sources stating viewership and participation decline are solely based on North America, globally it is a fact that viewership and participation has increased with universal access to TVs in the 2010s compared to the time of the Boomers in 1960s, and also opportunities and sporting events, etc. Regardless I do not want to spend so much time on bringing all the sources and statistics of these up, but if the subject of MMA is WP:COATRACK , so should be the pop culture, music sections in Generation X article. I just intended it as an example of a popular sport among millennial and named two world famous athletes. However I respect you judgement as a senior editor, but will only say that the reports of decline/increase in viewership and participation are contradicting based on varying sources, so leave that as uniform and reconsider the article's stereotypical assumptions based on white Americans that all millennials are lazy technological addicts. SouthAsianGuy891 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You were the editor that added the source saying sport participation was declining and then misrepresented it. I checked your other sources and none of them spoke of sport engagement increasing. If you have other sources then please list them here and quote the relevant parts so they can be assessed. Thankyou. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing by SouthAsianGuy891

This editor has spent the entire day either adding unsourced claims or misrepresenting sources, as I have detailed above. Here is his latest edit:

• He is continuing to misrepresent the two sources he himself added to the article: [17] and [18]. The first source states "The sports world is in a flap – major media players are citing studies left, right and centre that show declining engagement in sports viewership and participation from every marketer’s golden target – the millennial (those born between the early 1980s and mid 1990s)" while the second states "Although more Gen Xers than millennials follow sports closely (45 percent versus 38 percent)". Despite SouthAsianGuy891's protestations, both of these sources highlight a declining trend not a "changing trend". These are his sources; if he disagrees with their findings then he needs to produce sources that reach different conclusions.
• He also keeps adding the statement "The average age of UFC fighters as of a 2017 survey was 31, representing higher participation of millennial fighters in MMA", and despite me clearly explaining this above and in the edit summaries keeps restoring and asking why I have removed it. There must be a language barrier issue here or something. Once again: the average age of a participant in professional sport being 31 is not unusual. The average age of pretty much every sport is between 25 and 35 because sport is dominated by people under the age of 40. This has been true of pretty much every sport of every generation and is not unique to the millennial generation, nor does it "prove" the point of view he has spent all day trying to push i.e. that there is a greater level of engagement in sport by the millennial generation compared to previous generations.

It is blatantly clear SouthAsianGuy891 has no interest in presenting a well-balanced objective view of what the sources say. If this disruption continues my next step will be to seek administrative intervention. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Betty Logan I already stated that I have stopped editing the article on my last edit, as I realized that the whole article is misleading as it is only about "American Millennial" as opposed to Millennial all over the world. And you using personal threat of reporting me is not civil, just because I have misinterpreted the sources, but do as you must, it was an edit dispute, not an act of vandal and I agreed not to edit this whole misleading article that should have its name changed to "American Millenials" in the first place. And one more thing UFC did not exist before the 1990s, norr was MMA popular before the 1990s, Baby Boomers were never engaged to to MMA and Generation Z is yet to come, so in comparison with the two participating groups Generation X and Millennial,s, Millennials are the dominant figure. Sports overall globally have more participants today than ever before, both with men and women and that is due to the contribution of millennials dominating (I understand the original research policy, but there are multiple sources and I can still assemble them, but it would be tedious as this article is solely about White American Millennials, I wont bother so am not mentioning these), and the fact that you do not allow key figures of pictures of millennial celebrities here, yet allow them on the Generation X article shows your biasedness. Regardless I dont care if you report me just because I misinterpreted a source like you said on the uncivil threat and personal attack above and I no longer have interest in the article (which btw is rated c-class quality and I understand why now) I feel should be renamed "White American Millennials" using them as stereotypes for lazy digital people, which is not true globally, and this is my last edit on this talk page too. SouthAsianGuy891 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You didn't misinterpret a source, you misrepresented many sources, and that is a behavioral problem not an editing dispute. Editing disputes take place within the normal parameters of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but your edits were operating beyond those parameters. I have tried to accommodate you where your objections were within policy, such as removing the source you personally added but then objected to once it was accurately presented. You clearly don't understand the WP:OR policy because pretty much every edit you made breached it in some way, and it is entirely appropriate to warn editors that their policy-breaching editing will result in sanctions. I have cut you a lot of slack because you are a new editor but my patience is finite. Betty Logan (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources used for the ever-expanding section "Date and age range definitions"

The sources should be reined in a bit. Individual authors, news articles or TV show seasons don't seem to be significant compared to organisations and authorities such as the US Census Bureau. Otrebus (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I checked edit history and "ever-expanding" is inaccurate. It doesn't appear that anyone has added to the date range section at all since the RfC on this issue (see top of this talk page) and since the issue of a couple users abusing multiple accounts or evading block to try to cut reliable sources from date section was addressed [19] [20].DynaGirl (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Otrebus What sources are you talking about specifically? 2606:6000:6111:8E00:ED4E:3BF:45F4:3C1C (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"On the American television program Survivor, for their 33rd season, subtitled Millennials vs. Gen X, the "Millennial tribe" consisted of individuals born between 1984 and 1997" for example, or "a 2013 Time magazine cover story used 1980 or 1981 as start dates" Otrebus (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The Time magazine cover story is highly significant as the magazine has been instrumental in defining and writing about modern generations. It is credited with naming the Silent Generation. Survivor I don't think is that significant but recall previous talk page consensus to keep it. DynaGirl (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I can live with losing the Survivor reference since it is not authoritative and it is consistent with the other sources. However, there is no way to avoid having so many sources when there is so much ambiguity over the date range. I say that as an editor who is generally inclined to trim redundant sources. In this particular case they don't just corroborate a date they also establish the WP:WEIGHT of evidence for a particular range. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Xennials RfC

There is a current RfC on a related page. Please see RfC regarding how Xennials should be described in the opening sentence of the lede [21]. DynaGirl (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Greatest Generation which affects the Generations template on this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there ever going to be consensus dates for Millennials?

People talk about Millennials constantly these days yet there's 30235034534654 million date ranges used for them, which makes it hard to tell exactly who people are talking about when they mention Millennials. This usually leads to arguing on social media sites, with people posting sources and saying "Hey look, these are Millennials!" *links another source that says different* "No that's wrong, THESE are Millennials."

Are these dates ever going to settle down to a consensus, like by the middle of the century? Or are they just going to keep it vague forever?--73.52.113.157 (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

They're starting to stabilize a bit. Especially since Pew decided on 1981 to 1996 last year. It will probably follow the pattern of Generation X; the dates stabilize but there are a few different fixed opinions on what they are. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Date Range Sources

The US Census Bureau does not define Millenials. From The Atlantic: "I started by calling the Census Bureau. A representative called me back, without much information. 'We do not define the different generations,' she told me. 'The only generation we do define is Baby Boomers and that year bracket is from 1946 to 1964.' The 1982 to 2000 date range cited in this Millenials article seems to be from a single press release [22], and the study itself that is written about does not appear to be available.

According to a 2017 paper by the US Census Bureau, "There is no official start and end date for when millennials were born."[23] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of the sources are just repeating what Neil Howe has defined as the date ranges without representing the opinion of the secondary sources themselves. I believe Forbes was cited on this talk page [24]. This is just an opinion piece by Neil Howe, next to the byline if you hover of the "i" you'll see "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."

I see that Australia's McCrindle Research is cited, but this organization is not taken seriously. This disgraced company is not even a member of the Australian Market & Social Research Society.

I should add the caveat that this company has been influential in the media, especially if "Generation Alpha" sticks. I would suggest only using secondary sources that cite this company, at least after 2012 when they were investigated by the Australian Market & Social Research Society. But really it would be best if all of the sources cited for date ranges in this article were from 2018 or later, after they have had the opportunity to consider Pew's 2018 definition of millenials, wherever possible. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been a couple of years, and I think it's time to go through these sources, many of which may be primary sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The 2013 Time magazine cover story has been much discussed here. It states "Millennials consist, depending on whom you ask, of people born from 1980 to 2000." A 2018 Time story validates Pew Research dates. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The Time piece actually refers to 1980 or 1981 as a start date. PEW has its own point-of-view but there are many other sources who use different dates. The dates have been discussed since this page was created in 2002. Strauss and Howe use 1982 to 2004 (they coined the term, so they have some cred.).Aboutbo2000 (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Pew source is the most reliable source in that section because they actually researched the Millennials date ranges and gave reasons why they chose the date ranges the way they did. Just because you, Aboutbo"2000" disagree with Pew's research and conclusion does not mean that Pew has a "POV." Wanting those born in 2000 to be included as Millennials by trimming down or removing reliable sources, misrepresenting what the sources state, adding unreliable sources and refusing discussion is non-neutral POV. And just because Strauss and Howe coined the term does not mean that they must know everything there is about Millennials, the same way someone coining the term Physics does not mean that they know everything about physics. Someone963852 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I stated it before and I’ll state it again, the ‘Date and age range definition section’ is nothing but a mess of trivial, insignificant information on what random businesses and companies use as their date range for purposes other than to study the date ranges. There’s a difference between research-based sources that actually researched the generation and their date ranges and have actual reasons to conclude the date ranges the way they did (like the Pew source), versus what random companies and businesses use as their ranges for categorical purposes (e.g. Time, Survivor TV show, the US Census Bureau as you stated). There have been several past discussions regarding cutting down the ‘Date and age range definition section,’ with the recent ones listed on Talk:Millennials/Archive 11, but of course nothing came of it because certain editors believe that they own the article and are pushing their non-neutral POV because they personally disagree with what reliable sources and research have to say. Someone963852 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aboutbo2000: There's virtually no substance to what you've just said. Rather than making fly-by-night specious statements will you come back and take the time to offer reasoned arguments backed up by quotes with references? Let me respond point by point:

• The Time piece actually refers to 1980 or 1981 as a start date.

What are you talking about? I haven't seen this in any Time piece. Regardless, the up to date 2018 Time piece uses 1981 to 1996, citing Pew.

It's actually in the paper copy of the Time magazine article (the Millennials birth start date of 1980 or 1981). If I have time I'll add a photo. Some of the material didn't make it into the web version of the article, but its there.

• PEW has its own point-of-view but there are many other sources who use different dates.

Obviously there are many different dates used by various sources, we've discussed it for many years. Check the history.

To quote another editor, this is heavy on declarative statements and light on evidence. Pew's 1981 to 1996 range is cited by many reliable secondary sources, Time magazine above, The New York Times, Business Insider, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Newsweek, Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, The Los Angeles Times, NBC's Today. But you state that there are many other sources who use different date ranges? Back that up please.

I dont need to back it up, it's been discussed, debated here for years. The language has been agreed on for a long time.

• The dates have been discussed since this page was created in 2002.

Science evolves. This article is out of date.

As long as you can back it up then make your changes.

• Strauss and Howe use 1982 to 2004 (they coined the term, so they have some cred.)

They have cred? Says who? They coined the term; that fact alone proves nothing about the weight their theories should receive. I am all ears. Back that up please. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Strauss and Howe have written the definitive book on the Millennials as you know. They also wrote many articles and have devoted thier lives to the topic. They have written books on all the generations. Not using their dates on the page would be ridiculous.Aboutbo2000 (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Aboutbo2000, what I'm hearing is that you don't feel you need to provide evidence because I should be able to find that in this talk page history. I would assume that the consensus sources for the date ranges, which have been agreed upon after years of discussion, would all be cited in the current Millennials article. I have looked at many of those sources, and they are poor. I understand that Strauss and Howe have written extensively on this topic. I would expect to find secondary sources which cite their chosen date ranges, but it is important to find recent sources which reflect current consensus opinion. If those secondary sources have due weight, then they should be included, but we should make no assumptions without doing the research. I also hear you say that if I believe I can back up my arguments then I should go ahead and edit the article. I take that to mean that you have no further objections. Thank you, if you have no evidence of any kind to support your opinions I will wait for more input from others. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit it per Wikipedia:Be_bold. Someone963852 (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment - editors ignoring recent RfC Kolya Butternut said "It's been a couple of years, and I think it's time to go through these sources". This is incorrect. It has not been a couple years. In October 2018 there was consensus on an RfC which proposed cutting down the sources in the date range section, as well as changing the dates in lead. The consensus was against doing so [25]. Someone963852, who encouraged this edit with "Go ahead and edit it per Wikipedia:Be_bold" knows there is recent consensus against this change. They participated in that RfC. DynaGirl (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: The specious arguments you're making completely ignore all context and would only pass the straight-face test to someone who has read nothing in this talk page. The October 2018 RfC proposed cutting down the number of date range sources, yes. That is unrelated to this discussion. If you would like to participate in this conversation please participate in good faith and refrain from strawman arguments. Clearly in context when I say it is time to "go through" these sources I am stating that we should research each individual source to determine that it is reliable, accurate, up-to-date, and ideally is a secondary source chosen to give due weight to each date range opinion. I am not stating that there are an excessive number of sources. If you choose to respond, please carefully read the above section "Date Range Sources" and refer specifically to each piece of my research that you disagree with and provide research of your own to show why you feel it is inaccurate. Clearly you care about these topics, but if you continue your well documented years long pattern of disruptive editing in the form of Civil POV Pushing you will be blocked. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The current article states: "United States Census Bureau defines the millennial generation as those born from 1982–2000." As provided by your two sources above, that's clearly not the case. Go ahead and update it to make the article accurate. Someone963852 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The source cited does not actually say "defines" so I edited to change the text "United States Census Bureau defines the millennial generation as those born from 1982–2000" to "A 2015 report from the United States Census Bureau describes millennials as those born between 1982 and 2000" [26] to reflect the source cited [27]. Apparently, in 2015, the US Census Bureau used dates 1982-2000 to calculate the size of the Millennial Generation and reported that the Millennial generation had surpassed the Baby Boomer generation in the US in terms of size, with 83.1 million Millennials compared to 75.4 million baby boomers, using the dates 1982-2000.DynaGirl (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The 2017 U.S. Census Bureau report that User:Kolya Butternut provided [28] states that "The cohort of 18- to 34-year-olds in 2016 includes people born between 1982 and 1998, which roughly corresponds to the millennial generation. There is no official start and end date for when millennials were born." Either that gets added in after the 2015 report sentence or the 2015 report sentence should be removed and updated with this one. Someone963852 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the 2015 Census Bureau date range should be considered WP:UNDUE since they aren't giving a clear opinion at all. In 2014 they said they did't define millennials, in 2015 they described millennials, and then as you said, in 2017 they stated that there were no official dates for them. It looks to me like they're measuring cohorts of young people and then just calling them "millennials" to present a better narrative. I'd say the only thing worth including in the article is that last line. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of the sources in that section use the date ranges for categorization purposes to research other topics besides the actual Millennial date range. I propose that we update "A 2015 report from the United States Census Bureau describes millennials as those born between 1982 and 2000" to use the current 2017 report from them "A 2017 report from the United States Census Bureau described millennials as those born between 1982 and 1998, although the U.S. Census Bureau stated that there's no official start or end date for the cohort." or either remove the sentence altogether since the United States Census Bureau said themselves that they do not define the millennial date range. Someone963852 (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, this section is a mess. It should begin with Pew, who most reliable sources cite, rather than starting with the "minority" of researchers, who maybe shouldn't be cited at all if secondary sources don't mention them. Most of these generations articles are giving too much weight to Strauss & Howe primary sources too. I don't think your proposal is quite accurate; the Census Bureau doesn't really describe millennials as born between 1982 and 1998. What about just saying that while the Census Bureau has released reports measuring cohorts which roughly correspond to the millenial generation, they have not designated an "official start and end date for when millennials were born."? Or nothing? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Or, I would change the language "they have not", because it implies they may in the furture, but they haven't defined Gen X either, so they may have no plans to. Just changing "have" to "do" works. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Hopefully last edit here; combine the Atlantic quote with the 2017 report quote: "they do not define an official start and end date for when millennials were born." Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If the U.S. Census Bureau hasn't defined or designated a specific range for the Millennial cohort, then it would be best to leave it out and remove the sentence altogether. If certain users are so keen on keeping the U.S. Census Bureau in, then your proposed wordings work. Either way, it needs to be the most current 2017 report, not the 2015 report. Someone963852 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The 2015 source is specifically discussing millenials and gives a date range for the millenial cohort. The 2017 source does not do that: it is specifically discussing young people age 18–34 and mentions that this cohort roughly corresponds to the millenial generation. It's not the same thing at all. Betty Logan (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's not the same thing, we don't have to replace the 2015 report with the 2017 report, but can add the 2017 report and the Atlantic source as separate sentences. We don't want to mislead readers into thinking that the U.S. Census Bureau uses 1982-2000 as the official date ranges, when in fact, they use different date ranges such as the one for the 2017 report. Someone963852 (talk)

They don't give a date range for millenials in the 2017 article. They give a date range for people aged 18–34 and nobody would argue that this does not broadly correspond to the millenial generation, just like those aged 35–50 broadly corresponds to Gen X. That said I don't object to making it explicit in the article that the US Census Bureau does not have an official definition. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The 2017 report states 1982 to 1998 roughly corresponds to millennials, which could be in comparison to the 1982 to 2000 years they used before, or it could mean they feel those dates are closer to millennials than the 1982 to 2000 years, or they're comparing it to the 1981 to 1997 years Pew used in 2017. We can't make much of it, but in context with their other statements, we should treat "1982 to 2000" and "1982 to 1998" the same, as if the Census Bureau stated "roughly corresponds to millennials" after both sets of dates. But I think we should quote nothing at all or reference the 2017 report as follows "The United States Census Bureau has released reports measuring cohorts which roughly correspond to the millennial generation, but they do not define an official start and end date for when millennials were born." Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are grossly misrepresenting the context of the date range. In the 2017 report the US Census Bureau are discussing young people, specifically those in the 18–34 age bracket, and they comment that it "roughly corresponds" to the millenial generation. That report could have been published a year earlier and those aged 18–34 would "roughly correspond" to the millenial generation. It could have been published a year later and 18–34 year olds would roughly correspond to the millenial generation. That is entirely different to the 2015 article where they basically published an article about millenials and used the range of 1982–2000 to define that cohort. Betty Logan (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like you are correct there. But I feel like you're taking the 2015 dates out of the context of the Census' other statements. How are you proposing to reference the Census? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Betty_Logan, based on what you've said so far it sounds like you oppose including the 2017 report dates, but you have given no information stating what you think should be in the article. I would propose simply: "The United States Census Bureau does not define an official start and end date for when millennials were born," or nothing at all. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The US Census Bureau points out that in its 2017 report that no official definition exists. This is entirely correct: the only generation that has an official date range is the baby boomers. However, that doesn't stop it having an opinion on the date range and that range is 1982–2000 according to the 2015 report. Its date range is no more or less relevant than Pew's as far as I'm concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Betty_Logan, I don't understand. Are you saying that the Census is stating that there is no official date range for millennials, as in there is no official date range in the world? Which would mean that in 2014 they said they didn't define millennials, in 2015 they gave an opinion on millennials, and then in 2017 they said that 1982 - 1998 roughly corresponds to millennials but that in general there is no outside official date range, but without stating their own opinion on the date range? I don't see how we have enough information to conclude that the Census has an internally defined date range for millennials. If we don't know we shouldn't state that. Pew has specifically stated their opinion on the subject and their evolving date ranges have repeatedly appeared. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

So by that logic the Baby Boomers have an "official date range" in the world, and the Census wasn't referring to their own official definition. Where is the evidence that there is an official date range for Baby Boomers? This demographic cohort is usually defined as 1946 - 1964, but that is not universal, and I don't know what would make it "official" besides internal agency policy. The Census literally said, "The only generation we do define is Baby Boomers and that year bracket is from 1946 to 1964." I hope I misunderstood you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It is not our place to second guess the Census Bureau. They say there is no "official" date for millenials. By that I assume any US public body that is in a position of creating an official date range, including them. However, that doesn't alter the fact that they have issued a date range; just because it does not carry any official standing—just like every other single date range given in the section—doesn't mean they don't have an opinion on it. They clearly do because they gave a date. Betty Logan (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Betty_Logan, it is unfair to compare a date range used in a single report four years ago to date ranges from other sources which are repeatedly used and explicitly identified as official definitions for the organizations. We cannot make assumptions about what the Census Bureau's opinions are, especially considering that they have stated that they do not define millennials. If it is unclear what the opinion of the Census Bureau is we must not assume; we must err on the side of caution. Unless the Census Bureau states otherwise, the 1982-2000 birth cohort was a one-time expedient used in the 2015 press release, and to include it in this article would be giving it undue weight. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I contacted the Census Bureau to determine the reliability of their 2015 news release. I was told the following: "Although the 1982-2000 birth cohort was used one time in a 2015 news release for expediency, the U.S. Census Bureau does not officially use the term "millennials" to define a cohort. There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends, and from our understanding, year ranges can vary substantially depending on the researcher that is defining the cohort." Clearly no weight should be given to this date range. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I updated the date ranges, but many of the references aren't backed up by secondary sources. It may be less of a concern when the date ranges used are consistent with the majority, but outliers should probably have more secondary (up-to-date) references. The German and Thai sources need improvement/verification. We may consider changing the lead if it is clear that only a minority end the cohort in the 2000s. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Your personal correspondence is not a reliable source and you do not have a consensus to remove this source. I will be restoring and reverting several other of your POV changes. Betty Logan (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the whole section in the end. It would have taken too long to weed out the changes I agreed with. You changed the overall structure to push a POV, such as removing all the sources for the 1970s date and leaving it unsourced, elevating Pew's date range effectively making it the de facto definition, removing the US Census Bureau source despite the discussion above where you clearly did not gain a consensus, and altering the sentence to declare that "majority of researchers and demographers start the generation in the early 1980s and end it in the mid-1990s" without providing a source for this claim. Eradicating sources you disagree with and then totting up the ones you do and declaring them the "winner" is not appropriate. I think some of the sources are a bit suspect but you should list them here on the talk page where other editors can review them and we can take it from there. Betty Logan (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Betty_Logan, please assume good faith and do not make accusations. This is not POV pushing, this is making decisions based on evidence. If you have a different opinion please share, but I'm hearing that you reverted my changes based on assumptions without actually checking the sources. I feel like I have to explain all the edits I made even though I made notes in the edit summaries. It sounds like you too were acting in good faith but I find this highly disruptive. Because by your own words you have not read my edits it seems appropriate to restore them. Please discuss each edit you disagree with. For example, the 1970s sources were no longer accurate, but rather than deleting the sentence I left it in case sources can be found. I moved Pew to the beginning because Pew is extensively cited by secondary sources. As I stated in the edit summary, these sources can be trimmed down. I put a huge list as a starting point. As I stated, since our last conversation I contacted the Census Bureau and they confirmed that the dates they used were a one time expedient. I have thoroughly researched most of these sources. I invite you to look into each source as well. I changed the sentence "The majority of researchers and demographers start the generation in the early 1980s, with some ending the generation in the mid-1990s." to "The majority of researchers and demographers start the generation in the early 1980s and end it in the mid-1990s, with some ending the generation in the early 2000s." You only quote me as removing one descriptive word: "some". I concede this is probably synthesis, but I didn't see a source for the original statement, so I changed it to reflect the text until the source for the original statement could be found if it exists. Again, it sounds like you've reverted my edits without reading them. You made the accusation that I eradicated the sources I disagree with while totting up the ones I do. I think it would be safer to assume that you haven't done your research. I don't know what sources you feel are "suspect", but I will restore my edit and we can discuss. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

My personal correspondence is not meant to be a "reliable source." My personal correspondence was meant to determine the reliability of an existing source. Is the statement I quoted not enough information to show unequivocally that the Census Bureau has no opinion on the millennial date range? Or is your objection because you do not believe this is an accurate quote? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Your personal correspondence does not determine the reliability of a source, and it is based on a false premise anyway: the date given by the US Census Bureau does not have to reflect an official opinion to be included IMO, as I have made clear above. If you want to start pulling sources based on reliability then I suggest you list them here so other editors can weigh in on them. You are not the arbiter of reliability and neutrality on this article. Changes on Wikipedia are made by consensus. Two editors in the discussion have already challenged your viewpoint. If we cannot come to an agreement over the sources then they can be taken to WP:RS/N. Once the dispute over the sources have been resolved then the prose can be structured around them. Your re-organization of the section is highly questionable too and you have introduced unsubstantiated claims IMO, but that can be addressed once the issue with teh sources is resolved. Betty Logan (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked through Kolya Butternut's recent edits and the description of the changes were given in the edit summaries. It would be best if the entire contribution weren't reverted, and that single edits be reverted instead if there are disagreements per Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary. Most of the content dispute is centered around the "Date and age range definitions" section. Should we start a sandbox / subpage titled "Date and age range definitions" with a copy of the current section and collaborately make our proposed changes there and edit until we reach a version that we can all agree upon? Someone963852 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It would be best if maybe a bunch of controversial edits were not caught up with a bunch of formatting/cleanup edits. It is not reasonable to expect another editor to sift through them one by one trying to isolate them. Perhaps it would be best if Kolya Butternut adopted a more incremental approach and just addressed the non-controversial edits outside of the disputed section and got those out of the way. Also, there is no point re-designing the section until the dispute over the sources have been settled, since these obviously dictate what is said and how it is said. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Include millennial perspectives

I'm glad that this article has improved its coverage of millennial "traits" and social attitudes since the last time I checked it out (for example, briefly discussing the millennial bashing phenomenon's connection to the Strauss–Howe generational theory), but I'm still concerned that it excludes millennials' perspectives and doesn't adequately address criticism of the "millennial generation" as ill-defined. Here are some sources that deconstruct millennial categorization and stereotypes, including some works by millennials.

• Millennials Don't Exist!
• The long-term effects of Millennial bashing
• Millennial-Bashing Is Class Warfare (paywall)
• The Timelessness of Millennial-Bashing - addresses the history of youth bashing

Sidenote: I identify as a millennial. I personally feel that many of the stereotypes about this generation are untrue and harmful. In light of the fact that youth have been stereotyped in similar ways throughout history, I think that the Syzygy study cited could be improved by making it a longitudinal study showing whether past and future generations exhibit similar levels of "narcissism" at the same age. I also highly doubt that a marketing firm's report should be considered a reliable source; it should be reproduced by peer-reviewed academic studies.

Qzekrom (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: I would like to remove all references to SYZYGY from the article. I would substitute it with information from the BBC's article "Millennials are narcissistic? The evidence is not so simple". Also see the discussion on the related edit in the "Date Range Update" subsection below. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Sure. The Twenge paper cited in the BBC article is a more reliable source than the Syzygy one, and Arnett's criticisms of her methods (also discussed in the article) are worth noting. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 00:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Qzekrom: Ok. Hopefully we can get consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

The statement "there are no precise dates" in the lead of many of the generations articles seems like a waste of space. It shows up in the short description in Google searches and it doesn't give the reader any useful information. I feel like it could be eliminated because the following sentence implies the same thing. Or it could be moved to the date range section. I feel like the first few sentences of the lead are valuable real estate which should be used better than this. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing that segment of the sentence and just going with "Demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years." Anyway, I have a bit more free time now, so I will be having a closer look at the sandbox version over the next day or so and hopefully we can resolve the outstanding issues this week. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think the whole lead could use a rewrite. It's not an informative summary of the concept. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "demographers and researchers" is frequently used in generations articles. Demographers are just a specific type of researcher, don't we really want to say "academics and the popular media..."? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The recent RFC decision from an admin to maintain the dates in the lede (from October 2018) should be respected as well: Quote "As the opposing editors note, clearly there are numerous, possibly even the majority of, perfectly reliable sources that do extend the term into the late 1990s, and even a few that go into the early 2000s." We are providing a range not exact dates.Carfree82 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The 10/2018 RfC (which was not by an administrator) precedes the recent date range section rewrite, so while the reasoning behind the decision should be respected, the decision itself may be reconsidered. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no objections either with your recent edit [29]. I also agree that the "demographers and researchers" wording needs a change, since it is quite inaccurate as most of the sources in the 'Date and age range definitions' are not from demographers or researchers. I’m fine with changing it to “academics and popular media” (unless there is a better word that encompasses what the multiple sources in the Date and age range definitions are). Someone963852 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that User:Carfree82 mentions it, I feel like it might be better to change "mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years" to "mid-1990s to 2000 as ending birth years", since most modern sources do not extend past 2000. (Unless it can be shown that Strauss-Howe dates are still relevant.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if Pew Research employees would be considered academics, and marketers certainly aren't, so "Researchers and popular media" maybe. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The idea of the lead is to give a basic overview, and it shouldn't be editorialised. Arguably something like "There is no official date range for the birth years of this cohort, but general usage sees the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years." It doesn't have to be exactly like that but you get the picture. That removes the problem of attribution, and it removes the issue of weighting in the end years. Betty Logan (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with "general usage" instead of categorizing. My question now is whether general usage includes "early 2000s" or if it would be more accurate to say "mid-1990s to 2000 as ending birth years", if only a small minority extends the years into the 21st century. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

"General" usage is distinct from "typical" usage (the latter implies commonality) and includes all the dates that are basically mentioned, so yes it would include early 2000s. I concur that the early 2000s are something of an outlier but it's not the job of the lead to get into this level of detail. Part of the "thesis" is that these date spans are not immutable; the late 1970s dates have all but been discounted now and it may well be the case that post-2000 dates vanish eventually too, but until they do they should be accounted for. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We could also use the mid-2000s as ending birth years. See this Harvard Joint Center for Housing ref. written by Senior Research Fellow George Masnick: "Defining the Generations", he uses 2005. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/defining-the-generations/ Here's the updated one called "Defining the Generations Redux" https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/defining-the-generations-redux/ There's also others like https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/28/xennials_a_23006562/ Carfree82 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We are now discussing the lead for the existing sources. George Masnick doesn't use 2005, and that HuffPost story is out of date. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)