Talk:Millennials/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Proposed text above

I'm okay with this text. The latest version addresses the major issues with previous changes: it's clear from it that 1981 is the most used, and it doesn't make it look like there's a big controversy about it. This isn't an edit I would have made, but that's true of most of Wikipedia. It would need some further editing, e.g., seventeen citations for "geriatric millennials" is ridiculous, but these could be made after the fact. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Dan, much appreciated. I will of course reduce the geriatric sources.I will count you as a supporter of the above proposal. Thanks again. Richie wright1980 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The additions seem reasonable to me, though I am not familiar with some of the sources. What does "WFXB" stand for? Dimadick (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Haha that's a new one I must admit. It can go - not that important. I can only play a guessing game as to what it could possibly mean! Thanks for your support! Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still disagree with this restructuring. The proposed section is unnecessary long and why do we need a separate section titled "1981 as starting birth year" again? Some1 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

To answer your questions, I have proposed subheadings because there is a suggestion label at the top of the article which requests that more subheadings be added. It also breaks the page up and makes it more readable. I have used 1981 because the date aspect of the definitions seems to be the most contentious aspect. I have also addressed the concern that neglected viewpoints need to be expanded upon. So the proposed restructure is a compromise of all of that. Do you have a suggestion to improve the article as the labels on the page encourage that work needs doing on it. Consensus doesn't require unanimity but it does require working together individually. Do you have any suggestions? Richie wright1980 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is long because of other sections (basically everything below the Cognitive abilities section). The Date and age range definitions section as it currently stands is a decent length. seems to be the most contentious aspect This seems more like an opinion rather than a fact. Are there sources saying that this is a contentious aspect? I have also addressed the concern that neglected viewpoints need to be expanded upon. You were the one that added the Unbalanced template after all your edit-warring [1]; it wasn't there before.

If you do want to split the section into smaller parts, I suggest adding a heading titled 1981-1996 (rather than "1981 as starting birth year") and another titled "Other definitions". That way, the section is focused on the ranges, instead of on single starting birth years/end years. Some1 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I am happy with that personally and have no problems. However, I fear it will open a can of worms with other editors in what seems to be a precarious and prolonged discussion. What I would like to avoid is any sort of dispute resolution that prolongs the consensus building process. Sometimes, part of consensus building is accepting 'a less-than-perfect compromise'. Would you be happy with that and have no objections to the above on that basis? Wikipedia:Consensus Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like to clear something up. Usually the encyclopedia is improved after one person makes an edit and the next and the next and so on without any form of objections. That way things would evolve naturally. Unfortunately, we have ended up here because people sought to revert good faith edits. As you can see this discussion is designed to iron out the disagreements. Previous objectors are obviously keen to see this discussion come to a conclusion. I understand your concern about the overall length of the article - I think there are discussions ongoing about that. Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Since you said you proposed subheadings because there is a suggestion label at the top of the article which requests that more subheadings be added, would you be opposed to splitting the section up into "1981-1996" and "Other definitions"? Some1 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I would support that 100%. What do others think? Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with how the current Date and age range section currently is, but if we are to add more subheadings to the Date and age range section, I suggest the below (using 1981-1996 instead of 1981 as the starting birth year (which was proposed by Ritchie) as the subheaders). The content is the same as the current section, but with more subheadings; I also removed some media outlets such as The Washington Post,[49], The Wall Street Journal,[51] PBS,[52] The Los Angeles Times,[53] The Guardian,[54]CBS,[61] and ABC Australia.[62] per Betty Logan's comment above [2] but kept the widely known ones. Some1 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I am happy with the general idea of the below, however, I would have to insist on the sources above for 1980 standing - two editors support their inclusion. They are reliable and verifiable sources after all. I think it looks as though the overall length of the article will eventually be reduced as per the discussion to split lots of content below where you have pointed out. So, longer term the article looks as though it will be reduced. But other to that generally happy with your idea. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the proposed version in the green box above is suitable. It makes it clear which definition is most commonly used and notes that there are alternatives. I don't have a problem with the phrase "geriatric Millennials" since, after all, Millennials are finding out what it means to get old. A friend of mine, who studies medicine, told me that Millennials are now facing diseases that mostly affect old people, such as heart problems. (That's before we talk about young people's diseases, like syphilis, which has been rising in prevalence thanks to Millennials and Generation Z. I have not updated either pages yet.) Nerd271 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

My main questions are, why is the focus on 1981 as the starting birth year (why does it require a separate section)? Why not a separate section titled 1996 as the ending birth year? (Rhetorical question, I don't support that either.) Which is why I proposed 1981-1996 below which focuses on the range instead of separate start/ending years. Some1 (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It all started because I added a simple tiny addition of 1980 in the lede and it all got completely overblown after. And the rest is history! Unlike geriatric millenials who are still fighting fit! Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Haha love it! It looks like things currently stand like this.

Danbloch – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above

Dimadick - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above

Nerd271 - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above

Some1 – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above - with more clarification for 1981-1996

Zillennial - awaiting feedback

Clovermoss - awaiting feedback

Redrose64 - awaiting feedback

BappleBusiness - awating feedback

Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I don’t edit this page but as an editor of other generation related pages including Gen Z I thought I’d share my opinion here as well. I don’t see how this edit is necessary at all honestly and I would strongly oppose similar edits on pages that I edit. You should focus on making the date and range section shorter and more concise instead of making it more verbose and convoluted. There’s no need for subtitles or this many paragraphs to get the message across. Use notes to summarize sources. Look at the Gen Z page, although it’s far from perfect, the message is conveyed without giving the reader a seizure. Wikiboo02 (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, however, that has been addressed already in the week long debate. Consensus has now been achieved to implement the changes. If you have serious doubts about that based on substantive reasoning then by all means open dispute resolution. At this point in time, I suspect editors are keen to move on to other editing. (Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC))

• Oppose for the following reasons:

Existing version can be viewed here for the purpose of comparison: § Date and age range definitions

1. I fail to see what that this redraft is supposed to be fixing. If there are dates that are missing, they can simply be incorporated into the existing section, provided they are appropriately sourced.
2. I don't quite understand why the section needs to be broken down into very small sub-sections. It is one of the smallest sections in the article, and not a large section by the conventions of Wikipedia. That said, I don't oppose sub-sections in principle, I just don't see how they improve the article.
3. Richie's preoccupation with the start date still persists. Date ranges are defined by a start date, and an end date. Structuring sub-section headings around start dates violates WP:DUE.
4. The supposed re-write listifies a prose section in a prose article. The section as it currently stands is just easier to read, if you are reading through the article. It's a step backwards for the article and violates MOS:PARA.
5. This section should be providing coverage of the spectrum of dates, not providing coverage of organizations and publications that use those dates. The views of demographers and statistical organizations should be included, as should commentary about the various definitions, but why on Earth does this article need to to inform the reader that The Guardian and a Spanish newspaper has used the year 1980 in its definitions? This proposal essentially turns the section into a WP:LINKFARM.

The whole problem I have with Richie's approach here is that he is proposing a solution to a problem that only he thinks exists (as evidenced by the outcome of the RFC). Betty Logan (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The consensus so far approves of the change.

Danbloch – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above

Dimadick - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above

Nerd271 - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above

Some1 – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above - with more clarification for 1981-1996

Zillennial - awaiting feedback

Clovermoss - awaiting feedback

BappleBusiness - awating feedback

Betty Logan - oppose

If these emotive comments continue and the natural process of gaining consensus is further disrupted the best of course of action would be to seek dispute resolution. Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Framing someone's opinion as "disrupting" the "natural process of gaining consensus" after you have solicited feedback is a strange take. Betty Logan (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I just want to say that I fully agree with this. I fail to see how this extensive change to a functioning undisputed section would benefit anyone. It feels like none here truly wants to change it but there’s one editor that is pushing for it to happen. I think that sources could be put into notes and the section made shorter and more concise, but this edit seems too unnecessary and honestly doesn’t add value to the section. If the issue is an underrepresentation of sources supporting a 1980 start, which is debatable, then simply adding those sources should suffice. Wikiboo02 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think the summary above mischaracterises some of the responses so I have incorporated some corrections below . So far, three editors support the draft above, and two editors support the existing version in the article.
  • Danbloch – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above
  • Dimadick - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above
  • Nerd271 - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above
  • Some1 – supports the existing version currently in the article
  • Zillennial - awaiting feedback
  • Clovermoss - awaiting feedback
  • BappleBusiness - awating feedback
  • Betty Logan - supports the existing version currently in the article

Betty Logan (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@User:Some1 I think your comments have been in really good faith so I have amended the proposed subheadings to incorporate 1981-1996 as the prevailing date range. I imagine this will receive wide support. Clovermoss has confirmed they will shortly be adding their feedback. I think once the overall article has been split it won't be as long to read in the longer term. The consensus is as follows:

• • Danbloch – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above – suggestions incorporated (reduced number of citations for geriatric millennials)
  • Dimadick - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above
  • Nerd271 - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above
  • Some1 – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above – suggestions incorporated (changed subheading to 1981-1996. Also Renoved The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, PBS and Los Angeles Times)
  • Zillennial - awaiting feedback
  • Clovermoss - awaiting feedback
  • BappleBusiness - awating feedback
  • Betty Logan - oppose

Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Other definitions section, I re-arranged and copy-edited few things, and made four deletions: I removed the Time magazine sentence since the source is old (from 2013) and the 1981-1996 section already has the newer source for Time. Similarly, I removed the Guardian mention since the source is old (from 2017) and the 1981-1996 section already mentions the Guardian with a newer source; I removed the Investopedia source since it says 1981-1996 is the main range, but says that others might use early or later birth years, which doesn't add anything new to the article; El País uses 1981-1996 in this article [3] dated 08/13/2022, but less than two months later, on 10/3/2022, used 1980-1996 [4], so they are not very consistent in a short time span. See the collapsed box below for my revisions. The other two sections look fine. Some1 (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree to your changes. I've added some clarification from the The United States Library of Congress which I think explains everything: "The United States Library of Congress explains that date ranges are 'subjective' and the traits of each cohort are generalized based around common economic, social, or political factors that happened during formative years. They acknowledge disagreements, complaints over date ranges, generation names, and the over-generalized "personality" of each generation. They suggest that marketers and journalists use the different groupings to target their marketing to particular age groups. However, they cite Pew's 1981–1996 definition to define millennials."

I think we might be reaching the consensus now and hope we are able to implement this very soon. I have also added your new section above. Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for incorporating these changes. You can put me in the Neutral camp for now; I still support the existing version, but don't oppose the newly amended proposal either now that my issues with it are somewhat rectified (the section is unnecessarily long). I suggest holding off on implementing any new changes and just wait for more feedback, since those who supported the original proposal (Danbloch, Dimadick, Nerd271) might not be in support of the amended proposal anymore after all the recent changes. Some1 (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks but this shouldn't have to drag on indefinitely. We are volunteers and time is precious. For now, it looks as though there are no more substantive objections. Certainly none that haven't been addressed. That is the basis for deciding on consensus. I think the only way to resolve more serious disagreement would be for us to enter dispute resolution where the concerns are discussed at length with administrator oversigh. are you willing to do this all over again? All editors involved would be pinged again for administrator attention. Alternatively, we implement as discussed with the promise the editors will not engage in edit war. (Richie wright1980 (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC))

There is no rush in implementing anything. I suggest pinging the editors above (Danbloch, Dimadick, Nerd271) and asking if they prefer the existing version or the amended proposal. Some1 (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I've copyedited some things and made some minor changes to the proposal to reduce the number of paragraphs. The only non-minor changes I made were combining the Other definitions and Micro-generation sections into one section, and removing CBS, ABC Australia, NYPost, and the Evening Standard. See below. Some1 (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely support your new paragraph below and it certainly does look more concise. Please be bold and implement this. I think the main crux of people's concerns were not to portray a big controversy. I think the most up to date proposal below has taken all these views on board extensively, it portrays all the different date ranges in use and has explained reasoning behind it without any bias to any particular date. Therefore, neutrality is in tact. I would welcome you implementing this and would be willing to defend it in the event of any sudden reverts based on the consenus we have achieved. Richie wright1980 (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

While I still have a preference for the existing version and think that adding the sub-headings is largely unnecessary for such a short section, I am not opposed to Some1's re-write directly below. It addresses most of my concerns. However, I don't think there is any pressing urge to install it straight away. If you are happy to leave it 3 days for further feedback and there are no more opposes, then I will not revert if Some1's version is installed in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve entered my position in the straw poll. I think version B is fine only if the subheadings are removed, along with McCrindle and Jean Twenge being moved down so that Ipsos and governmental agencies by due weight using a 1980/1981-1995 range are right below the 1981-1996 paragraphs. McKinsey using a 1980-1995 range should also be included in that section. Wikiboo02 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I think there is enough support to include all the high quality sources included in version B. It's helpful if we keep every single source as it is and nothing is added or removed. It's taken a week for editors to go through these sources. It sounds like you also agree that nothing should be removed. However, you differ with the presentation is that right? Are you able to write this up in a shorter way and demonstrate what it would look like? Richie wright1980 (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read my reply to BettyLogan, I still object to the subheadings. Other generation articles don’t include them. Wikiboo02 (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest a 3-day straw poll to determine whether the sub-headings should be retained or removed. Hopefully once this outstanding issue is resolved we can all move on. Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m going to wait a few days but if no one comments, I could proceed with a Be Bold and if someone wants to reverts we can discuss it here. I’m not too fond of the idea of a straw poll because numbers can’t replace a debate. I still think that there’s been an error in whole process, we shouldn’t be given an ultimatum consisting of three full versions of a section and I’m not blaming a specific user. I already accept the proposed change reluctantly, even though I had no say in it, but this minor thing is something that I truly believe is wrong and I haven’t seen anyone else argue for it. The idea of having a range as a title is weird and off-putting, the lumping together of other ranges under other definitions and micro-generations shows that they’re all of equal and insignificant weight, and the section is still short enough that it doesn’t benefit from having subheadings. I’m all for showing that Pew is the most cited source but the fact that it’s in the intro and takes up two long paragraphs at the top of this section is enough due weight. Wikiboo02 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree with everything you say. The whole process has been very difficult and drawn out, and it has been exacerbated by the lack of participation from other editors, no doubt put off by the wall of text. The reason I proposed the first straw poll was that I was hoping it would encourage some editors to re-engage with the discussion, but unfortunately that didn't seem to happen. If you wish to pursue a more orthodox editing approach i.e. WP:BRD, then that is your prerogative. Best wishes. Betty Logan (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Those are reasonable changes, I went ahead and made those edits. [5] Some1 (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Straw poll

I am establishing a straw poll so editors can formally submit their opinion as to which version of the "Date ranges" section they would prefer to have in the article. There are three versions under consideration:

1. Current version
2. VERSION A (above)
3. VERSION B (below)

Please only enter your OWN position. Please state your preferred version, whether the others are acceptable or unacceptable to you.

• Prefer current version. Support Version B. Oppose Version A. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Current version needs to be more precise. Support Version B. Oppose Version A. Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Version B Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Prefer current version. Oppose Version B. Oppose Version A. Both proposed versions feel rushed honestly. There doesn’t seem to be a consensus to change it. There was a dispute on the Gen Z article a few months ago where there was an actual consensus to make the date and range section simpler. I could be on board with a change if the subtitles are removed and sources such as Ipsos and Australian Census are given their due weight by being positioned higher up in the section, right below the 1981-1996 paragraphs. As for 1981-1996 the range has been given enough due weight as it’s literally in the intro, there’s no need to further disregard alternative ranges by grouping them under “Other definitions”. Wikiboo02 (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ok folks, we are 3 days in to voting now and the results of the straw poll are as follows:

  Support Version B = 3 votes

  Oppose Version A = 3 votes

  Prefer current version = 2 votes

  Oppose current version = 1 vote

  Oppose Version B = 1 vote

  There is more support to adopt Version B than there is to keep the current version. There doesn't seem to be any major objections to the proposal other than it might be a little long to read. But so far no-one has written an example of what an alternative proposal would look like. Are we ready to call this and implement Version B? Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, everyone has had enough time to respond now, and the weight of support is behind Verison B, so if you want to implement it now I have no objections. If Wikiboo02 wants to propose a tweaked variation of Version B, then he's free to do that and we can always do another straw poll. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks everyone it's been a pleasure to work with you. Anything but boring haha. If anyone wants to open up a chat about reducing the overall length of the article - ie splitting it into sub articles as per the guidance label at top of article I would be happy to work with you all again. Richie wright1980 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I object to the subheadings, no generation article other than this have them so I don’t see the need for them here. That’s all. Can anyone explain why they can’t be removed? If I remove them, would anyone object? Wikiboo02 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  You would first have to demonstrate good faith, write up your proposal and post it to the talk page to allow everyone to see it and allow a consensus to build for your proposal. No two wiki articles are ever the same btw. Richie wright1980 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  That’s not how consensus works though. You should read about WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CANVASS. Wikipedia’s policy clearly state that consensus is not a majority vote (there’s certainly not an overwhelming majority here at that) and it’s not all or nothing. Just because the proposed version was published by you doesn’t mean it can’t be edited. I’m going to remove the subheadings in a few days if no one else comments why they’re needed. As long as some parts are disputed, it means there’s an ongoing dispute, and there has to be an honest debate.Wikiboo02 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  On a side note, I’m doubting this user’s intentions as he’s now trying to get the page locked from further editing after one sidedly pushing his version despite barely none of the originally involved users participated in the straw poll. This goes against how disputes are handled on this site. He also ignored Some1’s suggestion to ping certain users. I’m afraid this user is making it seem as if there’s a strong consensus, while at the same time questioning other user’s good faith. Wikiboo02 (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

VERSION B

VERSION B

Oxford Living Dictionaries describes a millennial as a person "born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s." Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines millennial as "a person born in the 1980s or 1990s." More detailed definitions in use are as follows: 1981—1996 Jonathan Rauch, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote for The Economist in 2018 that "generations are squishy concepts", but the 1981 to 1996 birth cohort is a "widely accepted" definition for millennials. Reuters also state that the "widely accepted definition" is 1981–1996. The Pew Research Center defines millennials as the people born from 1981 to 1996, choosing these dates for "key political, economic and social factors", including the September 11 terrorist attacks, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Great Recession, and Internet explosion. The United States Library of Congress explains that date ranges are 'subjective' and the traits of each cohort are generalized based around common economic, social, or political factors that happened during formative years. They acknowledge disagreements, complaints over date ranges, generation names, and the over-generalized "personality" of each generation. They suggest that marketers and journalists use the different groupings to target their marketing to particular age groups. However, they cite Pew's 1981–1996 definition to define millennials. Various media outlets and statistical organizations have cited Pew's definition including Time magazine, BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Statistics Canada. The Brookings Institution defines the millennial generation as people born from 1981 to 1996, as does Gallup, Federal Reserve Board, and the American Psychological Association. Encyclopædia Britannica defines millennials as "the term used to describe a person born between 1981 and 1996, though different sources can vary by a year or two." Although the United States Census Bureau have said that "there is no official start and end date for when millennials were born" and they do not officially define millennials, a U.S. Census publication in 2022 noted that Millennials are "colloquially defined as the cohort born from 1981 to 1996", using this definition in a breakdown of Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data. Other definitions and micro-generations Australia's McCrindle Research uses 1980–1994 as Generation Y (millennial) birth years. Likewise, psychologist Jean Twenge defines millennials as those born 1980–1994. A report by Ipsos MORI describes the term 'millennials' as a working title for the circa 15-year birth cohort born around 1980 to 1995, which has 'unique, defining traits'. Governmental institutions such as the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Center for the Promotion of Imports in the Netherlands have also used 1980 to 1995. The Australian Bureau of Statistics uses 1981–1995 to define Millennials in a 2021 Census report. CNN reports that studies sometimes define millennials as born between 1980–2000. A 2017 BBC report has also referred to this age range in reference to that used by National Records of Scotland. Academic publications by the Michigan State University, Eastern Michigan University, Kennesaw State University and Merrimack College cite millennials as born in 1980. In the UK, the Resolution Foundation uses 1981–2000. Sociologist Elwood Carlson, who calls the generation "New Boomers", identified the birth years of 1983–2001, based on the upswing in births after 1983 and finishing with the "political and social challenges" that occurred after the September 11 terrorist acts. Author Neil Howe, co-creator of the Strauss–Howe generational theory, defines millennials as being born from 1982 to 2004. The cohorts born during the cusp years before and after millennials have been identified as "microgenerations" with characteristics of both generations. Names given to these cuspers include Xennials, Generation Catalano, the Oregon Trail Generation; Zennials and Zillennials, respectively. The term geriatric millennial gained popularity in 2021 to describe those born in the beginning half of the 1980s between 1980 to 1985. The term has since been used and discussed by various media outlets including Today, CTV News, HuffPost, news.com.au, The Irish Times and Business Insider. References

Extended content

Extended content

Other definitions Australia's McCrindle Research uses 1980–1994 as Generation Y (millennial) birth years. Likewise, psychologist Jean Twenge defines millennials as those born 1980–1994. A report by Ipsos MORI describes the term 'millennials' as a working title for the circa 15-year birth cohort born around 1980 to 1995, which has 'unique, defining traits'. Governmental institutions such as the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Center for the Promotion of Imports in the Netherlands have also used 1980 to 1995. CNN reports that studies sometimes define millennials as born between 1980–2000. A 2017 BBC report has also referred to this age range in reference to that used by National Records of Scotland. Academic publications by the Michigan State University, Eastern Michigan University, Kennesaw State University and Merrimack College cite millennials as born in 1980. The Australian Bureau of Statistics uses 1981–1995 to define Millennials in a 2021 Census report. In the UK, the Resolution Foundation uses 1981–2000. Sociologist Elwood Carlson, who calls the generation "New Boomers", identified the birth years of 1983–2001, based on the upswing in births after 1983 and finishing with the "political and social challenges" that occurred after the September 11 terrorist acts. Author Neil Howe, co-creator of the Strauss–Howe generational theory, defines millennials as being born from 1982 to 2004. References

Extended content

Date and age range definitions Oxford Living Dictionaries describes a millennial as a person "born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s." Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines millennial as "a person born in the 1980s or 1990s." 1981-1996 Jonathan Rauch, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote for The Economist in 2018 that "generations are squishy concepts", but the 1981 to 1996 birth cohort is a "widely accepted" definition for millennials. Reuters also state that the "widely accepted definition" is 1981–1996. Likewise, the Pew Research Center defines millennials as the people born from 1981 to 1996, choosing these dates for "key political, economic and social factors", including the September 11 terrorist attacks, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Great Recession, and Internet explosion. The United States Library of Congress explains that "defining generations is not an exact science", although cites Pew's 1981–1996 definition to define millennials. Various media outlets and statistical organizations have cited Pew's definition including Time magazine, BBC,, The New York Times, and Statistics Canada. The Brookings Institution defines the millennial generation as people born from 1981 to 1996, as does Gallup, Federal Reserve Board, American Psychological Association,. Encyclopædia Britannica defines millennials as "the term used to describe a person born between 1981 and 1996, though different sources can vary by a year or two." Other definitions Australia's McCrindle Research uses 1980–1994 as Generation Y (millennial) birth years. The Australian Bureau of Statistics uses 1981–1995 to define Millennials in a 2021 Census report. Psychologist Jean Twenge defines millennials as those born 1980–1994. CNN reports that studies often use 1981–1996 to define millennials, but sometimes list 1980–2000. Although the United States Census Bureau have said that "there is no official start and end date for when millennials were born" and they do not officially define millennials, a U.S. Census publication in 2022 noted that Millennials are "colloquially defined as" the cohort born from 1981 to 1996, using this definition in a breakdown of Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data. In the UK, the Resolution Foundation uses 1981–2000. Sociologist Elwood Carlson, who calls the generation "New Boomers", identified the birth years of 1983–2001, based on the upswing in births after 1983 and finishing with the "political and social challenges" that occurred after the September 11 terrorist acts. Author Neil Howe, co-creator of the Strauss–Howe generational theory, defines millennials as being born from 1982 to 2004. Microgenerations The cohorts born during the cusp years before and after millennials have been identified as "microgenerations" with characteristics of both generations. Names given to these cuspers include Xennials, Generation Catalano, the Oregon Trail Generation; Zennials and Zillennials, respectively. References

RfC - 1980 as the alternative (earliest) starting birth year for millenials

I propose to improve the opening paragraph of the article to:

"Millennials, also known as Generation Y or Gen Y, are the demographic cohort following Generation X and preceding Generation Z. There are no precise or set definitions although researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years. It has been argued that millennials are typically defined as the generation born between 1981 to 1996, although 1980 has also been used as the earliest starting birth year."

A couple of people here have suggested that 1981 is the 'widely' accepted starting birth year and the lede should not contain any reference to 1980 at all. They cite two sources to support this case (). Only one of these sources supports this assertion while the other is out of date and not in support of this assertion in any case. There are countless examples of 1980 now being used as the starting year and it does not stand up to scrutiny that 1980 should be excluded from the lede. In any case, the article actually explicitly references 1980 as an alternative starting birth year within the "Date and age range definitions" section.

I propose to improve and clarify the lede based on the latest information and information already covered within the article. Therefore, making it more encyclopedic.Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

References

• Oppose. The first paragraph of the introduction is OK as it is. Nerd271 (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. The statement that "1981 is the 'widely' accepted starting birth year" is based on two references - one of which is out of date and does not support that statement anyway. It is a leap of faith to suggest that it is 'widely accepted' and it is not based on fact but only on one argument found in one source. There are multiple sources using 1980 as the starting year, some of which claim that 1980 is also "widely accepted starting birth year". Some respected sources claim that 1980 is the starting year. Therefore, to suggest that it is 'widely' accepted is a subjective statement and is disputed. All I have suggested is to cite 1980 as the 'earliest' starting birth year. This is factually correct and is consistent with the facts withtout actually engaging in the real world disagreement. It is perfectly reasonable.

  See these sources which cite 1980 as the starting birth year....

  https://statushero.com/blog/the-geriatric-millenial

  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335196131_Transformasi_perpustakaan_untuk_generasi_millenial_menuju_revolusi_industri_40

  https://medicfootprints.org/are-millenials-shaping-the-nhs

  https://commons.emich.edu/loexconf2006/6

  https://www.planday.com/blog/attract-millennial-customers

  https://www.emotionallyhealthy.org/tag/millenial-generation

  https://mccrindle.com.au/article/topic/generation-alpha/generation-alpha-defined

  https://info.angelfishfieldwork.com/market-research-fieldwork-blog/millennials-and-market-research-online-communities-the-perfect-match

  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/millennial.asp

  https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=phs

  https://insights.gostudent.org/en/millenial-parents

  https://budgetbakers.com/millennial-money-advice-annoying

  https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=emergingwriters

  https://insurance.aon.co.uk/resource-center/Business-insights/Generation-X-vs-Millennials---What-are-the-Different-Attitudes-to-Work

  https://workforceinstitute.org/more-agility-in-a-vuca-world-with-a-millenial-mindset

  Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Contrary to the proposer's claim, the proposed wording would neither be an improvement nor clarify the definition, as discussed above at #Introducing_1980_in_the_lede for the following reasons:

1. Wikipedia is not being vague; it is defining a vague concept. There are plenty of sources that place the starting point for the demarcation between 1980 and 1983, and the end point between 1995 and 2004. That said, 1981–1996 is the most common definition. Therefore I believe the lead as it is ("Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1981 to 1996") is consistent with the reality of the demarcation. The approach used here is not dissimilar to that used by Britannica.
2. As Some1 points out in the above discussion, specially marking out 1980 as the "starting date" would give WP:UNDUE weight to an outlier. There is no special reason to single it out from other years in the early 1980s. It just looks pointy.
3. This is NOT an issue of sourcing; even though some of the sources brought forward by Richie wright1980 are dubious, others are reputable. Indeed, some of them are already used in the date range section to source the 1980 date. However, all these sources do is provide a source that some definitions begin with 1980, and do not comment on the prevalence of the 1980 date. By the same token 1982 and 1983 are also sourced in the article.
4. It is misleading to say only two sources are provided for the 1981–1996 date. This is not what is being sourced. What we are sourcing here is the specific claim that 1981–1996 is the most common date range used to define the demarcation i.e. the prevalence/dominance of the 1981–1996 date. Reuters states "Millennials are widely accepted as having been born between 1981 and 1996." The Economist doesn't say this verbatim, but says "Generations are squishy concepts, but using widely accepted definitions...Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996". Britannica is also in a similar vein, defining demarcation as 1981–1996 but conceding the definitions can vary by a couple of years.

The lead as it stands is consistent with the date ranges and the weighting of the dates outlined in the section at Millennials#Date_and_age_range_definitions. Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I have added plenty of reliable sources above that support 1980 as the starting birth year - some of which claim that 1980 is in fact the widely used starting point. You are not able to argue otherwise as your whole argument is pinned on two sources only - one of which is out of date and does not support your view. Nevertheless, I am aware that other years such as 1982 and 1983 are also used. My proposed introduction does not contradict that. It makes clear that 1980 is the earliest starting birth year. That is a fact supported by plenty of sources. I am dubious as to why you would argue otherwise.Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Depending on the sources you look at, some even start Millennials as early as 1977.[6] It's an outlier, obviously, but that makes the "1980 is the earliest starting birth year" statement inaccurate. Some1 (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment and amended proposal. If we take this source seriously then of course the statement that "Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years" is also factually incorrect as you have now provided a source that confirms 1977 is in use. However, in the interests of not giving undue weight to a tiny viewpoint I would be inclined to swerve it. However, 1980 is not a tiny viewpoint. Some sources claim that it is widely accepted. CNN claims that it is an alternative starting point. This is more than significant. I am willing to accept that it is not the 'earliest' possibe date. But I am not willing to concede that it should be omitted from the lede. 1980 is too significant a date given all the available sources. Therefore, the lede could be changed to: "Millennials, also known as Generation Y or Gen Y, are the demographic cohort following Generation X and preceding Generation Z. There are no set definitions although researchers and popular media tend to use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years. It has been argued that millennials are typically defined as the generation born between 1981 to 1996, although 1980 has also been used as an earlier starting birth year."

Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment.Let me also correct your opening statement here: "Wikipedia is not being vague; it is defining a vague concept" Let's be absolutely clear, Wikipedia is made up of its contributors - of which includes both you, me and everyone else in collaboration. You are not the authority on Wikipedia. Language like that suggests that you have no interest in listening to other points of view. I see that you have been engaging in the same debate for at least the last 4 years. Is this subject personal to you at all? I am curious because I would suggest that it defies logic and is motivated by you attempting to gatekeep the page. May I also correct your 3rd point. Some of my sources actually do argue that 1980 is 'widely accepted'. May I also add another very reliable source that also claims 1980 is the starting year:

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-07/Ipsos%20-%20Millennial%20Myths%20and%20Realities.pdf

Not such an outlier opinion is it?

Richie wright1980 (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Betty Logan. The most commonly used year belongs in the lead, the distant second doesn't. Also note, if you look at the Date and age range definitions section of the article, there are 26 sources giving a start date of 1981, all of them more authoritative than the sources on your list. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Prove that each one is more authoritative. List them all and explain why each source is more authoritative. We can discuss each one in turn. This is also a tone deaf response. My proposal is not to contradict the popularity of 1981, rather to clarify that 1980 is the earliest starting date in use. It isn't a huge deal.Richie wright1980 (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The current, long-standing lead Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1981 to 1996. summarizes the Date and age range definitions section of this article in accordance with WP:NPOV/WP:DUEWEIGHT and does so just fine. 1980s already includes the year 1980; there is no need or reason to specify that that specific year "has also been used as the earliest starting birth year." Some1 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• CommentJust because something is longstanding does not mean it is accurate. It just means people are uneasy with changes. You are literally standing by sources that are out of date on the page. The claim that 1981 is widely accepted - above all the others - is pinned on a claim within one source only. This is not encyclopedic but a dogmatic attempt to force 1981 as the default date against all the available evidence. Wikipedia should not even claim that it is widely accepted - this is not a neutral statement but a loaded one - it should simply inform that 'it has been argued that it is widely accepted' and then present the alternatives. Besides 'early 1980s' is not an encyclopedic expression when there is plenty of evidence to justify 1980 as a good and well used example of a starting point.Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  See points #3 and #4 above by Betty Logan. The point of the WP:lead is to concisely summarize the most important points of the article. There is no reason to specify that "1980 has also been used as an earlier starting birth year", the same way there is no reason to say "1983 has also been used as a later birth year". It's superfluous, unnecessary, and insignificant. Early 1980s already encompasses this. Some1 (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment* What about them? Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment* I am happy to broaden the 'Date and age range definitions' section because there are enough persuasive sources there to suggest that 1980 is being used. Certainly a lot more than some here have suggested or given credit for. It definitely is not a tiny viewpoint when the likes of CNN are suggesting it as an alternative. And certainly not insignificant or they would not have mentioned it. In that case, when the 'Date and age range definitions' has been broadened, I would suggest that there would be even more of case to single out 1980 as a starting year. Likewise, there is absolutely no need to use vague expressions such as the 'early 1980s' when there are sources available to warrant more accurate and precise wording. I find it quite bizarre why there is resistance to a simple change. It's quite religious and I would argue unnecessary. Very bizarre.Richie wright1980 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Don't see how 1980 is in any way special when it is not the most popular starting year. The lead already says early 1980s, so obviously the common starting years are limited by being 1980 or later. This is a clear example of a personal view/preference of the years being forced unduly. BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – the range seems like the better choice here. I've read the rationales by other editors and I agree with them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:LEADREL and WP:UNDUE. There appears to be (and to have been) longstanding consensus on the existing lede, and this RfC appears to be trying to circumvent that consensus. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Introducing 1980 in the lede

Richie wright1980 has made repeated changes to the date range in the lead to incorporate 1980, on the grounds that the pre-existing version misrepresents the date range section in the article. There is no official definition—you can find definitions ranging 1980–2004—but there are several sources in the article explicitly citing 1981–1996 as the most common frame (see second paragraph at Millennials#Date_and_age_range_definitions). So the phrase "Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1981 to 1996" is entirely consistent with the date range section.

Richie wright1980 has repeatedly added 1980 to the typical definition and added sources to this effect; however, his sources don't actually corroborate his claim. Yes, they provide sourcing for the 1980 date, but not for the claim that 1980 is the most common starting date. The problem here is not the "pedantry" of those of us reverting, but rather that of WP:SYNTHESIS by Richie wight1980, because he is essentially clumping together a bunch of sources that cite 1980 and drawing his own inferences from that.

If you look through the discussion archives you will see that I have consistently argued against a reductionist perspective at this article; there have been several editors who just wanted to go with the 1981–1996 range, but in the absence of an official definition I have argued for including the outlier years too. However, in the interests of neutrality and due weight it is important to make clear what the typical range is and what the outlier years are. Either way, the existing wording was established by an RFC at Talk:Millennials/Archive_14#RfC_about_the_date_range_in_the_lead_section so the wording should not be unilaterally changed without a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally, the sources given () aren't at all compelling. WP:MEDIUM isn't a reliable source, and two of the three others aren't remotely authoritative. McCrindle is noteworthy, but since he uses 15-year generations with start-years ending in "0" or "5", he typically doesn't agree with the majority. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, millennials could start as early as 1977 and could end as late as 2004 depending on the source with a majority of studies that suggest 1995 as the starting year of genz. Therefore, I humbly suggest to make the sentence “could start from late 70s - early 80s and end from early 90s - early 2000s depending on the source.

it’s up to u, this is just a suggestion to be fair 144.86.14.193 (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Within the 'Date and age range definitions' section of the article, it is made clear that the Oxford Living Dictionaries describes a millennial as a person "born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s”. whilst Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines millennial as "a person born in the 1980s or 1990s. These dictionaries do not specify exact years.

The section goes on to further describe Jonathan Rauch's definition of 1981 to 1996 and Reuters argument that 1981 is the common starting point. I have not argued against that anywhwere nor made edits to counter that.

However, the section also goes on to describe that Australia's McCrindle Research uses 1980–1994 as well as Jean Twenge. It also mentions that CNN sometimes use 1980–2000.

There is also further mention of the 2009 report by Flynn who analysed the results of the Raven's Progressive Matrices test for British fourteen-year-olds from 1980 to 2008. Therefore, classifying that date range as a generation.

You will note my most recent edit “Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1980 (or more commonly 1981) to 1996”.

This is entirely consistent with the article and is entirely consistent with real world researchers. There is no re-definition going on here or personal opinion. My edits are entirely factual statements and there is no need to revert them. They can be further clarified to suggest that 1980 is 'sometimes' used as the starting point if necesarry to avoid any confusion.

However, what I think is happening here is people are averse to 1980 being used within the lede at all and that is not based on fact but personal opinion.

Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the issue is not one of sources providing different dates (there are many different sources providing different date ranges), but rather that there are two high-quality sources that explicitly state 1981–1996 is a "widely accepted definition"—a literature review also corroborates that this is the most frequently cited range, not 1980–1996. None of the sources you have offered comment on the prevalence of 1980. Stating that 1981–1996 is the most typical definition is consistent with the date range section, and other start/end dates that fall outside of this range are captured by the broader definition, so I reject your argument as a misapplication of WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Then you could solve that by simply changing the sentence to Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years. The generation is most typically defined as people born from 1981 to 1996, however a minority of researchers use 1980 as a starting point.

The article uses four noteworthy sources of 1980 being used: McCrindle Research, Jean Twenge, CNN and Flynn's research.

That is equal to the number of high quality sources that you have attributed to in your last comment.

Therefore, my amended and proposed sentence in the lede is entirely factual.Richie wright1980 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"early 1980s as starting birth years" already includes 1980; we don't need to single out 1980 by saying a "minority of researchers use 1980". See WP:UNDUE: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all... Some1 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the same thing that has happened over on the Generation Z article with a minority of sources using 1995/1996 as starting points. Putting "Early 1980's" in the introduction is good enough for me, at least. The widely used year range for Millennials has been 1981-1996 for years now. Zillennial (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Why mention early 1980s at all then? What does that even mean? 1980,1981,1982,1983,1984? Remove it and specify 1980 and 1981 as the starting points usage. Early 1980s is vague.Richie wright1980 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, it isn't a tiny minority at all using 1980. Lots more sources can be provided quite easily. "Early 1980s" is vague and could mean literally anything. It isn't encyclopedic and there is no reason why that should stand and using 1980 with numerous sources to back it up should not stand. It's nonsensical.Richie wright1980 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Removing "the early 1980s" and replacing it with 1980 would not reflect the fuzzy nature of the demarcation, and precludes other years such as 1982 and even 1983, which are occasionally used. Wikipedia is not being vague, it is describing a vague definition. There are several different start points ranging 1980–1983 and several different end points ranging 1995–2004, which is why the lead uses the language it does. The lead should not be giving undue weight to the most extreme outliers. Wikipedia's approach is not too dissimilar to Britannica's—is Britannica "nonsensical" and "unencylopedic"? Betty Logan (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Britannica is a poor example of an encyclopedia, with unverified content. Dimadick (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Grammar error in text

There's a grammatical error in the section "Social tendencies", subsection "Family and offspring" in the 4th paragraph. A sentence there reads: "Geopolitical analyst Peter Zeihan argued that because of the size of the millennial cohort relative to the size of the U.S. population and because they are having children, the United States will continue to maintain an economic advantage over most other developed nations, whose millennial cohorts are not only smaller than their those of their elders but are also not having as high a fertility rate". The bolded part is grammatically incorrect, removing the word "their" should fix the problem. Somebody who can edit the article should fix this. Thank you! 90.131.144.65 (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done Tollens (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Millenials are parents of younger Gen Z

Florian ! What are you talking about? There's definitely links also if you go to the generation z page . Pthere's a link literally Attach to the baby boomer 45 At the end of the paragraphs That younger boomers are parents of GenZ Was funny as when you click on it It also says that millennials Younger generation z I'm just not sure what While we can't put out all Information the way it's supposed to be Instead of cherry picking ! Deathlands82 (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

End and start dates are fuzzy at best for Gen X and Millenials generations !

I think all who edit in Wikipedia We should do our best to not just main line A Perceived popular opinion, We have a obligation to share the facts as they are really are However uncomfortable that may be for some. Pew Research states in 2014 generational Boundary explanations " they are murky and fuzzy that they have no real reason for their dates, ending For X and beginning for Millenials ! The End dates for X and Beginning dates Millenials change and have changed depending on the research group or colleague organization that us defines Definitions. Therefore, we should not set a hard, fast steak for either one. Because that would be of misleading to everybody that takes us as a reliable source For information…… Deathlands82 (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it not clear from the lead that the boundaries are fuzzy? Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The dates that you're talking about. Pew research are the ones that set those dates and they say that they're fuzzy In fact, i've actually put the links to this stuff that were contradictory to what was being posted And they just remove them lol Deathlands82 (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Changing a sentence in the lead

In the lead, currently it says "In turn millennials are often the parents of Generation Alpha." referencingt cite 3. However, the source does not say this, it is inverted; in the source it says (about gen alpha) "The majority of their parents? Millennials." - this is the logical opposite of what is in the article, saying that millenials/geny are "often" the parents of gen alhpa. Early millenials have plenty of kids that are gen z, and absent statistical citations showing that there are more gen alpha than gen z born to millenials (at this time), the current statement is factually unsupported. Instead of being bold, I bring it up here, because of the semi-protected state of the article, for discussion, as a proposed edit, removing the quoted sentence in the first line of this discussion topic. The inverse sentence (from the cited source) would be appropriate on the gen alpha page, not here. Rilmallion (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to your proposal. The semi-protected state is mostly due to the conflict over the defining dates and associated wording, which is now subject to a consensus. The edit you are proposing will not impact on that. Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

With noone else having replied in 24 hours, I'll choose to "be bold" then Rilmallion (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Reopening this question, as the change was reverted with a comment that I should have found a better source (I may be in the wrong here, but I am of the interpretation that the stated source should reflect what it supports, not that other wikipedians have the responsibility to find sources for unsupported statements).

The new source, in my reading, still does not support the statement "In turn millenials are often the parents of Generation Alpha", it has the same problem the previous source had; that it states that Gen Alphas are children of millenials - not that millenials mostly have Gen Alpha children (which the quoted, and suggested deleted statement says). This again means it is relevant for the Generation Alpha page, but not for the Millenial / Gen Y page. The article also has a US only perspective on numbers and trends (which could be interesting, though probably mostly on Gen Alpha, under a"In the US" heading, but not in the page lead).

@Dilbaggg: Could you weigh in here, so we can reach a consensus? Rilmallion (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect WP:BURDEN applies here. Betty Logan (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this page written by hateful boomers looking for a scapegoat?

Seriously?! "The me generation" "Me me me". Did you just look for the most pathetic hateful pandering you could find? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:7A9F:15B2:D016:1D91 (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This article just assumes that changes to tourism must be because of millenials.

it just completely ignores that previous generations are still the majority of vacationers, and that their decisions are driven by economics - mostly a cheap peso. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:7A9F:15B2:D016:1D91 (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Key to China's "economic miracle" was its one-child policy?, which curbed population growth and enabled the economy to industrialize rapidly.

Minimum wages and free trade in America had no relation at all? It was ENTIRELY because china limited their population to one kid, for thirty years? 2604:3D09:D78:1000:7A9F:15B2:D016:1D91 (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Often called unlucky? Then you should two sources right?

Unlucky just sounds like somebody who didn't want to bother doing research into how this happened. "If only there were some science that studied currency or wealth or societies that could shed light on why millenials rolled snake eyes". What a joke that is. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:7A9F:15B2:D016:1D91 (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

How millenials are considered less lucky than people who lived through two world wars, spanisfh flu and the great depression is beyond me.

Im guessing that source has the famous "graph go down" type of "evidence" to back that up. 46.7.28.113 (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter and 1979 State of the Union

There's only reason why I've been saying the first Millennials were born in 1979: President Jimmy Carter said in his State of the Union address that year that "our children who will be born this year will come of age in the 21st century." That's the only reason for my edits to include details about Carter's State of the Union address about the first Millennials. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)