User talk:Aboutbo2000
Aboutbo2000, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Aboutbo2000! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC) |
Millennials edit
[edit]Regarding this: [1] Can you go on the talk page, cite some sources, and explain why you think the consensus is early-2000s? Because most people on the talk page and the vast majority of reliable sources do not state early 2000's as the ending dates for Millennials. Also, the oldest Gen-Z is 21 and yes, they are in college [2]. Someone963852 (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- FYI, I responded to you on the talk page Talk:Millennials#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_12_April_2018.Someone963852 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I removed those sources because of this suggestion [3]. All of those sources that were added back in aren't in-depth, research-based sources. The main reason differentiating them and the Pews Research source is that the Pews article provided researched backed reasons why they cut-off the years the way they did. The sole purpose of the article is to define the Millennial date range concluded from decades of their research. The articles you added do not. Here are the problems I'm having with the sources: A "2017 viral video from BuzzFeed" and the "American television program Survivor, for their 33rd season, subtitled Millennials vs. Gen X" are not reliable sources for end dates. They use those dates as categorization for purposes other than to study the generation/ generation dates. Random companies such as Goldman Sachs, Resolution Foundation, Times magazine cover story, SYZYGY, Merriam Webster, etc. are not research-based companies or demographers. Like the reason for the other two, they use those dates to categorize groups of people for marketing, survey purposes, aka purposes other than to actually study the generational date ranges. The article from the Atlantic you provided is an opinion based article with no original research. The article uses out-dated data from Neil Howe and William Strauss to define the date ranges, and data as old as 2000 aren't reliable anymore to define the new generation. Every time a random company or article pops up with their own date categorization should not be added to the article; it will clutter the section to pointless trivia. Only primary sources that are focused on researching the generational date ranges should be added. Hope that helps explain why those sources were removed. Someone963852 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Should note that the Pews Research article is recent (March 2018). Before that there were no researched-based data on the Millennial date ranges, so that explains why so many companies had different ways of categorizing the Millennials. But now that there is a primary source, the lead should be updated to reflect it. Someone963852 (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Could you stop POV pushing with this edit [4]? It doesn't matter what they stated prior to March 2018 because they had no conclusive research yet. Now that they do, the article will list the date ranges that they concluded. Adding that unnecessary, disclaimer-like line just shows that you're pushing a non-neutral POV. Someone963852 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Please stop editing the Millennials page and continue with the discussion on the talk page, I have requested full protection to encourage further discussion, thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Your reversion of my removal of that section ignores my Edit summary. Something can be referenced to a reliable source, and still not belong in an article. I started a section on this matter on the Talk page. Nobody is responding. It makes me regard all edits such as yours as vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.