Talk:Millennials/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

In reading section "Courtship behaviour" I came across a few bits that sound like English as a Foreign Language:

• Chinese millennials are less keen on tying the knots
  • the idiom is "tying the knot" (no plural) but since the idiom's literal meaning is a red herring, please just change it to "less keen on marrying."
• and 26% were open to either kinds.
  • same plurality error: "either kind."
• and 58% either types of relationship.
  • same plurality error: "either type"
• reasons for their decision to avoid dating were more having important priorities
  • word transposition: "having more important"

Dictionary definition for single is "an unmarried person" which is consistent with all those government forms we have to fill out whenever we deal with the bank, rent, driving licence authorities, passports, etc where the "Marital status" responses always begin with "Single (never married)" explicitly. However, very recently I have encountered people saying the word "single" yet expecting their audience to hear "not currently seriously dating anyone" (not that that label has objective criteria, so it's largely open to personal interpretation). This article uses the official meaning for "single" (never married) however I expect if this linguistic drift continues, naive future readers will misunderstand the statistics presented as referring to people not-dating. Therefore I would suggest searching for "single" and changing it (where appropriate) to "unmarried" to reduce potential ambiguity. This proposed change is less cut-and-dried than the others though. Thanks. 49.195.77.158 (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The article has template ｛｛pp-vandalism|small=yes｝｝ at the top and I only get a View Source, not Edit, tab. I believe only registered users can directly edit such pages and I have lost my credentials to LastPass, so these days edit anonymously. Sorry! 49.195.77.158 (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the request is pointing at the non protected redirect. That explains it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh! Mea culpa. I must have stuffed that up. Sorry about that and good catch! I have fixed my Edit Request now. 49.195.77.158 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd do the request for you now, but I'm on mobile, so I'm sure I'd fuck it up. If someone doesn't take care of it in a few days I'll make the edits when I have a chance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Millenial birth year actually started on 1982…

Please update year range? 2600:1003:B033:E074:BC47:E5E5:E5AB:6B09 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The dates in the article are all sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Information

So this information can't be accurate , this study involves individuals between 18-24 and then again 65nand older, where's the.information between 24 -65? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.255.220 (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Millennial birth years

The age range needs to be updated to include 1997. 2600:6C55:547F:F60D:104A:D74C:A50F:90C9 (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent update removing ending from mid 90s to early 00s

I see this edit changing millennials to ending in the mid 90s only was done to make it more “consistent” with the rest of the article. This change doesn’t make sense when under the range section, it has sources stating:

CNN reports that studies often use 1981–1996 to define millennials, but sometimes list 1980–2000.[71] The Resolution Foundation uses 1981–2000.[72] Elwood Carlson 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 11th terrorist acts.[73] Author Neil Howe, co-creator of the Strauss–Howe generational theory, defines millennials as being born from 1982 to 2004.

In this case, I believe the edit should be reverted. Additionally there is no mention that the US Census had been using a millennial end of 2000 as well since the 2020 Census:

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/press-kits/2020/2020-demographic-analysis/presentation-2020-demographic-analysis-news-conference.pdf Centennial357 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The edit has been reverted. I have also added the US Census Bureau source for the alternative date. Betty Logan (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much Betty Logan! Centennial357 (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Come on, people, you're all experienced Wikipedia users, you must know that this is not the way talk pages work. Proposed changes aren't supposed to be made until there's consensus. But, in a spirit of cooperation I will make incremental changes to the current text instead of reverting. The sources clearly say that millennials are 1981-1996 per the Pew Research Center, Jonathan Rauch (writing for the Economist), Reuters, the Brookings Institution, Gallup, the Federal Reserve Board, the American Psychological Association, CBS, ABC Australia, and, citing Pew, the US Library of Congress, Time magazine, BBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, PBS, the Los Angeles Times, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Statistics Canada. But again, I won't put the dates in the lead section without discussing it first.

The sources that support a 2000s end date consist of two individuals, one of whom doesn't call the generation millennials, and one little-known foundation. Giving the 2000s dates parity in the lead sentence violates WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP. Some of the sources are also misrepresented, which I'll address in the article. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a whole paragraph in the dates section documenting date ranges outside of 1996. The US Census Bureau is on record as saying there is no official definition, and in the last couple of years has used both 1996 and 2000 as end dates. I see no legitimate reason as to why the US Census Bureau is considered reliable for the earlier date but should be discounted if it uses an alternative date. Given that 1996 is the most widely accepted date I agree that it should be singled out, but I'd say the lead as it stands does a good job of capturing the balance given the lack of official definition and spread of alternative dates. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I still think the lead is wrong, but I didn't intend to make a change without discussion. I thought that the non-2000s version was the long-standing one based on the lead from this conversation.

Regarding the US Census Bureau, I actually don't think either of their dates belong here, and we should just stick with the statement that they don't define millennials. But I don't care enough about this to try to make that change. I've made a change to the wording making it clearer that the Bureau isn't defining "millennial" in either of their articles, it's just mentioned in passing.

Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it is significant that the US Census Bureau is i) on record for saying they don't define a date range; and ii) have over the last few years used two different dates. I think it illustrates perfectly just how fuzzy the definitions of generations are, and more importantly how they evolve. Most definitions arise out of common usage so I can't think of a good reason for excluding such an important organization. Roughly speaking millennials form the cohort that were born in the final two decades of the 20th century, with 1981–1996 the most common definition, and a secondary spike around 2000. A generation is a nebulous concept anyway (apart from the baby boom generation that is based on a birth spike so has clear demographic criteria) so it is a futile exercise IMO to try and pin it down more than that. I simply do not understand this preoccupation on Wikipedia with imposing hard definitions that in reality do not exist. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And I saw the note about the page being lengthy, is it really necessary to be listing all the places that cited the Pew range under the ranges section? They didn’t make a range or add anything to said range so what value does it add to list all of them? Centennial357 (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Various media outlets and statistical organizations have cited Pew's definition including Time magazine,[51] BBC,[52] The Washington Post,[53] The New York Times,[54] The Wall Street Journal,[55] PBS,[56] The Los Angeles Times,[57] the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics,[58] and Statistics Canada.[59]

Instead of listing sources that cite Pew, shouldn’t it be other sources providing Millennial ranges such as:

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/are-millennials-so-different-generations-them (Harvard May 2021 stating 1981-2000)

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/mapmaker-generations (National Geographic May 2022 stating 1981-1998)

https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/millennials-on-millennials-in-canada-2018.pdf (Nielsen May 2018 stating 1980-2000)

https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/archive/millennials/ (Goldman Sachs 2015 staying 1980-2000)

The first three sources being less than 5yrs old, and all four from well known organizations shedding light on millennials. Centennial357 (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Pew Research Center's definition is heavily cited by reliable secondary sources, hence the addition of the sentence. Re: your suggestion, we don't want to start bloating the Date and age range section up with a bunch of random definitions from random organizations. Some1 (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Some1 Are none of Harvard, NatGeo, Nielsen, and Goldman Sachs organizations as reliable as some of those listed secondary sources? And my point was more to say, if the section is about demonstrating the millennial ranges out there, what does that paragraph of secondary sources using Pew add to the section? Pew’s range is already discussed/cited. Listing a bunch of secondary sources citing Pew adds how much compared to using primary sources stating ranges? Centennial357 (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The section isn't about displaying any and all possible Millennial date ranges out there though. WP:V is one thing, but WP:NPOV, particularly WP:WEIGHT, is another. To answer your second and third question, it is to give Pew Research Center's definition WP:DUE weight, since again, it's the most heavily cited definition of Millennials by reliable secondary sources which makes it noteworthy to mention. Some1 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2022

Indeed uses 1981–1996 definition. Please add it on Millennials#Date and age range definitions section.

Source:

117.53.77.84 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

References

What Indeed uses isn't noteworthy for inclusion per the lack of secondary sources citing their usage. Some1 (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Musicians

In the Cultural Identity / USA section, the text says that the most representative musicians are Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, the Backstreet Boys, Michael Jackson, Drake, and Eminem, but the accompanying photos include Kanye West. The article that is linked regarding musicians does not mention Kanye at all and there does not appear to be another source suggesting that he is representative (or the source isn't clearly indicated). Is there a source on Kanye being one of the most representative musicians for Millenials? If not, should he be removed from the series of photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0B:B711:0:CCAB:D655:F308:94F8 (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

2021 Australian census

25 to 39 years old as of 2021 was defined as Millennials in the 2021 Australian census. Should we add it on Date and age range definitions section or not?

References

117.53.77.84 (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The years are listed as 1981-1995 here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

REMOVE PARAGRAPH: American Millennials that have, or are, serving in the military may have drastically different views and opinions than their non-veteran counterparts.[105] Because of this, some do not identify with their generation;[106] this coincides with most millennials having a lack of exposure and knowledge of the military, yet trust its leadership.[107] Yet, the view of some senior leadership of serving millennials are not always positive.[108]

REASON: Claim is not fact- or data-based and poorly cited. Citation 105 links to a dead page. Citations 106, 107, 108 come from one source (Hoover Institution) and are highly editorial/opinion in nature. Heavypixel (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

​ Done Works for me. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for splitting

Howdy, folks! Since this article is already really long, I suggest we split it into "Millennials" and "Millennials in the United States," since much of the material here pertains to that country. The latter is now a draft. "Millennials in the United States" is presently a redirect. Nerd271 (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the question is what would be left of the current article? We don't want the main article gutted, nor do we need a second article that duplicates much of the content. These demographic demarcations are generally American/European-centric anyway because of the impact the two world wars had on birth patterns. Betty Logan (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a much shorter Wikipedia article. Given the historical era that this generation grew up in, it is hardly a surprise that our treatment is, and has to be, Eurocentric. Those who complain can bring in more materials from non-Western societies. I will work on condensing the draft. Nerd271 (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think that, rather than splitting, we should focus on cutting stuff in this article that relies on sources that don't talk about millenials as a group. Part of the problem is that the article has become a dumping ground for random synthesis and original research related to any sort of demographic trends at all, completely disconnected from the concept of "millenials" and generational cohorts. If we're more rigorous about removing stuff that lacks a source specifically discussing millenials, then we'll end up with a tighter and better-sourced article; whereas I'm concerned that splitting it could essentially result in a fork that is basically just making arbitrary demographic arguments. I'm especially concerned with how much this article cites Kaufmann, whose views are controversial, as if he is very nearly the sole mainstream source for Millennial demographics on religion, fertility, immigration, and politics - even though he largely doesn't mention Millenials at all! Stripping that natter out or trimming it to just a sentence or two cited to the places where he mentions Millenials by name (and doing similar things for other sources, focusing on what they say about Millenials, by name) would go a long way to getting this article's size back under control. --Aquillion (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

If we create a "Millennials in the United States" article, then we would see lots of redundancy in information and it would effectively be a WP:Content fork. I would be open to trying to make this article WP:Summary style, which would allow us to cut down the length of this main article by only having quick summaries of subtopics that are expanded in their own articles. However, I think there is a lot of unnecessary detail in this article that we should trim first. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Outdated information

"Between 1992 and 2002, Russia's population dropped from 149 million to 144 million. According to the "medium case scenario" of the U.N.'s Population Division, Russia could lose another 20 million people by the 2020s."

The source is an article from 2004. It's 2022 now and Russia's population is still 144 million. 85.108.154.225 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It was a serious problem at the turn of the century, but Putin introduced a programme to incentivise having more children. I agree the sentence probably needs to be reviewed/removed per WP:AGEMATTERS. Betty Logan (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic russian birthrates similarly to most other ethnic European birthrates are continuously plummeting - the only effective way of restoring russia's population is through immigration from the Central Asia (or at least it was like that pre-invasion - there was a considerable backflow since then). --VileGecko (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This complete and utter nonsense

A millennium is 1000 years. A millennial is a person born to a new millennium. There was no year 0 so 1-1001-2001. A millennial is a person born in the year 2001 or after. 82.3.20.48 (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Not even remotely true, a Millennial is someone who came of age in the new Millennium — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00A:CD93:71AA:8F9D:1307:F3C3 (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2023

In the lead, please add another sentence clarifying why Millennials are called that (since a lot people get confused and think it's 2000s-borns). Change

"Millennials have been described as the first global generation and the first generation that grew up in the Internet age. The generation is generally marked by elevated usage of and familiarity with the Internet, mobile devices, and social media, which is why they are sometimes termed digital natives. Between the 1990s and the 2010s, people from the developing world became increasingly well educated, a factor that boosted economic growth in these countries. Millennials across the world have suffered significant economic disruption since starting their working lives; many faced high levels of youth unemployment during their early years in the labour market in the wake of the Great Recession, and suffered another recession in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic."

to

"Millennials are named as such because they grew up around the turn of the 3rd millennium. They have been described as the first global generation and the first generation that grew up in the Internet age. The generation is generally marked by elevated usage of and familiarity with the Internet, mobile devices, and social media, which is why they are sometimes termed digital natives. Between the 1990s and the 2010s, people from the developing world became increasingly well educated, a factor that boosted economic growth in these countries. Millennials across the world have suffered significant economic disruption since starting their working lives; many faced high levels of youth unemployment during their early years in the labour market in the wake of the Great Recession, and suffered another recession in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic." 174.55.91.169 (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: no need. Terminology and etymology is already the first section, and the lede states the specific criteria for being a millennial. – small jars tc 09:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I feel like people who don't read beyond the lead are going to be confused why Millennials didn't start being born in the millennium. Also, the terminology section only focuses on Millennials being those who came of age in 2000, which only applies to the very oldest ones. For Millennials as a whole, adding a general statement that they "grew up around the turn of the millennium" (not solely coming of age around then) in the intro would add context and reduce confusion.

Religious beliefs

would it be possible to add the notion of "disenchantment of the world" in the section 'Religious beliefs', a term coined by Marcel Gauchet in his 1985's self titled book. It's mainly linked to Millennials from Western countries because his theory touches on Christianity. He states that due to the historical unfolding of the religion, Western countries were loosing touch with Christianity while it lost its foothold in those countries' institutions. I believe it's relevant to add it on this page, in this section, because according to Gauchet, the disenchantment is contemporary to the period to which Millennials were born and the spiritual environment they grew up in. Kafkai1xx 2 September 2021, 02:27pm UTC+0

That is not a religion, but more like an outlook on life. Nerd271 (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Correct word usage

In the section on "Cognitive Abilities", the phrase "because more students take the SAT in the 2010s then in the 1970s" should be corrected to "than" for the sake of correct word usage. 2600:6C40:6100:FF8E:F82E:DDA2:5A14:EFBD (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

US census mention in Date and age range definitions section

I think the US census mention should be moved to the third paragraph of the section because it says the US census using 1981-1996 defition. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

statement in first paragraph is wrong It needs to be corrected.

in the first paragraph, this article erroneously states that millennials are: "the children of baby boomers or the children of older generation. x parents. " this is a glaring obvious ridiculous fact error. The opposite has to be true because the baby boom generation otherwise known as generation w came before generation x, so millennials children would be the offspring of older baby boomers rather than gen x parents. somebody please fix this because it sounds effing stupid and makes Wikipedia look bad. 75.251.57.56 (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Millennials started in roughly 1981. Those oldest millennials would have parents born between roughly 1961 (20 year old parents) and 1941 (40 year old parents).

For those born in 1996, using the same estimates, their parents would be born between 1976 and 1956. So parents' birth years would range roughly from 1941 to 1976 which is which is all of the baby boomers and a the older half of Gen X if we cut off the extreme years. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Poll in British Millennial politics section

Hi Nerd271, you readded this standalone text which I had removed.

"A YouGov poll conducted in the spring of 2018 revealed that 58% of Britons between the ages of 25 and 49 thought that immigration to their country was "too high", compared to 41% of those aged 18 to 24." 

The issue here is that whilst the section is mostly made up of paragraphs of analysis of lots of different evidence brought together this is a one of poll without any context given. If we did this for every or even a handful of age samples from polls conducted since the oldest millennials became adults that section would quickly become a disorganised mess. It is also questionable whether age subsamples of polls intended to cover the entire population are really large enough to be useful. Llewee (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Could be a standalone paragraph. Immigration is a relevant topic in British politics nowadays. Nerd271 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Nerd271 so are a lot of things--Llewee (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee: Yes, indeed. This is why it makes sense to split the article, which I have been working on. See Draft:Millennials in the United States. Nerd271 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Nerd271 I think the article is undoubtedly long enough to be split. I just don't think that their is much point including this polling in particular.--Llewee (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

• I think that we should generally avoid using sources (especially data pulled from polls) that doesn't talk about "millennials" specifically. The term has a complicated meaning - simply summarizing every poll or study that happens to mention an age range that an editor feels overlaps with that demographic isn't appropriate and goes beyond simple WP:CALC into WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. If it is true that a poll shows that something is true for millennials, and that poll is WP:DUE, we should be able to find a secondary source saying so in as many words. Especially when it comes to something like demographics - there are so many polls, saying so many things, that there's a huge risk that we could inadvertently end up with cherry-picked polls based on what we look for; the solution is to limit ourselves to polls that have secondary coverage connecting them to the topic of "millenials" in as many words. There's already more than enough of that to support an article, after all. --Aquillion (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources that don't talk about millennials or generations

This is an article about millennials as a generation; it's not a general article for every single bit of demographic information that exists anywhere. I don't think we should be using sources, or including significant text, that doesn't talk about millenials (or words to that effect, like Gen Y or clear discussion of generational cohorts that includes millenials.) That topic is already massively broad and has huge amounts of coverage; there's no need to include every poll that happens to cover that particular demographic, or everything published in 2001 that talks about kids, or every article saying that the world has changed in any context or whatever. I'm going to start going over the article to remove clearly non-millenial-related stuff. And some of this is just completely random data with no connection to millenials whatsoever - eg. paragraphs and sources about the economy of Europe with no mention, in the paragraphs or the sources, of any demographic or generational impact at all. That's pure WP:SYNTH, surely. --Aquillion (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Performing arts and forests" lacks citation

"A rural county's chances of having a performing arts organization is 60% higher if it is located near a national park or forest." Says who? 2600:1700:1936:4810:D90E:AECF:D65A:C76 (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Date range section

@Richie wright1980: Please do not undertake a complete restructuring of the date range section, as you did here, without first obtaining a consensus. The way you have framed the section makes it look like there is a huge debate over whether 1980 or 1981 is the "start" date for being a millenial. As you can see from the RFC above, we do not accept that such a debate exists. The emerging consensus from the RFC is that 1980 should not receive any more prominence than the other dates, so I suggest you let that finish before initiating any more changes to the framing of dates in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for consensus on this. Plenty of reliable sources have now been provided to support 1980 as the starting birth year as proposed by media, government institutions and academics. The comments above were based on information before this was posted as you are well aware. Whether there is a huge debate or not is not for you and I to settle - the structure is organised in the way that information is presented on the internet. If you insist on reverting these edits whilst reliable information is posted you are in breach of neutral point of view and will be reported to ANI. It is simple as that. Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on consensus--see WP:CONSENSUS. There's no list of exceptions. In addition to Betty Logan's points, your change makes the section longer to no clear benefit, almost certainly fails WP:UNDUE / WP:BALASP, and is either carelessly done or done in bad faith, since many of the citations don't mention 1980. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Every single source of information that I have provided specifically and explicitly mentions 1980 as the starting birth year. Every single one has been carefully selected. This is entirely good faith.Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

1) Your restructuring makes the section unnecessary long. 2) No one is disagreeing that 1980 is being used by some as the starting birth year. The current section already states that some sources use 1980. 3) And as Betty Logan said, splitting 1981 and 1980 into separate sections makes it seem as if there's some sort of huge debate between the two years as the starting birth year, but that's not the case at all. Splitting it like that is misleading and fails WP:NPOV. 4) "Geriatric millennial" describes a proposed microgeneration in a tongue-in-cheek way, and is not meant to seriously define the Millennials generation at all. Some1 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

But that debate - whether real or imagined - is not for you and I to settle. we describe the alternative points of view we do not engage in them and that is precisely what I have done. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Date and age range definitions (Amended as per Talk page consensus and feedback)

VERSION A

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. 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 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, American Psychological Association, CBS, and ABC Australia. 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 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. Micro-generations 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 New York Post, Today, Evening Standard, CTV News, HuffPost, news.com.au, The Irish Times and Business Insider. Richie wright1980 (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC) References

Date and age range definitions

There is a very strong case to split and clarify the 'Date and age range definitions' section to include information regarding the different starting birth years for millenials - most notably 1980 and 1981. 69 reliable sources listed below justify a separate sub-heading for 1980 and 1981 as starting birth years for millenials. This is supported by evidence from the media, government institutions and academics and is the most up to date available. Long term contributors to the page must be careful not to revert any changes based on WP:OWN. Contributors with different points of view are specifically invited here to improve the 'Date and age range definitions' section. I have included proposals for this below:Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This change was already addressed in the "Date range section" section above, and there was a clear consensus against it. In addition to the issues pointed out there, the change is biased and non-NPOV. You claim 69 sources but you have only about 30, and half of these come from the somewhat fantastic claim that any publication mentioning the obscure term "geriatric millennials" even once is endorsing this date range even if they never mention 1980. There's no evidence that the "Google/Flamingo /Ipsos" study defines "millennial" at all--it's only mentioned in passing in the HuffPo-UK article (not the other two sources), and that one is a blog post and probably not a RS. You also include sources that mention both 1980 and 1981 in the "1980" section only. With one or two exceptions the rest of your sources are obscure, unlike the "1981" sources, which are all major. Please stop beating this dead horse. Dan Bloch (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2023 (PDT)

Further to our recent communication, thank you for the reply and I have noted the comments above. I have referred to all 69 sources as a whole, not just my own. I have argued that all of them combined justify a separate sub-heading for 1980 and 1981. Some of those sources refer to 1980, some to 1981 and some to both. They confirm the existence of both date ranges.

Reply to @User:Danbloch:

Thank you for the reply and I have noted the comments above. I have referred to all 69 sources as a whole, not just my own. I feel that all of them combined justify a separate sub-heading for 1980 and 1981. Some of those sources refer to 1980, some to 1981 and some to both. They confirm the existence of both date ranges.

The comments above address concerns regaring the lede, this section is about improving the 'Date and age range definitions' based on persausive sources. There is a request on the article page to consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. This new discussion I have started here addresses this request and must not be confused with the discussion above concerning the lede.

I am willing to adapt the proposed sub-headings to '1981 as starting birth year', 'Other definitions' and 'Micro-generations'. That maintains the primacy of 1981 whilst addressing any concerns that neglected view points are properly addressed. It also addresses the concern that the article needs to be more readable.

For example, the BBC, The Guardian, Time Out etc... have referred to 1980 in some of their articles only. It must be worth mentioning that and not mislead that they have only ever referred to 1981 as the section currently implies.

What do you think?

Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What I suggest, Richie, is that you leave off from editing the article until the RFC concludes, and let us get that issue resolved first. In the meantime, what you could do is go through your sources and clearly list each source separately with the range it uses (i.e. not just the start date, but the whole range) here on this talk page, preferably providing any contextual sentences, and if possible the date the sources was published. For example:

CNN (2022): Born 1981-1996 (Sometimes listed as 1980-2000)

Also, please don't cherry-pick dates. If your source provides other ranges then please also provide those too. We have no interest in creating a link farm, but if we have sources saying conflicting things then that is noteworthy. If there are date ranges we haven't covered that is noteworthy. Also, scholarly articles (especially by demographers) are considered the highest quality sources, so we'd be especially interested in those. So as a first step, we need to review what you've found, but it also needs to be in a digestible format so editors can make sense of it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you aware of the following paragraphs within the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing article?

The following constitutes Tendentious editing:

Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources

Expecting others to find sources for your own statements

Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others

This request here is simply asking too much from any Wikipedia contributor. If good faith reliable sources are persistently overturned that in itself constitutes tendentious editing. Are you aware of that? Richie wright1980 (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As has been repeated ad nauseum, the problem is not so much the sources but what we consider your non-neutral framing of the sources. You are the editor seeking to change the article, so the onus is on you to obtain a consensus. I am simply suggesting an approach that would help other editors here review the sources you seek to introduce into the article, which we think is a task you have not undertaken neutrally so far. Betty Logan (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You can see above that I have modified my proposals throughout and now plan to introduce subheadings as follows: '1981 as starting birth year', 'Other definitions' and 'Micro-generations'. This has addressed any concerns about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and framing the sources to cause any undue weight. It also addresses the concern that the article needs more subheadings – which is requested at the top of the article page. You have also been significantly accommodated throughout this discussion to maintain your assertion that 1981 takes primacy. There is not a lot more anyone could do to compromise any further.

I again draw your attention to this particular paragraph of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing:

"There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number of or validity of the information cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint."

This is what you are engaging in now and I urge you not to do this. By doing so, you are undermining a valid and constructive discussion. Moreover, your use of, and threat to use again Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling to maintain your preferred version is also undermining any collaborative effort.

Within this policy is the following which I draw your attention to:

"While it's very difficult for one editor acting alone to succeed with stonewalling, if only two or three are involved, who don't even have to be coordinating their efforts, their ability to successfully build and maintain a stonewall retaining the status quo can be distressingly effective. With a few more editors it becomes even easier."

I urge all editors not to engage in this behaviour and to take seriously on board what is a perfectly reasonable proposition and one which is perfectly compliant with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

You really must move on from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view argument now, this has already been substantially addressed.Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal affords to much WP:WEIGHT to 1980, and it is still manufacturing a debate around when the cohort starts. When the cohort ends is just as important—perhaps more important because it takes in more dates. You are also listifying the section and turning it into a link farm to distort the coverage of 1980 dates in relation to other dates. Likewise, I could similarly scrape for more sources for 1981–1996 and make the section twice as large, and I could bump up the sources for the other dates too.

The sources are clear about this: 1981–1996 is the dominant date, the de facto definition, and then there are other dates ranging from the early 1980s to early 2000s. That is how the section needs to be structured because that reflects the reality of the date ranges in reliable sources. It is not necessary to detail every single source that has used a specific date range; if anything there are too many sources in the section already because we don't need to know the dates various publications use. It should be evident to you that you do not yet have a WP:CONSENSUS to alter the structure of the section. Betty Logan (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Betty Logan With respect, you have been the most vocal opposer of this throughout and resorted to Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling to maintain your position. Your concerns have been substantially addressed already and I would urge you to read Wikipedia:You don't have to win by arguing. There is no such expression as a 'link farm' on Wikipedia - there would be no encyclopedia at all if that were the case. Furthermore, if that is the case then let us reduce the number of sources for 1981 since the point has been sufficiently made about its prominence already. So long as sources meet reliability and verifiability, editors are encouraged to use them. I am not concerned with making more of 1981's case here - I think you have done enough of that already. What these amendments are concerned about is taking more into account neglected viewpoints. Furthermore, the text as it stands now is misleading. Some of the publications quoted as using 1981 also use 1980 solely with no mention of 1981. That is worth mentioning. In any case, I am keen to include other editors here with different arguments as these repetitive arguments are circular and unhelpful. Richie wright1980 (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be more than happy for the "media outlets" that are given as examples of usage in the 1981–1996 paragraph to be deleted. I think the statistical organizations should remain though. Betty Logan (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I was actually being sarcastic. I do not advocate deleting the pertinent citations of others. I am not here to undermine the good faith contributions of fellow editors. However, if we have reached common ground in agreeing that this article requires better balance then my work is done.Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I may have cracked it folks! I am genuinely appealing for your support on this as I have taken every single person's views on board - including my own! I am going to design a table for the 'Date and age range definitions' section. It will list all the available date ranges in use and there will be a part to list all the sources that use those date ranges. It will reflect what is currently on the page as well as incorporating the sources that I have accumulated to support 1980. That way, the appropriate due weight will be obvious to the reader as the most popular date range in use will have the most sources. I think that way we give the appropriate amount of weight to each date range as well as breaking up the monotony of the page. It will look something along the lines of this...Pride Quarter, Liverpool#Timeline of Liverpool's LGBT scene. The page let's face it needs breaking up as the improvement labels suggest. Come on guys support this! Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I oppose turning the section into a table as it would remove the context and put all dates on an equal footing, when in reality we know that is not the case. If there are date ranges from the section that are omitted then by all means add them with an appropriate source. Prose is more effective at framing the commentary about the dates. If you persist with breaching WP:NPOV I will be left no choice but to report you at ANI again. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Back with a threat again Betty? Would you like to demonstrate some good faith on this please? Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have a proposal for completely restructuring the section then you will first need to obtain a consensus for such a change, especially if it continues affording too much weight to non-prominent dates. If you attempt to edit-war it into the article as you have been doing then it is likely your next block will be much longer. Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The new proposed Date and age range definitions section takes on board the Talk page discussion in hand and is as follows:

"Most millennials are the children of baby boomers and older Generation X"

In the lead, shouldn't this be "Most millennials are the children of Generation X and older baby boomers"? Deor (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Well if you use 1981–1996 as the date range under consideration, and 30 years as the mean age for motherhood, then that would mean millennials were born to parents who were born between 1951 and 1966. That would be consistent with baby boomers and older Gen X. Betty Logan (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I guess it's just me who considers 30–50 years old (for baby boomers) to be relatively old in terms of childbearing. Deor (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Most 50-year old women can't have children, but that is not what is happening here. If you stick with 30 as the average age for child-bearing, then early millennials (born in the 80s) were most likely born to women born in the 1950s (boomers); later millenials (those born in the early 90s) were mostly born to women in the 1960s (younger boomers and older Gen X). Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)