Talk:Millennials/Archive 14

’After the Millennials’/Anne Boysen addition

Hi, I was wondering if anyone knows how I should approach an addition to the articles about Millennials and Generation Z. I found a pretty informative website called ’After the Millennials’ by Anne Boysen, and it has information about both generations as well as about the confusing cut-off between the two.

I read about the due and undue guideline Wikipedia has and that minority views should not get as much space as majority views. It is a minority view I suppose, because she defines Millennials as those born 1984-2004 and Homelanders/New Silents as those born 2004 onwards, and sees Gen Y and Z as alternative categories. She does follow, as she specifies, the Strauss-Howe generational theory though, which I would a minority, but a well-established one, since it has a fair amount of legitimacy.

I added the following text to the Millennial article previously, but it was removed on those grounds.

Anne Boysen, consultant and author of website After the Millennials, defines millennials as those born 1984-2004, with her timeline about generations being based on the generational theory of William Strauss and Neil Howe. Boysen states that it "used to be that millennials would stretch into the early 2000s, but now post-millennials are more often thought of as kids born in the 1990s" and that "younger millennials are now often thought of as ‘post-millennials’." Boysen also believes it is "interesting to notice that younger millennials (or generation Z) do differ on important distinctions from older millennials" and that there are "no jagged boundaries, but if you compare ‘young millennials’ with ‘generation Z’ you will end us [sic] comparing the same cohort with itself."

If you have any suggestions as to how I can shorten it/adjust it to fit the criteria, please let me know. Thank you. Timothy2b (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the 2004 end date is a "minority" view. This position is being perpetuated by keeping sources that adopt this position out of the article. It is not the first time this has happened either (see Talk:Millennials/Archive_13#George_Masnick). However, I would say the problem with your source is not the date per se, but the validity of the website in general. What credibility does it have? For example, is it quoted by either scholarly or mainstream media sources? Betty Logan (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't start making accusations again BL.  It's impossible and not the responsibility of others to prove a negative.  If you think 2004 is a common end date that's up to you to show. You have not provided any good sources.  Take responsibility for your behavior. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

References

It was removed (first by a different user [1], then by me [2]) not due to content, but due to using a source that is dubiously valid/credible. To echo what Betty Logan said, are there at least three scholarly or mainstream sources citing Anne Boysen's work/"After the Millennials" on the generations? Otherwise, including it is giving undue weight to this source (not to mention free promotion to Boysen's consulting business). Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Someone963852 (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright makes sense, I understand that. One article that quotes her is on Vice, which sure, it is from 2014, but I guess Vice is fairly well known to the public, or at least not a random website no one has heard about. They used a picture of her timeline, as a general guide to the generations. The link is: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ypwvgy/igen-homelanders-the-next-generation-needs-a-name. Another article is on BBC Worklife from 2015, with the link https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20150304-the-attention-deficit-generation. I am in the process of finding a third, preferably scholarly given that the others are more mainstream media. Anyways, thanks for letting me know Timothy2b (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

That Vice article introduces her as "One Twitter respondent, Anne Boysen, a self-proclaimed futurist who runs a site called After the Millennials". She doesn't sound notable. What idea is it that you'd like to include? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, just realized that now that I re-read the Vice article. I just liked the timeline she had on her website. There Gen Y and Gen Z were listed as alternative categories, lasting roughly 1980-1995 and 1995-2010 respectively. Millennials on the other hand was based on the Strauss-Howe generational theory, with the cut-off being 2004, based on the Great Recession of 2008, and the ensuing ”Crisis”. I just thought it seemed interesting, and fairly logical, given that many cut the generation in ’95 or ’96, but that these are instead seen as Gen Y end dates as opposed to Millennial end dates, and that the Millennial generation is not completely synonymous with Gen Y. It is somewhat complicated, but to me it at least was one explanation to the confusion about when the cut-off is, and why the earliest cut-off is about a decade earlier than the latest. Would have thought it could be interesting to include, but I suppose it would need greater notoriety. Timothy2b (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the link could be added to the Further reading, or the External links sections? That way there should be no risk of "Undue weight" and the text does not cite a non-noteworthy definition, but at the same time the website is there for those that want to explore further. Just a suggestion. Timothy2b (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but "After the Millennials" is basically Boysen's consulting business [3][4]. It is not notable or reliable per the discussion above and putting a link there will just provide free advertisement to Boysen's consulting business. Someone963852 (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. Thanks for the feedback anyway. Timothy2b (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Pew paragraph

Kolya Butternut is insisting on breaking up the content summarising Pew's position in the date ranges section. He refers to Talk:Millennials/Archive 13 as a rationale for reverting my edit, although I see no consensus on the organization of content in that discussion, just an tacit agreement on what content to include.

• Kolya's version: [5]
• My version: [6]

It makes sense to me to summarise Pew's position in a single paragraph. It improves the flow of the section and I don't see what there is to gain to split the content into two, short, separated paragraphs. The section does not flow well. The rest of the article is mostly well structured prose, but this section is almost a list of bullet points with very little continuity between the paragraphs. Joining up the Pew content into a cohesive whole would be a productive first step in making the section more like prose. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

BL, please follow WP:BRD and discuss your proposed edit "with the person who reverted your contribution", who is I. Please do not invite others to the discussion without attempting to discuss with me. Please stop being dishonest and prejudiced. I am not insisting on "breaking up" the content; I am restoring it to how it has been. It is you who is insisting on merging the content, after you prejudged me as having no reason for organizing the text as I did. If you do not see what the benefit is to how I organized the content, then please engage me in discussion and stop being dishonest, prejudiced, and controlling. There is no need for this incivility; we may be able to find consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I made an edit, you reverted, and now I have started a discussion on the talk page, as outlined by the WP:BRD process. I do not see the benefit in how you have organized the content and so far you have not proffered an explanation. You are welcome to provide one, but I am also interesting in hearing the views of other editors too. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A first step in having a discussion over a disagreement is showing understanding. Are you able to empathize with my complaints about your behavior? Regardless of whether you agree with me, can you show that you understand why I feel you did not follow BRD? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

BL, please respond to this question regarding our personal dispute on one of our talk pages, thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I edited the section to improve the prose.[7] I hope this clarifies my rationale. I don't think it makes sense to group the sentences based on the Pew source. The beginning of the section is about the concept of generations and how the dates come about, and also provides synthesis. The rest of the section starts with definitions used by secondary sources and flows to the primary sources where the definitions come from. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I would personally re-order the sources this way [8] if we wanted to keep the two Pew sources separate and have the section start with the concept of generations as Kolya Butternut stated above, but I'm also fine with QuestFour's version [9] if we wanted to put the two Pew sources together.  Someone963852 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with your first suggestion.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As QuestFour keeps making edits without participating in the discussion, I went ahead and attempted to make a consensus edit.[10] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I support the version in QuestFour's most recent edit. It makes no sense to fragment Pew's position. Pew is laying out its stall: it is going with the 1981–1996 date range, but since the consensus has not settled on a concrete demarcation then it is open to recalibration down the line. It flows better as a single paragraph. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

If we have not found consensus then we keep the original version until we do. We should group by subject not source. And besides, Pew's discussion about the time it takes to define generations isn't even from the same article where they settled on 1981 to 1996. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I made some tweaks and corrections to Someone963852's proposal.[11] (See the second section: "Date and age range definitions Kolya Butternut" Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I realized that both my sandbox and QuestFour's version incorrectly placed the Gallup and MSW Research sources (they use 1980-1996 instead of 1981-1996). I think we can all agree for now that based on Kolya Butternut's version [12] and QuestFour's version [13] that Gallup and MSW should be placed in the same sentence as the Resolution Foundation since all three use 1980-1996.

I can understand both point of views (starting with the generations concept versus grouping the two Pew sources together). I have no strong opinions either way, but I'm leaning towards grouping the two Pew sources together. Someone963852 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Both Betty Logan and Someone963852 seem to support the previous version, I will go ahead and restore it per the majority vote. QuestFour (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This is my proposal that I think may satisfy all of the concerns discussed. Pew is discussed in a single paragraph, and the section leads with the synthesis. Please consider coming to a consensus among all editors rather than voting. WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. [14] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It does not satisfy me because it removes some of the uncertainty over the demarcation and overly promotes a single date. However, with some alterations I think we could reach a consensus. Do I have your permission to edit in your sandbox? Betty Logan (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but please create a new section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

My main problem with your re-write is how Jonathan Rauch is integrated into the paragraph. I think integrating him is a good idea because it adds flow, but it must be clear he is commenting on the demarcation, not Pew specifically. Also, his observation that generations are "squishy concepts" should not be omitted because it succinctly explains why there isn't a consensus over the dates. Anyway, my re-write isn't too different to yours, and mostly follows your paragraph structure. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

That is looking pretty good.  Anyone else have thoughts?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I made a few minor changes to Betty Logan's draft [15] (such as using active voice). Otherwise, it looks good to me, too. Someone963852 (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, peace seems to have broken out in this dispute. Should we proceed in installing the revised wording? Betty Logan (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Done [16]. I left the second paragraph alone since I thought it was fine before. Someone963852 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That looks ok, but on a technical point if you take 1996 to be the final millenial year then the youngest millenials will be 22 years-old if they were born in the final few months of 1996. Betty Logan (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Good point, I found a better age template [17]. Someone963852 (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's add this template under all the age definitions, not just PEW!2605:E000:151F:22DC:A145:126D:851:335D (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Something is off with the citations in the Pew paragraph. Might want to check the last stable edit to make sure they line up. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I believe they're in the correct place now [18]. Someone963852 (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the date range in the lead section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus reached. Nerd271 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Although there are multiple definitions used, I think the lead section should only state the most commonly accepted one and state, with a source an internal link to the relevant section of the article, that there are others. The lead section should be as concise and precise as possible. In the article, there is a source stating that the range 1981-1996 is the most commonly used, and there are many other sources that use this definition. This is all in the "Date and age range definitions" section. Nerd271 (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Second attempt: There are multiple definitions used for the birth dates of members of Generation Z. Should the lead section mention that the most common (or widely accepted) range is 1981-1996 and provide a source? Nerd271 (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• COMMENT I object to the wording of the RFC per WP:RFCBRIEF. It is in no way a neutrally worded RFC and it is designed to lead responders. Betty Logan (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• OPPOSE This was previously discussed at Talk:Millennials/Archive_12#RfC_about_the_editing_the_lead_on_the_Millennials_article and the current wording reflects the consensus to arise out of that discussion. The article itself provides the range of 1980–1983 as the start years and 1995–2004 as the end years and I think the lead should summarise the full range of dates:

1. There is no definitive definition. If the lead just gives one hard date range such as 1981–1996 then Wikipedia is creating a de facto definition. Wikipedia should be following trends not setting them. If we put a single date in the lead then the simple fact is many people who consult the article will just go with the single date range.
2. MOS:LEAD advises that "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Considering that the date range is intrinsic to the definition then its imprecise nature is very relevant to the subject matter. The fact is there is a spread of dates and that should be reflected in the lead.
3. I disagree that giving a precise range gives the lead more precision. Precision is best attained here by conveying the vague nature of the definition.
4. The article states that the 1981–1996 range is a "widely held definition". This is not the same as a definitive definition. The same source also wrote ""generations are squishy concepts".
5. The 1981–1996 date range is clearly the most important date range, but a substantial part of Millennials#Date_and_age_range_definitions covers alternative dates.
6. There are more sources for the 1981–1996 date range than there was during the last RFC, but this is partly down to advocates for these dates adding sources for these dates.

I did suggest a slight revision to the description in the lead in a section above: Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted definition. I think it is the most important date range and am not against highlighting its prominence, but I think Wikipedia would be failing in its goals if it cherry-picked a date. Simply giving one date in the lead when there are others given in the article is problematic from the standpoint of readers who just skim the lead, search engines that just display the first paragraph of the lead etc. Betty Logan (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• SUPPORT We do need a new lead which better reflects the article since the previous RfC relied on out-dated sources. "Researchers and popular media typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 as a widely accepted definition." since it better reflects the section according to reliable, published sources and doesn't give a definitive definition. Someone963852 (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support a new lead which summarizes the date ranges as typically (or some other appropriate qualifier) from the early eighties to the mid to late nineties. Or more specifically, as the USA Today states: "typically defined as people born between 1981 and 1996".[19] A summary does not need to include the full range. I object to Betty Logan's accusation that "There are more sources for the 1981–1996 date range than there was during the last RFC, but this is partly down to advocates for these dates adding sources for these dates." There are more sources for 1981 to 1996 simply because this is the date range that most sources use, and after Betty Logan reverted well-researched edits and demanded that these sources be repeatedly proven, more and more sources for 1981 to 1996 were found. Betty Logan contributed virtually nothing to the section showing any evidence of other date ranges, instead she merely disrupted the editing process due to her bias that other editors are "advocates for these date ranges" rather than advocates for the truth. This disruptive editing can be seen in the talk sections above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: "Many researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 as a widely accepted definition." Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• I "contributed nothing" because all the dates mentioned in the section were all very well sourced to begin with. Per WP:REFBOMB it is not necessary to namecheck every single media outlet that uses a particular date. What has been done for the 1981–1996 date range could be done for other dates as demonstrated in the section at #Age_Range_for_Birth_Dates. All your contributions actually achieved was alter the ratio of sources for a particular date range. None of the sources added quantify how typical or how widespread the various dates are. Betty Logan (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  Note that Betty Logan admits to having contributed nothing. The old date ranges she references were "well sourced" but from out-of-date sources, and most of the new sources are simply updated versions of the same outdated sources. She did not even read the updated sources before first reverting them, and then obstructed progress every step of the way without contributing anything. Her statement here proves my point. Her behaviour and opinions are influenced by prejudiced thinking. She assumes other editors are "advocating" for certain date ranges; she assumes that "What has been done [finding many sources] for the 1981–1996 date range could be done for other dates as demonstrated in the section" without providing any evidence that other date ranges are as common. She criticizes the good faith editing of others based on biased thinking without contributing anything except disruption. And now she alone is demanding an RfC based on her prejudiced assumptions, while contributing nothing.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  As you can see at #Date_Range_Update_08:52,_5_March_2019 I engaged extensively in the process of revising the date range section. Anybody who reviews that section will see that while I drew the line on some issues I was open to compromise and made various concessions. I think it is rather telling that my response in this RFC simply focused on the issue at hand. Kolya Butternut could have done the same, but instead used it as a platform for character assassination and personal attacks. And yes, I am insisting on an RFC because a previous RFC established a community consensus that I still support, and I don't believe that a couple of editors have the prerogative to simply dismiss it. Finally, it also worth noting that I also proposed new compromise wording prior to this RFC, which I also offered up again in this RFC, but unfortunately some of the editors involved in these discussions fall into the category that if they don't entirely get their own way it is the other editor that is being "disruptive". Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: You have the right to stick to your position, and we have the right to disagree. Wasn't it you who insisted that a formal Request for Comments be made? Nerd271 (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, Anybody who reviews that section will see that you did not contribute a single source to the discussion. Virtually all of your objections were baseless. The US Census date range was retained, but it is clear that it is not authoritative information. Yes, after disrupting the process you finally conceded. That is not constructive, cooperative engagement. The truth which I have stated is not character assassination. It is you who assassinates my character by accusing me of a bias in favor of certain date ranges. Your response in this RfC did not simply focus on the topic, you made the false accusation that we are "advocates for these dates adding sources for these dates."  And now you are falsely accusing me of refusing to compromise until I get my way.  My proposed edit was not inconsistent with your proposed compromise.  You have made assumptions.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact is this is a behavioral pattern for you. We can see at Talk:Millennials/Archive_12#Date_Range_Sources (before I ever got involved in this dispute) you accused DynaGirl—another conscientious long-standing editor—of "well documented years long pattern of disruptive editing". Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

You're making false accusations based on biases, after having done no research.  This is a behavioral pattern for you.  DynaGirl is/was not a conscientious editor.  She was everything I said, and once I exposed her for what she was, she stopped editing because she had no defense for her behaviour.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

She wasn't banned, she wasn't blocked, she was not subject to any disciplinary action. You bullied her off Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a baseless accusation. She was the bully; you are a liar. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

If you intend to continue attacking me, take it to my talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia should go with the most popular definition in the lead section. Other definitions can be mentioned later; in fact, they are. My proposed change for the first two sentences of the lead is this. Millennials, also known as Generation Y (or simply Gen Y), are the demographic cohort following Generation X and preceding Generation Z, typically said to be born between the 1981 and 1996 by researchers and the popular media, though some sources extend their ending birth years beyond the year 2000. What @Someone963852: proposed is also quite reasonable. Nerd271 (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Summoned by a bot. This RfC is indeed malformed, as Betty Logan has pointed out. WP:RFCBRIEF is very clear that questions should be neutral and brief. This four-sentence statement, explicitly expressing an opinion, is neither. Try again. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Fair enough. Kolya Butternut, Someone963852, Betty Logan, please check out the new question and change your response if you wish. Nerd271 (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The revised question is disingenous. Even my proposed compromise includes the 1981–1996 date range. What you are in fact proposing is to only include the 1981–1996 date range and remove all other dates. This RFC should be closed without prejudice IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: That's not what I said at all. I said that 1981-1996 is the most common range. That obviously means it is not the only one. Nerd271 (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

My point is that your revised question is entirely consistent with my proposed compromise wording. If you agree with my compromise then there is no need to continue with the RFC. If you don't agree with it, then your question needs to be more specifically worded to be distinguishable from my suggestion, otherwise the RFC will waste community resources and resolve nothing. However, this may be a moot point now judging by your reply below. Personally I would still close this RFC and start the RFC afresh if it comes to it. But the question put to the community needs to be specific and neutral, and devised to deliver a decisive outcome with no ambiguity. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Is it really a waste if it gets people to make compromises? If you read carefully, the two questions differ in that the second one was made to be more neutral and direct. As before, we should wait for KB. Nerd271 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, I'm okay with your proposal above: "Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted definition". We could add it to the lead right now and close the RfC, but I'm not sure what Nerd271 and Koyla Butternut's thoughts are on it. Someone963852 (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But let's wait for KB and anyone else who wants to join. Nerd271 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Nerd271, since there is a clear consensus supporting Betty Logan's proposed wording above, should this RfC be closed? Someone963852 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Someone963852: Yes, indeed. It has been a while and the consensus has not be altered. I will add the accepted line to the intro right now. Nerd271 (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Nerd271, I think your next step is to follow this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs on how to conclude RfC's. Someone963852 (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What proof is there that "1981 to 1996 is a widely accepted definition", do you have a source for that?2605:E000:151F:22DC:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That quote is already in the article; we are discussing adding it to the lead. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• OPPOSE A "generation" is not a 15 year time span. Its at least a twenty year time span. When we cut down the years it reduces the number of potential Millennials. The Census definition in the article says "the United States Census Bureau used the birth years 1982 to 2000". How will we account for that? In order for us to say "1981 to 1996 is a widely accepted definition" we would have to survey the media and people in general in society to make that claim, correct?

If anything, it should probably read something like "Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years. 1981 to 1996 is often cited as a birth range in some, but not all, media." vs. saying "1981 to 1996 is a widely accepted definition". "There are no precise dates" should be added before the statement too.2605:E000:151F:22DC:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Please don't continue the same arguments you engaged in months ago. Cultural generations are not a designated length, also see Generation X. "We" are not cutting down the birth years; the sources define the birth years. Like the article says, the Census states that they do not have a "definition". They used a particular birth range for one particular report. We do not need to survey the media; the synthesis is provided by the source. You are a proponent of Strauss Howe Generational Theory, correct? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

In this context, by a "generation" we mean a cultural generation or a demographic cohort. A biological generation would be a 30-year span. Nerd271 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

A lost generation

I don't think "lost generation" should be in the lead as an alternative term for Millennials, but we should probably include this description in the body. Millennials have been described as a lost generation, not really the lost generation. It seems common for some generations other than the canonical "Lost Generation" to also be described this way, which can even be seen in Lost Generation (disambiguation). This study from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis should be included if we do discuss Millennials being a "lost generation". Other sources already in the article use the phrase as well. This opinion piece specifically discusses the term in relation to Millennials, but it may not be a notable academic. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Being described as a "lost generation" is not the same as identifying them as "Lost Generation". The term is not uniquely used on its own to describe this cohort (such as "millenials" or "Gen Y") so it doesn't belong in the lead IMO. It appears to me there is no consistency either in its application because one article is specifically discussing economic impact while the other is drawing parallels between millenials and the real Lost Gnegeration. Betty Logan (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but the opinion piece I referenced is also specifically discussing economic impact. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Presently Lost Generation is a topic that goes to the generation which fought in The Great War. Looking at just google hits, 61k hits bring up the term when mentioning millennials. This is not an insignificant amount of hits; however looking at the content, usually it is in discussion of the generation that is the subject of this article and comparing it to other generations, to include the Lost Generation. Yet there are some that directly call the subject of this article by the term being discussed here. Whether that should be treated as a alternate name I think we need a larger consensus rather than just the three discussing at the moment, to include it in the lead section of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the phraise "lost generation" is being used in a descriptive capacity rather than to identify the cohort, so it is highly questionable that it belongs in the lead. I am not opposed to including it in the article somewhere. Three sources in the "Economic Prospects" section use the term "lost generation" so perhaps that would be the most appropriate place to slot it in where it can be contextualised. Betty Logan (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That does sound like a good place for it.  In addition to the three sources currently in the article, User:Robster1983 had added two sources [20][21] in the edit I reverted which reference the Federal Reserve study.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that the source in question offers no comparison to the American population as a whole nor a relevance to the "millennial" as a statistical generation. I'm not sure how this portion of the article is unbiased, relevant, or statistically correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikingwarrior123 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Noticed a dead link

"Millennials in Adulthood – Detached from Institutions, Networked with Friends" (PDF). (Reference 91) is currently a 404 error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwenhope (talk • contribs) 05:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it myself today since page protection was removed. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 15:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Unjustified Content

My edits (915695046) were made and reverted by @Nerd271: based on what they called "Unjustified removal of relevant and sourced information". However, the edits made by Nerd271 recently have some serious problems. In addition, the edits I made unrelated to Nerd271's edits resolve serious issues.

First off, Nerd271's edits (915673802) adding the Reuters/Ipsos poll have a serious WP:NPOV/WP:IMPARTIAL issue. It ignores other conflicting data and implies that the American generation are favoring Republicans more. My follow-up edit maintained the added information in a more neutral fashion and added another source to flesh out the situation.

Nerd271's edit:

However, A Reuters-Ipsos survey of 16,000 registered voters aged 18 to 34 conducted in the first three months of 2018 (and before the 2018 midterm election) showed that support for Democratic Party among such voters fell by nine percent between 2016 and 2018 and that an increasing number favored the Republican Party's approach to the economy. This is despite the fact that almost two thirds of young voters disapproved of the performance of Republican President Donald J. Trump.

My follow-up edit:

In 2018, a Reuters-Ipsos survey of registered voters aged 18 to 34 conducted before the 2018 midterm election showed that support for Democratic Party among such voters fell by nine percent between 2016 and 2018, while Pew Research polling showed that more millennials indicated for a 2018 Democratic candidate than they had since 2006. Both sources indicated millennials disapproved of the performance of Republican President Donald J. Trump.

Secondly, I removed sections in Millennials#Historical_knowledge:

• Discussing Mao Zedong's deeds which was not relevant in any way to the article. (It should be noted that Che Guevara is not treated consistently in the same sentence.) In addition, the sources cited by section, are heavily suspect (WP:NOTRS) considering they were funded according to the sources by Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.
• Discussing a lack of awareness of Baltic States experience of the Holocaust. The section heavily lacks WP:IMPARTIAL. The source cited, if you look at the detailed data, shows that there is no significant difference between Millennial and General Populace knowledge of this fact. Inclusion adds to the implication that Millennials are more ignorant about the Holocaust which is not well-cited by cherrypicking a source to include a fact not even statistically-validated by said source.

Thirdly, I removed a section in Millennials#Traits which specifically just added the fact regarding cannabis legalization which was completely unrelated to anything regarding Millennials. It is not relevant enough to be included in this page, despite however valid and true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwenhope (talk • contribs)

Dear @Gwenhope:, I will respond to your concerns in turns.

1. I'm sure there are many other polls out there, some more reliable than others. I came across this one which I am willing to trust because Reuters is a highly trustworthy news agency and because the sample size is rather large, 16,000. Having a larger sample size helps reduce your margin of error. In this case, I recall that it is plus or minus one percent. That link does not contain anything from Pew. If you want something from Pew, use a direct link to Pew. The other source your bring up may not be that reliable. Also note that a drop in support does not mean a collapse in support. That was definitely not implied. I explained, using Reuters, why that was the case.
2. The section on historical knowledge is relevant because those are major historical figures. Saying that a certain percentage of people do not know about such and such is not enough. You need to explain why such a historical figure deserves to be widely known. If you want more reliable sources, add them. There is a Gallup poll showing that young people tend to prefer socialism to capitalism. Some of the figures mentioned were communists and socialists. That makes this section even more relevant.
3. Since we are talking about demographic cohort that tends to favor the legalization of marijuana, it makes sense to provide a bit of context. In which places, if any, has it been legalized?

Nerd271 (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd271:

1. First, the issue is that Reuters citation only lists public data about the first question and not the assertions of supporting Republican economics or any other assertions. In addition, the wording regardless has WP:IMPARTIAL/WP:NPOV issues. Secondly, the edit you reverted contained a citation from Pew Research Center (Pew's domain is people-press.org). In other words, I directly cited Pew.
2. Yes I agree that they are relevant in concept, but adding in the information about the figures is not relevant for this article. The Millennials article isn't for educating people about Mao or Che, that's why we link to their pages. You did not address the issues I brought up regarding WP:NOTRS and WP:CHERRY about the Baltic States statement which wasn't even valid to mention based on the source's own data.
3. The sentence prior already links to the legalization or marijuana. Unless you can point to a source which specifically indicates a causal relationship between cannabis legalization and generational attitude, it's probably not relevant.

Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 02:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope:

1. Reuters did say the young voters increasingly favor how the GOP handles the U.S. economy. Again, this is just one issue. Neither the article or myself are suggesting that Millennials are switching their political allegiance in droves. But this is a notable development because the sample size is so large. Not sure why Pew has to have (at least) two different websites, but I put that source back.
2. I'm glad we both agree that they are relevant. But I hope you see that it is a good idea to not have to rely excessively on links. If you can explain something briefly, do so. Having way too many internal links is distracting. You end up surfing the Web instead of reading an encyclopedic entry. While I agree that we need some better sources, I think you deleted too much.
3. No, it is not for establishing a causal link between the preferences of this demographic cohort and the legalization of that substance. It is only there for context. This is what some people want, and this is the status quo. That's it. Don't read too much into it. Context is crucial, because it helps explain why some people care about certain things. Nerd271 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd271:

1. Reuters claimed it but didn't provide any data about it. Are they assuming based on increased GOP support in this one question that Millennials are specifically increasingly favor Republican economics? No public data supports that except inference and correlation.
2. Relying on links is very important. Likewise this section shouldn't be explaining the Holocaust either. I only deleted wording that wasn't established as significant by the source and extraneous wording better served by a link. Also this is the web - internet encyclopedia.
3. The legal development regarding cannabis is not context. It would context if we could show cannabis legalization was part of the upbringing of Millennials or influenced them.

Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 16:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gwenhope:

1. Their data is the poll they conducted with Ipsos and illustrated by multiple interviews. Since we are talking about current or recent events, things can and will change. We can and should keep this page updated as events unfold.
2. You can rely on links, but not to the point of making the reader jump pages too quickly. That's distracting. Anyone using Wikipedia can be expected to look up the articles for any given topic they are interested in. As I said, if you can explain certain briefly, do so rather than refer to an entirely different page. This is an online encyclopedia, meaning it should be the same as a regular one except it happens to be on the Internet. If you happened to opened such an encyclopedia before, it certainly does not make you jump between the pages that often.
3. Actually, it is. Think of it this way. Why is it that they are advocating for the legalization of certain things and not the legalization or illegalization of other things? They don't seem to keen on demanding that alcoholic beverages be legalized, do they? Why is that? These are already legal in many countries around the world. Furthermore, it is only a short sentence plus a citation to satisfy a curious reader (such as yours truly). What you said about their upbringing would definitely be worth including. Such information would help us understand this demographic cohort in general, not just with regards to a particular issue.

Nerd271 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Children of the 20th century becoming adults in the 21st century

Would a good definition not be - People born between 1st January 1982 and 31st December 1999. Therefore they would be born in the 20th century, and turned 18 in the 21st century. That would cover an 18 year period and would mean they were all children when the new century started, but have since become adults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.61.183 (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It says in the wiki page:

"Over 95% of American millennials were unaware that the Holocaust occurred in the Baltic states, where over 90% of the Jewish population was murdered"

but I believe this is incorrect, since most were murdered in Poland and the Soviet Union. The Baltic states are Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and do not include Poland. Please fix this for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.214.0 (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I missed the Holocaust section being added, whenever it was done. I am sorry those lies that you quoted have been on this page for all that time, but the lies are gone now.--Frmorrison (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not a good definition. The most reputable demographers define Millennials as those born after 1980 and up to 1996. Some, like those over at Gallup, start the generation at 1980. In fact, if you look up the word "demographer" on Google it gives this example sentence:

""most demographers define millennials as people born between 1980 and 1995"

Please stop playing around with the birth years. The people who study this stuff in depth are all pretty consistent in their definitions.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Age Range for Birth Dates

Here are some more easy-to-find articles (from the first two pages of a Google news search) that extend the Millennials' birth dates to the "early 2000s".

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/here-is-when-each-generation-begins-and-ends-according-to-facts/359589/

https://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/these-are-the-best-and-worst-states-for-millennials

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-gen-z-millennials-20180820-story.html

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/pov-sorensen-young-graduates-1.5151017

https://www.businessinsider.sg/hasbro-monopoly-for-millennials-reactions-2018-11/

A 2013 Time magazine cover story used 1980 or 1981 as start dates. http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20130520,00.html

In the WP article it says "The United States Census Bureau used the birth years 1982 to 2000 in a 2015 news release to describe Millennials" and "In his 2008 book The Lucky Few: Between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom, author Elwood Carlson used the term "New Boomers" to describe this cohort. He identified the birth years of 1983–2001, based on the upswing in births after 1983. So we should keep the "early 2000s" in the lead to reflect the information in the Date and Age Range section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151F:22DC:59E:827:87D2:5F0B (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Fox Business, the CBC, the Business Insider simply state the age range without citing any sources. The Chicago Tribune uses Bloomberg. The Atlantic, which is publishing on behalf of The Wire, cites the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. Nerd271 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

But the Wikipedia Millennials article says 2000 or early 2000s under the "Date and Age Range" section. Are you reading it? See the statements "The United States Census Bureau used the birth years 1982 to 2000 in a 2015 news release to describe Millennials" and "In his 2008 book The Lucky Few: Between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom, author Elwood Carlson used the term "New Boomers" to describe this cohort. He identified the birth years of 1983–2001, based on the upswing in births after 1983."2605:E000:151F:22DC:59E:827:87D2:5F0B (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Multiple times now to make sure. Most sources do not extend the end birth years pass 2000. Nerd271 (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

We can't say "most sources do not extend end birth years pass 2000" without proof of that. We should say what the sources say in the main article. "Researchers" do use early 2000s and that's what the Age and Date Range section says too. "Early 2000s" covers all possible dates found in the media. Plus the status quo has been to say "early 2000s in the lead".2605:E000:151F:22DC:59E:827:87D2:5F0B (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Here are more articles that say end birth years are "early 2000s", these are easy to find from a Google search:

https://www.nhpr.org/post/millennial-home-ownership-granite-state#stream/0

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/28/xennials_a_23006562/

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/328523

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimberlyfries/2017/06/08/3-reasons-why-millennials-are-timid-leaders/#50b268542889

https://www.voanews.com/usa/all-about-america/why-future-congresswoman-cant-afford-rent

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/26/no-millennials-didnt-just-surpass-baby-boomers/?utm_term=.157ca3c95ff6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151F:22DC:59E:827:87D2:5F0B (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

New Hampshire Public Radio acknowledges there exists no single definition, but that article uses the range 1981-1997. Huffington Post (Canada), and Forbes cite The Atlantic. Entrepreneur (Asia Pacific) states a definition without a source. Voice of America cites Apartment List, which, in turns, cites The Atlantic. The Washington Post cites Neil Howe and the USA Today, which is interesting because in our article, there is another article by WP that uses the Pew Research Center's definition, 1981-1996.

Just because you can find something on the Internet does not mean it is a reliable for appropriate source. And if you read the "Date and Age Range Definitions" carefully, you will find that indeed, most sources use the range early 1980s to late 1990s. Also note that the Strauss-Howe generational theory is not taken very seriously by mainstream academics. See our Wiki page for more. Nerd271 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Nerd271 We have already discussed this edit on my talk page at User_talk:Betty_Logan#Birth_years_of_Millennials and you have not established a consensus for altering the date range in the lead. Just because the article predominantly relies on sources that uses a particular date this does not establish i) that this is the dominant date; ii) that it is the most pre-eminent date; iii) that dates that lie outside of this range are insignificant. You are WP:EDITORIALIZING. As the IP editor explains and as I do on my talk page there is no evidence presented in the article that establishes that the mid-1990s is the de facto cut-off date. There is no evdience presented that this is even the typical cut-off date; even if it were I oppose leaving out dates that still enjoy common usage. Our date range section makes it very clear there is no clearly defined date range. The range typically begins in the early 1980s and starts to tail off in the mid-1990s, with the tail-end terminating just after 2000 and as such it is sensible to include all the dates. This question was put to the community in an RFC only last year at Talk:Millennials/Archive_12#RfC_about_the_editing_the_lead_on_the_Millennials_article and the consensus was to retain the post-millenium dates. If you disagree you are free to start a fresh RFC and revisit the question, but you are not free to disregard a standing consensus established by a community RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, @Betty Logan:, an article should not contradict itself. The relevant sentence says, "Researchers and popular media typically use..." Therefore, only the most common definitions should be used, i.e. early 1980s to late 1990s. The lead section should reflect the body of the page. Do you really need a formal Request for Comments just to make changes to the lead section to better reflect what the page is all about?

Logan and @2605:E000:151F:22DC:59E:827:87D2:5F0B:, in the "Date and Age Range Definitions" section, the second, third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs fall within that range. The first paragraph is not quantitative but qualitative and the last paragraph mentions alternate names. Nerd271 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

That is easily resolved: I have removed "typically" because it is unsourced. There is no source in the article speculating about how "typical" the dates are. We have already had an RFC about this issue and the consensus is for the lead to use the extended date range. So yes, if you want to alter the dates used in the lead then start a new RFC! Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a source in the article which states that "the 1981 to 1996 birth cohort is a 'widely accepted' definition for Millennials". Unrelated, but "Millennials" should be changed back to "millennials", per the dictionary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is a widely accept definition, but not a definitive definition, which is what we would be treating it as if we gave single date range. Other dates have been put forward (including by the authors who coined the term "Millenial") that are not insignificant. We have a whole section documenting conflicting date ranges and it would be remiss if the lead misrepresented this section. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Then we can simply write in the lead that 1981 to 1996 is a widely accepted definition, with some sources using later dates. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Another way to write it would be this: "Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted definition." I think the two points to come out of the RFC were that there was no definitive range and that should be apparent in the lead, and also that the early 2000s dates should be included. If you only give one date then what you have is a de facto definition. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @Kolya Butternut: here. The introduction should not be vague, if we can possibly avoid it. Here, while no universal definition exists, it makes sense to state the most commonly accepted one. Nerd271 (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The introduction is not vague. It is precisely summarising a vague definition. We don't chuck out an RFC consensus just because a couple of people disagree with it. The whole reason we had an RFC in the first place was because editors disagreed with how the lead was written and the arguments supporting the current wording prevailed. If you want to seek a new consensus then start a fresh RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The RfC from last year is outdated; it was done while the Date and age range section was still saturated with errors which made the later date ranges appear more common. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not within your prerogative to decide for other editors that their views are "out of date". I participated in that RFC and my position has not changed. There is still no definitive range and the section still covers a substantial number of dates that do not match this range. If you believe that the consensus is out of date then start a new RFC and seek a revised consensus. How many times do I have to say this? Betty Logan (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Your characterizations of my behavior are unfair. You have suggested that I want to "chuck" the RfC merely because I "disagree with it". The RfC from last year was based on out of date information. The lead should simply reflect the current information in the Date and age range section, and not rely on an RfC which was based on different information. You should learn to accept that people disagree with you instead of expecting them to change because of how many times you repeat the same thing without empathizing with the perspectives of others. While some of what you say about the section is accurate, you have not addressed the changes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: @Betty Logan: If Logan insists on a formal Request for Comments, I don't see why we should not start one. The process is relatively straightforward. I will do it. Nerd271 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the most credible demographers define the Millennial years as those born after 1980 at the earliest and those born about 1996 at the latest. Some start the generation at 1980; some after 1980. Some end it at 1994; some at '95 or '96. It is unhelpful to the article to be looking for these weird, one-off outliers who toy with the dates (those who start it at 1983 and end it at 2000, for example), which misleads the reader into thinking there is no consensus view. Some random author who stretches or narrows the birth years beyond those which are widely accepted ranges isn't in equal standing with the demographers over at Pew Research and Gallup, who have been intensely analyzing this generation for well over a decade and have developed logical, objective criteria for its definition.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Economic data

I removed the paragraph discussing Bureau of Labor Statistics data. This edit was reverted by Nerd271. In fact, I would also propose removing the paragraph before, which begins "According to the Department of Education". Both of these describe aspects of the US economy at the current time. Neither paragraph discusses Millennials whatsoever. I contend these paragraphs are off-topic and implicit original research. Instead, I suggest this article only include material which discusses how the economic environment affects millennials. The argument for inclusion seems to contain this implicit logic:

1. This is the state of the economy in 2019.
2. Millennials are alive and active in the workforce in 2019.
3. Therefore, this economic data is relevant for millenials.

That's not the kind of logic I use when deciding what to include in articles. Daask (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not original research when sources are clearly given. Moreover, this information is highly relevant. We are talking about job opportunities for people who make up something like half the U.S. workforce here. Nerd271 (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nerd271: Specifically, I believe this violates WP:SYNTH, which disagrees with your assertion that "It's not original research when sources are clearly given." Daask (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Daask: No, no conclusions of any kind are drawn. Readers are free to interpret the given information for themselves. Nerd271 (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tuition Fees to Student Aid Ratios 2008-8 (OECD).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"Historical Knowledge" section -- relevant to the article?

Yes the subhumans how could we forget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B02A:ADF8:6021:3ED8:821D:A802 (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

this article's sources don't really define how much it skews off the national average. Nor does it specify how much the "average" person knows about the holocaust. I would venture this is both ireelevent and uninformative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikingwarrior123 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, a more accurate section title would be "Holocaust Knowledge," as this is the only subject discussed...

I am also not sure how this is relevant to the topic of the article... opinions, anyone? Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this should be kept in its current form. If sources can be found discussing changes in knowledge, education, and skills from previous generations, that may be appropriate, but this section is way too specific to the Holocaust and just sounds critical of millennials. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The "Historical Knowledge" section was expanded — diff:

A February 2018 survey of 1,350 individuals found that 66% of the American millennials (and 41% of all U.S. adults) surveyed did not know what Auschwitz was, while 41% incorrectly claimed that 2 million Jews or less were killed during the Holocaust, and 22% said that they had never heard of the Holocaust. A CNN-ComRes poll in 2018 found a similar situation in Europe. Over 95% of American millennials were unaware that the Holocaust occurred in the Baltic states, which lost over 90% of their pre-war Jewish population, and 49% were not able to name a single Nazi concentration camp or ghetto in German-occupied Europe. However, at least 93% surveyed believed that teaching about the Holocaust in school is important and 96% believed the Holocaust happened. The YouGov survey found that 42% of American millennials have never heard of Mao Zedong, who ruled China from 1949 to 1976 and was responsible for the deaths of 20–45 million people; another 40% are unfamiliar with Che Guevara. According to the CIS poll, only 21% of Australian millennials are familiar with Mao Zedong and 26% with Vladimir Lenin.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Include more information about millennials in Asia

In the whole article, only few lines discuss about Asian millennials. This article is not complete without including information about Asian millennials. RahulAnantharama (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@RahulAnantharama: As a general rule, no Wikipedia page is really complete, especially those dealing with living people or current events. Feel free to include more information on whichever aspects you are interested in. Be sure to use reliable sources, however. Nerd271 (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2020

Over 95% of American millennials were unaware that the Holocaust occurred in the Baltic states, which lost over 90% of their pre-war Jewish population, and 49% were not able to name a single Nazi concentration camp or ghetto in German-occupied Europe.[218][219] Holocaust didn't occur in the Baltic states, it occurred in now known Polish territory, which was then German territory, where most of the camps were; the citation does not contain this kind of information. Maybe the wording is wrong and which was meant was that it occurred in Europe. Eyleen.k (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The Holocaust did occur in the Baltic States, although most of the genocide was done in Poland and the Soviet Union. I clarified what the sentence is trying to say. --Frmorrison (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Generation Alpha

Howdy, folks! The draft for Generation Alpha is available here. Please take a look and share your constructive feedback. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, guys! There is an ongoing discussion about what we should do with that draft over at the talk page for Generation Z. Please come join if you are interested. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Data missing, please someone with write access insert "56 percent" in the sentence shown below? Thanks!

"According to a 2013 YouGov poll of almost a thousand Britons between the ages of 18 and 24, [INSERT - "56 percent" - HERE PLEASE] said they had never attended a place of worship, other than for a wedding or a funeral. "

Otherwise the sentence makes no sense, without that info. I got it from the stated YouGov poll reference footnote number 85 (the link address is http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/jgdvn3vm4b/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-190613-youth-survey.pdf and the specific source of the information is on page 5 of the pdf, second data chart from bottom)

Many thanks.

2600:1702:19C0:3800:C562:EF5D:FB0E:8B0C (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for proofreading. Nerd271 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2020

Change "Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted definition."

to "Popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years. However, research has shown the trends and understanding of Gen Y to be 'closely tied to September 11, 2001. The day marks the number-one generation-defining moment for Millennials.' [Source: https://genhq.com/faq-info-about-generations/] Therefore, Gen Y is most clearly defined by the end date of Gen X (1976) and the final year in which those born are capable of remembering September 11th (1995)." Revanche83 (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If you want, you can stick that into the body. The introduction is fine the way it is. You do not absolutely have to be born in the late 1970s in order for 9/11 to be a "defining" moment in your life. Those born in the early 1980s to early 1990s can make the same claim as well. Nerd271 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

re-discussing "1981 to 1996 a widely accepted definition."

I have added additional sources. The US Census Bureau and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics both disagree with those numbers. I propose we remove the claim that the aforementioned range as a "widely accepted" definition unless there are 2-3 reliable resources directly supporting this range as the "generally accepted" or "widely accepted". At this point, it seems like it's an original research rather than a summary of what multiple sources say. Graywalls (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not original research because this statement is sourced in the date range section. I don't think there is much dispute over the fact that 1981–1996 has been widely adopted as a definition, but as I note at #RfC_about_the_date_range_in_the_lead_section there are other valid date ranges too. The crux of the problem is that the date range is non-definitive; there are a few contenders but on balance 1981–1996 is out in front, especially in the United States. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

What she said. That's how we reached the consensus. I will further add that neither the U.S. Census Bureau nor the Bureau of Labor Statistics really disagree, because they use more or less the same starting year. Sources may disagree on the ending years, but not the starting points. Nerd271 (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not correct. Sources DO NOT agree on the starting dates, but MOST have used 1982 for the Millennial Generation. People keep changing the dates. 1982 is most commonly used as a starting date for Millennials. I graduated in 1999 (born in 1981, along with most of my class who were born from 1979-1981). We were called by news anchors and newspaper reporters as the LAST graduating class of Generation X BEFORE next year's Millennial Class.

Generation Y was a term used in Ad Age and it referred to those born starting in 1982 and after. The term "Millennial" was SPECIFICAllY used in an old ABC poll referring to those born starting in 1982 - and people this age were asked to pick a new name that was different from Generation Y - They picked "Millennial." The spike in births and the numbers of Millennials refers to the spike starting in 1982. It's because people writing current articles are using dates from Wikipedia, and it causes confusion. I provided numerous sources over the years referencing the use of 1982, including sources from the U.K. (British psychologist who wrote about Millennials), Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. At the time, up through a few years ago, they all used 1982 as a starting point, including a famous Australian research on generations. The U.S. Census, U.S. Navy, Strauss & Howe (original and most famous authors of generational books and studies) all use 1982 as a starting date. Most students born in 1982 graduated high school in 2000 - hence the name "Millennial." Also, there was an official Millennial Generation Conference in Canada, and they used 1982.

Besides, Strauss and Howe, authors Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais also did a lot of research on Millennials (one did an interview with Al Gore years ago on this subject and environmentalism, I believe). They were highly sought after, and spoke at Harvard University about their books and research on Millennials. They wrote Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking America. They were interviewed by several news outlets. They also used 1982 as a starting date. The list goes on. It's only because the dates on here keep changing, and sometimes journalists mention Wikipedia as a source that have caused much confusion.

At least two famous documentaries on National Geographic (and another channel that I can't remember right now) used 1961-1981 for Generation X. Every few months, the dates keep changing - and only for Generation X and Millennials - not for Boomers for some reason. The National Geographic Six-Part documentary series, "Generation X", hosted by Christian Slater, uses 1961-1981. Why people keep changing the dates, I have no idea.

The ORIGINS of the term Millennial refer to those born in 1982. Pew Research is not the "be all and end all" of "official" sources. In fact, Pew Research's research on various topics is inaccurate. What I don't get about Pew Research is WHY they use 1981 as a starting point when their first use of the term Generation Y and Millennial refer to that old Ad Age from the early '90s. Generation dates don't just randomly change to include new events, like some posters have tried to use. 9/11 was a significant and tragic even, but the Millennial Generation was named several years prior. Dates don't just change on a whim. That's just silly.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics also uses 1982 as the starting year for Millennials. The recent update is dated June 2019. "The millennial generation, born between 1982 and 2000, is believed to have changed the economic and societal norms established by previous generations."

Why do sources use statistics regarding birth spikes and birth years, but then attribute the huge number of Millennials using the WRONG birth year - WHAT? I previously posted the official U.S. Census source on population and statistics, but now someone changed the date to 1981 for Millennials? That's falsifying data. Here is a research study that referenced the U.S. Census Bureau statistics from both 2015 and 2017 (though older ones also used 1982). It's irresponsible to discuss how huge the Millennial Generation is, use an official population number, but then use the incorrect birth year. The most commonly used starting date since the ORIGIN of the term has been 1982. Why people are using a term and ignoring the origins...I can't deem logical.CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@CreativeSoul7981: If you read the entire Date and range definitions section, you would find that the lead is not contradicted by the body. (That's how we originally reached the consensus!) The BLS also uses Pew's definition in an article we cited. Many sources use that range, and we have already pointed out there are alternatives. Concerning the birth spikes, differences of a few years should not matter too much, since we are talking about something that takes place over a multi-year period, though it would be well-advised to include the date range to avoid confusion.

Demographers, and, indeed, other scientists, can and do change definitions as new information becomes available. Research requires flexibility. Nerd271 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have edited this page for years. Pew Research's 2018 article references data from the U.S. Census that USES 1982. They have mentioned on their site that they deliberately use 1981. Using an official source like the U.S. Census Bureau and then changing the dates to suit their own site, is unethical. The U.S. Census source itself was used in this Millennial page, and then ignored. They basically used the numbers from the Census to reference the Millennial population, and then changed the dates. Please look at the 2015 source that Pew Research used. Pew Research is not considered a higher source than the U.S. Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Pew has been using their own date ranges for years, and ignoring the original source of the Generation Y article and the origins of the term "Millennial." Those are facts. I'm not making this up or not referencing sources. I've submitted references (I did this years ago as well) to statistics from a 2015 U.S. Census Bureau article using 1982 as a starting date for Millennials. I've mentioned sources that cite the Census from both 2015 and 2017 that use 1982. Please see my links. Those sources directly mention U.S. Census from those years using 1982. I also included the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics source from June 2019. I don't have time now, but I or someone should add that to the article. It's a recent statistic. Thanks.CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see what Pew analyzing somebody else's data with their own methodology and definitions is problematic, especially if they clarified where they got the data from. Nerd271 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@CreativeSoul7981: The paragraph you're editing is about Pew's research, not the Census Bureau. That you doubt the veracity of Pew's numbers is WP:OR (see also WP:TRUTH). Pew is a reliable source and we can safely report what they claim about population trends. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"millennials are often the children of the baby boomers." -- wouldn't boomers be the grandparents and Gen X be the parents? Boomers are two generations before millennials not one! How is a "generation" defined? 24.236.92.77 (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@24.236.92.77: We're talking about demographic cohorts or cultural generations, which typically span 15 to 20 years. A human generation would span 25 to 30 years. Nerd271 (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no 100% agreed on line. End dates, as I have found, range between 1994 and 2005. I do think that the "1981 to 1996" should be removed and replaced with "mid-1990s to mid-2000s". JohnT122 (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Just because somebody proposed a range does not mean it is valid and should be included. Nerd271 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Millennials/Gen Y (1977-1995) according to Nielsen

Nielsen defines Generations as follows:

• Greatest Generation (1901-1924)
  
• Silent Generation (1925-1945)
  
• Baby Boomers (1946-1964)
  
• Generation X (1965-1976)
  
• Millennials/Gen Y (1977-1995)
  
• Generation Z (1995-Present)
  

https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/report/2014/millennials-breaking-the-myths/

Please correct the starting generation year. Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhidalgo arq (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That's out of date. [22]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done You can stick the newer Nielsen definition from Kolya Butternut in the body if you wish. But the introduction should not change. Moreover, a marketing department should not count more than a statistical or demographic research institution like the Pew Research Center due to their conflict of interest. Nerd271 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The definition I cited is already in the article.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Indeed it is. So it is still 1981-1997. Nerd271 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Chamber of Commerce reference

If you look closer at this reference (https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/blog/post/shattering-glass-playing-field-c-suite), the 1980-1999 date isn't actually used by the Chamber of Commerce themselves, but was used by the Physical Activity Council (http://www.physicalactivitycouncil.com/pdfs/current.pdf) in a report on fitness and recreation in the U.S., that the Chamber themselves is reporting on. Should this be changed to "The Physical Activity Council uses 1980-1999" in the body?--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I doubt the Physical Activity Council is notable. The Chamber of Commerce has more recently been using Pew's dates. At this point I think it would be best to remove the reference to the Chamber of Commerce. [23] Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kolya Butternut. Nerd271 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Elwood Carlson

Is this reference needed? Elwood Carlson is not a particularly notable sociologist (Googling him with his name in quote marks only gets a few pages of results), and this book is more about the Silent Generation (Lucky Few) than Millennials or other generations. You may as well add more dime-a-dozen sources like this (https://books.google.com/books?id=8ltp7pIQ8I8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22generation+x%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwit0bT7kf3nAhWVvp4KHV_BDNEQ6AEwAnoECBcQAg#v=snippet&q=generation%20y&f=false), "In the book Generation X Goes Global, author Christine Henseler describes the Millennium Generation as those born 1984–2000."--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Please remove him. Nerd271 (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with his removal. Seem like we are setting a new bar for what counts as a "reliable" source here. A source does not have to be notable by the standards of Wikipedia; Carlson is an academic who has written extensively in this area and has been extensively cited. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP Carlson is a more credible source than many of the media outlets that are cited in this section. Betty Logan (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Overdose of 1981-1996 sources

In the dates section, the first paragraph lists sources that use 1981-1996, then the second paragraph lists more sources that use 1981-1996, then the third paragraph uses even more sources that use 1981-1996. Do we really need the third paragraph here? The first two paragraphs already list nine sources that corroborate Pew's dates; do we really need eight more in the third?--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

They are just repeating the same thing over and over so I think it can be safely removed per WP:OVERCITE. Betty Logan (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The first set of media outlets cite "Pew", the second set use 1981-1996 in their own voice.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut is right here. The second paragraph lists sources that cite Pew, but the first and third paragraphs list different organizations who use 1981-1996 themselves (not citing Pew). They are not the same thing; that is not "overcite." CherokeeJack1, you did the same thing to the Generation Z article before by combining all the same ranges and erroneously claiming that they cite Pew, which they don't. [24]. Some1 (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Echo Boom?

If the Echo Boom is defined as the increase in births caused by Boomers having babies, it must begin earlier than 1981. According to sociologist Kieran Healy's graph it begins "in the early 1970s", coinciding with a bump in US births in 1970/71. Also by the article's definition, many GenYers/Millennials are children of GenX. So surely GenY cannot be the same as Echo Boomers?--2.204.231.254 (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are people not from Generation Y who are children of the Baby Boomers. (Some might even be Baby Boomers themselves as the very first could give birth to the very last.) But birth rates are one thing; the youth bulge is another. If you look at the population pyramid of the United States, the one from 2016 is in the article, you will find that the 'Echo Boomers' were in their 20s and 30s in that year. Nerd271 (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)