Talk:Middle age

Article Organization
This subject has had a great deal of research done in recent years. I think this article would benefit from being restructured in a way that facilitates relevant content being added down the road. Removing the young adult section, and having it broken up into physical conginitive, cognitive and social development sections is I think where we should start. --Narrico (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's been a few months and I haven't heard back from anybody, so I am am gonna start moving forward with restructuring the page. I added a simplified form of the definition section to the lede paragraph, so I intend to remove that (please say something if you object, I want feedback). I also will remove the section on young adults and just leave links to the page on that subject. Narrico (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitions
The information about the US Census either needs to be backed up by citations or to be deleted. None of the footnotes have any mention of this stated "fact". Violet desiree (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Where's the paragraph on men's ED issues in middle age, or we just analyzing "crones" here? B.S. 2603:7081:24F0:9240:CDEC:61B6:5227:E37A (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it absolutely necessary to push the fucken political tripe? Want to talk about influence? Look at AARP. Businesses tend to hire younger people because they work cheaper. "Age discrimination" has been with us forever. The difference today is that we don't put our old folk out in the field to die in the cold. And they're a lot older these days too. (Not to mention that the average  lifespan in the USA is 77.6 years and that makes "middle age" 38.8 (+/- 5?).

The definitions are great. The politics need to be left at home where they can be argued to divorce.


 * While you're right that the article shouldn't have stated it categorically as a fact, the proper place to argue would be at Ageism, where the sentence links. ThIS article merely states that ageism exists, which you appear to agree with above. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  15:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then again.... believe it or not,  there is a whole world outside the USA,  so the definition of "middle age" as being not old,  not young,  but somewhere in the middle,  is more accurate than assigning a specific age,  which would be different depending on where in the world you were. MR

35 is middle aged?!?!?! I'm in my late 20s, and 35 is NOT middle aged.

I'm responding to the sentence right above; I'm 37 & your right 35 is not middle age, 38 is. middle age ends at 43. old age starts at 65. in between 43-65 your old enough to know better, but still young enough to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC) >your right 35 is not middle age, 38 is. middle age ends at 43.

This is some bizarre thinking.

In response to the above poster,40 is middle aged except one of those new fangled ideas which say you're old when you're 30 or even between 25-30 ;) 59.178.22.64 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The only people who say 30 is old are people who are still living in shit the Stone Age. That is not a new idea, that is a very old idea.Bjoh249 (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

^That or they haven't (or only recently) completed puberty, or perhaps live somewhere with a life expectancy of about 45-50 (hence the "stone age" thing, I guess?). Funny thing is how there are many examples of people way back in time who have been documented to live past 70, and enough of them that I think rather than being a freak and underrecognized occurrence, it WAS a familiar picture of geriatric 'old age' in society, and the general concept might have remained more fairly static over time than we think (besides occuring in smaller numbers). And at the least it leads me to think that one's 30s, although not necessarily in the 'spring chicken' range, was still always closer to what 30s really SEEMS to be than any equivalent of a 'senior' person.

A lot of this talk comes from kids who seem genuinely convinced that life after 24 isn't something that can happen to them. I kind of blame the increased infantilization of youth, sheltering them from responsibility and naturally causing them to neglect the idea of a future life. There used to be more respect for adulthood. Theburning25 (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

From a pre-hospital medical perspective, middle adulthood begins at age 41 and goes to 60. Condorphoto (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Condorphoto

Middle-Aged People Raising Families?
The article said the following:

In many Western societies, this is seen to be the period of life in which a person is expected to have settled down in terms of their sense of identity and place in the world, be raising a family, and have established career stability.

Given that divorce is rife in Western societies and given that most people in Western societies do not see the significance of marriage (that is, it is no different to cohabitation) I think the paragraph above probably needs to be revised to removed.

--Knowledge-is-power (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Then do it dude. Abtract (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote you use here has not mentioned marriage so I do wonder at the validity of your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.144.47 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Middle age starts at 40
Middle age starts at 40. It makes sense that way as after 40 is when the risk of certain diseases and heart attacks becomes greater. Also after 40 is when people start getting age-related eye problems. Also, after the age of 40 most people start contemplating life with a different point of view; more mature, experienced and cautious. Esvake (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have 0-25 be young, 25-50 middle aged, and 50 plus being old? at least in the first world (where i suppose most people don't live) you live to be about 75. so thirds makes sense. Of course that is entirely unsubstantiated original research. (i think that's the right wiki term.)

(Unless we are talking about phases of adulthood, and then 20-40, 40-60, and 60-80 makes sense.)


 * Indeed it is so, sadly, it can't go in the article. :) Abtract (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Describing a person in their late 20s as middle aged is patently absurd.Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see it differently. Youth is thd time before you have children, your main aim is finding a partner, middle age is dedicated to raising your children and old age is the time after that when your main focus is on raising grandchildren. Of course not everyone has children but the time frames should be based on the average person. 2A00:23C7:5AD0:8F01:F8B9:1738:CA6D:EE53 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This is too easy. The person above is right. On this planet we directly relate age to years and subsets of years. In the US of A our average life expectancy is 78, 75 is good also. To have a middle you need three parts. Therefore the first or young age would be around 0 through 26. Middle age is then 27 through 52 and third age or old age 53 on. An individual that just finished the fifth grade should be able to come to the same conclusion. You in your late 20's is also well into middle age. if you are suggesting that a person lives until he is 75 then middle age should be around 39 because when you say middle age you are suggesting a person is in his middle cycle of his life which means divided by 2 becomes 39.

I am 25 and i am not too sure that when I am 27 that I would be in my middle cycle because really my adult life as not begun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.21.77 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone's been saying life begins at 40. Wow, that's a bit disappointing.  Should that sort of thing be included in the article?Typing Monkey - (type to me) 10:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I figure the revision is a baby boomer thing. A very large number of people didn't want to be considered middle aged at 40, so it was revised up to 45. Likewise, a large number now (the biggest generation in existence) doesn't want to be considered "old" at 60, so they have demanded and got another 5 years. How long until we hear 60 is the new 30?

Junk Science:

The following statement-- "Advanced maternal age increases the risk of a child being born with some disorders such as Down syndrome. Advanced paternal age sharply increases the risk of miscarriage and many birth defects, including Down syndrome, schizophrenia, autism, decreased intellectual capacity, and bipolar disorder"-- is complete and utter nonsense. A famous example of a child born to "older parents" would be Rod Roddenberry, son of Star Trek founder Gene Roddenberry and Majel Roddenberry who were aged 53 and 41, respectively. As far as I know Mr. Roddenberry hasn't suffered any mental defects. I'm sure if you do a little research you can find more examples. My father was 51 and my mother was 39 when I was born. I took advanced placement classes in highschool and now have a Master of Science degree. I'm also a genealogist and study family histories. My maternal grandmother had her last child (my uncle) at age 43. Traditionally, familes in the United States have consisted of 11 to 18 children, in which case, many of the last children were born to female parents 35-49 with the male parent well into his sixties or even older. As of this writing, I have not found even one case of autism, decreased intellectual capacity or down syndrome. If you don't believe me then there are plenty of genalogical records available for you to research. A friend of mine has a child that has autism (both he and his wife are 29 and 25 respectively. My neighbors are in their mid-20's and they had a down syndrome child. I can't add any of this to the article because this consists of personal experience and my own genealogical research. (Which has been backed by many other researchers.) And, yes, observation and historical data are considered a valid part of the scientific method. Scientificly there are numerous factors that contribute to birth defects. The way this article is written makes it seem like the age of the parents are the major cause when in fact if the age of the parents are a factor, then it is an extremely small one. Just becuase someone waits until middle age to have children does not automaticly spell doom for thier children. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.39.194 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "I can't add any of this to the article because this consists of personal experience and my own genealogical research."

Exactly. Anything published in a Wikipedia article must be verified. As a scientist, you would know that the fact that some younger parents have children with Autism and Down Syndrome and some older parents have children who do NOT have Autism and Down Syndrome is not sufficient evidence that the likelihood of having a baby with either of these conditions increases (or does not increase) with age.

I don't think the article as it is written gives the impression that "the age of the parents are (sic) the major cause" of these conditions, nor does it give the impression that women can't have children in middle age. It's just a dispassionate statement of fact, and whether it makes anyone feel bad is somewhat beside the point. There are many other places online and elsewhere to find encouragement and advice. Sadiemonster (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

25 is not middle aged and 50 is not old age. I think that middle age is about from 45 to 60.--85.76.25.116 (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The only "revision" that's occurred is the idea that middle age starts at "40". From the moment the term "middle age" was coined it was defined between the ages of 45-65. Inching it up earlier and earlier is a modern psychological phenomenon and, at best, a fringe view in professional research. The majority of authoritative sources use 45-65, and that needs to be reflected in this article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned here that I wouldn't call 40 for the middle age time frame fringe; see WP:Fringe. Like this Encyclopædia Britannica Online source states, "Though the age period that defines middle age is somewhat arbitrary, differing greatly from person to person, it is generally defined as being between the ages of 40 and 60." But it is true that 45-65 (or 45-64), rather than 40 and upward, is the more common age range given in sources for middle age. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 40+ is definitely far more commonly used to describe someone becoming middle aged in most sources I gather online. The guy who coined midlife crisis was talking about how he felt between 35 and 45. The notion that it started at 45 and anything less is revisionism while acting like it's trending upward (at 45+) because we are living longer is absolutely inconsistent garbage. The truth is simple: we are not living longer than we used to, we are simply less likely to die at such a young age. 80 years old now is 80 years old back then, just with better healthcare, but even that's not enough to stop people from typically dying by the time they're close to 80. The people living past 100, 90, and even 85 or so are the exception, not the rule. Schwarbage (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the opposite of the truth. It was always 40-60. 45 came later on. Schwarbage (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There's good sourcing posted and stating right at the beginning of the article that it normally starts at 45, and the third age starts at 65. Merriam Webster. The plural form (s) is also more correct.151.68.0.26 (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The OP wrote this back in 2008, I think a lot of things have changed since then. “Middle age” is an offensive term that needs to go away, but as long as it exists I think it can be revised upward. More people are living past 100 than ever before.Bjoh249 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Most people do not live past 100, let alone past 80, even today. Schwarbage (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's Add Some Positives Please?
This article is far too dour in its listing and explication of the characteristics of middle age. I don't mean this in the sense that I am contesting what is thus far included--most of the material seems consensus-based and accurate. However, there are also biological, sociocultural, and socioeconomic aspects of middle age which are far more positive and, thus far, have not made their way into the section. I'll give a few examples:


 * At least within developed nations (meaning industrial and especially post-industrial), one's middle age years tend to be associated with peak earning power, both in terms of actual earnings and capcity-to-earn.
 * Recent neurological research has not only rebutted the notion that all aspects of mentation capacity monotonically decline during middle age but, in addition, identified areas where said capacity actually improves (e.g., the ability to handle complex patterned reasoning (vs. linearly ordered reasoning); judgment-based decisional processes).
 * The middle-age years tend to be associated with peak-status within familial units both immediate and extended. Meaning, factoring in earnings, social position, relative physical characteristics, experience, etc., the likelihood of having a dominant patriarchal or matriarchal position within a given family unit is most high during this period of time (recognizing that this is a broad generalization and does not hold within all cultures).

These are only examples. Yes, obviously, citations would need to be found. Yes, obviously, there are others. My only point is that the article comes across as far too negative. It's not inaccurate, but it is biased in the sense of what is included vs. what is excluded. Can we try to improve it? Does anyone ever actually read the discussions on wikipedia anymore if the topic doesn't involve an edit war or a request for deletion? Sigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.151.53 (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So agreed more positives lol Nlivataye (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverting the first sentence
I've reverted the first sentence of the article to an older version, mainly because the older definition doesn't mention any particular age range. I think this is important because:

a) There doesn't appear to be any universally agreed age range

b) Several age ranges are mentioned (with their sources) later in the article. If needs be the Macmillan dictionary definition could be added there.

c) Putting dates in the first sentence leaves it rather open to vandalism - because the reference was not online, the date range had been changed a couple of times and for most people it's not possible to easily check the reference. When I first viewed this page, middle age had been defined as between 22 and 69, and the page had been like that for nine days.

TimTim (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The mention of eggs being saved for an "unmarried woman" is irrelevant to the article
It is irrelevant and biased toward a particular family structure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.28.106 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Middle age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160414054718/https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_449846.pdf to https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_449846.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of the external links and references need to be updated. Some are outdated and some of the links are broken or lead to a site that has been taken down. Do you guys have any sites or sources that you like to go to find relevant information? Kimmigirl (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference to Erikson
Sorry all - the page was locked otherwise I'd have edited myself. The reference to Erikson's theory of Psychosocial Development has been inaccurately applied in this article.

I would suggest changing the article as such:

Cognitive characteristics

[Delete first sentence] Persons in middle adulthood or middle age may have some cognitive loss. This loss usually remains unnoticeable because life experiences and strategies are developed to compensate for any decrease in mental abilities.[7] Social and personality characteristics

Marital satisfaction remains but other family relationships can be more difficult. Career satisfaction focuses more on inner satisfaction and contentedness and less on ambition and the desire to "advance".[8] Even so, career changes often can occur. Middle adulthood or middle age can be a time when a person re-examines their life by taking stock, and evaluating their accomplishments. Morality may change and become more conscious.[citation needed] The perception that those in this stage of development of life undergo a "mid-life" crisis is largely false, however by Erik Erikson's theory of Psychosocial Development, middle age can be a stage of role transition, as children grow up and retirement looms. According to his theory, the middle aged adult successfully navigates this stage of life, termed 'Generativity vs Stagnation', by finding new roles, and new purpose, to keep life fulfilling. Furthermore, Erikson postulated that focus shifts from developing intimacy with a partner in younger adulthood, to care of children and grandchildren. Personality characteristics remain stable throughout this period.[1] The relationships in middle adulthood may continue to evolve into connections that are stable.[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.123.242 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

One further small problem with the reference to Erikson as it now stands (02 July 2020). The article says, "Merriam-Webster lists middle age from about 45 to 64,[3] while prominent psychologist Erik Erikson saw it starting a little earlier and defines middle adulthood as between 55 and 65." This makes no sense - if Erikson's definition starts at age 55, then it is hardly "earlier" that the Merriam-Webster definition which starts at 45. I don't know which the word "earlier" should be replaced with "later" or some other change needs making. I'm not familiar with the debate - I was just trying to get some information about the definition of "middle age". Could someone who does know what this means please correct this sentence? Jorvikian (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Middle Age range shouldn't start at 45, it's cope.
More definitions start with and include 40 up to 44. Even Erikson's definition includes 40. If it were me, I'd say 40+ is full middle age, and 35-40 is the transition into it. Same with 60-65 for old age.

Not to mention all the effects of aging in your early 40s. That's definitely middle age. Schwarbage (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Post sources and justify it with them. WP:No original research. Also, this sounds a lot like the IP edit. You should be logged in when editing, per WP:LOUTSOCK. Crossroads -talk- 22:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.britannica.com/science/middle-age#:~:text=middle%20age%2C%20period%20of%20human,ages%20of%2040%20and%2060.
 * https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/middle-aged-adult#:~:text=People%20between%20the%20ages%20of,people%20who%20are%20middle%2Daged.
 * https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=middle%20age&ref=searchbar_searchhint
 * https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=middle+age&title=21st
 * https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=middle%20age Schwarbage (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we have good sourcing for 40. Ideally we would also look at WP:MEDRS sources, but this is a good baseline. Crossroads -talk- 00:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7347230/ - 40 to 60
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4734389/ - 40 to 59
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4280558/ - 40 to 59 Schwarbage (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have provided links to one organization. I do believe the definition of middle age has been raised to 45 for the most part. People are living a lot longer in 2023 and are in better health thanks to many folks taking care of one selves at younger ages vs 50 years ago. There is no concrete definition of middle age either as everyone ages differently. Quite frankly, I think we need to get rid of outdated terms like middle-age as they are outdated and offensive, but that’s an argument for somewhere else. I am just requesting that the sentence in the article that most sources use 40 to 60 as middle age be deleted and a stronger emphasis on arbitrary be added. The source linked to the sentence in question are generally from studies conducted in the 1990s. Here is a good article on the subject: https://jumbleandflow.com/2021/10/14/what-is-middle-age/Bjoh249 (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It has not been raised to 45 anywhere except for some dictionaries, and many include 40. NCBI isn't just an 'organization', it's where many official research papers are published and many of these studies are funded by various different organizations and are often led by totally different people, who all happen to think 40+ encompasses middle age. That's also completely ignoring the fact that I listed several different credible sources for this that you seem to gloss over.
 * " People are living a lot longer in 2023"
 * No, no they aren't. People are just dying less at an earlier age, but you don't see many people live past 80 or so. Clearly you came here with an anti-middle age agenda and are probably 40+ or have family 40+ who do not want to be called what they are. Schwarbage (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you're posting a random .com blog source to refute any of this. Really? The source you linked is people in their 60s coping that they aren't "old" on an irrelevant poll. I'd even wager 38 is (early) middle-aged, but you wouldn't want to have any of that. It's time people started embracing their age instead of holding onto youth forever. Schwarbage (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Worth protecting the page from vandalism?
What do you think? Schwarbage (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you haven't the faintest idea as to what "middle age" means and your remarks on this talk page are bizarre and tendentious.
 * "Middle Age" does not mean "middle of your life", where "life" is defined as an "average" (80) and "midlife" is half that (40). No, it means the middle of adulthood -which, even assuming one lives until only 80, is not the age 40.
 * The CDC uses 45 -64, The US Census Bureau uses 45 -64 (since at least the early 80s), and most developmental psychology textbooks use 45 -65. Some leading experts in the field of adult development start midlife at 50, which is completely consistent with the general 45 -50 understanding.


 * And I see you went on the Midlife crisis article and changed sourced content to read 40? Do you understand that the sources supporting the definition you changed say 50 and 45? You need to revert yourself and refrain from editing these articles until you've achieved a consensus. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Middle Age was quite literally coined to mean the period that is the middle of your life, as well as the middle of your adulthood. So the age range for a middle age person was always thought to be around your 40s and 50s, and maybe as early as 35 or as late as 65 (but only due to retirement age definitions).
 * Yes, some definitions do use 45-64, but I've provided plenty of examples of the range being outside of that.
 * "Do you understand that the sources supporting the definition you changed say 50 and 45? You need to revert yourself and refrain from editing these articles until you've achieved a consensus"
 * This is total lunacy. I only changed the definition or omitted it because oftentimes there was no source (particularly for the census bureau). The APA definition starts at 35, and they're considering the leading developmental psychologists in America. Are they wrong? Your source for the "developmental psychology textbooks" claim is from a random Cliffnotes.
 * No, I do not think I will revert anything. I have achieved a consensus (that 40 is part of middle age) while acknowledging later definitions. Schwarbage (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On another note, I do not see anything wrong with the changes to the Midlife crisis article. One of the sources did not mention an age range and was a paper about people having midlife crises around age 50 (which is true but also mentions it can happen earlier or later). Another source was dead. A third source (Merriam Webster) has it I believe at 45-60? But again, a lot of dictionary definitions have it at 40-60ish.
 * I apologize if some of my previous remarks were uncalled for or rude, but yes, I do edit age-related articles sometimes, because there are a lot of inaccuracies or things that bother me a bit no matter the stage of life, or gaps that need to be filled in. Schwarbage (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/adults.html
 * This census (official government page) groups in 35-64 year olds as one. Hmmmm. Schwarbage (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Definition should be undefined
The sources that speak about 'middle age' (middle adulthood) and when it begins are inconsistent and range from 30 to 50 and everywhere in between.

The lead is wrong to state a definition as a "general consensus" when there is no general consensus and there are sources that say as much. The changes in the article were the work of one editor who seems to be obsessively editing age-related articles. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out. I reworded the first para, are you ok with this version? — kashmīrī  TALK  10:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't actually know what is the most 'common' way the term is used, or if it's even possible for us to make that determination. Here's just a small sample of research papers starting 'midlife' at age 45 or 50. And this paper on Russian women starts as low as age 33.
 * To make matters worse, a lot of these papers will pick random or semi-random ages between 30 and 50 and then write that 'middle age' is 'most commonly', 'typically', 'often' or 'usually' defined in that particular way, which can't all be true.
 * I would err on the side of caution. You're never going to find a consensus or 'most common' definition for something like this because people's views of aging are shaped by individual circumstance, subjective experience, prejudice and bias etc. This is no less true of researchers than ordinary people.
 * I have an idea on how to cover this more neutrally and in a way that's consistent with source material, but I'll have to get back with you tomorrow. Too busy tonight. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're making the mistake of assuming that the definition is starting at the age of 50 or 45 in the majority of these studies, rather than assuming that that's just the specific age range chosen for the study itself and that they (rightfully) call them middle aged and older adults because those were the subjects surveyed. It doesn't mean it starts at 50, but rather the subjects ages start there.
 * I do somewhat agree with your stance on the random/arbitrariness of picking an age range, but I would say definitions under 35/40 or over 60 are less common than others. Schwarbage (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I will add on saying that I wouldn't mind making it more vague given the lack of concrete consensus regarding the age range, but you'd have to bring up age ranges sooner or later and most researchers or ordinary people think of someone who's say... I don't know, 40 years old, is middle-aged. They certainly aren't old, but they aren't really 'young' anymore or young adults. Think 'The 40 Year Old Virgin'. Sorry if it's a bit low brow, but it's pretty easy to see what people in society think of people in their 40s.
 * It doesn't have to be "this is the official consensus" (which I did not add and something like that was always on the article), but you have to have ages be brought up in some format. The old age article has definitions that start as early as 45 (!!!) but also as late as the 70s. Maybe there could be more flexibility here? I like some of your suggestions but we cannot pretend 35-45 is on the fringe of middle age, especially in the minds of most researchers or the average person. 30 is obviously too low, but I don't think 40 is fringe at all for a beginning of middle age. Schwarbage (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I will say that the definition that says 31 also thinks early adulthood starts at (randomly) 19 instead of the more conventional 18 or 20 if you're going to go by semantics. I believe this would qualify as a Fringe definition. 31 instead of 30 is also very arbitrary and random and has no reasoning or consensus. It also makes the mistake of going +1 rather than having definitions overlap. Say 40-60 is middle age, and then suddenly old age started at 61. That would be a bit random, no? The Teen category starts at 14 (as in freshman year) and ends at 18. This would normally make sense, but it skips to 19 suddenly instead of overlapping with young adulthood at the age of 18.
 * https://www.nal.usda.gov/human-nutrition-and-food-safety/life-stage-nutrition
 * This is the source the blog post was mentioning.
 * It also makes no mention of 'middle age'. The post added that itself. It goes 'Young Adult', 'Adult', and 'Older Adults'. Incorrectly assuming that there is an 'Adult' stage of adulthood rather than young - > middle age -> old age.
 * It just isn't the most reliable definition here and 'older adults' in this usage clearly doesn't mean the same thing as elderly adults. Past 50 or so adults tend to be more at risk health-wise. It isn't the same as someone who's 60, 65, 70, or 75 years old who's nearing or is well into retirement. Schwarbage (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what opinion was like in 1976.
 * ''"It should come as no surprise that reasonable observers disagree as to when middle age begins and when it ends. Although some US Census reports define middle age as from 45 -64, we have research which uses 30 as the onset-age and other studies which refer to 70 at the end of middle age."
 * So there was a wide range of opinion on both ends of the period, a 40 year stretch from 30 -70. More crucially:
 * "[Bernice Neugarten], and other researchers, have also provided definitions of middle age that are less tied to chronology and more associated with developmental function.." 
 * And in 2020 the sentiment hadn't changed.
 * "Researchers and the public have generally considered midlife to encompass the ages of 40 to 60, plus or minus 10 years, making it a relative approximation. When polled about when midlife begins and ends, people, on average, believed it begins at age 44 (SD=6.15) and ends at age 59 (SD=7.46; Lachman et al., 2015). Such age boundaries though are secondary. More important for defining midlife than chronological age are the unique role constellations that people take on combined with the timing of life events and experiences (Lachman, 2004)."
 * So we've got the same 40-year open target and a focus more on development than chronological age. This makes sense to me since humans are most alike when very young (babies) and very old (elderly). From the ages of 30 -50, people have diverged enough physically and mentally as to place an emphasis more on genetics and environment rather than strictly defined age categories. This is why some 40 year olds still look and feel like they're in their prime, while some at 35 already have their best years physically and emotionally behind them. Some people start families at 35; others much younger.
 * In fact, some recent research has called for placing 30 -45 year olds in a separate category of 'Established Adulthood', distinct from both young and middle adulthood. This age group appears to have been understudied as a separate group and is simply wedged into young and middle adulthood despite differences. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read about the research. It believe it came from Jeffrey Arnett's research as he coined the terminology. There could be an article called "Established Adulthood", since it was coined by the same guy who came up with "Emerging Adulthood". I believe I added a section about it once on the article, but it could be expanded into its own. I think that would be a good idea. I don't think it or Emerging Adulthood will catch on in the same way, but I think it's worth its own page at least.
 * Youth is usually cut off at the absolute at around age 35. So there's a huge amount of crossover between young adulthood/established adulthood/middle age adulthood. Schwarbage (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the central problems here is that you seem to be laboring under the impression that there are magic ages that signify different phases of life and that the debate is limited to the chronology of when these magic numbers begin and end. This is a caricature of what researchers are actually debating and a child's picture-book view of aging in general.
 * The other issue, and perhaps the more important one insofar as editing goes, is that the sources do not say what you've been writing here. There is no agreement, for example, on when young adulthood ends.
 * "It has sometimes been referred to as “young adulthood,” but this term has been applied as young as age 18 and as old as age 45 (Arnett, 2015)."
 * And with respect to Established Adulthood:
 * "..we believe that ages 30-45 form a unique developmental period and should be studied as such."(see links upthread).
 * So the whole purpose of creating the "Established Adulthood" category was not to study it as something that overlaps with emerging and middle adulthood, as you say, but as its own separate and distinct phase of adult development.
 * As to the claim that there is a most commonly used definition of middle adulthood that so happens to match your preferred ages, I would simply recommend you search a scholarly database better. I've already posted a number of these but here's some more. Observe some of the language used:
 * "The middle-aged generation typically refers to the segment of the population aged between 45 and 64 years old.."[23]
 * There is dispute on this point and statements like this are a dime a dozen in these papers.
 * At a minimum language like this would need to be adjusted to reflect the weight of the sources:
 * ''"Some definitions start as late as 45, such as those of Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary."
 * In a range of ages that more often span from 40 -50, 45 isn't particularly late at all but about average. And a case could be made that 45 is, even if by a slight amount, the more common onset age used in midlife research, although this can't be proven either way. Sources have been presented in this talk that start the period as late as 50. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources I've read and that you'll find online will cut it off at 35 or 40 in terms of Young Adulthood. Arnett's expression was more referring to the oldest it could range to, not that it's necessarily more common. I was less trying to say it's universally agreed upon and more that generally people mean under 35 or at least under 40 when talking about young adulthood. 18-49 is sometimes used if you really want to stretch that, but either way.
 * "So the whole purpose of creating the "Established Adulthood" category was not to study it as something that overlaps with emerging and middle adulthood, as you say, but as its own separate and distinct phase of adult development."
 * The thing is, is that this category exists almost entirely within Arnett's research. I think it's worthy of its own article, but emerging/established/middle age/old age aren't thought of as the norm. The reason I say there's crossover is because it's a pretty different age theory and his stage of 'Established Adulthood' just happens to cross over what people think of as part of young adulthood + part of middle adulthood
 * "Some definitions start as late as 45, such as those of Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary."
 * It could be adjusted to say "start later" and then maybe start as late as age 50. Schwarbage (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, the whole point was that 45 isn't a late start at all, and about the average onset age used in research papers. Papers that start the period at age 50 are easy to find, and pop up whenever I search the NHS database.
 * The whole dispute, between 40 vs 45, is a nitpick in the first place. But if that's what the argument is, I am not convinced, personally, that 40 -60 is the most commonly used definition over 45 -64/5.
 * And I would stress again that there is probably too much talk of chronology in the article as it is. The dispute over definitions could be covered in one or two sentences and does not even need to appear in the lead. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole dispute, between 40 vs 45, is a nitpick in the first place. But if that's what the argument is, I am not convinced, personally, that 40 -60 is the most commonly used definition over 45 -64/5.
 * And I would stress again that there is probably too much talk of chronology in the article as it is. The dispute over definitions could be covered in one or two sentences and does not even need to appear in the lead. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Middle age today starts at around 45, not 40
Middle age today starts at around 45, not 40, 40 is too young and most sources at the beginning prove this. User 2601:246:5780:BEC0:1E09:DB29:2965:9D (or IP similars used by them) needs to be held accountable for the vandalism and disruption they're causing (with no counteredit to disprove the fact) and that led to the unproductive, useless and damaging protection of the page more than once in just a few days. 151.82.79.178 (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Middle age starts at 56-60
Middle age starts at ages 56-60. This has been and still is the age range and definition of it. 100.34.234.175 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please cite a reliable source to support that claim. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources support IP's claim that "middle age starts at 56" -age 50 is the latest age where the period begins, but there is no agreement on exact ages for when midlife begins and ends. People age differently and experience life differently so you're never going to find everyone agreeing to the same age range. It is quite possible for a 30 year old who is, perhaps, losing his hair to experience a "midlife crisis", and it is not at all uncommon to find people in their 40s (and especially early -mid 40s) who are still in their prime of life. Genetics and health affect physical appearance, and career development and the age people have kids (and how old their kids are) influence how they feel about themselves. A 35 -40 year old college professor who's around 18 -22 year olds all day probably doesn't feel like a "young adult", but a 35 -40 year old running for president is basically treated like a kid.
 * Like I said further up the page, chronology is less important than developmental function and the latter should be the focus of the article (age disputes can be covered in a couple of sentences). As it stands right now, the first section of the article claims that "social scientists" agree about certain midlife ages, which is clearly not true. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)