Talk:Millennials/Archive 15

Lead section: why?
I removed "Early 2000s" from this section but was reverted. The reason I removed it is that
 * A whopping 25 sources in this article ended Millennials in the mid 90s
 * Only 5 sources go beyond that, and they're mostly outdated sources. One of the them (the Census Bureau) even says they don't officially define Millennials.
 * If you google Millennials and Gen Z, the vast majority of sources on the first pages have Millennials terminate in the mid 90s and Gen Z begin in the mid 90s, with only a few exceptions.
 * Our Gen Z article uses mid 90s start dates in the lead; having Millennials end in the early 2000s in this article, and Gen Z start in the mid 90s in that other article is messy/paradoxical.
 * People born in the early 2000s like Billie Eilish are almost always referred to as "Gen Z icons" in the media nowadays, not Millennials

Why are we still putting "early 2000s" in the lead when most "researchers and popular media" barely use those dates anymore since 2018? You may as well add some of the old sources that use late 1970s starting dates and add that to the lead. For example:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/1999-02-14/generation-y

http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm

http://theechoboom.com/2010/09/the-echo-boom-statistics/

--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I recommend you read through the two RFCs on this subject:
 * Talk:Millennials/Archive_12
 * Talk:Millennials/Archive_14
 * In addition there is a discussion further up the page (see ) that thinks we should go the other way, and scrap the 1981–1996 date. Ultimately the lead exists to summarise the topic and there is no concrete date range. People should be able to just read the lead on its own and get the basics, and one of the basics here is that there is no concrete date range. Wikipedia should be summarising the debate, not trying to shape it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the status quo. Nerd271 (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

So even in like 2030, if recent sources are no longer using/rarely using the early 2000s end dates, will "Early 2000s" still be in the intro?--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Those RfCs are out of date, and the above discussion doesn't make much sense.  The status quo is probably fine, but at some point it may make sense to use language in the lead giving less weight to the later date ranges.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A consensus stands until there is a new consensus, which can be established via a new RFC. But if we go down that route then all the dates mentioned should be discussed. In regards to the RFC being "out of date" that may well apply to your position but not to mine. Betty Logan (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A new RfC is not necessary to form a new consensus, because the article has changed.  There are many steps in the dispute resolution process to go through before starting an RfC.  We have already discussed all of the dates.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing fundamental has changed in regards to the date section that this sentence summarises, so there has been no change to invalidate the consensus from the previous RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So changes to the lead might be appropriate if they do not change the fundamental meaning, but they could give the dates different weight.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The specific wording—and therefore the weighting of the dates—was decided through an RFC, and since we have established there have been no substantive alterations to the section then the consensus still holds and the RFC is still valid. Betty Logan (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The number of sources with dates extending into the 2000s has been reduced, and the remaining sources are old. This may be reason to give that text in the lead less weight.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

So after removing the Chamber of Commerce source at Koyla and Nerd's discretion (they don't provide millennial years of their own and were reiterating a non-notable organization, the Physical Activity Council), we're down to three sources that end millennials in the early 2000s: Elwood Carlson, U.S. PIRG, and Census Bureau (who say they don't officially define millennials, so you could argue there's only two sources in the section that firmly use early 2000s end dates). This is a relatively small number of sources. And Neil Howe ends millennials in 2004, which is mid-2000s, not early 2000s, and isn't even included in the lead since the 2004 end date has rarely been used by others.

In our Generation Z article, it states "Researchers and popular media typically use the mid-1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years". In the date range section of that article, there's one source that begins it in 1993 (Statistics Canada), one that begins it in 2005 (Neil Howe), and one that ends it in 2009 (Forbes), yet the lead in that article doesn't take that similarly small amount of sources into consideration. Why is it different with this article? Shouldn't it say "Researchers and popular media typically use the early-to-mid-1990s to mid-2000s as starting birth years and the late 2000s to early 2010s as ending birth years" in the Gen Z article if we're following the lead of this one?--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with . The lead section should reflect the content of the article. Nerd271 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about Generation Z?  Strauss and Howe don't use that name so I don't think their date should be used in the lead. But we can discuss that on that talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm questioning why this article, in the lead, has continued to summarize the body's small amount of sources that end this generation in the early 2000s. Yet the Generation Z article doesn't, in its lead, summarize its body's similarly-small amount of sources that start the generation in the early 90s (1993) or mid-2000s (2005; even though Howe doesn't use Gen Z as a term, his term "Homeland Generation" is supposed to be roughly synonymous with it).--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It could just be inertia.  At the time of the lead RfC there were many more date ranges in the article.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass removal of sources
This is a completely unacceptable edit. I do not need "permission" to add new sources to the article. All the sources I have included are high quality, including the Office of National Statistics, Bloomberg, CNN and academic journals. These are all generally acceptable under Wiki8pedia's WP:Reliable source policy. If you wish to contest a particular source on the grounds it is not a WP:Reliable source, then remove it, list it here on the talk page and start a discussion about it. Betty Logan (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting my disagreement with your edit. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I am going to add each new source, one edit at a time. That will give you a chance to review it, but if you revert again I expect you to post a rationale as to why. Once you have reviewed confimr here on the talk page and I will add the next one to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you list the sources that you wanted to add to the main article here on this talk page in the similar format that Kolya Butternut has done Talk:Millennials/Archive_13 back when their edits were mass reverted by you? Also, I took a look at one of the sources you added "The Independent" which was published in November 19, 2019, but there's a new article from "The Independent" in 2020 stating that Millennials are those born between 1981-1996. Some1 (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never requested of Kolya Butternut that he lists all the sources he wanted to add to the article. Indeed, he has added many sources to the article and I have never requested that he get permission to do so (would you like me to list each and every edit where he added a source to the article which I did not revert on the basis he did not have "permission")? In the discussion where I asked him to list his edits he was i) removing sources that I felt belonged in the article and ii) structural changes to how the section was organized. The reason I asked him to list those edits is because it was virtually impossible to compare edits on an individual basis. I don't think adding a few dates with reputable sources fall into this category. It is easy to view and check the content I added. However, if we are now going to request editors to get every addition to the article vetted here on the talk page I am happy to comply with that request, but it must be applied equally to all of us and not just me. Betty Logan (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're leaving out the part where you demanded that I provide justification for every edit, deeming my edit summaries where I stated that the sources were out of date as "no good reason".  Many of your new sources are clearly out of date; I was not going to go through everything and do the research for you, that is why I am requesting that you discuss your edits to make sure they are up-to-date and thoroughly researched.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked you discuss the removal of sources and article restructuring, which is perfectly reasonable. And the sources I wish to add are clearly "not out of date" since they were all published in the last year. If I have asked you to seek permission to add new sources to the article I am happy to be corrected in this regard. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the material disagreement, and misrepresenting the details of your own sources...let's move on.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

USA Today

 * Similarly, the USA Today article you added is from August 14, 2019 (which you mislabeled as December 14, 2019) and there's a recent one from USA Today published December 24, 2019 defining Millennials as "people born between 1981 to 1996" . Another one from Dec 25, 2019 . Some1 (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * USA Today is an inferior source to the other newspapers cited.  It's likely not worth adding. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it inferior? It's along the same lines as the Washington Post or Washington Times.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If USA Today is added, then it should be moved to the third paragraph along with the other organizations who use 1981-1996. Some1 (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * USA Today is a reliable source that is on a par with the Washington Times, Time Magazine etc. If it has used more than one date in a short period of time then they should both be included per WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If the source has used more than one date range in a short period of time, then it should not be included since they don't have a definition. Some1 (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The media does not have definitions, it has usage. If a source is not consistent in its usage then that simply speaks to the lack of a standardised definition which is part of the topic. Betty Logan (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the inclusion of USA Today, but if USA Today were to be included per WEIGHT as you mentioned, then two of the most recent USA Today articles use 1981-1996 (listed above) and another one states that "The Millennial generation is typically defined as people born between 1981 and 1996", then 1981-1996 should be USA Today's "definition" in the section per WEIGHT (1980-2000 is being given undue weight and should not be included). Some1 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * please revert your edit; you have not reached consensus to include that specific USA Today text. Again, USA Today is not at all on par with The New York Times or the Washington Post.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So is this new sourcing standard that has suddenly been created going to be also applied to the likes of Time Magazine, The Washington Times and the LA Times (all of which would be regarded as equivalent to USA Today in terms of journalism standards) or does it just apply to sources I wish to add? Betty Logan (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you would assume good faith you might not repeatedly misrepresent my intentions. If the USA Today isn't really found to be reporting a different date range than better newspapers then I don't think it's worth adding. Time magazine is not a newspaper.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the cited media organizations is not to just to source a date (otherwise we would only need a couple of sources), it is also intended to demonstrate usage. If the sources are only there to source the date range and not demonstrate media usage then we do not need to cite Time magazine, the BBC, The Washington Post, Business Insider, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, PBS, CBS, ABC Australia, The Washington Times and The Los Angeles Times. If you want me to assume good faith then I am going to have to see some evidence of consistent application of this so called new standard you are imposing on the article. If the citations are not being used to demonstrate usage then we can remove some of the source cruft in line with WP:OVECITE; if you are insisting that only premium media outlets should be used then Time magazine, Business Insider, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Times have a comparable journalistic standard to USA Today and can be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of imposing a new standard on the article is not assuming good faith. You are again making assumptions about what I am thinking and it is difficult to respond to your muddled comments.  I hope I clear things up by saying that I didn't realize The Washington Times and Business Insider were included.  And I will repeat my belief that USA Today is inferior to the other American papers so it wouldn't be necessary to add it unless it has different information.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

CNN

 * Alright, thanks for adding the sources Betty. I think those of us on this site (and I've been guilty of this) tend to fight over which date range were prefer, and act very opinionated about it. I'd like to apologize.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not about "fighting" over date ranges people prefer; it's about having the article reflect up-to-date, reliable sources (as you can see from the Independent/ USA Today discussion above). Additionally, the CNN source that was added does not state that CNN "acknowledges 1980–2000 as an alternative date range", the article states instead: "Millennials: Born 1981-1996 (Sometimes listed as 1980-2000)." The part in the parenthesis is not needed since that is not the main range. But the article is from August 17, 2019; CNN more recently cite Pew  so if CNN were to be added, it would be in the second paragraph as one of those who cite Pew. Some1 (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If the bit in brackets was "not needed" then CNN would not have included it. They provide a main date, but acknowledge another date is sometimes used. Only keeping the bit that you agree with is selective editing. Betty Logan (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's not start casting aspertions, you're just as guilty of bias.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If the CNN source does get added (which it shouldn't per what I stated before here ), then the wording in the bracket should include "sometimes", not "acknowledges 1980–2000 as an alternative date range" since CNN does not give equal weight to 1981-1996 and 1980-2000 as an alternative range (that's why 1981-1996 is the main text, with 1980-2000 being called "sometimes"). Some1 (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am completely fine with that. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a small tweak to the CNN citation, since CNN doesn't really "use" any date ranges per se, but is "reporting" on them ("the groupings below are based on studies by..."). Some1 (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a tweak as well to simplify. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Editorial conduct

 * @Kolya, so what is the point of your edit? AFAICS, you bulk-reverted a bunch of robust sources because those sources were giving the wrong dates. Compared to what?  Your own opinion?
 * Here's a reminder: we work by what the sources say. If you don't like what they say, they stay and your opinion goes. That's how we do stuff.  If sources disagree, we have a harder job and we probably have to present several views and weigh each according to the context and robustness of the source. But what we never get to do (although WP is doing a lot of this of late) is to throw away a bunch of erudite sources because they're not backing up our own personal opinion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please address my edit summaries.  `Kolya Butternut (talk)


 * "Please discuss before adding mass controversial edits. The added sources use multiple dates ranges; please list the sources you want to add and show they have a consistent opinion."
 * "The issue is not the "quality" of the sources. Many quality sources use multiple dates and in different contexts. The onus is on you here. You have clearly added controversial edits to support your opinioin.Please list your edits as we have previously done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials/Archive_13#Date_Range_Update_08:52,_5_March_2019"
 * The problem here is not about date ranges, it's about a single-handed WP:OWN, and one that seems to have been around for a year at least.
 * You cannot credibly just dismiss the ONS etc as merely "controversial" to the point where you can repeatedly remove it (and the whole series of edits on sight). The ONS is too substantial a source to do that. If you want to justify such a removal, then you're going to have to make a case for why it's so badly wrong. IDONTLIKEIT is not enough, and that's all you're offering. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have said, I would like to discuss the specifics of each edit to form a consensus before adding them. Please stop casting aspersions and assuming IDONTLIKEIT without any rationale.  I want to discuss the specific text for the ONS source.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Please stop casting aspersions " – that's just what you get from repeated mass blankings. Your edits, not anyone else's. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2020
Change the "widely accepted defining range for the generation" to 1984 and 1996. This would be more coherent with the Generation Z page. Add the following source: "https://hbr.org/2017/08/a-survey-of-19-countries-shows-how-generations-x-y-and-z-are-and-arent-different". Ragagno (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Not done: The wording reflects the sources used in the article. Most sources don't use 1984 as start point, and many sources don't use 1996 as an end point. Betty Logan (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC about modifying the date range in the lead on the Millennials article
I've a proposal to modify the lead of the "Millennials" article from saying,

"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 defining range for the generation."

to "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 a widely accepted defining range for the generation."

My justification here, as I've mentioned before, is that a whopping 27 sources in this article ended Millennials in the mid 90s. Only 4 sources in the body end the generation in the early 2000s (2000-2003), one of the them (the Census Bureau) even saying they don't officially define Millennials, another (CNN) saying "sometimes 1980–2000" (emphasis on "sometimes"), and the other two (Elwood Carlson and U.S. PIRG) being outdated sources from when this generation's identity was still heavily in flux.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the following reasons:
 * 1) This has been subject to two previous RFCs at Talk:Millennials/Archive_12 and Talk:Millennials/Archive_14 in the last 18 months, and the date ranges in the article have not changed substantively since the last RFC.
 * 2) CherokeeJack1 advances a fallacious argument. While the article does indeed have a concentration of sources that use the "1981–1996" range, it is WP:SYNTHESIS to add a bunch of sources for a date, count those sources and then proclaim those sources to be representative of common usage across different disciplines and countries. One of the reasons for why there is a concentration of sources that favor almost exclusively the 1981–1996 date range is because perfectly good sources have been stripped out of the article. This is covered above at.
 * 3) There is no official definition for a "millenial". As the UK's Office of National Statistics states: "There is no formally agreed definition of different generations, and terms such as “millennial” often mean different things to different people."
 * 4) A research paper from The Journal of Social Psychology notes that in demographic research about millenials there has been a wide range of dates. The shortest range it discovered was 1983–1994 by Deloitte, while a literature review on millennial nurses used 1980–2000.
 * 5) The media has covered the debate in some detail. CNN does use the date 1981–1996 itself to define millenials, but concedes that the millennial date range is "Sometimes listed as 1980-2000". The Independent defines millenials in the following way: "the term is actually understood to refer to people who were born in the time period ranging from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s and early 2000s."
 * From my own experience researching this topic I can confirm that 1981–1996 is the most common date range among American media, but it is far from a universal definition. It should be obvious from the section itself and the sources I list above that there is not set definition, and it would be misleading of Wikipedia to give the impression that there is. Wikipedia should follow trends not set them. There is a wide spread of dates and the lead currently gets balance right IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The above comments must be taken with a grain of salt. Betty Logan has not done diligent research.  "Perfectly good sources have been stripped out of the article".  This is a misrepresentation and an aspersion.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And your reply here should be taken in conjunction with 's comments at who observed that you had "bulk-reverted a bunch of robust sources". Betty Logan (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That editor is not familiar with your editing history. Rather than engaging in a discussion over your edits with him, I intended to discuss your edits with you, but you did not care to continue the discussion.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have included the diff so the people who respond to this RFC will hopefully review it objectively and make up their own minds. Betty Logan (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * People cannot gain an understanding of the disagreement by reading presumptuous accusations. Your refusal to discuss your edits illustrates my concern: you fail to perform diligent research and fail to empathize with others' opinions, or even to express an interest in others' thoughts.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Having re-read the 'Date and age range definitions', I find that the proposal to be quite reasonable. Nerd271 (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This needs to stop!
You know why there's so much controversy, debate and confusion? Because almost everyone says "EARLY 1980s and MID 1990" when defining Millennials. Why not just say: "Millennials are born in 1980s and 1990s"? Remove the "EARLY" "MID" madness! It's wreaking havoc upon this article!213.230.78.90 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Grammar under section: “Cultural Identity”
Toward the end of this particular section, it includes this paragraph:

“ Despite having the reputation for "killing" many things of value to the older generations, Millennials and Generation Z are nostalgically preserving Polaroid cameras, vinyl records, needlepoint, and home gardening, to name just some.[85] However, as COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020s start to affect the life of millennials and other generations which they had to live in a new normal lifestyle, some things that are value to the older generations which were once thought to be killed by millennials are seen resurgence, revivals and stronger sales than in previous years including breakfast cereal,[86] processed cheese, beer, golf, napkins,[87] canned food,[88][89] yogurt,[89] and bar soap.[90]”

This is so poorly written and referenced can we get someone to either a) clean it up or b) remove it outright? Thanks. Imaginarylemon (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay so I fixed the grammar and formatting of a portion but there are more instances of poor writing in this article. Needs to be scrubbed up a bit Imaginarylemon (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * LPK Waterfront goa DJ Hardy.jpg

Youth unemployment
If you read the whole sentence, it says, Clearly, it does not say that Millennials are responsible for these downturns. Nerd271 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Glad we are in agreement then. So why word the sentence as Millennials being the cause of unemployment?  They were simply a big part of the unemployment downturn. Golbez81 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Eh, 'they' in that sentence refers to the recessions not Millennials. It is clear to the person who wrote it and to me that Millennials are among the victims. Nerd271 (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources for 1980-1998 definition

 * https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/millennials-typology/


 * https://www.statesman.com/news/20180615/reviel-that-day-has-arrived--millenials-are-moving-out


 * https://www.adp.com/spark/articles/2018/12/how-generation-z-views-the-future-a-word-on-optimism.aspx


 * https://sites.duke.edu/urbaneconomics/files/2014/04/The-Millennial-Generation-and-Durham%E2%80%99s-Housing-Market.pdf

I call the big one bitey (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020
In the 'In Canada' section, please update "Meanwhile, the option of renting in a large city is increasingly out of reach for many young Canadians. In 2017, the average rent in Canada cost $947 a month, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). But, as is always the case in real-estate, location matters. An average two-bedroom apartment cost CAN$1,552 per month in Vancouver and CAN$1,404 per month in Toronto, with vacancy rates at about one percent.[176]".

To "Meanwhile, the option of renting in a large city is increasingly out of reach for many young Canadians. In 2019, the average rent in Canada cost CAN$1,040 a month, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). But, as is always the case in real-estate, location matters. An average two-bedroom apartment cost CAN$1,748 per month in Vancouver and CAN$1,547 per month in Toronto, with vacancy rates at about one percent."

And cite: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-cmhc-rental-highest-canada-2020-1.5426911 LacieRose (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

✅ Thank you for your suggestion. Nerd271 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Common Sense: Millenials are born after 2000 AD
I made a small survey, and the reader can do it too: Just ask a few people when the Millenials are born. They say: Ofc Around the y2k. Nobody talks about this definition because it is more than obvious. And it is still the time when the redefinition according to this entry hasn't taken place, yet.

"I was born in '49, a Cold War kid in the Carthy time." bases on the same event, i.e. birth, and not becoming 18. Btw: How can older generations be fixed on 18th birthday, when maturity was still at 21 in these times?

The name Generation X is based on non-compliance. "X" doesn't refer to the letter, but is the pictogram of denial. Like in "Malcolm X", or the gesture of crossed forearms in front of the body. I don't know the correct phrase ("Straight Edge, or Straight X"), but even in 1994 (I was 13 then), the phrase and the crossed arms were still used among us children of the revolution. I don't have to lay out how the world changed while Generation X was in power. Generation X were not the kids born in 1981. we are their offspring!

Generation Y fits into an alphabetical order coming after X. But only artificially. Y has been interpreted as Why; referring to a highly educated generation. E-ducere means lead-out, dis-cip-ulus means the small not caught one. Ofc lead out of the Cold War paranoia by Generation X; but also having seen all the educational TV shows. I only refer to Sesame Street. The German Jingle was: "Wer, wie, was, wieso, weshalb, warum. Wer nicht fragt bleibt dumm!" (""Who, how, what? Why, why, why? The one who does not ask other people stays a noob.""). But again: It was good luck that a token was found fitting to the letter after X.

The Baby Boom was after the soldiers returned from WW2 and made babies. I don't know about the situation before at school; but when they became 20 in 1968 there was no occupation. You know about the '68 generation. I'm pretty sure that was the time, when the word Baby Boomers was minced. Newspapers asked: What to do with 'them'?

The Lost Generation with the 2 World Wars and the Depression was a lost generation because of the 2 World Wars and the Depression.

The Millenials are a big number of kids. As everybody knows, they have been made by their parents because of the year. I really hope, some readers are aware of the year 2000. It is not like the year 1900, but like the year 1000. The very first date that peeks into the mind when little children start thinking about mankind's development the very first time.

My last paragraph is not polite, as it is asked by Wikipedia's rules. You can derive the right form it to delete this entry. It will be deleted anyway, so you are welcome to refer to this paragraph when you do so. Two little anecdotes: Last friday I was at the doctor to give some blood. The nurse asked me, if my veins are ok. Last year I had long hair. Now I can comb them from the side over my bald forehead. And no: It doesn't look like the cliché pitophile (wikipedias auto-filter objected the word spelled correctly) from TV. The hair completely cover the baldness. Good solution. Not stupid like making the entire head bald in such a situation. So to say, I repaired the scratch in my car and didn't take the sledgehammer to make the car look according to the scratch. And I dyed the hair blonde. In the nurse's mind a 39yo with dyed hair arouse the pattern: Heroine addict. (Yes, it's really that hard.) and my long black hair made me be bashed out of the supermarket being called Hobo, and police always asked me if I still live at that address when they checked my ID card.

I know, during the war time in the past 20 years, many people have lost their grip to reality and fled into patterns. A common strategy in hard times. Just think of sacrificing humans in drought times. According to a pattern that blood fertilizes the soil, or some ideas about a god and sacrifice and rain. I also have tried to e-ducate the generation that was born between 1990 and 2000 (first impression: Sept. 11 at age 11; after that: only war). Patterns are hard to de-monsterize. And we all know that religious fanatics tend to become very destructive when someone says: Look, this is how it really is.

A nice chart is in the Wikipedia entry: On the time axis year and wars, on the y axis growth, plateau, and decline. A very nice pattern. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit to reality: Generations are not determined by birth or date of maturity; A Generation is only determined by common features. They arise from events influencing a whole generation. These events happen a few times in a lifetime. Be it the war in the 2000s, the fall of the iron curtain, or the unemployment in '68. These events influence kids the most; but also old nurses, policemen, and the writers of the Wikipedia entry have done the step to patterns during the war time. It is nice that those researchers were able to draw a nice chart. And if you want, you can go on naming cohorts X Y Z Alpha Beta Gamma. But the Millenials are here out on the street now. As the 68's were. And they are many. Now. I am sorry that this doesn't fit into the chart (The plateau is shown to start in 2015 (Gen. Z) or in 2028 (Gen. Alpha)). Also writing "This generation is generally marked by elevated usage of and familiarity with the Internet, mobile devices, and social media,[4] which is why they are sometimes termed digital natives." is nonsense. A native is born in a country; born in between 1981-1996 digitallity immigrated into our lives. The statement - on the other hand - fits perfectly to the Millenials born aroung y2k.

Well. We have here a whole generation with a new explanation. Covid doesn't impress them. And if You try to take their identity (from idem = the same) by war-like changing the common sense definition of Millenials to having been 20 in 2000; then you will only be a side note in history. Yes. It is not polite to bombard your little nice chart. But the war generation is now in crossfire between the kids of the revolution and our tausendsassas.

The entry "Millenials" is to be rewritten completely and decoupled from entry "Generation Y", due to the mismatching definition.

2A02:8070:A195:C700:2560:9AC5:FFCD:72AA (talk)Thilo Kübler, Heidelberg, Germany2A02:8070:A195:C700:2560:9AC5:FFCD:72AA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Coronavirus recession [has] had"
Is it appropriate to use an event that's happening in the average millenial's 30s as a defining feature of their development as a generation? Particularly when the consequences of the coronavirus recession have yet to be seen, it seems a bit presumptuous to add to the introduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:2B00:9323:D000:C57C:52ED:10C1:D6D8 (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, given that it has been around a while now and has not gone away and has caused severe economic downturns globally, I don't think it is a bad idea to leave it there. Nerd271 (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The great recession is known to have thrown off the millenial job market, and there are valid predictions that the coronavirus will have a snowball effect, but "severe economic downturns globally" impact all generations in different ways. Given that the average millenial during the coronavirus is about the same age as the average member of generation X was during the great recession, and the great recession doesn't crack the introduction of the generation X article, nor corona the generation Z article, it might be more appropriate to wait until the uniquely devastating effect of the corona recession on millenials plays out. 2600:2B00:9323:D000:C57C:52ED:10C1:D6D8 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * So nobody added it for Generation X? Just because that is the case does not mean we cannot add it here. Nerd271 (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You *can* add it of course, the article is locked after all, but if the information is speculative and doesn't follow any sort of standard template seen in other articles, my instinct as a lowly IP peon would be to say it doesn't have a place in an encyclopedic article 2600:2B00:9323:D000:C57C:52ED:10C1:D6D8 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it is not speculative. It is backed up by the body of the article. This is the second major recession this demographic cohort faces as adults. Nerd271 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC on modifying the lead section in the Millennials article
Should the lead be changed from:

"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 defining range for the generation." (Status quo)

to "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 a widely accepted defining range for the generation."

-- 06:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm setting up a new RFC on this because the last one was very inactive and only had two votes, ending in a draw. Again, I'm making a proposal to modify the lead of this article from reading,


 * "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 defining range for the generation."


 * to "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 a widely accepted defining range for the generation."


 * Sources that back me up:


 * https://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/allowance-forever-some-millennials-still-taking-money-from-parents ("Also known as Generation Y, millennials are typically defined as people born between the years of 1981 and 1996")


 * https://www.nbcboston.com/news/coronavirus/mayor-walsh-to-provide-coronavirus-update/2116977/ ("The term millennials typically refers to those born between 1981 and 1996.")


 * https://www.startribune.com/sad-and-lost-millennials-simply-can-t-afford-the-american-dream/571512552/ ("Just a few years ago, the millennial generation — generally defined as those born from the early 1980s through the mid-1990s — was synonymous with youthful rebellion.")


 * My justification here, as I've mentioned before, is that the vast majority of sources in the body of the article (which the lead is supposed to summarize) end Millennials in the mid 90s. Most recent news articles and media reports outside of this article are going with the mid 90s cutoff as well, with the early 2000s end dates falling into obscurity. Billie Eilish (born 2001), for example, has been widely referred to as a Gen Z icon in recent media, never a Millennial icon.


 * Only three sources in the body end the generation in the early 2000s (2000-2003), one of the them (the Census Bureau) even saying they don't officially define Millennials, another (CNN) saying "sometimes 1980–2000" (note the "sometimes"), and another (Elwood Carlson) not even using the term Millennials in his writings but rather "New Boomers". Neil Howe ends the generation in 2004, which is numerically mid-2000s, and not even mentioned in the lead.


 * In the leads of our articles on other generations like baby boomers and Generation X, those leads doesn't mention obscure definitions for those generations like 1943-1960 or 1965-1977, instead those leads use the most common definitions.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly support the lead change. A 15 year span from somewhere in 1981 to somewhere in 1996 has been more widely accepted and cited over the past two years. I also support removing Category:21st century as a result. This category has already been removed from the redirects to this page. Paleontologist99 (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The early 2000s was from 2000-2002. Mid 2000s was from 2003-2006. Late 2000s was from 2007–2009. Paleontologist99 (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I strongly support this proposal. The introduction should reflect the contents of the article and should not bother with fine minor points. Neither William Strauss nor Neil Howe are authorities on history, sociology, or psychology, though they deserve credit for coining the term 'Millennials'. Nerd271 (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the following reasons:
 * 1) This has been subject to three previous RFCs at Talk:Millennials/Archive_12, Talk:Millennials/Archive_14 and Talk:Millennials/Archive_15 in the last 2 years, and the date ranges in the article have not changed substantively in the interim. In fact the sole substantive change over this period is Pew Research using the 1981–1996 period to define the date range. As a result of this the 1981–1996 range has become more common and this was acknowledged in the second RFC. However, this is not a universal definition and a wide range of dates exist as the section attests to. In other words there are not sufficient grounds to run an RFC for essentially a FOURTH time on the same singular question.
 * 2) CherokeeJack1 advances a fallacious argument. While the article does indeed have a concentration of sources that use the "1981–1996" range, it is WP:SYNTHESIS to add a bunch of sources for a date, count those sources and then proclaim those sources to be representative of common usage across different disciplines and countries. One of the reasons for why there is a concentration of sources that favor almost exclusively the 1981–1996 date range is because perfectly good sources have been stripped out of the article. This is covered above at Talk:Millennials/Archive_15. In other words there is a clear agenda at this article to impose a preference on the article.
 * 3) We need to be absolutely clear on this: There is no official definition for a "millenial". As the UK's Office of National Statistics states: "There is no formally agreed definition of different generations, and terms such as “millennial” often mean different things to different people."
 * 4) A research paper from The Journal of Social Psychology clearly notes that in demographic research about millenials there has been a wide range of dates. The shortest range it discovered was 1983–1994 by Deloitte, while a literature review on millennial nurses used 1980–2000. It is sources like these that we should be using to define the date ranges in the article but they have been stripped out. No good reason was ever given for removing this source. If academic sources consider it noteworthy to mention the wide spread of date ranges in definitions then it is highly questionable for Wikipedia to adopt a different stance.
 * 5) The media has covered the debate in some detail. CNN does use the date 1981–1996 itself to define millenials, but concedes that the millennial date range is "Sometimes listed as 1980-2000". The Independent defines millenials in the following way: "the term is actually understood to refer to people who were born in the time period ranging from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s and early 2000s." If CNN considers it useful and balanced to provide the later dates would we be doing our readers a disservice by doing otherwise?
 * MOS:LEAD states "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Obviously the date range is one of the most important things in defining the term and we should not be ambiguous or misleading about this. If readers don't read past the lead (and many of them don't) then the full range of dates that are used to define the term should be identified. In the section itself we have a paragraph covering Pew's definition, a paragraph covering dates that end in the mid-90s and a paragraph covering dates that end in the 2000–2004 range. These are the three main points to take away from the date section and they are currently represented neutrally by the existing wording in the lead. In other words, given the weight given to each range in the section the weight ascribed to each range in the lead seems to be distributed evenly. What the RFC is proposing is basically have the lead only summarize the first couple of paragraphs of the date section, and not the third. This is not consistent with with MOS:LEAD or WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia should follow trends not set them. There is a wide spread of dates and the lead currently gets the balance right IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on Betty Logan's sources for the 2000 date. Simply removing the 2000 from the article would be fine if there weren't any sources for it. But there are. So it should stay. Loki (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current lead summarizes and gives WP:DUE weight to the dates in the Date and age range section. "Typically" is not needed in this case. Some1 (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Other. I saw this because Betty Logan complained about the question at WT:RFC.  I think, in general, that this is the wrong way to ask this question.  The real question is whether the lead of this article should report a particular year as the most common/popular/typical/correct ending date, or if it should give the biggest (verifiable) range possible.  The exact wording for the sentence could be worked out later.  For example, if people decided that they wanted a big range, then it might be helpful to address that point in a separate sentence, e.g., There is no official definition of the cohort. Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years.  The ending date varies significantly, with many sources choosing 1996 as the year when the last Millennials were born, but with others using other dates, sometimes as late as 2004, as their cutoff point."  Or, if people decided to favor 1996, then it could say something like There is no official definition of the cohort. Researchers and popular media almost always include people born from 1981 to 1996, but some sources additionally include people born through 2000, or even as late as 2004.  There are many ways to say these things, and once you've decided whether to focus on 1996 vs a decade-long range, it will be easier to sort out the wording.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the RFC question as it is currently worded. I think the crux of the issue is whether the lead should just highlight the most common dates (there is no disagreement even from me that 1981–1996 is the most common range) or whether it should consider the whole spread of dates. I simply think that in the absence of an official definition it is entirely proper for Wikipedia to highlight the most common date range but it should not ignore the spread of alternative dates. Personally speaking I don't consider somebody born in 2004 a millennial, but if other people do it is something I'd like to know. What we do know is this: everyone born between 1983 & 1994 is a millennial by any definition, 1981–1996 is the most common definition, while 1980 and 2004 are the outliers. This pretty much sums up the entire debate and costs the article no more than a carefully worded sentence, and yet here are on a fourth RFC in two years. Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose change to the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, we must "summarize the most important points" of the topic. The current lead summarizes the body, and unless we have sources which provide WP:SYNTHESIS for us about the most important date ranges which say something different, we must summarize the date ranges ourselves based on the body. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments on Betty Logan's above points:
 * 2. "One of the reasons for why there is a concentration of sources that favor almost exclusively the 1981–1996 date range is because perfectly good sources have been stripped out of the article. This is covered above at Talk:Millennials/Archive_15#Mass_removal_of_sources. In other words there is a clear agenda at this article to impose a preference on the article." Betty Logan made this same false accusation in a previous RfC.  I reverted her edit with explanation and then we took it to the talk page. There is no nefarious agenda, just opposition to poor research.
 * 4. "The shortest range it discovered was 1983–1994 by Deloitte, while a literature review on millennial nurses used 1980–2000." There is a difference between using date ranges when comparing cohorts and defining date ranges for generational cohorts. Deloitte even used Pew's date ranges in 2015, "In this report, we follow the definitions of Generation X and Millennials from the Pew Research Center". The millennial nurses study was from 2012, before the date ranges were at all solidified.  We should be cautious when pulling out date ranges used in individual studies; it is preferable to use sources which actually give their opinion of the definition.  We do include the best sources which give definitions on the outlying birth years, and these years are in the lead.  There is no need to cast aspersions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

no lock on page?
is this a glitch?????71.223.84.150 (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Page protection expired. Please don't make poor quality edits or it will likely return. Nerd271 (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2020
this information is incorrect, 1980 to 1996 was gen y, the millenial term was not spercific to and actual generation, it is nfact a range from 1985 onwards and refers to the the younger generations that have spent the majoiry of their lives growing up in the new millenia. they have also been dubbed snoiwflakes, soyboys and many other names, some of which are too offensive to mention. 203.7.31.191 (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We just try to reflect sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

pictures in article of millenials
Why is it a picture of "säpojoggen" included in a article about millenials? Säpojoggen is a jogging tour for the Swedish security service people. That has *nothing* to do with millenials. 83.248.84.238 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

White space and the Table of Contents
I understand that most table of contents here have white space to their right. But this particular article has a lot of sections and subsections. So I thought eating up that white space might be a good idea. Nerd271 (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * What about putting something else there? I like that people can navigate among the generations from the template at the top of the page, and the template placement should be consistent among the generations articles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure to be honest. The only thing I can think of is graphics. But we already have plenty of those. Any ideas? If not, we can just leave it as it is. Nerd271 (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I can't think of something iconic.  I just noticed that the article is way too long. It could probably be split up. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Fellow human! After wandering the Universe, I have found a solution. One can move the Table of Contents to the left, with a collapsing menu, as can be seen in the page Comparison of e-book formats. Nerd271 (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Haro uman.  Try it! Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Done! Let's see what people think. Nerd271 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the generations template needs to go on the top. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the Table of Contents should go on top for ease of navigation. It is possible that not everyone who comes here wants to read the whole thing (yet) but only some sections. Nerd271 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I still think the placement of the generations template should be consistent among the generations articles. Would you restore the longstanding stable placement while we get another opinion? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As you wish, miss. Nerd271 (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Apparently, there has been a software update. Collapsed table of contents are now the default setting. No further actions from us are necessary. Ha ha ha! And I thought the writers of other pages had hidden tricks up their sleeves. Nerd271 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Modern kick scooter

 * I have added image of modern kick scooter being ridden by a millennial as particularly associated with millennial generation with citations confirming this.--Darrelljon (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Much better. Thank you! Would be even better if you could add some explanatory text. How popular are such vehicles among these people? Nerd271 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020
"Europe's demographic reality contributes to the its economic troubles"

109.175.155.98 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thank you for proofreading. Nerd271 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Jon Ossoff victory in Georgia.
I think we should mention Jon Ossoff (D-GA) at least once in the article under the politics section since overall he is the first millennial senator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justarandomnamejake (talk • contribs) 03:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific on why this individual is worth mentioning here? Perhaps that fellow is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, which he does, but that does not necessarily mean this page should mention him. There are quite a few Millennials out there. Just because somebody from this cohort did something does not mean they should be mentioned. If you go back far enough in the history of this page, you will find people fighting over whether or not certain Millennials deserve to be explicitly mentioned. It may well deteriorate into a popularity contest. Nerd271 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific on why this individual is worth mentioning here? Perhaps that fellow is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, which he does, but that does not necessarily mean this page should mention him. There are quite a few Millennials out there. Just because somebody from this cohort did something does not mean they should be mentioned. If you go back far enough in the history of this page, you will find people fighting over whether or not certain Millennials deserve to be explicitly mentioned. It may well deteriorate into a popularity contest. Nerd271 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021
142.118.208.161 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Millennials Generation is from 1979 to 1996
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021 (2)
142.118.208.161 (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 15 (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Laundry
There should be some mention of Millenial's problem with laundry. No other generation has as much trouble putting their clothes away. This is a serious issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6ae5:2510::32 (talk • contribs)
 * Please provide reliable sources. Nerd271 (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021
Under the title "Cultural identity", edit: "However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020s, certain items whose futures were in doubt due to a general lack of interest by millennials appear to be reviving with stronger sales than in previous years, such as canned food and yogurt.[106]" to: "However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020s, certain items whose futures were in doubt due to a general lack of interest by millennials appear to be reviving with stronger sales than in previous years, such as canned food.[106]"

You could also consider removing the "canned food", as I have my doubts that they had dramatically declining sales pre-COVID-19. Nor have any conservation method for products storaged in room temperature revolutionized the market just yet, so canned food are not going away any time soon. There may also be reasons of necessities behind the stronger sales, not necessarily a long-term "revival" of any product if deemed unnecessary before the pandemic. Yogurt has never had their futures in doubt, nor been in need of any revival. They've just had some declined sales a couple of years in the US. And I'm quite sure the demographic cohort "Millenial" are not the driving factor behind the declined sales. https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4773650/yogurt-market-growth-trends-and-forecasts Mortenehh (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. All the source said regarding yoghurt was that it's sales have increased, not the rest of the sentence before it. No opinion on the inclusion of canned food as an example of the trend. Volteer1 (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sweden Democrats statistics
In the section about Political views and participation among continental European millennials, it says "The Sweden Democrats were the second most popular political party for voters aged 18 to 24 and the most popular for those between 35 and 54 in 2018." According to actual Swedish statistics, this is flat out wrong. SVT, Sweden's national television broadcast, has statistics of voting among different age groups, and among 18-21 year olds they got 13%, making them third largest, not second. Among 22-30 year olds they received 14% which again made them third largest. For reference, the second largest party among both these groups got 20% of the vote, which among 18-21s was the Social Democrats, and among 22-30s the Moderates. The Sweden Democrats were second largest among 31-64 year olds. I have listed the link to SVT's election results page below. You can find the same statistics in voter demographics section of the article about the 2018 Swedish general election.

https://www.svt.se/special/valu2018-valjargrupper/

I tried removing the sentence a few days ago, but it was revoked with the claim that "these fellows are political scientists". It does not matter who they are if the statistics they give are wrong. I strongly suggest we remove this sentence, and perhaps re-examine the other claims made in the book.

Timothy2b (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No. You are comparing voter preferences from different age groups and different times. Direct comparison is not meaningful in the former case. Statistics from the book came from right before the 2018 election. Also note that voter turnout might affect the outcome. Nerd271 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If the statistics from the book came from before the 2018 election, it is wrong to say that it was the second largest among 18-24 y/os and the largest among 35-54 y/os, as the election had not even been held yet. If you want to keep the statistics, then the sentence should reflect that these were pre-election polls as opposed to election results, as it otherwise insinuates that they actually ended up receiving that support in the election, which they did not.


 * Also, even then, I'd question the relevance of those statistics, because the Sweden Democrats' support was overestimated by polls, and they received quite a bit less support in the election than polls suggested. Timothy2b (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I already clarified in the article this was before the 2018 election. Bring in more statistics backed up by reliable sources if you wish. Nerd271 (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, I didn't see that until now. I might add a short sentence about the above-mentioned statistics from SVT, but it's already much better. Timothy2b (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ernst & Young, MSW Research, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Nielsen
Should these sources really be used? These organizations are more focused on the business side of things and create their own ranges for marketing, unlike other sources like Elwood Carlson, Strauss and Howe, and Pew Research who research generations from a sociological standpoint.--DruidLantern8 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Generations are often a marketing tool, so I would say yes, to some degree. We have studies like: "Generational Research and Advertising to Millennials". Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But Nielsen is focused primarily on TV network ratings, so I feel like it's unnecessary to list their range in the Date and age range defining section. We may as well include a fabric company's date range for millennials.--DruidLantern8 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Demographers should carry more weight IMO, but since there is no official definition then understanding of the term is primarily reflected in its usage. Betty Logan (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

missing padlock
and sources for article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.32.236 (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Age range citation should be improved
"...with 1981 to 1996 being a widely accepted defining range for the generation." The citation provided as evidence for this quote refers to an article in the Economist, which uses the 'widely accepted' moniker in describing work done by the Pew Research foundation. The citation should be updated to refer to primary sourcing (ex: https://www.pewresearch.org/topics/millennials/), and clarify the source of the definition as specifically Pew Research. The Economist article should not be used solely to access the "widely accepted" phrasing. This is especially true since other equally-reliable sources provide different ranges. Strauss and Howe (cited as the originators of the Millennial name in this very article) proposed 1982 to approx. 2002 originally (https://web.archive.org/web/20140824054351/http://www.fcg.gov/documents/Millennials_Rising_bkreview.pdf), and later adjusted it to 1982 - 2004 (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/gen-millennials-generation/story?id=16275187). 23.241.227.3 (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the very definition of WP:SECONDARYSOURCE. Do you have a connection to User:Aboutbo2000? Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The original paper which defined the term Millennial can be cited directly as "Millennials are defined as those born in 1982 and approximately the 20 years thereafter." No original research needed. The problem with the secondary source used is that it leaves open additional interpretations because there are additional easy-to-retrieve secondary sources that conflict with the definition in the Economist article, such as "https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/here-is-when-each-generation-begins-and-ends-according-to-facts/359589/" >> "In October 2004, the researchers Neil Howe and William Strauss called Millennials 'the next great generation,' which is funny. They define the group as 'those born in 1982 and approximately the 20 years thereafter.' In 2012, they affixed the end point as 2004." I think it would also be improved if the article were to provide a secondary source such as that which synthesizes the actual primary source. I disagree with the use of the Economist article in a vacuum only because it directly contradicts with the originating paper's definition - something that's not only easily verifiable, but also IS referenced in other secondary sources. I'm unclear who the named user is or why they matter. 23.241.227.3 (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A more recent, 2020 article from The Atlantic uses around 1996 and roughly 15 years for later generations. A lot has changed in 7 years in terms of which dates are most relevant. Strauss and Howe's dates are cited in the article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021
Hello there my name is Sir Reilly Charles of the 4th District in upstate New York. I have been a scholar with the American Philosophy Association for 16 years. We have discussed this page many times and through many jokes. But in all seriousness, referring to records of the late 90's, it would seem apparent 1998 is a more appropriate finish to the Age of Millenials. As this article suggests, it is rather unclear when that window closes. Many say Millenials were born from 1980 to 2004. Some say as late as 2000, or as early as 1994. We have a lot of records, from magazines to scholarly articles, dated from 1997 until 2002. It seems that the vast majority of said illustrations had it known that the children being born at the time were of the Millenial era. It was not until 2004 that it was decided the beginning of Generation Z. For some social reasons, it appears this was then debated and some said it ended in 1997. Hence this article. Me and my team would like to make reasonable edits to this article, provided we include sources of all our information. Thank you. Reido 116 (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The Latest Born Year Range of this Generation
In 2014, The White House said Millennials spanned 1980 to 2004 last year. (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/millennials_report.pdf)AppleWise (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Loads of people have made one claim or another about this demographic cohort. Why is this significant? Has it been supported by demographers or sociologists? Nerd271 (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2014 is a very old source for this subject. What does the White House say now? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

One sided sources and ranges in these Wiki pages
The date and range section is Supposed to show the different ranges created and defined by demographers and Researchers. It is clear that a few wiki pages are bias especially with the pew Research ranges

The range for pew research has already been shown in the section but instead of showing other define ranges a handful of some here has simply posted random articles by Journalist working within certain companies anything from Washington, abc so on and so on. Simply using pew’s ranges or any for their own specific article. None of these articles linked are actual demographers defining the ranges or the Company themselves defining it. Just because a article from a random site writes down a arbitrary range that they got from somewhere to use for flat out anything doesn’t mean this random article or the site it’s coming from is defining generation ranges. The websites and Businesses clearly never cane up and defined these generation or the ranges.

Simply finding a random article and posting it on wiki that’s just so happens to be using certain ranges like say pew, Neil, or any other so on and so on is not defining generations....it’s just a random article using what they looked up and went with for this specific article they wanted to right up. This goes for all ranges but I point out pew earlier since that’s what some here have been doing and its extremely bias/one sided.

The date and range section isn’t a Advertisement for pew posting random articles from sites its to show the different ranges define by the people who come up and define these things as there own. You know the people who come up with it not the audience. What a problem this is. Joseph165 (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

A handful needs to be deleted since a few are clearly not anything defining or something on the lines of that. All are just random articles by random individual writers. Joseph165 (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Millennials' mental health issues are missing
When I read this article, I missed so bad a section about Millennials' mental health issues. Millions of millennials worldwide are ravaged by mental disorders such as depression, anxiety, panic disorder and schizophrenia, largely because of the economic and political instability of the last years, the deepening of anti-social state national policies and widespread hate speech and crimes. Minorities such as LGBT+ people, POCs, immigrants from developing countries, and disabled people, in addition to most inhabitants of countries such as Brazil and Argentina, tend to be the most affected. Therefore, who has good references about Millennials' mental health, please add this so needed section. Robfbms (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to know a lot about it, where did you get this information? Are Millennials in particular disproportionately affected by these issues, which affect everyone? Surely the mental health of those directly affected by mass migration, for example, is of greater concern than young people who just read the news? nagualdesign 21:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I studied for an NVQ in Health and Social Care last year, which included a module on mental health. In the UK at least, it's certain ethnic groups that are disproportionately affected (Muslims in particular), as well as those on low income. And while mental health issues often begin during youth and adolescence, and there has been a lot of effort over the past decade or so to address those issues, there was nothing to suggest that Millennials are any different from previous generations in that regard.
 * For example, here are two sources (actually they're both from mentalhealth.org.uk) discussing mental health in young people, as well as the recent increase in issues being reported, but there's no suggestion that this is unique to Millennials and it's highly likely to be, at least in part, due to an increased focus on children's mental health. Mental health issues in older adults continues to be a concern, and as far as I'm aware the main cause of death for men in their 40s in the UK has for many years, and continues to be, suicide.
 * What I'm trying to say is, don't get trapped in an echo chamber searching for sources who say that young people are disproportionately affected, or make the mistake of thinking that the current generation of young people (Millennials) are what those sources are talking about. You'll need to find sources on mental health issues by demographic which not only show that young people are disproportionately affected, but that Millennials in particular are showing a larger prevalence of issues compared to previous generations. You'll probably find that reliable sources don't speculate as to what causes mental illness (like economic and political instability, etc.) since those things have had their ups and downs for decades, if not centuries, and "correlation is not causation". Besides which, human rights have generally improved over the last 50 years or more. Being gay in the 1920s was undoubtedly more difficult than being gay in the 2020s, for example, since many countries now have gay rights enshrined in law, gay marriage and festivals celebrating gay pride.
 * This is just my two penneth, of course. I'm certainly no expert on these issues. I just think that your assertion that Millennials are having a particularly hard time doesn't sound very objective. nagualdesign 21:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Would be nice if any of you could share some reliable sources. We can't just start a new section without sources. Nerd271 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Generation timeline.svg

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021
The dental health sub section implies that all millennials suffer from lower dental health. The provided source only provides information with regards to American millennials. The section should either be removed, or the text itself should be clarified that it is about Americans Nallath (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Mel ma nn   15:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

GenY
Generation Y is not part of the Millennials. The part that lumps them in together needs to be removed as they are their own generation. Boeticus420 (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "The part that lumps them in together" is the entire article, which is properly sourced. Millennials are Generation Y. If you wish to provide a source that says otherwise please do so. nagualdesign</b></b> 00:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm with Boeticus. I'm struggling to find a good source, but annoyed that convention seems to have wiped my generation off the face of history. Generation Y are sort of 1975 to 1985 births - born early enough that we encountered the Internet only as adults but distinctly after the MTV influences had passed.  Largely characterised by a low birth rate, which is probably why we are getting ignored. That didn't used to be controversial - I wonder when the accepted wisdom changed. 82.69.113.103 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How can a generation be just ten years? No ten year old has children of their own. 185.13.50.219 (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, there are a few that do..and likely to become more common, as onset of puberty keeps dropping lower and lower. In all seriousness, though, I sort of agree with your point, but I also see the other side of it, which is that children are constantly being born, at all times, and why should it be said that a person born in 1980 is the same generation as a person born in 1965, but his little sister that's one year younger than him is in a different generation? Shorter duration "cusp generations" to bridge the hard cutoff points of the major named generations (such as this supposed "Generation Y") might be a solution to that problem that, according to these editors, someone at sometime has thought of. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:188:EBC9:5717:F2F1 (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you guys missed the point. A social generation is not the same thing as a biological generation. Nerd271 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also with Boeticus.  I was born in the late 70s, I identify as Gen Y, and somehow, over the last decade and a half, the start date of Gen Y was pushed forward to the 80s and 'millennial' began to replace Gen Y.   I'm going to start noting and archiving all the places that correctly start Generation Y in the mid-70s; watching history getting rewritten before my eyes (and watching my own identity getting written out) is disturbing. 68.174.74.27 (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021
The statement "Millennials are often the parents of Generation Alpha" is untrue. Millennials are parents of Gen Z and Alpha since the early Millennials would be having children between 1998 and 2006. It would only be the late Millennials that would often be the parents of Gen Alpha. MilhouseMcMuffin (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The article is said to be too long
when i went to look at the article their was a note at the top that since febuary of 2021 teh article has been deemed too long an dhard too read id say we should simplify it and take out some unessasary bit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen fan who edited ogre battle article (talk • contribs) 12:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021
Between 1981 and 1996, an average of 3.6 babies (millennials) were born each year, compared to 3.4 million (Generation X) between 1965 and 1980. But millennials continue to grow in numbers as a result of immigration and naturalization. In fact, millennials form the largest group of immigrants to MISSING UNITS OR WRONG NUMBER. ALSO REMEMBER SIG FIGS. SORRY FOR CAPS 107.199.166.133 (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've added the "million". I've also changed 3.6 to 3.9, which is what the cited source says. Saucy[talk – contribs] 01:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Economic prospects and trends section is off topic
the Economic prospects and trends section and it's Asia subsection are not topical to Millenials. Lamenator (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Psychology and Cognitive Ability sections
These sections include off topic and questionable study references. Should they be removed entirely? 2001:8003:6003:8A00:1442:707E:F146:75A (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Cultural identity “In the US” then “in general and other countries”
….. can these rather offensive cultural identity subheadings be removed and the content here also be reduced by about 75%. 2001:8003:6003:8A00:1442:707E:F146:75A (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2021
Remove the cognitive ability and psychology sections, these include pseudoscience and poor quality sources.

Overall this wiki page reads like a D grade high school assignment. 2001:8003:6003:8A00:1442:707E:F146:75A (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Morneo06 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Osher.j, StefanO.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022
Generation Y needs its own category. Gen Y are people born between 1976 and 1986. Gen Y are not Millennials. 72.19.40.24 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agrego10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Split proposal
Hi! I propose that the section on "Economic prospects and trends" be split off into its own section. It is really long and a complex topic that would probably be best explored through its own article. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, I suggest we split it up into "Millennials" and "Millennials in the United States" as has been done with "Generation Z" and "Generation Z in the United States." Nerd271 (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Economic prospects and trends of Millennials (would need a better title obviously) would be a better article that would avoid redundancy. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 06:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. If you split this up in the manner I proposed, you could remove a lot of contents from here. Nerd271 (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree - right now US-specific content takes up a large portion of the article. It's logical to make it its own article. Wgullyn  ( talk ) 21:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, I think both splits would be a good idea. Keep in mind the article is at 29,110 words (about 60 pages), and both splits would be helpful towards making the article more readable. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the economics of the Millennial generation has more than enough content to create a separate article. Both splits should be done. Wgullyn  ( talk ) 22:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What I worry about is that moving all US content scattered across this article into a separate article necessitates reiterating a lot of information twice, since we can't just exclude all US content from the main article. Whereas if we just follow the summary style like Economics of Millennials does, it will be easier to split up and we only need brief summaries on this page. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 23:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC) pinging, , ~BappleBusiness[talk] 20:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you rephrase what you mean by "just follow the summary style" on the US content, ? I'm not sure I follow. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 02:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I meant follow the summary style for the article, not for just the US content (I'm not sure how that would work). I was saying that creating an article Economics of Millennials like you suggested would be in line with creating a summary style article, which is a lot more straightforward to create and read. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 02:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Both split proposals make sense. A lot has been written about the Millennials and a lot will be written. As long as the information is relevant and reliable, Wikipedia should reflect that. Nerd271 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * would you be willing to create those pages? I currently don't have the time and feel consensus on both supports splitting. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I will take a bit of time because I have other things to worry about. Nerd271 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Don't worry too much about the time, we're under WP:NODEADLINE :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)