Jump to content

Talk:Millennials

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.42.32.236 (talk) at 07:35, 18 March 2021 (→missing padlock: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 (article contribs). 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 (article contribs).

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)[reply]

 Done Thank you for proofreading. Nerd271 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

missing padlock

and sources for article

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Millennials&oldid=1012775713"