Talk:Millennials

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).

RfC about the editing the lead on the Millennials article

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

---

I made a proposal to edit the lead of the "Millennials" article from saying, "There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years", to "There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s to the mid 1990s as the cohort's birth years, with some extending the end of the cohort up to the early 2000s." Recently there has been new research regarding millennial end dates. Obviously this is not an exact science, but I feel that we need to constantly update the page with the most current consensus and new findings. We are currently having a discussion at the bottom of this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials. Please carefully read the discussion before commenting. Another request I have is to only include reliable, well researched sources from reputable people or organizations, and to cut down WP:UNDUE sources. However editor DynaGirl is claiming that these undue sources are from notable researchers and demographers and that “they have stood the test of time.” She is yet to give proper evidence to back up her claims besides restating the same things she has already said multiple times on different discussions. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Date range in lead is suppose to be a summary of the dates used by notable researchers/demographers in "date and age range definition" section. The current wording of "...mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years" better summarizes these dates. Please see [1]. There are several notable researchers/demographers who use late 1990s or early 2000s so the proposed emphasis on mid-1990s isn't supported. DynaGirl (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Add to clarify: The date range defining section is already limited to dates only from notable demographers/researchers. This has helped tremendously with edit warring on this article because what happens is that POV editors can find enough dates from journalists/newsbloggers to support any specific date in the range which they happen to prefer, so they'd edit war to remove dates which do not fit their preference, adding ones that do. Since there are literally 100s of sources for any date (if you include dates from random non-notable journalists/newsbloggers) this was an easy thing to do, leading to persistent edit warring of lead section regarding dates. Limiting the date section to only dates from notable researchers or demographers has made it more difficult for POV editors to push their POV regarding dates into the article. Hence the above suggestion to remove references from notable researchers/demographers which do not fit their date preference. Perhaps this section could be cut down for ease of reading and to remove redundancy, but it's tricky because POV editors only want to cut out dates which do not fit their particular date preference. In past I've argued specifically for the Pew Research source which the 2 editors above want to exclusively base this article on [2], doing so in the context of arguing against editors who wanted to exclude the mid-1990s dates from the lead, and I was part of the consensus to get the mid-1990s dates added to the lead. Here, I've argued against cutting out the later dates in a similar fashion. In contrast, the 2 editors pushing for this do not have a history of neutrality or impartiality with respect to summarizing all the dates used by notable researchers/demographers for the Millennial cohort. One has been warned for edit warring against multiple editors, here and on Generation Z, for trying to base the lead exclusively on Pew research [3], and the other has history of editing only based on the early dates and appears to be using an IP sock to support theirself in discussion [4], [5]. The "undue" sources they are arguing against include dates from U.S. Census Bureau, Strauss–Howe generational theory, and Merriam-Webster dictionary. DynaGirl (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We already went over these things in the discussion above. You seem to have very selective reading. If I have to repeat the same thing over and over just like you do, I will literally lose my mind. You yourself have done questionable things as well, so baseless accusations are unfair. I am done talking to you and will let other editors decide. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Akhila3151996, you have to admit it seems suspicious. The IP has edited talk page comments signed by your Akhila3151996 account [6] and edit history shows 24.35.65.234 and Akhila3151996 edit the same topics. DynaGirl (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you bother reading my responses in the Talk:Millennials#Editing_Lead_on_"Millennials section (literally above this section), specifically the part where I said the sources in the "Dates and age range definition" section are not reliable or notable with reasons why? And that those sources are not from reliable or notable researchers, except the Pew Research Center source? Because your comment suggests that you did not. It is tedious to have to repeat the same arguments over and over again because non-neutral, biased users choose to the ignore arguments that don't agree with them. I suggest uninvolved editors read the "Talk:Millennials#Editing_Lead_on_%22Millennials" section above since every argument is covered in that section, but if you'd rather I restate my arguments here, let me know. And please don't attack users with "they have edit warred in the past!!!!" and "oh, IP is supporting themselves!!!" That is irrelevant to the discussion and just grasping at straws right now. And per my comment in Talk:Millennials#Editing_Lead_on_"Millennials you are not a neutral editor on this topic, so don't pretend like you are. Someone963852 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone963852, I have read and responded to your comments at length, above and in talk page archives. I disagree with your assertion that dates used by U.S. Census Bureau, Strauss–Howe generational theory, Merriam-Webster dictionary etc etc are not valid. I agree with you that Pew Research is an important and significant source which should be used in the article (and it is), while I disagree that it should be the primary focus and I disagree that it should be the exclusive source for the dates in the lead. Remember Pew Research outright states their dates are not definitive and that they remain open to recalibrating dates. [7]. Similarly, I've argued against prioritizing the dates at the other end of the spectrum. I haven't been pushing for exclusive focus on later range Strauss/Howe dates either, and argued for the current article text which states that the later Strauss/Howe dates are also tentative [8]. I've argued for neutrally presenting all the sources. However, if you look over talk page and edit history, it's clear that you edit and argue based exclusively on the early Pew Research dates.DynaGirl (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I gave my reasons why the sources you mentioned are invalid in the section above, and you disagree without giving any reasons why. And like I stated before multiple times, the Pew source is the only source to actually research the Millennial date ranges and gave reasons why they concluded the date ranges the way they did. If I exclusively used that source for the lead, then it would've read 1996 instead of mid-1990s, which I'm not advocating for. The Pew source should be given the most significance and precedence over outdated sources and what random companies use categorically. But if we're going with random, non-reliable, non-notable sources, most still use mid-1990s as ending years, with some using 2000, but one using early 2000s. The proposed lead is actually giving a lot of lee-way for the early 2000s when only one outdated source from 1991 used it. Someone963852 (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose To state that the researchers "typically" use the mid-1990s as the end-point does not seem to be borne out by the body of the article. A quick count of the sources used in Millennials#Date_and_age_range_definitions has 8 going with the 1994–1996 range, 3 for 1997–1999, and 8 for 2000–2004. To state that researchers "typically" put the cut-off date in the mid-90s seems to be WP:Original research based on the editor's own analysis; to be sure that such an assertion is true would require a literature review of the topic. The current version of the text is more neutral and IMO it is a more accurate reflection of the date range section. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Please see my newest comment at the bottom of the page. Also understand that it is not about the number of sources, it is the reliability of the sources. The mid 90's sources as well as the late 90's and 2000s sources in the article are all guilty of being unreliable because we are giving weight to sources with the date range used for purposes other than conducting research, that are mainly used for survey/categorical purposes. These include the Census reports, news blogs, and company reports. Companies included are not research firms, they are ad agencies, or even consulting/accounting firms (such as Ernst&Young and PWC).-Akhila3151996 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  You have not addressed my main criticism i.e. asserting that sources "typically" favors the mid-90s constitutes original research. This is a classic example of WP:SYNTHESIS: you are aggregating dates from your preferred sources and making an assessment that is not actually contained within any of those sources. As far as I can see none of the sources in use in the article individually support the claim that the mid-90s is "typically" used as the cut-off. That is simply your interpretation of an arbitrary selection of sources. Such a strong claim needs to be explicitly cited. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  You are correct in stating that the sources do not support my explanation. I am also pointing out that sources across the board are unreliable and need to be removed. This is only rated as a C-Class article and part of the reason has to do with WP:UNDUE research and/or WP:Original Research. Many users seem to be inserting their personal POV in the article with weak sources to back them up. I am not attempting to do this, and I am advocating for a major cleanup of the article. I realize that this may take a while and I feel that there are major problems in the article. I am not simply complaining about one thing, and I am looking for compromises so that major improvements could be made. It is quite a nuanced issue. Also please see sources at the bottom which appear to back up the claim I am making, but are not included in the article. I did state below that the mid 90's end range is not my personal belief, this is what I have gathered based on what I have read regarding recent research. I also said at the bottom that if presented with good evidence to the contrary I am open to changing my mind. My end goal is to improve the article to encyclopedic standards. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Akhila3151996, I am with Betty Logan here. What you need are more sources like the New York Times article[9], which says, "Demographers place its beginning anywhere from the early ’90s to the mid-2000s," and, "Marketers and trend forecasters, however, who tend to slice generations into bite-size units, often characterize this group as a roughly 15-year bloc starting around 1996, making them 5 to 19 years old now." (The point here, of course, is that the source is doing the synthesis for us, but I also note that the source supports the current lead.) -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 21:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  I feel that these are two more great articles that illustrate the difference of young millennials/generation z vs. much older millennials.

  1.https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/04/25/who-are-generation/Zd6TMLiRYKgH0xvbLNFh8O/story.html

  2.https://www.bustle.com/articles/127132-what-is-the-post-millennial-generation-called-ranking-the-possibilities-from-mtvs-the-founders-to-gen-z

  One person notes the obvious that someone born in 1982 has nothing culturally in common with a child born in the 2000s. The Pew Research Center is not the only source we should use in the article, but it should be given significant weight. It is also a non-partisan organization and one of the only organizations of its kinds to conduct extensive research on different societal trends.Here is a link here: http://www.pewresearch.org/search/?query=millennials. I am not suggesting to completely take away the 2000s end date from the lead at all as they are still culturally significant. I am simply stating that we need to adjust the previous consensus based on changing societal perceptions as well as new research. If we need to wait more time to change this, I am also fine with that. I am simply asking for a significant counter argument.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comments I found out about this RFC through the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Unless I have made a minor edit here that I have since forgotten about, this is the first time I have had involvement with this article. For now I have three thoughts:
  • To a great extent this seems to be a debate about verifiability and due weight, but most of the links I have seen so far have been indirect (e.g., links to a Wikipedia article), and in any case it is not clear to me to what extent the parties in this conflict are relying on sources not mentioned in the article. So if everyone involved could provide direct links to the sources they feel best support their position, you would be doing me (and, so I imagine, other previously uninvolved editors) a huge favor. Secondary sources and sources that make meta-claims (e.g., "Most demographers say . . ." or "Very few relevant sources claim . . .") would be extremely helpful.
  • DynaGirl, it is laudable that you want to prevent edit wars, but wording the lead in such a way as to avoid edit wars should not take priority over other Wikipedia policies. This brings us back to verifiability and due weight.
  • On the other hand, the proposed lead opens a Pandora's box that I don't think anyone wants. "Some" is a vague term that I suspect many here would find intolerably inclusive. Are all the editors here prepared to update the lead every time there are "some" sources who have a different idea about the range? It would be better to say, ". . . a significant minority extends the end of the cohort up to the early 2000s", but we would need sources that show the claim has weight. Again, meta-claims would be ideal (e.g., sources that explicitly mention something along the lines of a "significant minority"). -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 19:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources not listed in the article which support a mid 90's end range-

1.http://genhq.com/FAQ-info-about-generations/

2.http://www.jeantwenge.com/faq-items/generation-belong-birth-year-cutoffs/

3.https://msp-c.com/blog/december-2017/difference-between-generation-z-and-millennials

4.http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/defining-generations-where-millennials-end-and-post-millennials-begin/ (This is already on the page)

I will insert more if need be. The difference between these sources and other sources is that they are end dates made by notable researchers on the topic and are not simply used for catagorical or survey purposes. If we can find similar sources like this that suggest late 90's or 2000s end dates, I will be open to changing my mind.

Here are secondary sources:

1.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFaEPe6T_m4

2.http://www.imediaconnection.com/articles/ported-articles/red-dot-articles/2015/feb/the-major-differences-between-gen-x-millennials-and-plurals/

3.https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/fashion/move-over-millennials-here-comes-generation-z.html

4.https://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-beall/8-key-differences-between_b_12814200.html

It seems that before when there was little research people previously lumped late 90's and 2000s babies with Millennials. However, as they are now approaching young adulthood, :::many people argue that they have developed a distinct identity.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Marie Paradox, thank you for your thoughtful reply. There are actually multiple notable researchers/demographers listed in current "date and age range definition section" [10] which use late 1990s or early 2000s. Betty Logan did a useful tallying of sources above in her vote [11] For summary reading on this talk page, a few of the notable researchers/demographers for the late 1990s and early 2000s dates include U.S. Census Bureau [12], The numerous sources used by Strauss–Howe generational theory (here's one [13]), United States Chamber of Commerce [14] and Merriam-Webster dictionary [15]. I actually agree with Akhila3151996 that the mid-1990s dates are significant and should be in the lead, but I disagree they should be the primary focus, and I disagree that the numerous late 1990s and early 2000s sources should be ignored or glossed over. DynaGirl (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As for your first and third points Marie Paradox, as it stands, the "dates and age range definition” section is basically a mess of trivial, insignificant information on what random businesses and companies use as their date range for purposes other than to study the date ranges. There’s a difference between research-based sources that actually researched the generation and their date ranges and have actual reasons to conclude the date ranges the way they did, versus what random companies and businesses use as their ranges for categorical purposes. The Times Cover Story source literally states in the article "Millennials consist, depending on whom you ask, of people born from 1980 to 2000." That article isn't even focused on researching and defining the Millennial date range; they are just using that for categorical purposes. Same with the Goldman Sachs source, the “Survivor” source, Resolution Foundation to study earnings, SYZYGY to study narcissism, US Pirg to study transportation, US Census to study demographic trends, Asia Business Units to study consumption trends, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce source literally states that “we will use the birth years of 1980 to 1999 here to define the Millennial cohort. Sources, though, are inconsistent, with as many as 21 different birth spans referenced.” Just because so-and-so site or business uses this xxxx-xxxx date range one time in their article to categorize doesn't mean they are reliable or notable enough to be added; adding random sources that aren't even focused on researching the date range to that section clusters it all up with useless trivial information. The Pew Research Center source is the only up-to date and reliable source in that section to study and research the millennial date ranges and give reasons why they chose the dates the way they did. And there is a difference in purpose and substance between using this Pew article for the date ranges http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/defining-generations-where-millennials-end-and-post-millennials-begin/ (aka actual research on the Millennial date ranges and why they chose the dates they did) versus using http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/20/black-millennials-are-more-religious-than-other-millennials/ (categorical, purpose is to study religious trends). Also, there is a line in "Date and age range definitions" stating that "A minority of demographers and researchers start the generation in the mid-to-late 1970s", which has no source and was inserted by a random user a while back. And if they could insert their opinion like that without sources to back it up, other users could also state that a minority uses early 2000s as ending years (which a minority do, similar to the mid-to-late 1970s). If early 2000s get a place in the lead, then why not mid-to-late 1970s? Someone963852 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Per my comments above in the Talk:Millennials#Editing_Lead_on_"Millennials section. The current lead needs to be changed, since it is inaccurate and misleading to say that demographers and researchers "typically" use early 2000s as ending birth years. Only one outdated 1991 source did, that is not "typically". No one equates being born in 2004 (aka 14 year olds) as Millennials. Someone963852 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If the lead actually said typically 2000s are used, and left it at that, I'd agree with you it was problematic, but the lead does not say that. It actually says demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years.DynaGirl (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No one is talking about the 2000s, and the current lead states that demographers and researchers typically use early 2000s as ending birth years (mid-1990s to early 2000s includes early 2000s). Also, there is a line in "Date and age range definitions" section stating that "A minority of demographers and researchers start the generation in the mid-to-late 1970s", which has no source to back up the "minority" claim at all and was inserted by a random user a while back. A minority of demographers and researchers use mid-to-late 1970s and early 2000s, so why is one in the lead and the other not? Someone963852 (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It is also fair to note that a source such as Pew Research Center is a nationwide non-partison think tank consisting of multiple researchers while Strauss-Howe are technically only two researchers on the topic.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose A primary source that comes from a relevant authority is of course preferable to a primary source of questionable authority. However, it is Wikipedia policy to prefer secondary sources to a Wikipedia editor's synthesis of primary sources. For example, we should welcome the information provided in the Time article rather than rejecting it. Perhaps most importantly as far as the question posed by the RFC is concerned, the lead is supposed to summarize the content of the article, and the current lead does that. -- Marie Paradox (talk | contribs) 02:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  Here is another source from Time magazine using the new Pew age range: http://time.com/5181677/how-to-know-if-youre-a-millennial/. I do not believe that one 2013 cover story should be given prominence when any author for any publication can use any dates. I have listed secondary sources as well. **See above in this section**. I am open to adding more. Also, popular/changing/shifting opinions should be taken into account. Under Betty Logan’s and your comments, I added a list of a few articles, including one that asserts that someone born in 1982 and someone born 20-some years later culturally have no common ground. I suggest other editors consider these points. Also, I still have not heard back for as to why some of the 2000s sources are generally good sources, I feel there are still no sustainable counter arguments being presented. This is why I’m suggesting clean up of the article. Some of the sources such as the US Census Bureau and Neil Strauss and Howe can be left at this current time. Other random sources need to go. We also need to understand that estimates used in one company or entity’s article can differ in another article by the same entity.This perhaps is indicative of the author and not representative of the whole firm. And another thing, Pew's research on millennials has generally been quite popular and widely reported in the press. I can list plenty of secondary sources that report on Pew's various date ranges (can't list all but many) if need be. They are obviously a large think tank and quite an influential source, just like DynaGirl keeps arguing that Neil Howe is.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2018

Betty Logan/Marie Paradox Can someone tell what what a literature review is/how it works? I've been editing for Wikipedia quite sporadically for three years now, but I am unfamiliar with what that is. Is it a special wiki function or is it simply a systematic review? Thanks.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

A literature review is a piece of research that gives an overview of the current findings or conclusions in a particular topic area within a field. See Literature review. Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

oppose - The lede should really be a summary of the prose written below. The fact that there is no actual date given should be the important factor, and the start and end dates generalized. We shouldn't give undue weight to sources, however, but we should follow what they all say. It's possible to be more specific in the prose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Tag for date and age rage definitions section

I changed the recently added tag on the 'Date and age range definitions' section from "excessive citations" and "unreliable sources" to "POV section". POV tag seems more appropriate as an issue up for discussion. The "excessive citations" and "unreliable sources" tags give readers the misimpression that there is consensus to gut this section of sources, when there is no such consensus. Help:Maintenance template removal says tags can be removed If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. Per above talk page discussions and input from outside parties on current RfC it seems clear this is not currently supported. The tagging has been directly tied to a proposal to change date range in the lead and remove citations from parts of the date range represented. Interested editors should please consider commenting and discussing issue at RfC [16].DynaGirl (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed tag per closed RfC in above section. DynaGirl (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Section on 'attitudes' needs to adhere to NPOV

The section on attitudes needs to be kept objective. The term political correctness is not neutral language - as the wikipedia article for that term says, it is usually used pejoratively. We can say that it's a term people use about millennials and stay objective, but we can't use it ourselves without context without violating NPOV, since it's a pejorative. Spoonriver (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Political correctness is the language used by source, it's in the title of the Forbes source which references this sentence: [17]. Looking at your edit summary, seems this is based on your opinion/reaction to term but ignoring the cited source. [18]. DynaGirl (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That it's used by the source (and is in the headline) doesn't make it neutral or stop it being pejorative. I can find any number of articles describing millennials as 'lazy',for example. In my view a good wikipedia article would report that those writers use that term and what their evidence is, but wouldn't itself describe millennials as lazy. I recognise that it's a widely-used and rarely-challenged pejorative, but neither of those things makes it a neutral term in my view. I think the section is weaker and less neutral for including it in the way it currently does. Spoonriver (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require us to present neutral opinions, only that we present opinions neutrally. The policy states that neutrality in Wikipedia terms equates to "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". The writer is not talking about how much more polite or sensitive millenials are, he is using the term as a pejorative: he is delivering a negative assessment of the attitudes he believes are common among millenials. Ironically it is you who is violating WP:NPOV because by altering the language we lose the overall negative connotations of the writer's intent. I have re-worded the sentence slightly to make it explicitly clear this is an opinion, so hopefully that will be enough to resolve the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that's way better. I personally think it's not encyclopaedic language, but now it's at least presented objectively. Spoonriver (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2018

Change "It was also found that millennials chose most often to define itself" to EITHER "It was also found that millennials chose most often to define themselves" OR "It was also found that the millennial cohort chose most often to define itself". The current sentence is grammatically incorrect. Fermorian (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Pick a simple range and stick with it

WP:BLOCKEVASION
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This "generation" thing is real messy, why don't people just pick ONE range and stick with it? Are Millennials 1981-1996 or are they 1982-1997 or 1980-1995 or 1977-1994 or are they 1980-2000 or 1981-1999 or 1983-2001 or 1981-2001 or 1982-2002 or 1980-2003 or 1982-2004? This generations idea falls apart when you don't have a consistent date range.--2601:980:8302:536:E8C6:78D2:8839:B7C7 (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sports and fitness

SouthAsianGuy891 has made a bunch of edits to the article that I consider problematic. They largely comprise of WP:SYNTHESIS with an WP:UNDUE focuson MMA fighting. I am going to detail them here and hopefully we can get some further input:

• "However Millennials have shown an increasing trend in participation of sports and fitness activities." (added to the lead)
• "Studies have found a a changing trend in terms of sports with Millennials." (first sentence of the sport & fitness section)

  Neither of these claims are borne out by the sources. In fact, the source added by SouthAsianGuy891 actually states "The sports world is in a flap – major media players are citing studies left, right and centre that show declining engagement in sports viewership and participation from every marketer’s golden target – the millennial. SouthAsianGuy is clearly misrepresenting his own source. If he wants to say that overall engagement in sport has increased then he needs to produce sources and statistics to that effect.

• "The vast majority of MMA fighters consists of Millennials. As per a 2017 survey, the average age of a ranked UFC fighter was 31 years old." (sourced to </ref> )

  For the purpose of the section this is completely irrelevant. Sport is dominated by millenials because sport is generally dominated by people under 40. This is true of any generation. It's not like baby-boomers were winning Olympic medals at 45 and then millneials starting winning them at 25.

• "Popular Millenial MMA fighters included Conor McGregor born in 1988 for mens division and Ronda Rousey born in 1987 for women's division. Millennial Jamaican sprint racer and nine times Olympic gold medalist Usain Bolt, born in 1986 is considered the fastest human ever known, setting a record 44.72 km/h (27.8 mph), measured between meter 60 and meter 80 of the 100 meters sprint of the World Championships in Berlin, Germany on 16 August 2009, which he completed in just 9.58 seconds."

  This looks like a WP:COATRACK to me. I see no reason why to highlight athletes of a minority sport (Bolt aside). Why not somebody like Cristiano Ronaldo or Novak Djokovic, authentic globally known figures? Better yet, why mention them at all? Every generation has produced great globally known athletes, so this just looks like a basic name-checking exercise to me. I don't see the point of it, and the section is too small to host images.

On the plus side, I think the basic idea of this section is a good one and adds to the article. However, it needs to accurately present what the sources actually say and it needs to stay on the point of what characterizes a millenial and what distinguishes them from previous generations. Betty Logan (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Betty Logan's removal of an example of some Millennial athletes seems unjustified. Look at the article on Generation X , it has so many named musicians with pictures. there is no policy stating that a prominent athlete cannot be used as an example to represent a generation. The viewership and participation declining is based on a weak source, there are counter sources to that which justifies that millennial participation and viewership has increased, and I had given such sources which have been removed. The intro that all millennial are technological addicts is citation less, so I am removing that tag and please be clear why some popular athletes can not be named and pictures added to this article, while in the article of Generation X there are so many named celebrates with pictures. SouthAsianGuy891 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean we have to replicate the practice here at this article. I could just as easily go over to the Gen X article and delete a load of stuff in it simply because we don't list it here. It is a vacuous rationale. What is the point of naming these people? Usain Bolt is a prominent millennial in sport, but so what? You have not said anything substantive about him, other then saying "Here is a millennial". What does the reader learn from this information, besides the fact Bolt is a millennial? There are lots of prominent millennials in many different fields, so which fields do we list and how do we discriminate between who to name and who not to? If you want an article listing famous millennials then I suggest you create a list article specifically dedicated to that purpose rather than trying to turn this article into a WP:COATRACK. Betty Logan (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok my respect to you Betty Logan as a senior editor. But the whole article seems to have a stereotypical assumption dtating all millennials are lazy technological addicts. Well I used MMA just as an example to show higher participation of millennial as a sport, and the source I provided supports it. It is impossible to include every sports in the world, but regarding participation and viewership there are contradicting rports and most of the sources stating viewership and participation decline are solely based on North America, globally it is a fact that viewership and participation has increased with universal access to TVs in the 2010s compared to the time of the Boomers in 1960s, and also opportunities and sporting events, etc. Regardless I do not want to spend so much time on bringing all the sources and statistics of these up, but if the subject of MMA is WP:COATRACK , so should be the pop culture, music sections in Generation X article. I just intended it as an example of a popular sport among millennial and named two world famous athletes. However I respect you judgement as a senior editor, but will only say that the reports of decline/increase in viewership and participation are contradicting based on varying sources, so leave that as uniform and reconsider the article's stereotypical assumptions based on white Americans that all millennials are lazy technological addicts. SouthAsianGuy891 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You were the editor that added the source saying sport participation was declining and then misrepresented it. I checked your other sources and none of them spoke of sport engagement increasing. If you have other sources then please list them here and quote the relevant parts so they can be assessed. Thankyou. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing by SouthAsianGuy891

This editor has spent the entire day either adding unsourced claims or misrepresenting sources, as I have detailed above. Here is his latest edit:

• He is continuing to misrepresent the two sources he himself added to the article: [19] and [20]. The first source states "The sports world is in a flap – major media players are citing studies left, right and centre that show declining engagement in sports viewership and participation from every marketer’s golden target – the millennial (those born between the early 1980s and mid 1990s)" while the second states "Although more Gen Xers than millennials follow sports closely (45 percent versus 38 percent)". Despite SouthAsianGuy891's protestations, both of these sources highlight a declining trend not a "changing trend". These are his sources; if he disagrees with their findings then he needs to produce sources that reach different conclusions.
• He also keeps adding the statement "The average age of UFC fighters as of a 2017 survey was 31, representing higher participation of millennial fighters in MMA", and despite me clearly explaining this above and in the edit summaries keeps restoring and asking why I have removed it. There must be a language barrier issue here or something. Once again: the average age of a participant in professional sport being 31 is not unusual. The average age of pretty much every sport is between 25 and 35 because sport is dominated by people under the age of 40. This has been true of pretty much every sport of every generation and is not unique to the millennial generation, nor does it "prove" the point of view he has spent all day trying to push i.e. that there is a greater level of engagement in sport by the millennial generation compared to previous generations.

It is blatantly clear SouthAsianGuy891 has no interest in presenting a well-balanced objective view of what the sources say. If this disruption continues my next step will be to seek administrative intervention. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Betty Logan I already stated that I have stopped editing the article on my last edit, as I realized that the whole article is misleading as it is only about "American Millennial" as opposed to Millennial all over the world. And you using personal threat of reporting me is not civil, just because I have misinterpreted the sources, but do as you must, it was an edit dispute, not an act of vandal and I agreed not to edit this whole misleading article that should have its name changed to "American Millenials" in the first place. And one more thing UFC did not exist before the 1990s, norr was MMA popular before the 1990s, Baby Boomers were never engaged to to MMA and Generation Z is yet to come, so in comparison with the two participating groups Generation X and Millennial,s, Millennials are the dominant figure. Sports overall globally have more participants today than ever before, both with men and women and that is due to the contribution of millennials dominating (I understand the original research policy, but there are multiple sources and I can still assemble them, but it would be tedious as this article is solely about White American Millennials, I wont bother so am not mentioning these), and the fact that you do not allow key figures of pictures of millennial celebrities here, yet allow them on the Generation X article shows your biasedness. Regardless I dont care if you report me just because I misinterpreted a source like you said on the uncivil threat and personal attack above and I no longer have interest in the article (which btw is rated c-class quality and I understand why now) I feel should be renamed "White American Millennials" using them as stereotypes for lazy digital people, which is not true globally, and this is my last edit on this talk page too. SouthAsianGuy891 (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You didn't misinterpret a source, you misrepresented many sources, and that is a behavioral problem not an editing dispute. Editing disputes take place within the normal parameters of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but your edits were operating beyond those parameters. I have tried to accommodate you where your objections were within policy, such as removing the source you personally added but then objected to once it was accurately presented. You clearly don't understand the WP:OR policy because pretty much every edit you made breached it in some way, and it is entirely appropriate to warn editors that their policy-breaching editing will result in sanctions. I have cut you a lot of slack because you are a new editor but my patience is finite. Betty Logan (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Millennials Date Range Updated to 1981-1996

Pew Research Center officially updated Millennial's date range in March 2018. Before 2018 Millennial din't have a specific date rang or definition until then. Pew Research Center will use 1996 as the last birth year for Millennials for our future work. Anyone born between 1981 and 1996 (ages 22 to 37 in 2018) will be considered a Millennial, and anyone born from 1997 onward will be part of a new generation. Most Millennials were between the ages of 5 and 20 when the 9/11 terrorist attacks shook the nation, and many were old enough to comprehend the historical significance of that moment, while most post-Millennials have little or no memory of the event. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/defining-generations-where-millennials-end-and-post-millennials-begin/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/03/01/millennials-defined/386562002/