From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Children of the 20th century becoming adults in the 21st century[edit]

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

It says in the wiki page:

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

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

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

Criticism of millennials[edit]

I was surprised to see this page doesn't cover criticism of millennials. So far the article only relates critical claims at face value in various sections (e.g. "Historical knowledge"). I definitely believe we need a dedicated section on this to achieve broad coverage and NPOV -- the topic is notable enough that it has attracted criticism of its own: [1][2][3]. DaßWölf 01:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Criticism is only appropriate on topics of ideas, practices, etc...not for people.. "criticism of millenials" would be no more appropriate than, say, criticism of Germans, or criticism of children... etc... Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I think User:Daß Wölf is suggesting there should be a section discussing the media's criticism of millennials. See their sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I had in mind. DaßWölf 00:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A lost generation[edit]

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

Being described as a "lost generation" is not the same as identifying them as "Lost Generation". The term is not uniquely used on its own to describe this cohort (such as "millenials" or "Gen Y") so it doesn't belong in the lead IMO. It appears to me there is no consistency either in its application because one article is specifically discussing economic impact while the other is drawing parallels between millenials and the real Lost Gnegeration. Betty Logan (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but the opinion piece I referenced is also specifically discussing economic impact. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Presently Lost Generation is a topic that goes to the generation which fought in The Great War. Looking at just google hits, 61k hits bring up the term when mentioning millennials. This is not an insignificant amount of hits; however looking at the content, usually it is in discussion of the generation that is the subject of this article and comparing it to other generations, to include the Lost Generation. Yet there are some that directly call the subject of this article by the term being discussed here. Whether that should be treated as a alternate name I think we need a larger consensus rather than just the three discussing at the moment, to include it in the lead section of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the issue is that the phraise "lost generation" is being used in a descriptive capacity rather than to identify the cohort, so it is highly questionable that it belongs in the lead. I am not opposed to including it in the article somewhere. Three sources in the "Economic Prospects" section use the term "lost generation" so perhaps that would be the most appropriate place to slot it in where it can be contextualised. Betty Logan (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That does sound like a good place for it.  In addition to the three sources currently in the article, User:Robster1983 had added two sources [4][5] in the edit I reverted which reference the Federal Reserve study.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Historical Knowledge" section -- relevant to the article?[edit]

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

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

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

A February 2018 survey of 1,350 individuals found that 66% of the American millennials (and 41% of all U.S. adults) surveyed did not know what Auschwitz was,[1] while 41% incorrectly claimed that 2 million Jews or less were killed during the Holocaust, and 22% said that they had never heard of the Holocaust.[2] A CNN-ComRes poll in 2018 found a similar situation in Europe.[3] Over 95% of American millennials were unaware that the Holocaust occurred in the Baltic states, which lost over 90% of their pre-war Jewish population, and 49% were not able to name a single Nazi concentration camp or ghetto in German-occupied Europe.[4][5] However, at least 93% surveyed believed that teaching about the Holocaust in school is important and 96% believed the Holocaust happened.[6]

The YouGov survey found that 42% of American millennials have never heard of Mao Zedong, who ruled China from 1949 to 1976 and was responsible for the deaths of 20–45 million people; another 40% are unfamiliar with Che Guevara.[7][8] According to the CIS poll, only 21% of Australian millennials are familiar with Mao Zedong and 26% with Vladimir Lenin.[9]


  1. ^ "Holocaust study: Two-thirds of millennials don't know what Auschwitz is". The Washington Post. April 12, 2018.
  2. ^ "4 in 10 millennials don't know 6 million Jews were killed in Holocaust, study shows". CBS News. 12 April 2018.
  3. ^ Greene, Richard Allen (November 2018). "CNN poll reveals depth of anti-Semitism in Europe". CNN. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018.
  4. ^ "Holocaust Knowledge and Awareness Study" (PDF). Schoen Consulting.
  5. ^ "New Survey by Claims Conference Finds Significant Lack of Holocaust Knowledge in the United States". Claims Conference. 2018. Archived from the original on 12 April 2018.
  6. ^ Astor, Maggie (12 April 2018). "Holocaust Is Fading From Memory, Survey Finds". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 18 April 2018.
  7. ^ "Poll: Millennials desperately need to bone up on the history of communism". MarketWatch. 21 October 2016.
  8. ^ "Poll Finds Young Americans More Open to Socialist Ideas". VOA News. 23 October 2016.
  9. ^ Switzer, Tom (23 February 2019). "Opinion: Why Millennials are embracing socialism". The Sydney Morning Herald.
-- Tobby72 (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Age Range for Birth Dates[edit]

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

A 2013 Time magazine cover story used 1980 or 1981 as start dates.,16641,20130520,00.html

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

Fox Business, the CBC, the Business Insider simply state the age range without citing any sources. The Chicago Tribune uses Bloomberg. The Atlantic, which is publishing on behalf of The Wire, cites the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. Nerd271 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
But the Wikipedia Millennials article says 2000 or early 2000s under the "Date and Age Range" section. Are you reading it? See the statements "The United States Census Bureau used the birth years 1982 to 2000 in a 2015 news release to describe Millennials" and "In his 2008 book The Lucky Few: Between the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boom, author Elwood Carlson used the term "New Boomers" to describe this cohort. He identified the birth years of 1983–2001, based on the upswing in births after 1983."2605:E000:151F:22DC:59E:827:87D2:5F0B (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I read it. Multiple times now to make sure. Most sources do not extend the end birth years pass 2000. Nerd271 (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
We can't say "most sources do not extend end birth years pass 2000" without proof of that. We should say what the sources say in the main article. "Researchers" do use early 2000s and that's what the Age and Date Range section says too. "Early 2000s" covers all possible dates found in the media. Plus the status quo has been to say "early 2000s in the lead".2605:E000:151F:22DC:59E:827:87D2:5F0B (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Here are more articles that say end birth years are "early 2000s", these are easy to find from a Google search: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151F:22DC:59E:827:87D2:5F0B (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

New Hampshire Public Radio acknowledges there exists no single definition, but that article uses the range 1981-1997. Huffington Post (Canada), and Forbes cite The Atlantic. Entrepreneur (Asia Pacific) states a definition without a source. Voice of America cites Apartment List, which, in turns, cites The Atlantic. The Washington Post cites Neil Howe and the USA Today, which is interesting because in our article, there is another article by WP that uses the Pew Research Center's definition, 1981-1996.
Just because you can find something on the Internet does not mean it is a reliable for appropriate source. And if you read the "Date and Age Range Definitions" carefully, you will find that indeed, most sources use the range early 1980s to late 1990s. Also note that the Strauss-Howe generational theory is not taken very seriously by mainstream academics. See our Wiki page for more. Nerd271 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Nerd271 We have already discussed this edit on my talk page at User_talk:Betty_Logan#Birth_years_of_Millennials and you have not established a consensus for altering the date range in the lead. Just because the article predominantly relies on sources that uses a particular date this does not establish i) that this is the dominant date; ii) that it is the most pre-eminent date; iii) that dates that lie outside of this range are insignificant. You are WP:EDITORIALIZING. As the IP editor explains and as I do on my talk page there is no evidence presented in the article that establishes that the mid-1990s is the de facto cut-off date. There is no evdience presented that this is even the typical cut-off date; even if it were I oppose leaving out dates that still enjoy common usage. Our date range section makes it very clear there is no clearly defined date range. The range typically begins in the early 1980s and starts to tail off in the mid-1990s, with the tail-end terminating just after 2000 and as such it is sensible to include all the dates. This question was put to the community in an RFC only last year at Talk:Millennials/Archive_12#RfC_about_the_editing_the_lead_on_the_Millennials_article and the consensus was to retain the post-millenium dates. If you disagree you are free to start a fresh RFC and revisit the question, but you are not free to disregard a standing consensus established by a community RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned previously, @Betty Logan:, an article should not contradict itself. The relevant sentence says, "Researchers and popular media typically use..." Therefore, only the most common definitions should be used, i.e. early 1980s to late 1990s. The lead section should reflect the body of the page. Do you really need a formal Request for Comments just to make changes to the lead section to better reflect what the page is all about?
Logan and @2605:E000:151F:22DC:59E:827:87D2:5F0B:, in the "Date and Age Range Definitions" section, the second, third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs fall within that range. The first paragraph is not quantitative but qualitative and the last paragraph mentions alternate names. Nerd271 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That is easily resolved: I have removed "typically" because it is unsourced. There is no source in the article speculating about how "typical" the dates are. We have already had an RFC about this issue and the consensus is for the lead to use the extended date range. So yes, if you want to alter the dates used in the lead then start a new RFC! Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a source in the article which states that "the 1981 to 1996 birth cohort is a 'widely accepted' definition for Millennials". Unrelated, but "Millennials" should be changed back to "millennials", per the dictionary. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is a widely accept definition, but not a definitive definition, which is what we would be treating it as if we gave single date range. Other dates have been put forward (including by the authors who coined the term "Millenial") that are not insignificant. We have a whole section documenting conflicting date ranges and it would be remiss if the lead misrepresented this section. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Then we can simply write in the lead that 1981 to 1996 is a widely accepted definition, with some sources using later dates. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Another way to write it would be this: "Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted definition." I think the two points to come out of the RFC were that there was no definitive range and that should be apparent in the lead, and also that the early 2000s dates should be included. If you only give one date then what you have is a de facto definition. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

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

The introduction is not vague. It is precisely summarising a vague definition. We don't chuck out an RFC consensus just because a couple of people disagree with it. The whole reason we had an RFC in the first place was because editors disagreed with how the lead was written and the arguments supporting the current wording prevailed. If you want to seek a new consensus then start a fresh RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The RfC from last year is outdated; it was done while the Date and age range section was still saturated with errors which made the later date ranges appear more common. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It is not within your prerogative to decide for other editors that their views are "out of date". I participated in that RFC and my position has not changed. There is still no definitive range and the section still covers a substantial number of dates that do not match this range. If you believe that the consensus is out of date then start a new RFC and seek a revised consensus. How many times do I have to say this? Betty Logan (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Your characterizations of my behavior are unfair. You have suggested that I want to "chuck" the RfC merely because I "disagree with it". The RfC from last year was based on out of date information. The lead should simply reflect the current information in the Date and age range section, and not rely on an RfC which was based on different information. You should learn to accept that people disagree with you instead of expecting them to change because of how many times you repeat the same thing without empathizing with the perspectives of others. While some of what you say about the section is accurate, you have not addressed the changes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Strauss-Howe generational theory[edit]

@Betty Logan: If you read that page, you will find that indeed, this interpretation of history is not taken seriously by academia. This is mentioned in the lead section with sources. Moreover, it is already mentioned in the "Terminology" section of this article they those two people coined the term "Millennials." Nerd271 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact that we have an article dedicated to the Strauss–Howe generational theory means it is notable, and since they coined the term "millenial" then their opinion on how this generation is demarcated is relevant. They are also widely quoted/consulted by a slew of reliable sources. Also, having a controversial theory does not equate to not being taken seriously. I think the fact that you are attempting to remove such an influential voice on the subject indicates that you are not approaching the article and the topic neutrally. Betty Logan (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making such accusations. Is it not the policy of Wikipedia that only reliable sources be used? Again, we have already stated in the Terminology section where the name came from. (You might want to check your spelling. There is an extra 'n'.) Sources mention them as the people who coined that term. But that does not mean their interpretation of history is mainstream. Moreover, a controversial theory is necessarily not taken seriously by a significant portion of academics of the relevant expertise; that's why we call it controversial. If it were accepted by most, we would call it mainstream. Also note I never said it was not notable. I only said it is not mainstream, and this is the place where only mainstream sources should be used. Nerd271 (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Strauss and Howe are cited by multiple reliable sources. Just because some academics disagree with them does not make their work unreliable. Darwin was controversial for a long time, but that does not equate to not reliable. Their theories have been discussed by multiple reliable sources which makes them an influential voice in generational theory. Betty Logan (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with both of you here. Just because they coined the term does not mean their date range definition should be given weight. Just because they are considered pseudoscientists does not mean their definition of the date range should not be given weight. Their definition should be included in the section because it is cited by reliable secondary sources. Their definition is an outlier which is no longer commonly cited, so it is appropriately placed at the bottom of the section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Just because someone “coined” a term doesn’t mean they’re automatically authoritarian on the subject. (“The fact that we have an article dedicated to the Strauss–Howe generational theory means it is notable” Looking at this talk page discussion Talk:Strauss–Howe_generational_theory#Sources_are_Strauss_and_Howe_themselves_&_Conflict_of_interest, the article was created by someone related to Strauss and Howe themselves, but that’s beside the point.)
Strauss and Howe are already mentioned in the terminology section for having coined the term (which they should be). But their date range, which they came up with in 1991, are an entirely different matter. Yes, their date range should be included in the article (and it is under the Date and age range definitions section), but it shouldn’t be given any weight in the lead compared to other more reliable, up-to-date, researched-based and most commonly cited sources such as the Pew source. Someone963852 (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not arguing that we should actually cite Strauss and Howe in the lead. The dispute is in regards to this edit. Betty Logan (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Someone963852: made some good points here. Sources that dwell deep into the topic, such as the Pew Research Center, should count more than Strauss and Howe, who deserve credit for coining the term "Millennial," but not for their take on history.

@Betty Logan: Careful. Please avoid the Galileo Gambit. Just because someone or something is controversial does not mean they or it is right or accurate. Nerd271 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Even Pew states "Because generations are analytical constructs, it takes time for popular and expert consensus to develop as to the precise boundaries that demarcate one generation from another." They also indicate they are open to "date recalibration". Regardless of how controversial Strauss and Howe are, or how seriously they are taken by the academic community they are still influential and widely quoted on the subject, and their work has played a key role in shaping the consensus and popular perceptions in this area. You can always take it to RS/N but given the sheer amount of citations to their work I find it highly doubtful you would have them ruled a non-reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I know that. But unless they change their minds, there is no reason for us to. Strauss and Howe are influential and widely quoted by whom? Surely not in academia with support. Again, they deserve credit for coining the term "Millennial," but not their take on history. (Note: I am not saying they are pseudoscientists or cranks.) Nerd271 (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Betty Logan, your quotes from Pew are irrelevant to what the currently used date range is. The date range has been evolving over 30ish years and now appears to be stabilizing, but even that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that today, the early eighties to the mid to late nineties are the dates typically used, with some sources using dates into the early 2000s. No one is saying that there is a definitive, permanent date range. You have provided no sources to support your assumption that the dates used by Strauss and Howe are widely quoted. For instance, how many reliable media sources in 2019 still quote Strauss and Howe's dates? We don't take things to RS/N because of one editor's assumptions. It is your responsibility to actually contribute to the discussion instead of just disrupting it by demanding RfCs and noticeboard discussions without providing any verifiable information. If you have nothing to contribute please stop disrupting the good faith work of non-biased editors. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
A quick check of Google Scholar (that you are more than capable of doing yourself) reveals that there are 1,000s of academic citations to their work: So I repeat again, if you want to remove a reference to two authors who are considered a reliable source by 1,000s of published works and are heavily cited in the field of generational theory then I suggest you take it to RS/N. The onus is on you to prove that two respected authors who have been cited 1,000s of times are indeed not reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I repeat, "For instance, how many reliable media sources in 2019 still quote Strauss and Howe's dates?". You avoided popular usage by focussing on scholarly articles, you did not limit your search to up-to-date articles, and you did not compare your results to other date ranges to determine how much weight to give Strauss and Howe.  And, you have implied that it was my responsibility to do all the research for you.  You do not own this article and we do not work for you.  Please stop abusing the community. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Betty Logan: Since you are the one making the claim, the burden of evidence lies with you. Also note that in the link you gave, many articles are not even related to demographics or history, but rather microbiology. (They got the wrong Strauss.) That means the number of citations is inflated. Moreover, most of them are from years ago. It is important to use up-to-date sources. And just because an article is cited does not mean the people citing them support the claims made in that article, necessarily. Once again, we already mentioned they coined the term "Millennials" in the "Terminology" section. We know where the term came from and gave them credit. But that does not mean they know everything about this demographic cohort or are authorities on this subject. Nerd271 (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all a reliable source does not need to be quoted in the last 6 months just to retain its reliability status. That is something Kolya Butternut has just made up. You can check on Google Scholar, for example, that Howe and Strauss' book "Millenials Rising" has been cited over 300 times in every year since 2010. They are still clearly a heavily cited influence on the subject of "Millenials". A 30 second Google brought up this Bloomberg article from less than a year ago that defines millenials in the following way:

For this Bloomberg comparison, millennials were defined as people born in 1980 through 2000, with Gen Z classified as anyone born starting in 2001 -- at least until the next meaningful cohort emerges. The U.S. Census Bureau also bookends the generations at the end of 2000 ... William Strauss and Neil Howe, American historians and authors who first coined the term "millennials," use 1982 and 2004 as the cutoff years. The Pew Research Center defines those born in 1981 through 1996 as millennials, a time-frame also used by Ernst & Young in the survey Merriman wrote about.

I have no doubt that Kolya Butternut will come up with some reason to dismiss this article since it does not conform to his perspective, but the simple fact is Howe and Strauss are still being cited by hundreds of academic works on an annual basis, and it is clearly demonstrable that mainstream sources still reference their millenial demarcation years. Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I had no doubt that you would have no doubt that my behavior would be consistent with your prejudice.  Why is it that you are citing an article that is almost a whole year old, which does not even use Strauss and Howe dates for its analysis, but merely references them?  Is that the best, most recent source you could find? Is my skepticism based on my bias for certain dates, or is it based on my observations of your bad faith behavior? Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the date range in the lead section[edit]

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

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


  • COMMENT I object to the wording of the RFC per WP:RFCBRIEF. It is in no way a neutrally worded RFC and it is designed to lead responders. Betty Logan (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE This was previously discussed at Talk:Millennials/Archive_12#RfC_about_the_editing_the_lead_on_the_Millennials_article and the current wording reflects the consensus to arise out of that discussion. The article itself provides the range of 1980–1983 as the start years and 1995–2004 as the end years and I think the lead should summarise the full range of dates:
  1. There is no definitive definition. If the lead just gives one hard date range such as 1981–1996 then Wikipedia is creating a de facto definition. Wikipedia should be following trends not setting them. If we put a single date in the lead then the simple fact is many people who consult the article will just go with the single date range.
  2. MOS:LEAD advises that "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." Considering that the date range is intrinsic to the definition then its imprecise nature is very relevant to the subject matter. The fact is there is a spread of dates and that should be reflected in the lead.
  3. I disagree that giving a precise range gives the lead more precision. Precision is best attained here by conveying the vague nature of the definition.
  4. The article states that the 1981–1996 range is a "widely held definition". This is not the same as a definitive definition. The same source also wrote ""generations are squishy concepts".
  5. The 1981–1996 date range is clearly the most important date range, but a substantial part of Millennials#Date_and_age_range_definitions covers alternative dates.
  6. There are more sources for the 1981–1996 date range than there was during the last RFC, but this is partly down to advocates for these dates adding sources for these dates.
I did suggest a slight revision to the description in the lead in a section above: Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted definition. I think it is the most important date range and am not against highlighting its prominence, but I think Wikipedia would be failing in its goals if it cherry-picked a date. Simply giving one date in the lead when there are others given in the article is problematic from the standpoint of readers who just skim the lead, search engines that just display the first paragraph of the lead etc. Betty Logan (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT We do need a new lead which better reflects the article since the previous RfC relied on out-dated sources. "Researchers and popular media typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 as a widely accepted definition." since it better reflects the section according to reliable, published sources and doesn't give a definitive definition. Someone963852 (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a new lead which summarizes the date ranges as typically (or some other appropriate qualifier) from the early eighties to the mid to late nineties. Or more specifically, as the USA Today states: "typically defined as people born between 1981 and 1996".[6] A summary does not need to include the full range. I object to Betty Logan's accusation that "There are more sources for the 1981–1996 date range than there was during the last RFC, but this is partly down to advocates for these dates adding sources for these dates." There are more sources for 1981 to 1996 simply because this is the date range that most sources use, and after Betty Logan reverted well-researched edits and demanded that these sources be repeatedly proven, more and more sources for 1981 to 1996 were found. Betty Logan contributed virtually nothing to the section showing any evidence of other date ranges, instead she merely disrupted the editing process due to her bias that other editors are "advocates for these date ranges" rather than advocates for the truth. This disruptive editing can be seen in the talk sections above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Proposal: "Many researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 as a widely accepted definition." Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I "contributed nothing" because all the dates mentioned in the section were all very well sourced to begin with. Per WP:REFBOMB it is not necessary to namecheck every single media outlet that uses a particular date. What has been done for the 1981–1996 date range could be done for other dates as demonstrated in the section at #Age_Range_for_Birth_Dates. All your contributions actually achieved was alter the ratio of sources for a particular date range. None of the sources added quantify how typical or how widespread the various dates are. Betty Logan (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Note that Betty Logan admits to having contributed nothing. The old date ranges she references were "well sourced" but from out-of-date sources, and most of the new sources are simply updated versions of the same outdated sources. She did not even read the updated sources before first reverting them, and then obstructed progress every step of the way without contributing anything. Her statement here proves my point. Her behaviour and opinions are influenced by prejudiced thinking. She assumes other editors are "advocating" for certain date ranges; she assumes that "What has been done [finding many sources] for the 1981–1996 date range could be done for other dates as demonstrated in the section" without providing any evidence that other date ranges are as common. She criticizes the good faith editing of others based on biased thinking without contributing anything except disruption. And now she alone is demanding an RfC based on her prejudiced assumptions, while contributing nothing.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    As you can see at #Date_Range_Update_08:52,_5_March_2019 I engaged extensively in the process of revising the date range section. Anybody who reviews that section will see that while I drew the line on some issues I was open to compromise and made various concessions. I think it is rather telling that my response in this RFC simply focused on the issue at hand. Kolya Butternut could have done the same, but instead used it as a platform for character assassination and personal attacks. And yes, I am insisting on an RFC because a previous RFC established a community consensus that I still support, and I don't believe that a couple of editors have the prerogative to simply dismiss it. Finally, it also worth noting that I also proposed new compromise wording prior to this RFC, which I also offered up again in this RFC, but unfortunately some of the editors involved in these discussions fall into the category that if they don't entirely get their own way it is the other editor that is being "disruptive". Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: You have the right to stick to your position, and we have the right to disagree. Wasn't it you who insisted that a formal Request for Comments be made? Nerd271 (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Betty Logan, Anybody who reviews that section will see that you did not contribute a single source to the discussion. Virtually all of your objections were baseless. The US Census date range was retained, but it is clear that it is not authoritative information. Yes, after disrupting the process you finally conceded. That is not constructive, cooperative engagement. The truth which I have stated is not character assassination. It is you who assassinates my character by accusing me of a bias in favor of certain date ranges. Your response in this RfC did not simply focus on the topic, you made the false accusation that we are "advocates for these dates adding sources for these dates."  And now you are falsely accusing me of refusing to compromise until I get my way.  My proposed edit was not inconsistent with your proposed compromise.  You have made assumptions.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact is this is a behavioral pattern for you. We can see at Talk:Millennials/Archive_12#Date_Range_Sources (before I ever got involved in this dispute) you accused DynaGirl—another conscientious long-standing editor—of "well documented years long pattern of disruptive editing". Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You're making false accusations based on biases, after having done no research.  This is a behavioral pattern for you.  DynaGirl is/was not a conscientious editor.  She was everything I said, and once I exposed her for what she was, she stopped editing because she had no defense for her behaviour.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
She wasn't banned, she wasn't blocked, she was not subject to any disciplinary action. You bullied her off Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a baseless accusation. She was the bully; you are a liar. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
If you intend to continue attacking me, take it to my talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia should go with the most popular definition in the lead section. Other definitions can be mentioned later; in fact, they are. My proposed change for the first two sentences of the lead is this. Millennials, also known as Generation Y (or simply Gen Y), are the demographic cohort following Generation X and preceding Generation Z, typically said to be born between the 1981 and 1996 by researchers and the popular media, though some sources extend their ending birth years beyond the year 2000. What @Someone963852: proposed is also quite reasonable. Nerd271 (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Summoned by a bot. This RfC is indeed malformed, as Betty Logan has pointed out. WP:RFCBRIEF is very clear that questions should be neutral and brief. This four-sentence statement, explicitly expressing an opinion, is neither. Try again. GirthSummit (blether) 21:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Fair enough. Kolya Butternut, Someone963852, Betty Logan, please check out the new question and change your response if you wish. Nerd271 (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The revised question is disingenous. Even my proposed compromise includes the 1981–1996 date range. What you are in fact proposing is to only include the 1981–1996 date range and remove all other dates. This RFC should be closed without prejudice IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: That's not what I said at all. I said that 1981-1996 is the most common range. That obviously means it is not the only one. Nerd271 (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
My point is that your revised question is entirely consistent with my proposed compromise wording. If you agree with my compromise then there is no need to continue with the RFC. If you don't agree with it, then your question needs to be more specifically worded to be distinguishable from my suggestion, otherwise the RFC will waste community resources and resolve nothing. However, this may be a moot point now judging by your reply below. Personally I would still close this RFC and start the RFC afresh if it comes to it. But the question put to the community needs to be specific and neutral, and devised to deliver a decisive outcome with no ambiguity. Betty Logan (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Is it really a waste if it gets people to make compromises? If you read carefully, the two questions differ in that the second one was made to be more neutral and direct. As before, we should wait for KB. Nerd271 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Betty Logan, I'm okay with your proposal above: "Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with 1981 to 1996 a widely accepted definition". We could add it to the lead right now and close the RfC, but I'm not sure what Nerd271 and Koyla Butternut's thoughts are on it. Someone963852 (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. But let's wait for KB and anyone else who wants to join. Nerd271 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm ok with it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Millennials is not capitalized[edit]

Nerd271, could you go through your edit[7] to change Millennials back to millennials please?  See the dictionary use.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Hmm. If we capitalize other generations, such as the Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and so on, why not the Millennials? Nerd271 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know.  This is what the sources say.  I notice that boomers is not capitalized either. These words must not be considered proper nouns.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Not fair! But on a serious note, I check with Merriam-Webster, and they don't capitalize it either. Yet, the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of a proper noun states: a noun that designates a particular being or thing, does not take a limiting modifier, and is usually capitalized in English. I smell inconsistency here. We are talking about a very specific demographic cohort when we say 'Millennials'. Nerd271 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Millennials and baby boomers are also the only in the list to describe members of the generation, rather than just the generation itself. We do say Gen Xers, but they're named after the generation, whereas the words boomer and millennial are not proper nouns. The Proper noun article might help. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
If you are a member of a set denoted by a proper noun, the noun referring to you should also be a proper noun, for the sake of consistency. For example, if you live in London, you are Londoner. If you are a member of Generation Y, you are a Millennial. That's my take. But since I am not an authority on this subject, I will stop here. Nerd271 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
No need to stop; it's a worthwhile discussion.  I'm not particularly knowledgeable about grammar either.  I agree with you that that's the case for Generation Xers.  I'm just hypothesizing about why these two aren't capitalized.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe this is worth a try:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Check any PEW article, Millennials is always capitalized. It's a proper noun, a "person, place or thing". Nerd271 you should revert that edit. You've also started some sentences with it not capitalized (as the first word of a sentence).2605:E000:151F:22DC:A0AF:C809:2078:8AD4 (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
PEW is not an authority on grammar. We should use dictionaries and authoritative style guides, as referenced here:[8] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
And a reference to the AP style guide from Northeastern University: [9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Historical knowledge section needs better sources.[edit]

Right now it's sourced to a handful of thinkpieces citing disconnected polls; many of these are pretty clearly press releases from organizations with an axe to grind, such at the last section citing two piece covering The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, or the Holocaust section citing pieces that often just mention Millennials in passing. We should find better sources or just axe the section - a handful of random regional polls, with no real interpretation or context from experts, doesn't provide meaningful information to the reader. We need secondary sources actually saying what these numbers mean (and not just from think-tanks); a collection of random poll numbers cited to opinion-pieces and thinkpieces doesn't really tell the reader much and, taken collectively, starts to feel WP:SYNTHy. --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is a problem. See #"Historical_Knowledge"_section_--_relevant_to_the_article? above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Seems like a 'millennial" would be a member of the first generation born after the turn of the millennium. E.g., anyone born from immediately after midnight on January 1, 2001, forward to however long a "generation" is assumed to be, somewhere between 2018-2025. The first millennials are just coming of voting age this year (2019). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum. To answer your question, note that the "Millennials" generation is also known as "Generation Y". We stick with reliable sources and what they state, not what the term "millennial" should or should not mean. Also, one can take 'millennial' to mean a person having memories of the turn of the millennium (which the youngest would be 4 years old in 2000). Someone963852 (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

’After the Millennials’/Anne Boysen addition[edit]

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

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

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

Anne Boysen, consultant and author of website After the Millennials, defines millennials as those born 1984-2004, with her timeline about generations being based on the generational theory of William Strauss and Neil Howe.[1] Boysen states that it "used to be that millennials would stretch into the early 2000s, but now post-millennials are more often thought of as kids born in the 1990s" and that "younger millennials are now often thought of as ‘post-millennials’." Boysen also believes it is "interesting to notice that younger millennials (or generation Z) do differ on important distinctions from older millennials" and that there are "no jagged boundaries, but if you compare ‘young millennials’ with ‘generation Z’ you will end us [sic] comparing the same cohort with itself." [2]

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

There is no evidence that the 2004 end date is a "minority" view. This position is being perpetuated by keeping sources that adopt this position out of the article. It is not the first time this has happened either (see Talk:Millennials/Archive_13#George_Masnick). However, I would say the problem with your source is not the date per se, but the validity of the website in general. What credibility does it have? For example, is it quoted by either scholarly or mainstream media sources? Betty Logan (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't start making accusations again BL.  It's impossible and not the responsibility of others to prove a negative.  If you think 2004 is a common end date that's up to you to show. You have not provided any good sources.  Take responsibility for your behavior. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Generations Timeline". After the Millennials. 2017. Retrieved 8 August 2019.
  2. ^ "The Generation Everybody Wants to Name". After the Millennials. 10 August 2015. Retrieved 8 August 2019.
It was removed (first by a different user [10], then by me [11]) not due to content, but due to using a source that is dubiously valid/credible. To echo what Betty Logan said, are there at least three scholarly or mainstream sources citing Anne Boysen's work/"After the Millennials" on the generations? Otherwise, including it is giving undue weight to this source (not to mention free promotion to Boysen's consulting business). Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Someone963852 (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Alright makes sense, I understand that. One article that quotes her is on Vice, which sure, it is from 2014, but I guess Vice is fairly well known to the public, or at least not a random website no one has heard about. They used a picture of her timeline, as a general guide to the generations. The link is: Another article is on BBC Worklife from 2015, with the link I am in the process of finding a third, preferably scholarly given that the others are more mainstream media. Anyways, thanks for letting me know Timothy2b (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That Vice article introduces her as "One Twitter respondent, Anne Boysen, a self-proclaimed futurist who runs a site called After the Millennials". She doesn't sound notable. What idea is it that you'd like to include? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, my bad, just realized that now that I re-read the Vice article. I just liked the timeline she had on her website. There Gen Y and Gen Z were listed as alternative categories, lasting roughly 1980-1995 and 1995-2010 respectively. Millennials on the other hand was based on the Strauss-Howe generational theory, with the cut-off being 2004, based on the Great Recession of 2008, and the ensuing ”Crisis”. I just thought it seemed interesting, and fairly logical, given that many cut the generation in ’95 or ’96, but that these are instead seen as Gen Y end dates as opposed to Millennial end dates, and that the Millennial generation is not completely synonymous with Gen Y. It is somewhat complicated, but to me it at least was one explanation to the confusion about when the cut-off is, and why the earliest cut-off is about a decade earlier than the latest. Would have thought it could be interesting to include, but I suppose it would need greater notoriety. Timothy2b (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the link could be added to the Further reading, or the External links sections? That way there should be no risk of "Undue weight" and the text does not cite a non-noteworthy definition, but at the same time the website is there for those that want to explore further. Just a suggestion. Timothy2b (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but "After the Millennials" is basically Boysen's consulting business [12][13]. It is not notable or reliable per the discussion above and putting a link there will just provide free advertisement to Boysen's consulting business. Someone963852 (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I understand. Thanks for the feedback anyway. Timothy2b (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Pew paragraph[edit]

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

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

BL, please follow WP:BRD and discuss your proposed edit "with the person who reverted your contribution", who is I. Please do not invite others to the discussion without attempting to discuss with me. Please stop being dishonest and prejudiced. I am not insisting on "breaking up" the content; I am restoring it to how it has been. It is you who is insisting on merging the content, after you prejudged me as having no reason for organizing the text as I did. If you do not see what the benefit is to how I organized the content, then please engage me in discussion and stop being dishonest, prejudiced, and controlling. There is no need for this incivility; we may be able to find consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I made an edit, you reverted, and now I have started a discussion on the talk page, as outlined by the WP:BRD process. I do not see the benefit in how you have organized the content and so far you have not proffered an explanation. You are welcome to provide one, but I am also interesting in hearing the views of other editors too. Betty Logan (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
A first step in having a discussion over a disagreement is showing understanding. Are you able to empathize with my complaints about your behavior? Regardless of whether you agree with me, can you show that you understand why I feel you did not follow BRD? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
BL, please respond to this question regarding our personal dispute on one of our talk pages, thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I edited the section to improve the prose.[16] I hope this clarifies my rationale. I don't think it makes sense to group the sentences based on the Pew source. The beginning of the section is about the concept of generations and how the dates come about, and also provides synthesis. The rest of the section starts with definitions used by secondary sources and flows to the primary sources where the definitions come from. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I would personally re-order the sources this way [17] if we wanted to keep the two Pew sources separate and have the section start with the concept of generations as Kolya Butternut stated above, but I'm also fine with QuestFour's version [18] if we wanted to put the two Pew sources together.  Someone963852 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I am fine with your first suggestion.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
As QuestFour keeps making edits without participating in the discussion, I went ahead and attempted to make a consensus edit.[19] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I support the version in QuestFour's most recent edit. It makes no sense to fragment Pew's position. Pew is laying out its stall: it is going with the 1981–1996 date range, but since the consensus has not settled on a concrete demarcation then it is open to recalibration down the line. It flows better as a single paragraph. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
If we have not found consensus then we keep the original version until we do. We should group by subject not source. And besides, Pew's discussion about the time it takes to define generations isn't even from the same article where they settled on 1981 to 1996. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I made some tweaks and corrections to Someone963852's proposal.[20] (See the second section: "Date and age range definitions Kolya Butternut" Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I realized that both my sandbox and QuestFour's version incorrectly placed the Gallup and MSW Research sources (they use 1980-1996 instead of 1981-1996). I think we can all agree for now that based on Kolya Butternut's version [21] and QuestFour's version [22] that Gallup and MSW should be placed in the same sentence as the Resolution Foundation since all three use 1980-1996.
I can understand both point of views (starting with the generations concept versus grouping the two Pew sources together). I have no strong opinions either way, but I'm leaning towards grouping the two Pew sources together. Someone963852 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Both Betty Logan and Someone963852 seem to support the previous version, I will go ahead and restore it per the majority vote. QuestFour (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
This is my proposal that I think may satisfy all of the concerns discussed. Pew is discussed in a single paragraph, and the section leads with the synthesis. Please consider coming to a consensus among all editors rather than voting. WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. [23] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It does not satisfy me because it removes some of the uncertainty over the demarcation and overly promotes a single date. However, with some alterations I think we could reach a consensus. Do I have your permission to edit in your sandbox? Betty Logan (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but please create a new section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
My main problem with your re-write is how Jonathan Rauch is integrated into the paragraph. I think integrating him is a good idea because it adds flow, but it must be clear he is commenting on the demarcation, not Pew specifically. Also, his observation that generations are "squishy concepts" should not be omitted because it succinctly explains why there isn't a consensus over the dates. Anyway, my re-write isn't too different to yours, and mostly follows your paragraph structure. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
That is looking pretty good.  Anyone else have thoughts?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I made a few minor changes to Betty Logan's draft [24] (such as using active voice). Otherwise, it looks good to me, too. Someone963852 (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, peace seems to have broken out in this dispute. Should we proceed in installing the revised wording? Betty Logan (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Done [25]. I left the second paragraph alone since I thought it was fine before. Someone963852 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)