Talk:Millennials/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2018

The years that the Millennials is from 1980 to 1995 since it was in the mid90s. From 1996 to 2009 which is also stated on another wiki page so this is confusing. Ravenclaw09 (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

Hammy777777 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Empty request, nothing to do. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Enough With The Debate

Most informed people consider the age range of Millenials to be between 1980 and 2000. Multiple credible sources back this up. Popular oppinion also seems to back this up. Do we really need to define a definite start and end date to this generation? Does it really matter? A person does not suddenly adopt different characteristics because they were born a year early or a year late. In fact, there are many people who may not consider themselves a part of the Millenial generation because they've experienced a different lifestyle. This is idiotic. These people may not share the traits of the particular generation in which they were born, but this does not matter. They were born in a time period where most of their compatriots share characteristics typical of people born around the same age and this is what matters. These individuals were born in a time period where their compatriots have defined a time span or (generation). The sources may be somewhat vague, but they are credible and at this moment in time are near enough set in stone. This argument has been going on for years and it is pathetic. Though the information may at times be vague, it is quite clear that most sources point to 1980 and 2000 as the Millenial timeframe generation. I think the debates should stop. Furthermore, why are you letting Wikipedia define who you are. Wikipedia is a website and you are free to judge and disagree. However, you are not free to disregard popular opinion and change it willingly. Credible sources and to a lesser extent popular must be taken into account. Sources have been referenced and the popular opinion seems to consider that the Millenial generation spans between 1980 and 2000. This should be the end of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningstar Lucifer (talk • contribs) 03:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2018

Millennials#Date_and_age_range_definitions notes the previous indefinite usage of "Millenials" by Pew Research Center, but as of today, they have formally defined the age range they will use as 1981 to 1996. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/defining-generations-where-millennials-end-and-post-millennials-begin/ 82.8.187.22 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the update ChamithN (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Millenials are 2000-2010

so apparently people don't seem to get what a true millennial actually is based on 2 idiots who coined the term some time ago, so below is actually what a millennial is:

Millennial - A person born in the new millennium

now you can all argue against this all you smegging well like but someone born before the new millennium, are in actual fact, 90s kids, and 2010+ are the tween-teens, all of which are actually based on when born and what signifies the 10 year period, so millennials are born in the millennium, 90s, well these are self explanatory really, like seriously don't lump a load of people under the negative Millennial label who in actual fact are not millennials but are part of a different section or group.

your sincerely

a 90s child (96 specifically) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingtardis (talk • contribs) 14:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

1996 is not a 90s kid lol. Past 1992/93 isn't a 90s kid.--204.14.14.97 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. I've always thought that trying to delineate these "generations" is often a silly or arbitrary practice, but one thing that practically every source agrees on is that the first "Millennials" were born beginning in advance of the new millennium. Master of Time (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The term “Millennials” is defined by the creators of the term, Strauss and Howe. They argue that it begins in 1982 (who according to them came of age in 2000) and ends from 2000-2006 (tentatively 2004). Anyone born from 2007-now (children under age 12) is definitely a gen z PrinceofFrancia (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression that whatever 'kid' or 'child' you are is determined by the date/era you transitioned from a double-digit child to young adult. So to be a 90s kid, you would have to be born before or near to 1989. IMHO, 1996 is absolutely not a 90s child! You're a millennial. What 90s culture can you remember at all if you were born in 1996?! LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove the "early 2000s" bullshit from the intro

People born in the early 80s-mid 90s do not associate with those born in the late 90s/early 2000s. Those born in the late 90s/early 2000s weren't in K-12 during 9/11 and thus can't relate to Millennials; they would be Gen Z.--174.60.164.235 (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"People born in the early 80s-mid 90s do not associate with those born in the late 90s/early 2000s." That sounds fucking childish to me. That doesn't sound like something a 20-something would say, that sounds like something a 5th grader would say to bully kids in younger grades. Grow up. Second, those born in 1995/1996 are only 1-3 years apart from 1997/1998, they would've grown up playing together as children. So what if the former were in school on 9/11? First of all, not all countries use the American education system, some of them have kids start school at age 7, and speaking of other countries, the impact of 9/11 was a lot smaller in other countries as well, since many of those countries had dealt with terrorist attacks before. Second of all, those born 1995/1996 sure as hell weren't old enough to comprehend the impact of 9/11, most kids don't truly understand the concept of death at that age. Either way, they should keep it as it is with the "mid 90s to early 00s" definition. Wikipedia is just the messenger, it isn't the message. The job of this site is to be the provider of sources, not to be the source within itself.

From the article:

However, Howe described the dividing line between Millennials and the following Generation Z as "tentative", saying "you can’t be sure where history will someday draw a cohort dividing line until a generation fully comes of age".

Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Strauss and Howe use 1982 to 2004 as Millennial birth dates in 99% of their published material. The quote about the dividing line between the Millennials and Gen Z being tentative is accounted for. We also have many, many sources who end the Millennial birth years in the early 2000s, so it's not just Strauss and Howe. Read further down the article for additional sources who support "early 2000s".64.183.42.42 (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the early 2000s nonsense should be removed from the lead. At the very best it's a fringe opinion; mainstream opinion defines millenials as those born in the 80s and 90s, commonly excluding those who were too young to have any recollection of the 90s. In any event people born years after the turn of the millennium, who have no recollection of that or the past millennium whatsoever, aren't millenials in any way, shape or form. As I wrote back in 2016, the defining feature of the millennial generation is that they came of age when the world entered the new millennium (the year 2000), and that they have some recollection of that event/time, including some recollection of both the former millennium and the new millennium as children/youth. Most authors agree that the millennial generation comprises those born from 1980/81 until the mid 1990s, often defined more precisely as ending no later than 1996 (although the "core millennials" could be said to be the generation born in the 1980s and early 1990s). Someone who was born several years after year 2000, and who has no recollection of anything before 2010 or something, is not a member of the millennial generation. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to personally agree with these dates, but early 2000s is not a "fringe opinion". It's supported by reliable sources. These dates are used by some prominent demographers (it's the dates used in Strauss-Howe generational theory, among others). --DynaGirl (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: @Bjerrebæk: @DynaGirl: Right now there are 23 sources, and the average date range is 1980-1997. Based on the standard deviation in these sources, the generation began 1978-1982 and ended 1994-2000. There are only 2 sources supporting an end date after 2000. Strauss-Howe is the furthest outlier. I propose changing the lead to say, "demographers and researchers typically use 1978-1982 as starting birth years and 1994-2000 as ending birth years." This would more objectively describe the most-accepted dates in concrete language without giving undue weight to any preferred source. KinkyLipids (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this change would be inappropriate because Strauss–Howe generational theory is very significant in terms of generational research. Also, Strauss/Hows is not the only source beyond 2000. There's also the book by Elwood Carlson referenced in article which uses 2001.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: To meet you in the middle, how about a lede that says, "There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; historians William Strauss and Neil Howe coined the term "Millennials" for those born from 1982 to 2004, and researchers typically use 1978-1982 as starting birth years and 1994-2000 as ending birth years", (changes in italics). KinkyLipids (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the current and longstanding version of the lead is better and should remain. Even though it's true Strauss/Howe did coin the term "Millennials", this seems undue weight to mention in such a short lead, and currently the term is in no way limited to Strauss/Howe. Millennials is the main term is use now. Also, we unfortunately have repeated vandals adding that "Millennials" and "Generation Y" are somehow totally different generations according to their original research. Seems giving misleading impression that the term "Millennials" is related to just Strauss/Howe in the lead might encourage more of that.--DynaGirl (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: As another attempt at concensus, how about: "There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; researchers typically use 1978-1982 as starting birth years and 1994-2001 as ending birth years", (changes in italics). This acknowledges an end date beyond 2000 without giving undue weight to Strauss-Howe, which gives the only date beyond 2001. This wording more faithfully presents the close agreement of the sources on the end date, and it's also more strongly supported by all the sources because there are four sources that give a start date before the 1980s. KinkyLipids (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The existing lead is the result of multiple previous discussions and consensus. The existing lead actually uses "early 2000s" as the far point of date range. It doesn't even say "2004" anywhere in lead. It does not seem appropriate to change "early 2000s" to an exact date of "2000" or "2001", because doing so is not accurate and it disregards Strauss/Howe dates which are actually highly significant. Also, not sure what your rationale is for changing the consensus start date in lead of "early 1980s" to "1978". I could maybe see the argument for "late 1970s", but recall there was a prior weak consensus for early 1980s. It is best to stay away from exact dates in the lead, which suggest there is an agreed upon exact start and end date when this is not the case. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The current lede is no longer consensus as of now, unless I'm excluded along with two other editors that have followed the < !--commented instructions--> in good faith and made suggestions in this talk page before making edits to the lede. I added the Strauss-Howe dates to my proposal, after their great significance was mentioned multiple times, in the hope that my compromise would be more acceptable. Then I removed the Strauss-Howe dates from my proposal after it was said that I was giving Strauss-Howe undue weight. I'm doing my best to find compromise even when I'm given contradictory explanations for why my compromises are unacceptable. The lede actually says "researchers typically use", so saying "researchers typically use...1994-2001 as ending birth years" would be perfectly accurate and would not contradict Strauss-Howe, which gives an atypical date. Because Strauss-Howe is the only source giving a date beyond 2001, to reject "-2000" or "-2001" in favor of a much more expansive "early 2000s" (i.e. 2000-2004) would be to give Strauss-Howe undue weight.

My simple rationale for changing "early 1980s" to "1978-1982" is because "early 1980s" disregards four of the sources, which is double the number of sources giving post-2000 dates. I'm not proposing exact dates, I'm proposing ranges of dates. If I wanted to give exact dates, I would simply say "Millennials were born from 1980 to 1997," which I hope we can agree is inaccurately over-precise. "around 1980 to around 1997" would be accurate, however, and would be the best lede. I can also see the argument for "late 1970s to early 1980s", so at least we now have consensus on making that change, because the prior weak consensus for just "early 1980s" is as of now even weaker. Thank you, and sorry for the lengthy reply. KinkyLipids (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe this thread was actually started by an IP who geolocates to same area as a blocked account. There's been a lot of disruption on this page. A lot of sock puppets and the page has been frequently semi-protected. Regarding your concerns regarding "early 1980s", I have no objection to changing this to "late 1970s". The lead previously used "late 1970s" and I can see argument that this is more accurate. Perhaps more people will chime on this and the other issues. I do oppose your suggestions to use specific dates. In the past this has led to constant edit warring, and it seems the various dates in the date range defining section can be better summarized with early/late language instead of specific dates. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree to "late 1970s to early 1980s" but would prefer leaving it at just "early 1980s" over changing it to just "late 1970s", which I think is less accurate because there are only 4 sources supporting "late 1970s" as opposed to 23 sources supporting "late 1970s to early 1980s" or 19 sources supporting just "early 1980s". Since ranges of dates are not acceptable, I would agree to "late 1990s" as a compromise to replace "mid-1990s to early 2000s". KinkyLipids (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If anyone is going to change the lead, they will need some strong sources to back it up. This is the current text: "...early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years" and I see no reasons to change it. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Changing the dates is not advised. We've discussed them over and over again and agreed on what the lede says now. In fact, here's what the first entry on this page said on November 20, 2002 and I quote: "The Millenial Generation is the generation of Americans born from *1982 to 2003* (assuming that this generation has an average length). Their typical grandparents are from the Silent Generation; their typical parents are of the Baby Boomers and Generation X." Also Strauss and Howe coined the term "Millennials" so they would be a significant source for this article.64.183.42.42 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reading through this thread. My many reasons for making changes based on the current sources remain detailed above. Even though we've been discussing this and still disagree on what the lede says, it looks like there's no consensus or compromise in sight. I even suggested adding "William Strauss and Neil Howe coined the term "Millennials"" to the lede, which appears to be the same thing that the previous post was pointing out to me. Thank you for that and also for pointing out what the current lede says and for pointing out that the current entry is different from the first entry. My proposals will remain, especially the concise and source-based "Millennials were born from around 1980 to around 1997", or something similar. Sorry for trying to edit this Wikipedia article. KinkyLipids (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have said that the first comment is so hilarious, should kids born from 1996-2004 be Zillennials with the Gen Y and Z Cusp or Gen2K, Gen 2000, Gen YouTube, New Millennials or The Clever Kids. They act like the same with Gen Y but they grew up with some internet stuffs during the 2000s Era during their childhood.(SonicTV64) (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Who changed it to those years so specifically. It has been known from main websites that it ends in the early 2000s as well. There's no precise date to this stuff as it point out it the artical as for many others. You can't just base it off of just one Source that you like because there could be plenty who don't agree with it. It was perfect the way it was. Why change it just because of your own beliefs about who associates and relates with who and other things as well. Those are not good reasons at all. "Demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years" was perfect and accurate. It needs to be changed back. There's really no changes that needs to be made on this page in general.Justin Moore 1 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Justin Moore 1 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I've just noticed that this talk page is not about the recent changes but something a while back. I accidentally posted this on the wrong page Justin Moore 1 (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Request to change previous generation.

I would like to change the previous generation to y and stop generation y from being redirected here. It feels like my whole generation is being overshadowed by the term millennial. Seeing as the millennium started at 2000 I believe that should be used as the starting school age for millennials and have their starting birth year as 1995, making generation y span from 1980 to 1995. This also coincides with one generation having witnessed the birth of the video games and communication technology that the following generation was born into. Popenemo (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Popenemo: "Millennials (also known as Generation Y)..." We use what reliable sources say, not editors' personal opinions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not just a personal opinion. People born between these years don't consider themselves millennials. You can't call someone something their not because your personal opinion is that should be there name. Why does millennial refer to anything before the millennium? Seems inaccurate and lazy to include 5 decades into one generation. Baby boomers were barely 2 decades, same with gen x, but I guess every one after that is just Millennials from then on and forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popenemo (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Popenemo: Please read our verifiability policy. "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." The Terminology section which has sources, covers naming. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What makes those peoples opinion more important than mine? They had an opinion about what the generation should be called just like I do. It really seems like they didn't know what they were doing either, seeing as there is no specific method to determining when a generation begins or ends. Is your generation decided by when you were growing up or when you legally became an adult, when is one legally an adult, is that the same in all cultures?How do you verify what someone calls themselves without it being a personal opinion? It almost feels like racism but with generations. Why do I have to deal with being called a millennial when I don't consider myself one and also have to deal with the prejudice that comes with that term? Maybe it's because people who make articles like this don't realize that it is a personal opinion and without the consensus of the generation you are labeling, you are perpetuating falsities. Disconnect this page from the generation y search if you aren't going to remove all the personal opinions that are already on it. Please don't make me go through weeks of Reddit campaigns just to get a separate generation y page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popenemo (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Popenemo: Become a recognized authority on generations and then you can be considered a reliable source ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves") for Wikipedia purposes. Reddit campaigns are going to do little as Wikipedia is not a democracy. Change requests not based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines will just be ignored. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your reliable sources are just magazine editors and self titled generation specialists. This article is a shallow lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popenemo (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"People born between these years (1980-1995) don't consider themselves millennials." 23 year olds don't consider themselves Millennials? Wtf, how?--73.52.114.170 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I'm a Millennial, and I embrace that term. It's not a term to be embarrassed by. Just because 70 year old baby boomer geezers look down on you (conveniently forgetting that baby boomers used to be looked down on and disregarded back in the 60's, btw) doesn't mean being one is a bad thing. Someday, I'm sure us Millennials will have our generation we look down on. That's just life Dpm12 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that Gen Y and this are not synonyms at all. The term inherently means born around 2000...2nd millennium. (I do not need to cite a source. It is the definition of the word millennium) User:Photolarry (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Photolarry: Unluckily for you, we have a policy called verifiability. Wikipedia's "...content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Read the Terminology section to see why "the term inherently means born around 2000" is not a view shared by any of the sources currently used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a talk page! I am not saying we need to change the article directly. I voiced an opinion and you cannot stop those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photolarry (talk • contribs) 03:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"Survivors" - TV shows are not a good reference

Is there ANY reason to quote a TV show? Michael (sorry I can't login from this PC)

Lol somebody delete that. You're funny whoever posted that. Everyone needs to just realize that there's nothing that needs to be changed. We don't need a reality survival TV show on here so just take it off and no more please.

That was the funniest one so far. Justin Moore 1 (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Millennials are not early 1980s

I request this be changed in the intro. Anyone born pre-1984 is a Gen Xer. 1985-2000 are Millennials. 2001-present are Gen Zers. To say Millennials begin in the early 1980s is just absurd and inaccurate. I was born in 1995 and I do not consider myself as part of the same generation to those born in 1981. They are over 30 years of age whereas I'm still considered a young adult. CloudKade11 (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources. The majority of reliable sources start Milennials in the early 80s.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem with "reliable sources" in this instance is that most sane people disagree with it. I don't see why consensus can't trump sources in instances like this. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I seriously doubt there is consensus to go against what many reliable sources say. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree yes and no, but they are the Xennials for those who are born from 1976-1984 are both Gen X and Gen Y due to act like Gen X and grew up with the 80s stuffs during their childhood.(SonicTV64) (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

And I most often hear people talking about Millennials as the current crop of teenagers. Those born in or after 2000. But my annecdotal evidence, and that of several other people in this conversation, is irrelevant.--Khajidha (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Early '80s is Millennial, 1982 on is indisputably Millennial, 1980 and 1981 are a combination of the 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:99FA:284D:2C1D:1380 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Cut down the Date range section?

I think this section should just be narrowed down to a few in-depth sources, i.e. Pew Research Center and Strauss and Howe, that give actual reasons for why they define Millennials as 1982-2004, 1981-1996, 1980-1995, etc. We don't need 40 other sources of randomly-chosen shitty dates from advertising companies, i.e. 1976-1996, 1980-2010, 1990-2015, etc. which make no sense and just clutter up the section.--73.52.114.170 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. We should stick with a few in-depth, reliable sources. We don't need the section to be a list of what random companies or authors think is the Millennial range. Someone963852 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This section needs to resume back to how it formally had been which was not bias and showed how Millennials / Generation Y were identified by a range of Demographers, Authors to name a few. Each person has their own view and identifies with a particular Generation span, bracket and cohort. But allow those to see the variations by the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane nyero (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

After the dispute in the intervening sections, the following was copied and pasted by Someone963852 from the below section "Please somebody change it back (biased alert)" [1]: Someone963852, the section you link as justification for your reverts/deletions should probably be hatted. It appears to have been started by yet another IP sock of indefinitely banned user Phil A Fry [2], but since other editors have commented on it perhaps just leave it. Pew Research is notable and obviously belongs in the article, but it’s an American company. Multinational sources should also be included, but you’ve been deleting Australia’s McCrindle Research, as well as dates from numerous multinational research organizations such Resolution Foundation, Ernst & Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers. You’ve also been deleting numerous other notable US researchers such as Nielsen Media Research, MetLife, Gallup Inc. and United States Census Bureau. Even your preferred source, Pew Research, describes non-conformity of dates, specifically saying "Pew Research Center is not the first to draw an analytical line between Millennials and the generation to follow them, and many have offered well-reasoned arguments for drawing that line a few years earlier or later than where we have. Perhaps, as more data are collected over the years, a clear, singular delineation will emerge. We remain open to recalibrating if that occurs.".[3] While Pew Reseach belongs in the article, it is not reasonable to base the dates solely on one Pew Research source or to delete references besides Pew Research from the date range section.--DynaGirl (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

(DynaGirl, I moved your response to this section since it is a counter-argument to what the IP above is suggesting). I'm fine with leaving the sources on now; I won't continue to remove them. Someone963852 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018

There has been a consensus made as to the years designated to the millennial generation, it is not the vague years mentioned in the article but 1986-1996. The post millenial generation begins at that time. Please see pewresearch.org for more info 206.248.135.12 (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see people using early 2000s as the ending years (as the lead suggests). People born in 2002 are growing up in an vastly different technological time period than those born in 1982. We should stick with reliable sources such as the Pew Research Center source which actually researched these generational trends and gave actual reasons why they chose the cut-off dates as they did. Someone963852 (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The dates in the lead are based on a summary of notable researchers and demographers in date range and defining section, not one source.--DynaGirl (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There's only one notable research group that has studied this so far and provided research to back up the cut-off, and it's the Pew Research Center source. The previous sources (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Gallup, Goldman Sachs, Time Magazine, etc) are not research based groups or demographers; they were random companies listing the date range for categorical, survey-based purposes. Discussion also here: Talk:Generation_Z#Start_dates_could_use_some_work_to_reflect_recent_developments (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Strauss and Howe invented the term "Millennials" and they use birth years 1982 to 2004 for them. There are a lot of news articles on the web that use "early 2000s" too. And as stated above on the talk page "the first entry on the Wikipedia "Millennials" page on November 20, 2002 said: "The Millenial Generation is the generation of Americans born from 1982 to 2003". So it's nothing new.Aboutbo2000 (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you list the articles that use early 2000's that are backed by in-depth research and are not just marketing, survey type articles? The Pews source is more recent (2018) and the article focuses on the range and actually backs up the ending years with research. Coining the term Millennial does not mean Strauss and Howe have the right ending dates, plus the Strauss and Howe data is from 2000. Even the Strauss and Howe article states that the ending years are "tentative" meaning they don't even know what the ending years are. Not sure why we're giving undue weight to this old source. Also, the fact that someone edited the Millennials page in 2002 and stated that it was between 1982 and 2003 is not a good reason why the lead should not be changed. New research has cropped up and the lead should be changed to reflect that. Someone963852 (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Pew Research is obviously relevant and already included in date range defining section. But they are not the only notable researchers out there. Please stop deleting all other sources from date range and defining section such as United States Census Bureau etc. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2018

Preciselyd (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Please may you change back the Generation Description. I have realised information has been removed in regards to Demographers and Generation Spans. This is very misleading for those who use Wikipedia as a source of information in it's fullest etc.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please somebody change it back (biased alert)

You guys or one guy are changing everything. It was fine the way it was. If you wanted to add something new go right ahead but you are deleting things just to your likings. No matter what you put you know there is many research and beliefs saying otherwise then Pew research. I don't have a problem with them being on there but they are just one out of all the rest. I would have thought this was over and done with because it had a good portion of each that people do believe in. Change it back because it's very biased. Everyone has their own opinion on these things so you know for a fact that there's not an exact cut off and that it did range from the mid/late 90s to the early 2000s. It wasn't that big of a deal but now it is because you crownd what you believe then all the rest. It was put in perfectly but now you want to change it just because you agree with the one or two few reasons a research website gives out for the first time. Though there are most likely a lot of people who disagree with them as well. That is just very biased. I wish we can go back to 1985 when these dumb labels and magical cut-offs weren't a thing. When the media didn't shove it down our throats and have us believing these useless things. That is why it was at least perfect before because it had a portion of everybody's viewpoint. Thanks for trying to make Wikipedia very bias. I'm sorry but if someone tries to change it so crazy like to where it's obviously bias I'm just going to keep erasing it whenever I get the chance. Nothing personal but I know many will agree (most likely the non bias people who made it apply to everyone).....Wow you changed the next gen year range as well too. Nathan.T.Medina (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the consensus lead and the numerous reliable sources recently deleted from date range and defining section by User:Someone963852. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Restore the lead, sure, but don't add random companies to the date range section per the discussion above. Stick to in-depth, research-based sources, not Buzzfeed articles or TV shows. Also, it is not biased to reflect what up to date, current research has to say (in this case, the Pews Research article which came out March 2018). It is biased if you add out-dated, non-research based articles from random companies who use the date range as a way to categorize for survey purposes. Someone963852 (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no Buzzfeed in that section. You've been repeatedly deleting dates from MetLife, Gallup (company), Nielsen Media Research etc. Please stop gutting the date range defining section of content. We don't base the lead on just one source. It's based on summary of dates used by multiple notable researchers. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Nathan T. and DynaGirl for commenting on the bias description of Millennials Generation Span. The former description included Demographers, Author and Sites who identified Millennium ending Years up to 2000-2004. It is wrong for people to remove other Demographers, Authors and Sites who have indicated that Generation Y/ Millennials ends 1994-1996. It's okay for people to identify with either Demographers or Authors based on their research. Wikipedia highlighted the variations of Generation Spans. An Encylopedia should be able to highlight different researchers. --Preciselyd (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane nyero (talk • contribs)

Funny how you're crying biased alert, when you're the one ignoring the sources and completely trimmed down [4] a reliable, in-depth source and the reasons why they chose the cut-off dates the way they did. A noticeboard has been started over at: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Millennials Someone963852 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I do admit that I'm new to this part of Wikipedia but I didn't post just for no reason. You are the one who deleted most of everything to begin with and then posted a long description of a article just because you viewed it to your liking. You changed things up and made it unequal and bias. I wasn't the only one who pointed it out and it was obvious. You also changed it again--User: Nathan.T.Medina

I deleted those sources due to this suggestion [5], but since it has been added back, I'll back off from removing them for now. The reason why the Pew source has added details is because the Pew Research Center is an actual research group that studies demographic trends. The article focuses on the generation date range and has research and reasons why they chose the cut-off dates as they did. This article should reflect the reasons why the cut-off dates are chosen by these reseeachers, not just list a bunch of ranges. That alone should give it higher precedence than what random non-research based companies (such as Time Magazine, Goldman Sachs, etc.) think. The other articles in the 'Date and age range definitions' section included sources that are not research-based; they use those ending dates for categorical and survey purposes, aka purposes other than generational research. Editing the article so it reflects the most in-depth, reliable source (in this case, the Pew source) is not unequal or biased editing. The fact that you actually tried to remove [6] the details to a reliable, in-depth, research-based source shows that you are the one being biased. Stop trying to hide details from a reliable source just because you don't agree with it. Someone963852 (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, I took a look at your edit history and it seems to be full of POV pushing on the Millennials and Gen-Z articles: Trying to reduce the age range: [7] [8][9][10][11][12] Trying to change the date range: [13][14][15][16][17] Adding sources to match your beliefs: [18][19] Changing the wording to match your beliefs: [20][21][22][23][24][25] Removing sources because you disagreed with it: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Please stop trying to push a biased POV with the two articles. If you want something added or removed, discuss it here first. Someone963852 (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone963852, the section you link as justification for your reverts/deletions should probably be hatted. It appears to have been started by yet another IP sock of indefinitely banned user Phil A Fry [33], but since other editors have commented on it perhaps just leave it. Pew Research is notable and obviously belongs in the article, but it’s an American company. Multinational sources should also be included, but you’ve been deleting Australia’s McCrindle Research, as well as dates from numerous multinational research organizations such Resolution Foundation, Ernst & Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers. You’ve also been deleting numerous other notable US researchers such as Nielsen Media Research, MetLife, Gallup Inc. and United States Census Bureau. Even your preferred source, Pew Research, describes non-conformity of dates, specifically saying "Pew Research Center is not the first to draw an analytical line between Millennials and the generation to follow them, and many have offered well-reasoned arguments for drawing that line a few years earlier or later than where we have. Perhaps, as more data are collected over the years, a clear, singular delineation will emerge. We remain open to recalibrating if that occurs.".[34] While Pew Reseach belongs in the article, it is not reasonable to base the dates solely on one Pew Research source or to delete references besides Pew Research from the date range section.--DynaGirl (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

My response here: Talk:Millennials#Cut_down_the_Date_range_section?, but I'll state again that I'm fine with leaving the sources on per the discussion. Someone963852 (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It will be wrong for me to say that I didn't make changes in the past. Some being accidentally erasing words and not knowing how to get it back. Also erasing and changing a sentence because of course I didn't fully believe or understood it. I did strongly tell that I was new to this and didn't know how we were supposed to use this site. I saw others making changes and I thought it was fine for me to do as well. I remember a nice guy telling me to send reasons and I had no clue where he wanted me to go. It was of course I didn't know there was a talk section for explaining reasons and making changes with others. Because of that I was wrongfully making changes thinking that it wasn't that big of a deal but now I see it is. Thanks to a guy who recently showed me about this section I will be up to date for it.--user:Nathan.T.Medina

I would definitely not be talking.The one who changed the years and words around so it can be similar to Pew's research only. The one who erased a lot of views people believe just so it can match Pew's research and by giving big description they have used. Pew research is a reliable site who have strongly said there is no agreed-upon formula for how long the span should be but of course you want to to idolize it just because you believe it.(PS:not everyone agrees or disagrees with them and others) There was already more than one descriptions from pews research before you decided to change things up but I guess it wasn't enough for you. This has proven to be extremely bias. I have seen it be pointed out and with my own eyes that you have history of blocks for same reasons like this so I'm not surprised you keep coming back at me. Being a flat-out hypocrite with a lot you say. People on Wikipedia are not perfect and will never be perfect. God I'm having hard time doing this on my phone.That's all I have to say and I'll say no more to you about it.--User: Nathan.T.Medina —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, following and expanding on a reliable, up-to-date, in-depth source and giving the reasons why they chose the dates the way they did is not "bias." The section of the article is called "Date and age range definitions" and should give reasons why the researchers chose the date ranges the way they did; not just to list a random bunch of date ranges that random companies use. The fact that Pew has concluded the end dates as stated in the article, and the fact that you and some other users continue to argue about it and try to downplay it because you disagree with the source, is bias. And of course, no user is perfect, but at least try to follow the Wiki guidelines. Someone963852 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Including a brief summary of rationale Pew Research used for their dates seems reasonable, but think we should cut down on multiple quotes attributed to Pew in the date range section. Perhaps we could expand and add some of the information included in the Pew Research source to other sections such as "Traits", "Political Veiws" or "Cultural Identity" and attribute them to the Pew source. Also, text regarding previous dates used by Pew Research seems reasonable to include, as long as it is referenced. --DynaGirl (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The quotes by the Pew source directly relates to the reasons why they chose the cut-off dates as they did (similar to the Elwood Carlson source that is in the section). The reasons why they chose the cut-off dates as they did should be in the 'Date and age range definitions' section since it explains why they chose that particular cut-off. Someone963852 (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Text regarding previous dates aren't needed, unless it holds significance, which in this case it does not. Pew concluded their research and end-dates March of 2018, and the article should reflect that. Plus, the article used as a "previous date" [35] is a book interview by someone who works at Pew. It is not a research article, nor is it "Pews Research Center" which the wording implies. Someone963852 (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

In a similar manner to the Carlson book source, I think it would be better to explain Pew Research's rationale for the dates they chose in a summary sentence, instead of using multiple quotes. Also, I don't think we need to include the part about Millennials being 12-27 in 2008 election of Barrack Obama and being the force of the youth vote. It doesn't really make sense to me because 12-17 year olds can't vote, but perhaps it could be added to the political section instead of to the date range section where it seems out of place.--DynaGirl (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The Pew source is fine the way it is now, but the Obama quote should be moved elsewhere. So the change I see worth making is to move the Obama quote: "Additionally, they stated that millennials were between 12 and 27 during the 2008 U.S. Presidential election..."" and move it to the 'Political Views' section before the Bernie Sanders sentence ("Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist...) as "The Pew Research Center stated that millennials were between the ages of 12 and 27 during the 2008 U.S. Presidential election where "the force of the youth vote became part of the political conversation and helped elect the first black president."" -reference here- Someone963852 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly believe the sections need to be moved around and phrased differently when pointing out. It should not start off with things like "the majority" the majority is all of them because there is no agreed-upon date. A lot of these research points out that before they give out their own views. I also believe that the description of pews research needs to have its own separate brief paragraph just like the others( William Straus and Neil Howe,Elwood Carlson and so on) because it looks cluttered with the other description below it. Im also coming up with some ideas to shorten pews research to a good size like the others and still get views through but right now it definitely needs to be rearranged.Nathan.T.Medina (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose your changes here and gain a consensus first since there's a lot of differing opinions regarding all of this. The article is fine the way it is now, except the Obama quote could be moved to a different section per the above. Also, there's the Sandbox button in the top right corner near the 'Talk' button where you can experiment with your proposed changes. (See this article Help:My_sandbox for help in creating one). Then you can link your Sandbox here for other users to see and comment on what you want changed. Someone963852 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Well its nothing erasing at the moment but rearrange. When its time to start giving changes it will be posted on the talk section. As we know this takes time so Im sure it will be talked about later on. Right now the last thing I want to do is be online. Im sure that's for a lot of people.Nathan.T.Medina (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Changing of the Year range "May 13"

Who changed it to those years so specifically. It has been known from main websites that it ends in the early 2000s as well. There's no precise date to this stuff as it point out it the artical as for many others. You can't just base it off of just one Source that you like because there could be plenty who don't agree with it. It was perfect the way it was. Why change it just because of your own beliefs and views. That's not how it works. "Demographers and researchers typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years" was perfect and accurate. It needs to be changed back. There's really no changes that needs to be made on this page in general.Justin Moore 1 (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Justin Moore 1 (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see my new proposal for lead changing at bottom of the page. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Editing Lead on "Millennials."

Hi, I feel like according to what is reported in the media and by researchers, people typically go with a Millennial end date of somewhere in the mid 1990s (typically 1994 to 1996). I believe that we should change the lead to reflect that, but first we should get a consensus. I propose changing the lead in order to appear more accurate, 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." How does this proposal sound?-Akhila3151996 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

We've purposely been avoiding relying on just media reporting because it so frequently changes. Newsbloggers seems to change preferred dates on various whims and are not consistent. The text of lead says according to "demographers and researchers" as their date ranges tend to be more thought out and less transitory. I don't support this change. 1994 to 1996 seems to be the extreme early ending date range. These dates should be mentioned (as they currently are) but I don't support prioritizing them. (Add- while I think it's great you opened discussion, I don't think it's great that you changed dates in lead minutes after opening this discussion, before anyone had a chance to respond, ignoring edit note of: "This range is based on the sources given in the text below; please seek talk page consensus before changing" [36].DynaGirl (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Funny, you talk about "being bold" but ignore that in the user above's case since you disagree with their edits. Someone963852 (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I do not generally think it's a good idea to be bold on a known contentious issue on a semi-protected article where an edit note is instructing to seek talk page consensus before changing. DynaGirl (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I support your proposed change to the lead, since actual research has been done on the Millennial date ranges and the lead should be updated to reflect that. The only reliable source in the "Date and age range definitions" section that actually researched the generational date ranges is the Pew Research Center source. The rest of the "sources" in that section are just random articles from random companies using their date ranges as a way to categorize groups for non-generational research. Also, "1994 to 1996 seems to be the extreme early ending date range" is an opinion and plenty others will disagree with it, but we don't edit based on opinions here; we edit based on reliable sources. Someone963852 (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with DynaGirl on this issue either when only a few researchers end the millennials in the 2000's. An outdated Neil Howe and Strauss book from 1991, mind you, when many millennials weren't born say millennials are 1982-2004. Current research and trends do not suggest this today. I feel DynaGirl is merely expressing her opinion on what she thinks the date ranges should say, not the consensus. People largely don't think of someone born n lets say 2000 as a millennial, they are thought of as Gen Z-24.35.65.234 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Included in the current range of mid-1990s to early 2000s is also the late 1990s. There are several notable researchers and demographers that use late 1990s or early 2000s. This is why I do not think we should focus primarily on mid 1990s, but instead focus on the entire range. Also demographer Neil Howe who uses 2004 still publishes for Forbes as of this year, and Strauss–Howe generational theory is extremely influential. It's a misrepresentation to say this is from an outdated 1991 book. Unlike the brief media burst following Pew's announcement to use 1996, it could be argued that Strauss-Howe has stood the test of time. Of course, time will tell if Pew's change becomes widely accepted among most researchers and demographers but it has not yet. Add Akhila3151996, Please see WP:logout, editing both as an IP and a registered user in one discussion can give the misrepresentation that different users are making the comments. Please avoid doing this. Thanks. DynaGirl (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The Pew Research Center, Jean Twenge, Simon Sinek, Jason Dorsey, and several others use range of the mid-1990s. The Neil Strauss and Howe generational Theory may still be influential, and I understand he is still the writer of Forbes. I think the date range used has not stood the test of time. The above user noted that someone born in 2000 would not be considered a millennial by most people. I think that it is clear that the mid 1990s has become the most acceptable end range and I feel stating this would not be a bias. I propose keeping it like I said at the top, that some people still extend the date range up to the 2000s. I also tend to agree with another user who says that many of the dates listed are not from actual researchers of the topic, and that section should be cleaned up. I feel DynaGirl that you should be open to compromising if most people in the Talk section agree with this proposal.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Although Straus-Howe is extremely influential, and should be given its due weight, it's not just Stauss/Howe. US Census Bureau uses 2000 and US Chamber of Commerce uses 1999 etc. I'm not at all saying to exclude mid-1990s, I'm saying continue with consensus lead and include the entire range. I am not denying that there has been a burst of newsbloggers writing about not being a Millennial, but it's on both ends of the spectrum, and I think it's attributable to excessive criticism of the Millennial generation (something that happens to all generations when young and something which I do not think will stand the test of time). On the other end they're writing I'm not a Millennial, I'm Generation X or I'm an Xennial. On the young end newsbloggers are saying I'm not a Millennial, I'm Gen Z. If we went by popular press opinions, practically no one would be a Millennial, or the generation would have an unusually small range. The current text in the lead is based on the notable researchers and demographers included in the date range and defining section, and I think it's a good representation of those sources. DynaGirl (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The Strauss-Howe source definitely do not stand the test of time. Like the other user said, it is an extremely outdated source written before Millennials were even born and before the technological/internet/social media boom. That's like using an article saying that MySpace will be the most popular social media network in the 2010s, when new research has come out to say that it's not. Just because Neil Howe is still writing for Forbes today is irrelevant to the generation discussion. And like I stated above about the other sources in the section, US Census Bureau and US Chamber of Commerce use those date ranges for purposes other than generational research; they did not conduct research themselves to say that those are the date ranges, they are just using them for categorical purposes. Update to date, researched-based sources that actually researched the generation and their date ranges are the ones that should be given significance, not listing a bunch of random sources and newsblogs and what they use. Also DynaGirl, please see Wiki:OWN and stop trying to shut down discussions of changing the lead just because you personally disagree with the ranges. Someone963852 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

According to sources Strauss-Howe stands test of time. Whether you agree with Strauss–Howe generational theory or not it is significant with respect to generational research and they particularly focus on Millennial generation. Either way, it's not just Straus-Howe which doesn't support the suggested change to the lead. There are literally 10 other references from notable researchers/demographers who use late 90s or early 2000s, so putting focus just on mid 1990s doesn't seem to be a neutral representation of the sources. Also, it is not WP:OWN to respect consensus. Dates in lead are based on consensus of many editors (see talk page archives). I did not add the edit note in article text to please seek consensus on talk page first before changing dates in the lead. Sure, consensus can change, but 2 editors doesn't equal a change in this longstanding consensus based on many editors. I disagree with this proposed change because if you look at the date ranging defining section, the current lead neutrally summarizes the date ranges used by notable researchers and demographers. DynaGirl (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

To be fair DynaGirl, we are hardly the only ones who disagree with you. The date range is argued about constantly on this edit page. Also yes, please include the references and the sources to back up what you are trying to argue.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

There do seem to be a lot of editors who have a preferred date range and who edit based on that preferences for certain dates, but if you look over the edit history, you'll see that I've also disagreed with people who have tried to cut out or insert other preferred dates, such as disruptive editors who have attempted to eliminate the mid-1990s dates from the lead, in favor or late-90s or 2000s. I don't have a biased POV here, I've been trying to support the sources and neutrally represent the range.DynaGirl (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are trying to make an argument, support it with evidence. Where are these sources? Also where are the 10 other references from notable researchers. This is getting ridiculous. You are just trying to impose your opinion.-24.35.65.234 (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

24.35.65.234/Akhila3151996, please see current Millennials article "Date and age range definition" section [37].Also, please see WP:LOGOUT and WP:ILLEGIT regarding editing as IP and registered user in same setting. DynaGirl (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

"According to sources Strauss-Howe stands test of time" What sources? Your opinions aren't sources. Strauss-Howe is outdated as news articles calling MySpace or Facebook the most used social media networking site. 10 other references that state early 2000s where? The latest is 2000 and only the Strauss-Howe states mid-2000 (and that source isn’t reliable or accurate because again, they are outdated). And there is no “long-standing consensus.” If you look at the previous discussions on the talk page, multiple users crop up with concerns about the lead, but nothing gets changed because you think you own the article and get the final say, and the users would rather not argue or bring it up elsewhere. Please stop making stuff up because you don’t have a strong argument against changing the lead. And please don’t pretend that you’re being neutral here. Stating that you don't want to change the lead because "1994 to 1996 seems to be the extreme early ending date range" is an opinion, trying to argue that an outdated 1991 source is “standing the test of time” with nothing to back it up besides your opinion, trying to add disclaimers to the Pew source multiple times on two separate articles, or trimming it down because you disagree with their range is biased and non-neutral POV editing. Someone963852 (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

For current sources regarding Strauss/Howe, just do a quick google news search on Neil Howe, which pulls up multiple hits from this year, including hits from this month [38] Strauss/Howe Fourth Turning theory also gets many recent hits [39]. Regarding the sources in this article which use late 1990s or early 2000s , as I've already stated above, please see "Date and age range definition" section.[40]. Sources referenced in the article which use late 1990s or early 2000s include: US Census Bureau, U.S Pirg, The Asia Business Unit of Corporate Directives, Resolution Foundation, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Goldman Sachs and Merriam-Webster, as well as others. It's hard to take proposal and arguments as good faith if haven't read "Date and age range definition" which we are suppose to base the dates in lead on. Between the ignoring of the referenced text in body of the article and the suspicious IP editing, I'm not sure how much longer this discussion will seem productive.DynaGirl (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is currently unproductive simply because there is no compromising going on. We all need to read fully as to what the other person is saying. We are not arguing that Neil Howe are not influential, we are simply saying that the age range used in the book is outdated. We should all avoid on both sides trying to monopolize the article and insert sources only because they support our POV. This is wrong. Also many sources like one article from Time magazine do not count, nor do an estimated range used by ad agencies. We are simply wondering about actual notable researchers (besides Strauss and Howe) who have written about why millennials end in the 2000s, and/or support that end date. As long as people are irrationally rigid in their thinking, we won't get anywhere with this discussion and it will become futile. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The “Dates and age range definition” section as it currently is right now 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. Like I stated before, 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). The lead should be changed to reflect what reliable sources have to say, and the proposed change from the other user reflects that. The only reason why you’re disagreeing with the proposed change is because of your non-neutral POV and opinions. Someone963852 (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone963852, I recall your preference for Pew Research above all others was met with opposition from many different editors on this and the also the Generation Z page and also an edit warring notice. I agree Pew Research is a quality source, but it is also just one (American) source and this is an international topic. Pew should be mentioned (and it is) but I disagree with basing the dates in the lead primarily on Pew Research. Regarding dates used, Pew even says their dates are not definitive and that they remain open to date recalibration [41].DynaGirl (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Met with opposition by two clearly biased editors Nathan_T_Medina and Abo2000 both who have a history non-neutral POV editing pushing on the Millennial article [42], as I pointed out before in earlier discussions and talk pages. Also, these Millennial and generation articles are clearly U.S. slanted since the majority of the sources of that section and article content itself are U.S. based. There is no reason to not change the lead to the proposed change by the user above. Someone963852 (talk) 00:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This debate/discussion may get heated based on our disagreements, but can we refrain from any personal attacks please? This is counterproductive when we are all generally rational adults. The Pew source is good because it lists several economic, political, social, and technological factors into deciding their date range. It should be given precedence over some random Time magazine story for example.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Those were not my edits. I believe it may be confusing due to a similar IP address. I’ve had this problem and have been blocked from editing while logged out.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? Because the IP editor has also edited comments signed by your Akhila3151996 account. Please see [[43]]. DynaGirl (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This is quite odd. Maybe the edit appeared in the wrong place by accident. I’ve removed the edit.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If we don't get anywhere with this debate, I may request for a WP:3 or a WP:RfC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhila3151996 (talk • contribs)

WP:3 is for disputes between 2 editors. This is between 3 editors (4 if you count the IP, but I do not think it's reasonable to count the IP under the circumstances). Additional venues to attain outside input would include WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN and WP:RfC.DynaGirl (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Technically 2 editors without the OP (me) and one IP. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Noting that has Akhila3151996 been blocked 1 week for "obvious and abusive editing while logged out."

The block has about 3 days to go. 24.35.65.234 (talk · contribs) is blocked for 3 months as a proxy. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Pointless. There are lots of different reasons such as proxy usage where this happens. I've also asked Wikipedia to block the harrassing IP. In saying this, this still had nothing to do with the previous discussion.-Akhila3151996 (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarify the name

WP:BLOCKEVASION
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We need to readd the part about the term being derived from Millennials being the first generation to reach adulthood in the 3rd millennium. There's SOOOOO DAMN MANY people I've met over the years on social media who are confused as to why people born 18 years before the millennium are Millennials. This sentence would provide guidance since Millennials is such an extremely overused clickbait buzzword in the media and people want to know what it means.--73.52.114.170 (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Appears to be another IP sock of indefinitely banned User:Phil A. Fry [44] DynaGirl (talk) 15:57, 3 August 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: [45]. Looking at your edit summary, seems this is based on your opinion/reaction to term but ignoring the cited source. [46]. 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)