Talk:Millennials/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Millennials. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Date Range Update 08:52, 5 March 2019

All editors: please discuss proposed changes found in version 08:52, 5 March 2019
Betty Logan, you reverted multiple edits without explanation other than to say they are questionable and look like POV pushing. Please discuss each specific edit you disagree with in the spirit of Bold Revert Discuss. "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." I have heard you address only one specific edit which you disagree with: the Census statement. Two editors support the Census opinion, and two do not. Aboutbo2000 is a puppet. Considering the information I received I felt it was appropriate to be BOLD. You have stated that I have made unsubstantiated claims; I have not made any new claim in the section other than to say major media outlets define millennials by the Pew dates. I have stated that I don't object to narrowing down those sources. Please respect that I am doing the work to improve this article from a "status quo" which is grossly inaccurate. Rather than hasty reversion, I would appreciate thoughtful consideration for my edits for which I have given thoughtful consideration. ~~Edits to discuss:~~ Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I moved my edit descriptions into the edit discussion subsections below. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Shall we discuss each edit in its own subsection? We can start with discussing the edits involving sources rather than edits involving structure. (They almost entirely involve sources.) Feel free to change the structure of this subsection if that's appropriate. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is clear what my main objections are. You removed multiple sources without what I consider good reasons, and altered the structure of the section to prioritise a source that backs up your position. Some valid edits may have got caught up in my revert above, but this is your own fault for mixing up non-controversial edits with controversial ones. We can't fix the wording until the sourcing is addressed, so why don't you do as I suggest and list the sources that you want to remove with solid explanations as to why they should be removed from the article. Those we disagree on can be reviewed at WP:RS/N. Once the sourcing issue is resolved then the structure and wording can be resolved. Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, I would ask that you please speak more respectfully and refrain from making accusations. It is not clear what your objections are. I do not know what you are stating are not "good reasons". I do not know which edits you consider controversial. Please comment on one edited source at a time. I had legitimate reasons for the moves I made; please discuss each source instead of making assumptions about my motives. From what I've learned in my short time editing, it is best to focus on content. My understanding is that reasons should be given for reverts. Please provide justification. I will add a subsection #2 for you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Some agreements and compromises have been forward below. May I suggest that the article is updated in accordance with those agreements now. I also request that each edit is implemented as separate and isolated edit with the edit summary referring to the edit number i.e. "Edit #2" etc. Once that is done archive the settled issue and then we can re-focus on the outstanding issues. Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the article with the agreements/ compromises that were made below using the corresponding Edit # as the edit summary and made each edit separate. Once the outstanding issues (such as Edit #1, #5, #12, etc.) are settled, the sources can be rearranged later. Someone963852 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't gotten to that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #1

1. I removed the 2015 Census Report: the Census Bureau states that the 1982 to 2000 date range does not represent an opinion of the Census Bureau, official or otherwise. "Although the 1982-2000 birth cohort was used one time in a 2015 news release for expediency, the U.S. Census Bureau does not officially use the term "millennials" to define a cohort. There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends, and from our understanding, year ranges can vary substantially depending on the researcher that is defining the cohort." This unpublished quote is consistent with The Atlantic and the 2017 Census report. I feel like we're getting distracted by semantics. ~~See edit 14 below.~~
a) What precise language from the Census Bureau would you have to see in a publication for you to conclude they have no opinion on millennials?
b) If this date range did represent an opinion, why do you believe this should be given weight considering its context? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed above and we have established that personal correspondence is not an acceptable source. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You have stated why you believe it represents an opinion, you have said nothing to explain why you feel one "opinion" in 2015 should be given weight considering its context.

I have stated that my personal correspondence is not a "source", it was meant to verify an existing source. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Can combine the 2015, 2017, and Atlantic sources by saying that the "US Census Bureau describes Millennials as born between 1982-2000 in a 2015 report and between 1982-1998 in a 2017 report, but states that they do not define Millennials and that there are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends." Someone963852 (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

If it must be included, maybe: "The US Census Bureau used the birth years 1982 to 2000 one time in a 2015 news release to describe millennials, but they have stated that 'there is no official start and end date for when millennials were born' and they do not define millennials." Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively above. The 2017 report does not discuss millenials, it discusses 18–34 year-olds, which the US Census Bureau rightly equates with the millenial generation. That report could have come a year earlier and later and would still say the same thing. Unless the US Census Bureau has been inconsistent in this regard i.e. has demonstrably used a different age range to explicitly discuss millenials (rather than discussing a particular age group) then I do not see this source as being WP:UNDUE. If you want to note that they don't have an official definition that's an acceptable compromise to me. Betty Logan (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Does this mean you support my proposed statement above?

You have not answered the question of why you believe that an age range that the Census Bureau used one time in a 2015 news release for expediency should be given weight. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't object to saying the range was used in a 2015 report and that they do not have an official definition, but we cannot quote unpublished correspondence. This isn't a trust issue: I believe you. But it is not verifiable so we cannot use the quote. Betty Logan (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: So, the only piece in my above proposed quote which you object to is "one time". This is the only original research which uses the quote from my correspondence. I just found the following in a blog by a Census Bureau employee: "The Census Bureau does not provide guidance on which years are included in the millennial generation, and many definitions are used by the public. For the purposes of this blog, I use the term “millennials” to encompass those born between 1982 and 2000." The word "guidance" sounds to me like it would include "unofficial opinions". I think it's clear from this employee's blog and everything else the Census Bureau has stated about generation date ranges that the 2015 report also simply used the term "millennials" to describe a 1982 to 2000 cohort of young people for the purposes of the 2015 press release. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Either way (with or without the 'one time') is fine with me. I don't believe the average Wiki reader will be misled by it, but I could be wrong. Someone963852 (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

What about this: "The U.S. Census Bureau used the birth years 1982 to 2000 in a 2015 news release to describe millennials, but they have stated that 'there is no official start and end date for when millennials were born' and they do not define millennials. In addition, Sandra Colby of the Census Bureau's Population Division wrote that 'the Census Bureau does not provide guidance on which years are included in the millennial generation.'"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the first sentence, but feel like the Sandra Colby sentence is a bit repetitive. Are there any other post-2015 news releases from the US Census Bureau that use another date range? Someone963852 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I haven't seen anything different. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, from The Washington Post: "[T]he Census Bureau public relations people, being public relations people, know that TRENDS CONTINUE' isn't a great headline. Instead they went with this: 'Millennials Outnumber Baby Boomers and Are Far More Diverse, Census Bureau Reports.' And sure enough, that angle found traction." [1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Could replace the Sandra Colby sentence with "Philip Bump, writing for the Washington Post, alleged that the Census Bureau's public relations team only used the popular term "millennials" in the headline of their press release in order to draw more attention to the story." Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Between the Sandra Colby one and the Philip Bump one, the Sandra one is better. Someone963852 (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Should we add this sentence: "The U.S. Census Bureau used the birth years 1982 to 2000 in a 2015 news release to describe millennials, but they have stated that 'there is no official start and end date for when millennials were born' and they do not define millennials." since I believe we all agree on adding the 2015 news release but stating that they do not define millennials? Someone963852 (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly an improvement over what's there now. It may actually be better to include this information stating that the Census does not define millennials rather than leaving out the Census entirely. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You can go ahead and edit it. Make sure to include the source where it says that the US Census Bureau does not define millennials. Someone963852 (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

How's that? [2] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

[3] Looks good to me. Someone963852 (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It hadn't occurred to me to just include the Sandra Colby and Philip Bump Washington Post stories as references without adding text. I have done that now. [4] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #2

2. Updated Nielsen source (A), removed Metlife source (B); no consistent up-to-date Metlife date range found [5] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

OK. I am convinced that Metlife is out of date and Nielsen has revised its definition meaning the late 1970s dates are no longer corroborated. However if that is the cases the information should be simply removed rather than leaving it in the article unsourced. If you want to retain the info then it is better to retain the sources it came from too. Betty Logan (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I left the information in the article out of respect for the editor(s) who decided to include it who may want to find better sources. I have no opinion on whether to keep it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed the "Minority of researchers..." statement [6] and updated the Nielsen source per the original edit [7]. Are we keeping or removing the 2009 MetLife source? Someone963852 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say remove MetLife altogether until it is clear what date range they are using now. I believe the Nielsen sentence should be in the past tense. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The tenses to use and whether to include the years of the sources is something we can address later. I think, for example, something like "as of 2019 Pew uses 1981 to 1996" is worth considering. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I noticed that too. Some sources have the year and "report," some use the "use/uses", etc. You can remove the MetLife one since it's outdated (2009). Someone963852 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed the MetLife source [8]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit 2.A

I updated Nielsen source. See above. Betty Logan, ~~why did you revert~~ do you support this edit? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I have told you already why I reverted. You removed a whole bunch of sources and reworded the section in a manner I do not consider neutral. I was not going to sift through each and every edit attempting to find the odd one that was innocuous. You made a whole sequence of interconnected edits in short succession so for that reason I regard it as a single edit and reverted it as such. Rather going around in circles why do you not just do as I suggest and list the sources on here you wish to remove with your rationale and then they can be can be discussed, not just by me but by everyone watching this page. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you object any edits listed above by Kolya Butternut? Otherwise, instead of reverting back to a different version, the single edits can be put back in. Someone963852 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, this was my second edit. What I'm hearing is that you reverted all of my edits without even reading the second one. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you reverted my edits after assuming bad faith, but you are continuing to make assumptions and disrupt this process. You are mischaracterizing my edits as non-neutral without having apparently read more than one of them. Now that I know you haven't read this second edit, I will change the above question. If you wish to collaborate here, please read the change I made to the Nielsen source and voice your opinion. If not, I will restore my edits which you have reverted without justification. While it is your responsibility to carefully consider an edit before reverting it, as a gesture of good faith I have listed my edits here on this talk page for your convenience and so that other editors may participate. All of the information you seek is here. Every edit besides #4 describes a change to a source. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone963852, looks like this is the only edit you haven't specifically commented on. Did you want to add something here? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The Nielsen edit you made looks fine to me since they revised it. Quick note, I would remove the .print from the Nielsen source url since I'm getting a print popup when opening the link. Someone963852 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit 2.B

I removed the Metlife source; no consistent up-to-date Metlife date range has been found [9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

By removing the sources the second edit makes information unverifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

There are two sources discussed here. I had started by asking you about the Nielson source. Please respond to subsection "#2 a." Regarding your comment here, I apologize but that sounds absurd. If removing the sources makes the text unverifiable, then the text should be removed. However, I would think it would be appropriate to leave it up briefly until it can be determined whether there are other sources which support the statement. You have not commented on my rationale for removing the outdated 2009 Metlife source itself. If the age itself does not in your opinion justify its removal, see that in 2017 Metlife described millennials using Pew's then current 1981 to 1997 birth year data.

Is this reformatting and copying your signature to your separated responses appropriate? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence "A minority of demographers and researchers start..." can be removed altogether. Just let the sources present themselves. Someone963852 (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I found the original MetLife source that is currently being used [10]. Since it's from 2009, if there are updated MetLife sources, then that should be used. Someone963852 (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #3

3. McCrindle uses "Gen Y" which often uses different date ranges from millennials, and the source is Australian. Moved below millennials date ranges.[11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I object to the third simply because it is a pointless edit and the previous version is more integrated. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Since this is only moving a source around, we can rearrange later. Someone963852 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware there was a distinction between the two. If that is the case then the distinction really needs to be clearer. However, I agree that this is a secondary issue and the structuring issues should be addressed after the sourcing issues. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok by me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #4

4. Separated the existing line "the majority of researchers" from the (remaining) sources described in the same paragraph which are cited less in secondary sources than Pew. [12] There were many edits in between this diff. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I object to the fourth edit because it is an unsourced statement that promotes a non-neutral point of view. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The entire sentence ("The majority of researchers and demographers start...") can be removed altogether, in my opinion. Just let the sources do the talking. Someone963852 (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer that to be honest. Unless we actually have a source that actually uses the word "majority" then we are using Wikipedia's voice to do the talking which is original research. Betty Logan (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok by me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed it [13] per above. I also removed the related sentence here [14]. Someone963852 (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #5

5. Added media references to Pew. Which should be kept? [15] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I object to the fifth because the citations don't actually reference a claim in the article, so are superfluous to requirements. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Just list the major media outlets/periodicals and the ranges they all use (1981-1996) without references to Pew. Someone963852 (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, are you saying that you think the SYZYGY press release distributed by PR Newsire described in Edit #12 is more appropriate and more informative to readers than any of the stories about Pew Research Center published by Time magazine, The New York Times, Business Insider, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, The Los Angeles Times, NBC's Today, The Huffington Post, USA Today and many many others? Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

And you think these citations are less appropriate than the outdated 2013 Time magazine article described in Edit #6 which states "Millennials consist, depending on whom you ask, of people born from 1980 to 2000."? Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The point here is that these news outlets have simply adopted Pew's definition. That's a not a surprise considering Pew is one of the leading authorities in this area. I don't question Pew's eminence, and I doubt most of our readers do either, which is why I don't think we need to list every media outlet that refers to it. I think this is simply a case of source WP:OVERKILL. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I will repeat what I said to you at 07:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC) above, "As I stated in the edit summary, these sources can be trimmed down. I put a huge list as a starting point." You stated, it's "not a surprise" that news outlets have adopted Pew's definition? You believe that it would not be appropriate to include verifiable information from reliable sources in this article which readers may expect to find, but it would be appropriate to include an insignificant minority viewpoint held by an obscure adherent because readers may be surprised to find that information?

You have not commented on the text I added to this edit: " Many major media outlets and periodicals have cited Pew's date ranges to define millennials". Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

We could trim down the major media outlets/periodicals list to just include the Time magazine (to agree with edit #6) and two others. Someone963852 (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

So, the significance of all of these sources is that they're reporting on Pew's definition as though it is authoritative. I suppose we could include some text from the articles like "(Time, NYT) reported that Pew finally ended the mystery of when millennials were born".

Other news articles used the 1981 to 1996 range without referencing "Pew" directly: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I looked through the sources provided in your original edit [21] and yeah, Time [22], The New York Times [23], Business Insider [24], Newsweek [25], The Wall Street Journal [26], Reuters [27], NBC's Today [28], The Huffington Post [29], USA Today [30] like you stated all cited Pew's ranges. So I agree that we can add a sentence stating: "Many major media outlets and periodicals have adopted Pew's date ranges to define millennials, including Time Magazine, (and two or three other sources)." Regarding the sources above that you provided that don't mention Pew (Los Angeles Times [31], PBS [32], CBS [33], ABC Australia [34]), we can't say that they adopted or cited Pew's date ranges, but can add another separate sentence stating that "Los Angeles Times, PBS, CBS, and ABC Australia all use 1981-1996 to define millennials." The two Washington Post articles are behind a paywall, so I can't access them. Someone963852 (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Try the archived versions:[35], [36]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I updated Edit #5 here: [37], and here: [38] I made the new edit adding the media sources who used 1981 to 1996 without mentioning "Pew." Maybe we should add a new subsection to discuss the structuring issues. We could order the sources by year and frequency of use. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I updated the Pew source to 2019. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

"As of 2019, the Pew Research Center defines...", should it be "As of March 2018"? And sure, let's start a new subsection to discuss the structuring issue/ rearrangement of the sources. Someone963852 (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The initial news release was in March 2018, but they updated it in January 2019: [39]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #6

6. Removed out-of-date Time date range after adding 2018 Time source [40] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I object to the sixth because an article about Pew's definition of a millenial does not invalidate the claim "Millennials consist, depending on whom you ask, of people born from 1980 to 2000." The latter stills holds true. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay with this edit since this is an old Time article (2013) that even states that the ranges depend on whom you ask. Later Time articles use 1981-1996 as presented in edit #5. Someone963852 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, see WP:RSUW, "Age of the source and rate of change of the subject". The date ranges used have changed very quickly over the last several years. You are correct that Time's current opinion of what defines a millennial does not invalidate their observation that in 2013 Millennials were described as people born from 1980 to 2000 depending on whom you asked, but it's pointless and inappropriate to include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I am convinced it is superfluous to the article. Since Time is clearly is not giving their own opinion here and are non-specific about whose opinions they are actually giving then we can probably lose it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Restored the edit here: [41] Someone963852 (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #7

7. Removed "Survivor" reference. Recentism? Weight? These dates do not include 1983, and were probably chosen by contestants' age.[42] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removing the 9th. It is not defining the term "millenial" in any meaningful way. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No problems with removing the Survivor reference since it's trivial. Someone963852 (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Per above, removed it here [43] Someone963852 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #8

8. Removed old PwC reference which is contradicted by Fortune This could just be bad writing by Fortune. We could include the 1980 to 1995 range, but it would be better to find another secondary source, especially considering this primary source is from 2013. [44] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The eighth is just plain ridiculous. PWC considers millenials to be born between 1980 and 1995 but Fortune uses Pew's definition of a millenial in a story about PWC, and you claim this invalidates PWC's definition?? Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The PwC source can be kept, but should be updated if a new article comes out from PwC. Someone963852 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, my point was that Fortune wrote a story about a PwC report and yet instead of using the date range used by PwC itself in their report they used dates from Pew. Considering that the PwC report was written in 2013 and the Fortune story was written in 2018, there's plenty of reason to doubt the accuracy of the PwC date range used in this Wikipedia article. Upon further research I have found that my decision to remove the outdated PwC date range was correct. In 2017 PwC used 1981 to 1995 to define millennials. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Good research, that 2017 PwC source should be used instead of the old one. Someone963852 (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. Let's just cut to the later PWC source. We don't need the middle man which is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS. Betty Logan (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Made the edit here: [45] Someone963852 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #9

9. Move Ernst & Young below Pew which uses same date range. [46] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose breaking out the Ernst & Young definition. All it does is fragment the article to no obvious benefit. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Like edit #3, we can move the sources around later. Someone963852 (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #10

10. Removed out-of-date Goldman Sachs reference. [47] [48] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Should use the updated Goldman Sachs article that you provided in the edit summary Someone963852 (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel very comfortable using the Goldman Sachs source where an interviewee states "today’s teenagers through 23-year olds" in 2018. Maybe it would be better to keep looking rather than citing "1994" as a millennials end date indirectly from this interview. I'll look. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Here in 2015 Goldman Sachs is using the Pew dates which were available that year. I don't know if we can show a consistent up-to-date date range used by them, but we can keep looking. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Those are valid points, I have no objections to edit #10 then. Someone963852 (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Goldman Sachs have revised their definition so do not oppose removing the older reference. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Please see my above comments which I have just moved to this subsection. 02:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk)

I agree with removing the Goldman Sachs source, but GS have explicitly confirmed they do not have a consistent position. In that 2015 source on page 11 they state "For purposes of this report, our generational cutoffs are based on those outlined by Pew Research Center, and we acknowledge that there is no clear consensus on the cutoff date between Millennials and Gen-Z." Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: by this logic the Census Bureau's date range should be removed as well. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed per above discussion: [49]. Someone963852 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #11

11. Updated Resolution Foundation date range. [50] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the Resolution Foundation appears to have revised its definition. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No objections here per above. Someone963852 (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Restored the edit here [51]. We can rearrange the sources around later. Someone963852 (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #12

12. Removed SYZYGY source. I am being quick to judge here. Is this reliable source? It could just be foreign but it seems obscure. If it is German I would consider researching more German sources. Possibly group with other non-US sources. [52] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Can keep the source

Other than that, the rest of the edits look fine to me. Once the issues with the sources are resolved, then the sources can be rearranged later. Someone963852 (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone963852, I have no specific objection to keeping 12 other than that I personally know nothing about the source, but I would like to hear more (later). Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with removing SYZYGY. It is being distributed by a news agency service so obviously not "obscure" by definition. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, the word "obscure" is relative. PR Newsire isn't exactly The New York Times. It's a distributor of press releases. The source here is just a press release written by SYZYGY itself. It looks like they conducted a single survey of millennials and never used the 1981 to 1998 date range again. See WP:RSUW; "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". I have decided to oppose this source. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions about the SYZYGY source either way, so I'm fine with removing it due to those reasons. Someone963852 (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

SYZYGY states "In 2016, the last Millennial entered adulthood and the Millennial cohort (born 1981-98)...". They provide a clear date range. Just because you haven't heard of an outlet does not make them "obscure". There are English-language sources from all over the world that meet WP:RS criteria that we doubtless have not heard of. The fact a news agency considers it legitimate enough to redistribute trumps "obscure because I have not heard of it" IMO. If you want to test its RS criteria more thoroughly I am open to that, but it must be done within standard RS criteria. I have already made the suggestion that you should list the sources you wish to remove so they could be examined in more detail and this source would be an example of that. I am not saying I want to keep it, I am simply saying you need to make a stronger case for removing it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: the burden is not on me to provide a strong case for every source I wish to remove. A stronger case must be made for why each source should be included.

SYZYGY is not "obscure because I have not heard of it", it is obscure because no evidence has been provided that any major or even lesser media outlet has written about SYZYGY or its survey (besides The Des Moines Register). The burden is on the editor who wishes to include a source. Once that has been met the burden then shifts to the editor who wishes to remove it. If you believe the 1981 to 1998 date range is a significant minority viewpoint then you should be able to find a prominent adherent who holds this view. Otherwise it should be removed. If you have an objection to me removing it, that means that you are saying that you want to keep it. If you do not want to keep it then I can remove it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

PR Newswire has been discussed at WP:RS/N. Press releases are considered primary sources. SYZYGY is a primary source of questionable authority. Do you still want to keep this source? I would like to remove all references to SYZYGY in the article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You could post the SYZYGY source to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get advice and others' opinions. Someone963852 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I made an attempt: [53] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

After receiving comments at the RS Noticeboard, I added SYZYGY to the NPOV Noticeboard here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed SYZYGY based on above NPOV Noticeboard discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #13

13. Thai source uses "Gen Y". Grouped with other Gen Y source. Unsure of source reliability. [54] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose the 13th edit because it conflates date ranges maing it more confusing. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Like edit #3 and #9, can rearrange later. Someone963852 (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #14

14. ~~Removed Chamber of Commerce source. This does not represent an opinion. Undue weight. We should discuss this together with the Census dates. [55]~~ Upon further research I see that the Chamber of Commerce Foundation has continued to use the 1980 to 1999 date range beyond the 2012 report and until the present. Update source. [56] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Someone963852, I have withdrawn my proposed edit #14, see above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose the 14th usage in this context represents an opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC

@Betty Logan: Please see my above comments which I have just moved to this subsection. 02:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk)

Kolya Butternut you can go ahead and update the old Chamber of Commerce source to the new one that you found. Someone963852 (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Done [57]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Added "a business-oriented lobbying group" to distinguish between US Chamber of Commerce and US Department of Commerce [58]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #15

15. Here I made the edit to the sentence which you objected to and moved the PIRG source and Nielsen with similar sources. [59] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose the 15th because it is original research to make claims based on your own quantitative assessment. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The "The majority of researchers and demographers start..." sentence can be removed altogether since it's opinion based. Someone963852 (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur as well. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This is similar to Edit #4. Removed it here [60] and the related sentence here [61]. Someone963852 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #16

16. Removed the word "millennials" from Census demographics which gives undue weight to this classification. The Census does not officially use the term to define a cohort; this is misleading. [62] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose the 16th because the US Census Bureau clearly use the word "millenial" in referring to those born between 198 and 2000. This issue is already discussed at depth above. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Can combine the 2015, 2017, and Atlantic sources by saying that the "US Census Bureau describes Millennials as born between 1982-2000 in a 2015 report and between 1982-1998 in a 2017 report, but states that there are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends." Someone963852 (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone963852, this edit was actually in the "Demographics" section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

My bad. I'm fine with keeping the word 'millennials' in there. Edit #1 can clarify that the US Census Bureau does not define millennials. Someone963852 (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

That is an acceptable compromise to me. The source shouldn't be misrepresented but I am OK with qualifying the USCB's official stance. Betty Logan (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #17

17. PIRG studies are from 2014. Could use an updated secondary source. [63] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No objections, this edit can be restored. Someone963852 (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Restored the edit here [64] Someone963852 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit #18

18. Moved Carlson source which uses uncommon term "New Boomers" below "Gen Y" section [65] Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I quite like this edit.

Now I have given you what you asked for will you please give me what I asked for i.e. a list of sources you want to remove along with the reasons please. We can then discuss them in more detail and bring in other editors on the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No objections, can be restored. Someone963852 (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe we all agree on this one, so I made the update here: [66] Someone963852 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Structure of section and arrangement of sources

Now that we have reached consensus on most edits we may discuss structure. (We're still waiting on Edit #12.) I believe we need to address:

Grouping sources by similar date range.
Prioritizing by popularity of date range.
Grouping/prioritizing by date of source.
Grouping/prioritizing by name of cohort.
Grouping/Prioritizing by type and reliability of source, and whether primary or secondary.
Language: past/present tense, whether to say "used in a report" or "defines", etc.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I would order them by ending date ranges, from earliest to latest. Here's my proposed arrangement of the sources currently on the article: [67] Note that I removed the "He noted that the millennials' range beginning in 1982 would point to the next generation's window starting between 2000 and 2006." line since it's redundant to the sentences preceding it. Thoughts? Someone963852 (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm thinking about "prominence of placement" as discussed in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The sources cited first might be considered more prominently placed. Also, I noticed that The Resolution Foundation line is out of order. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I moved it behind the MSW Research source. How would you like to see the sources reordered? Someone963852 (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I edit your sandbox by adding my own section? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to do so. Also, using the Visual Editor will make it so much easier. Someone963852 (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I wrote a draft: [68] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a new source to your sandbox without adding it to the article. Let me know if you think I've accurately represented the source. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no problems with your proposed structuring or addition. I noticed that the Washington Post is mentioned twice. Should it be swapped for another source citing Pew? Someone963852 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I pasted the "proposal 2" section from your sandbox [69] exactly as it was to create this new revision [70]. There was a lot of copy/pasting so hopefully it's intact.

I did consider not using the Washington Post twice, but I didn't really like the other sources as much. I'd have to look again to describe exactly why. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Was just curious, but I'm fine with it. Someone963852 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I liked leading with the generalized dictionary definition, but notice the example of "millennials" Webster used in a sentence [71]:

Recent Examples on the Web: Adjective
According to Pew Research Center, anyone born in 1997 and after is a part of this new and emerging generation, aka Gen Z, while anyone born between 1981 and 1996 is considered a millennial.
— Yerin Kim, Seventeen, "How Gen Z and Millennials Are Totally Different," 17 Jan. 2019

Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting; not a big surprise that many cite Pew or use Pew as examples. Somehow going through the examples from the dictionary link led me to [72] where the American Psychological Association ends millennials at 1996 and start Generation Z at 1997. Someone963852 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I only see the ages described. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This one from August 2018 includes the years:[73] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's on the page 3 footnotes, but I guess 21 years old in 2018 could either mean turning 21 (1997) or already 21 (1996). And nice find, that's more specific. Someone963852 (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You could add it in front of Ernst & Young? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Done [74]. Someone963852 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I am currently involved in a protracted legal battle with my local council and the case will be getting heard on Monday. I will try to look in now and then over the next few days but for obvious reasons my time is extremely limited. If you can get a version sorted out in your sandbox I will look over it after the weekend and then weigh in with any opinions I may have. Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Here you go [75]. Please ignore the sections below the blank lines as those were just revisions. Someone963852 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox versions

First of all I would like to thank everyone for being so patient. I do realize that you were waiting on me to review the proposals in the sandbox, and this was held up by a major real-life issue. Anyway, I think we are making progress. I think the sandbox version is generally okay but I felt there was structural issues. I have re-drafted the proposal here: User:Someone963852/sandbox#Date_and_age_range_definitions,_Betty_Logan_proposal.

Now, I don't expect that to be the end word but we now both have a clear position so we can move forward reconciling the different versions. There are only two major content changes. I have re-worded the Merriam-Webster definition to match the actual wording in the dictionary, and I also pulled the Syzygy source. Given that other far stronger sources "absorb" its date range then I think we can get by without the source (I know you guys contested it so I don't think I will get too much push back on that one). You will also see that that I have attempted to impose a "thematic" order on the dates. I think this will easier to absorb for readers.

Anyway, let me know what you think and we will try to get this section wrapped up in the next few days. Once this is done then I think the lead will be much easier to write. Betty Logan (talk) 08:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, Please see the current date and age range section which has been updated since we used our sandbox version. I changed the definition to illustrate the meaning of the term "millennials", but we could include both definitions if you want."Oxford Living Dictionaries describes a millennial as 'a person reaching young adulthood in the early 21st century', or as Merriam-Webster Online describes, 'a person born in the 1980s or 1990s.'" I don't like the word "official" in the following sentence. It's not clear what that means. "Consensus" would be better than "official", but I would prefer not to editorialize/synthesize and just quote what the sources say. I don't like the introductory sentences which compare the other date ranges to 1981 to 1996 because they may be out of date. We don't know that they decided "retain" the 1996 end date. Pew didn't use 1996 in 2016. I think it would be better not to comment and just state the fact that these organizations used the date ranges they used and the years they used them. If anything, it would probably be a good idea to state that "more up to date information is not available" to make clear that these date ranges do not necessarily reflect different opinions; they could just be out of date. It might also be good to mention that "Generation Y" is often used by countries outside the U.S." Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I find the Oxford Dictionaries definition very vague. I don't oppose including it but the section would benefit from a general dictionary definition that includes actual dates so on that basis I have a preference for including the Merriam one too. I can live with "consensus". If you don't like the word "retain" we can drop that too although I think you are misinterpreting it in this context. It is being used semantically to add some flow to the section structure which I find very fragmented currently, but there other ways to add cohesion to the section. As for "Gen Y", we can't state it is "often" used outside the US unless we have a source to that effect. For example, in the UK I have never even heard the phrase "Generation Y", and anecdotally would say that "millenial" is used exclusively. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't really know that there isn't consensus though. Many of these organizations could use the date ranges they use not because it represents their opinion of what a millennial is, but because it is a useful way for them to measure different groups of people. Many of the organizations may have changed their date range since the last time they were published years ago. But if you want to begin the section with a couple of summarizing sentences that would be ok, but I would suggest writing that different groups "have used different date ranges" without editorializing. It may be that there is general agreement in the United states for one definition and other countries may have their own consensus definition. If you want to find more sources for Gen Y outside of the U.S. that would be fine. Or those few sentences could simply be introduced by stating that "the term Generation Y is used in Australia by McCrindle", etc. We may not be able synthesize ourselves that Gen Y often uses different dates without finding a source. Also, I never did investigate Asia Business Unit of Corporate Directions, Inc to determine whether it deserves weight.

The paragraphs in the section are already grouped thematically. I could see beginning with the two dictionary definitions to introduce the concept of a millennial as a person coming of age early in the new millennium and the date ranges which correlate with that, and following with:

Pew Research Center has observed that "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." Jonathan Rauch, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote for The Economist in 2018 that "generations are squishy concepts", but the 1981 to 1996 birth cohort is a "widely accepted" definition for millennials.

The birth years of 1981 to 1996 were used in 2019 to define millennials by PBS,[26] CBS,[27] ABC Australia,[28] The Washington Post,[29] and The Washington Times.[30] In 2018 they were used by The Los Angeles Times.

As of 2019, the Pew Research Center defines....

Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You're correct the Harvard George Masnick source says ending birth date is 2004 even though the chart appears to go all the way to 2005.Carfree82 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As you are new to this long and in-depth discussion, please seek consensus before adding sources. Please find secondary sources for George Masnick, who uses unusual date ranges for all of his generation definitions. I don't believe weight should be given to this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

George Masnick

Why has the George Masnick source been reverted on the basis of "undue weight"? Masnick is extensively published in this area, and the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University has adopted his position. Moreover, his definition for the end range is aligned with Strauss and Howe. None of the dates he uses lie outside the established range limits either. Considering that the article includes the dates by other academics and authors and organizations that are no more reputable than the JCHS I don't see how Masnick's viewpoint can be excluded on the basis of WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The other primary sources are notable because they appear in major secondary sources discussing millennial definitions (although many of these are not cited). You say he is extensively published. Is this limited to the subject of housing? Some of the sources, like the Asia Business Unit of Corporate Directions, Inc, should be removed, so they shouldn't be used for comparison. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The field of housing is extensive and takes in topic areas such as population studies and migration. The JCHS was established to "address intellectual and policy issues confronting a nation experiencing widespread demographic, economic and social change." That is certainly more relevant to this article than the likes of MSW Research (a brand marketing organization) and the American Psychological Association. Betty Logan (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said, major secondary sources found the other organizations to be notable enough to write about when discussing millennial definitions. The American Psychological Association is so much more significant than one department of Harvard. If you want JCHS included please provide evidence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I would, however, support removing some marketing information. We could have a line describing how marketing companies categorize generations for survey purposes, etc., but we don't need to include all of these date ranges as if they define millennials beyond their own organizations. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There are several reputable secondary sources citing Masnick in this area. take The Atlantic for example; fair enough, he has actually changed his opinion since 2014 but the point here is that his opinion was still considered authoritative enough to consult for The Atlantic. We both know that if he favored a 1996 end date he'd be in the article by now so I am prepared to initiate an RFC over this and let the community decide. Betty Logan (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions like that. The 1996 dates have made it into the article for good reason. You have demonstrated bias against my edits from the beginning; please don't become uncivil again. The Atlantic article is not serious. It is only authoritative for the opinions of the people quoted. The journalist even calls Masnick's Generation Y made up. If Masnick is notable there have got to be better sources. I feel like you've held my edits to a standard you do not hold your own to. I asked for evidence; let's not fight. I would support an RfC, but including several of the sources not just Masnick. We're not ready for that though. I would, however, suggest wrapping up our other discussions before getting into new subjects. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You do not get to unilaterally determine the sequence in which various issues are resolved, and your actions are now making it extremely difficult to assume good faith. The WP:CIVILITY policy is not a shield for you to hide behind. The Atlantic may have adopted a humorous tone but it still undertook research and consulted authorities for its article; we are not actually quoting The Atlantic but using it merely to establish the significance of Masnick's opinion. A quick Google also reveals Masnick is widely quoted, far more widely than some of the sources you have added supporting the 1996 end date. This was the requirement you laid down and now you are attempting move the goalposts. I have not stood in your way when you added these sources, but you are now denying the same courtesy that was extended to your edits to another editor. Betty Logan ([[User talk:Betty

Logan|talk]]) 05:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop making accusations. I have asked you to assume good faith and instead you are assuming the worst, so now I have to explain my intentions which you could have considered if you had assumed good faith. You just accused me of trying to unilaterally determine the sequence in which issues are resolved. I literally made a suggestion. I have not attempted to move goalposts. I could have been more precise, but I think it could have been assumed that I was looking for major secondary sources which validated his definition of millennials. I feel like I'm being intimidated. It is disingenuous to suggest that you were more welcoming to my edits than I have been to Carfree82. The first thing you did was revert my edits and accuse me of POV pushing. You then demanded that I give you explanations for my edits in a particular way that you preferred without looking at my reasons already given or even reading more than one of edits. Carfree82 (unintentionally) misrepresented a source and provided an old source. They are an apparently new editor, but I have not made accusations when they have looked for sources which seemingly support their opinion. You are entitled to your feelings if you feel frustrated, but I don't want to repeatedly ask you to be civil and receive even more accusations. If it continues I will make a complaint. I would like to continue to ask questions. Your statements are vague so it is necessary. But I will remind you how I have given you so very much information to convince you of my sources. I think my request for a minimum of two secondary sources which validate Masnick's definition of millennials is a reasonable request. I will add that it is a request not a demand. I see this as part of the learning process. Now for the questions. I found 581 results when I googled "george masnick" "millennials" and on a quick glance I did't see noteworthy secondary sources, but that is just a quick glance. Which sources that I added do you feel are quoted at a similar level? I will consider that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI Carfree82 was a sock. [76] Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of millennials

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: [77][78][79]. Daß Wölf 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. Daß Wölf 00:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Strauss-Howe generational theory

@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: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zC7ur00AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra. 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)

Millennials is not capitalized

Nerd271, could you go through your edit[80] 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:[81] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

And a reference to the AP style guide from Northeastern University: [82] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Historical knowledge section needs better sources.

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)

Huh?

WP:NOTFORUM

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 70.89.176.249 (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)