This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Demographics (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Demographics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DemographicsWikipedia:WikiProject DemographicsTemplate:WikiProject DemographicsDemographics articles Geography B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs Sociology B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Statistics B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Richie wright1980 has made repeated changes to the date range in the lead to incorporate 1980, on the grounds that the pre-existing version misrepresents the date range section in the article. There is no official definition—you can find definitions ranging 1980–2004—but there are several sources in the article explicitly citing 1981–1996 as the most common frame (see second paragraph at Millennials#Date_and_age_range_definitions). So the phrase "Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1981 to 1996" is entirely consistent with the date range section.

Richie wright1980 has repeatedly added 1980 to the typical definition and added sources to this effect; however, his sources don't actually corroborate his claim. Yes, they provide sourcing for the 1980 date, but not for the claim that 1980 is the most common starting date. The problem here is not the "pedantry" of those of us reverting, but rather that of WP:SYNTHESIS by Richie wight1980, because he is essentially clumping together a bunch of sources that cite 1980 and drawing his own inferences from that.

If you look through the discussion archives you will see that I have consistently argued against a reductionist perspective at this article; there have been several editors who just wanted to go with the 1981–1996 range, but in the absence of an official definition I have argued for including the outlier years too. However, in the interests of neutrality and due weight it is important to make clear what the typical range is and what the outlier years are. Either way, the existing wording was established by an RFC at Talk:Millennials/Archive_14#RfC_about_the_date_range_in_the_lead_section so the wording should not be unilaterally changed without a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Additionally, the sources given (^[1][2][3][4]) aren't at all compelling. WP:MEDIUM isn't a reliable source, and two of the three others aren't remotely authoritative. McCrindle is noteworthy, but since he uses 15-year generations with start-years ending in "0" or "5", he typically doesn't agree with the majority. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Within the 'Date and age range definitions' section of the article, it is made clear that the Oxford Living Dictionaries describes a millennial as a person "born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s”. whilst Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines millennial as "a person born in the 1980s or 1990s. These dictionaries do not specify exact years.

The section goes on to further describe Jonathan Rauch's definition of 1981 to 1996 and Reuters argument that 1981 is the common starting point. I have not argued against that anywhwere nor made edits to counter that.

However, the section also goes on to describe that Australia's McCrindle Research uses 1980–1994 as well as Jean Twenge. It also mentions that CNN sometimes use 1980–2000.

There is also further mention of the 2009 report by Flynn who analysed the results of the Raven's Progressive Matrices test for British fourteen-year-olds from 1980 to 2008. Therefore, classifying that date range as a generation.

You will note my most recent edit “Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1980 (or more commonly 1981) to 1996”.

This is entirely consistent with the article and is entirely consistent with real world researchers. There is no re-definition going on here or personal opinion. My edits are entirely factual statements and there is no need to revert them. They can be further clarified to suggest that 1980 is 'sometimes' used as the starting point if necesarry to avoid any confusion.

However, what I think is happening here is people are averse to 1980 being used within the lede at all and that is not based on fact but personal opinion.

Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, the issue is not one of sources providing different dates (there are many different sources providing different date ranges), but rather that there are two high-quality sources that explicitly state 1981–1996 is a "widely accepted definition"—a literature review also corroborates that this is the most frequently cited range, not 1980–1996. None of the sources you have offered comment on the prevalence of 1980. Stating that 1981–1996 is the most typical definition is consistent with the date range section, and other start/end dates that fall outside of this range are captured by the broader definition, so I reject your argument as a misapplication of WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you could solve that by simply changing the sentence to Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years. The generation is most typically defined as people born from 1981 to 1996, however a minority of researchers use 1980 as a starting point.

The article uses four noteworthy sources of 1980 being used: McCrindle Research, Jean Twenge, CNN and Flynn's research.

That is equal to the number of high quality sources that you have attributed to in your last comment.

Therefore, my amended and proposed sentence in the lede is entirely factual.Richie wright1980 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"early 1980s as starting birth years" already includes 1980; we don't need to single out 1980 by saying a "minority of researchers use 1980". See WP:UNDUE: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all... Some1 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same thing that has happened over on the Generation Z article with a minority of sources using 1995/1996 as starting points. Putting "Early 1980's" in the introduction is good enough for me, at least. The widely used year range for Millennials has been 1981-1996 for years now. Zillennial (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why mention early 1980s at all then? What does that even mean? 1980,1981,1982,1983,1984? Remove it and specify 1980 and 1981 as the starting points usage. Early 1980s is vague.Richie wright1980 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it isn't a tiny minority at all using 1980. Lots more sources can be provided quite easily. "Early 1980s" is vague and could mean literally anything. It isn't encyclopedic and there is no reason why that should stand and using 1980 with numerous sources to back it up should not stand. It's nonsensical.Richie wright1980 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "the early 1980s" and replacing it with 1980 would not reflect the fuzzy nature of the demarcation, and precludes other years such as 1982 and even 1983, which are occasionally used. Wikipedia is not being vague, it is describing a vague definition. There are several different start points ranging 1980–1983 and several different end points ranging 1995–2004, which is why the lead uses the language it does. The lead should not be giving undue weight to the most extreme outliers. Wikipedia's approach is not too dissimilar to Britannica's—is Britannica "nonsensical" and "unencylopedic"? Betty Logan (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is a poor example of an encyclopedia, with unverified content. Dimadick (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to improve the opening paragraph of the article to:

"Millennials, also known as Generation Y or Gen Y, are the demographic cohort following Generation X and preceding Generation Z. There are no precise or set definitions although researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years. It has been argued that millennials are typically defined as the generation born between 1981 to 1996, although 1980 has also been used as the earliest starting birth year."

A couple of people here have suggested that 1981 is the 'widely' accepted starting birth year and the lede should not contain any reference to 1980 at all. They cite two sources to support this case (^[1][2]). Only one of these sources supports this assertion while the other is out of date and not in support of this assertion in any case. There are countless examples of 1980 now being used as the starting year and it does not stand up to scrutiny that 1980 should be excluded from the lede. In any case, the article actually explicitly references 1980 as an alternative starting birth year within the "Date and age range definitions" section.

I propose to improve and clarify the lede based on the latest information and information already covered within the article. Therefore, making it more encyclopedic.Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The first paragraph of the introduction is OK as it is. Nerd271 (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The statement that "1981 is the 'widely' accepted starting birth year" is based on two references - one of which is out of date and does not support that statement anyway. It is a leap of faith to suggest that it is 'widely accepted' and it is not based on fact but only on one argument found in one source. There are multiple sources using 1980 as the starting year, some of which claim that 1980 is also "widely accepted starting birth year". Some respected sources claim that 1980 is the starting year. Therefore, to suggest that it is 'widely' accepted is a subjective statement and is disputed. All I have suggested is to cite 1980 as the 'earliest' starting birth year. This is factually correct and is consistent with the facts withtout actually engaging in the real world disagreement. It is perfectly reasonable.

  See these sources which cite 1980 as the starting birth year....

  https://statushero.com/blog/the-geriatric-millenial

  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335196131_Transformasi_perpustakaan_untuk_generasi_millenial_menuju_revolusi_industri_40

  https://medicfootprints.org/are-millenials-shaping-the-nhs

  https://commons.emich.edu/loexconf2006/6

  https://www.planday.com/blog/attract-millennial-customers

  https://www.emotionallyhealthy.org/tag/millenial-generation

  https://mccrindle.com.au/article/topic/generation-alpha/generation-alpha-defined

  https://info.angelfishfieldwork.com/market-research-fieldwork-blog/millennials-and-market-research-online-communities-the-perfect-match

  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/millennial.asp

  https://scholarworks.merrimack.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=phs

  https://insights.gostudent.org/en/millenial-parents

  https://budgetbakers.com/millennial-money-advice-annoying

  https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=emergingwriters

  https://insurance.aon.co.uk/resource-center/Business-insights/Generation-X-vs-Millennials---What-are-the-Different-Attitudes-to-Work

  https://workforceinstitute.org/more-agility-in-a-vuca-world-with-a-millenial-mindset

  Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Contrary to the proposer's claim, the proposed wording would neither be an improvement nor clarify the definition, as discussed above at #Introducing_1980_in_the_lede for the following reasons:

1. Wikipedia is not being vague; it is defining a vague concept. There are plenty of sources that place the starting point for the demarcation between 1980 and 1983, and the end point between 1995 and 2004. That said, 1981–1996 is the most common definition. Therefore I believe the lead as it is ("Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1981 to 1996") is consistent with the reality of the demarcation. The approach used here is not dissimilar to that used by Britannica.
2. As Some1 points out in the above discussion, specially marking out 1980 as the "starting date" would give WP:UNDUE weight to an outlier. There is no special reason to single it out from other years in the early 1980s. It just looks pointy.
3. This is NOT an issue of sourcing; even though some of the sources brought forward by Richie wright1980 are dubious, others are reputable. Indeed, some of them are already used in the date range section to source the 1980 date. However, all these sources do is provide a source that some definitions begin with 1980, and do not comment on the prevalence of the 1980 date. By the same token 1982 and 1983 are also sourced in the article.
4. It is misleading to say only two sources are provided for the 1981–1996 date. This is not what is being sourced. What we are sourcing here is the specific claim that 1981–1996 is the most common date range used to define the demarcation i.e. the prevalence/dominance of the 1981–1996 date. Reuters states "Millennials are widely accepted as having been born between 1981 and 1996." The Economist doesn't say this verbatim, but says "Generations are squishy concepts, but using widely accepted definitions...Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996". Britannica is also in a similar vein, defining demarcation as 1981–1996 but conceding the definitions can vary by a couple of years.

The lead as it stands is consistent with the date ranges and the weighting of the dates outlined in the section at Millennials#Date_and_age_range_definitions. Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have added plenty of reliable sources above that support 1980 as the starting birth year - some of which claim that 1980 is in fact the widely used starting point. You are not able to argue otherwise as your whole argument is pinned on two sources only - one of which is out of date and does not support your view. Nevertheless, I am aware that other years such as 1982 and 1983 are also used. My proposed introduction does not contradict that. It makes clear that 1980 is the earliest starting birth year. That is a fact supported by plenty of sources. I am dubious as to why you would argue otherwise.Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Depending on the sources you look at, some even start Millennials as early as 1977.[1] It's an outlier, obviously, but that makes the "1980 is the earliest starting birth year" statement inaccurate. Some1 (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and amended proposal. If we take this source seriously then of course the statement that "Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years" is also factually incorrect as you have now provided a source that confirms 1977 is in use. However, in the interests of not giving undue weight to a tiny viewpoint I would be inclined to swerve it. However, 1980 is not a tiny viewpoint. Some sources claim that it is widely accepted. CNN claims that it is an alternative starting point. This is more than significant. I am willing to accept that it is not the 'earliest' possibe date. But I am not willing to concede that it should be omitted from the lede. 1980 is too significant a date given all the available sources. Therefore, the lede could be changed to: "Millennials, also known as Generation Y or Gen Y, are the demographic cohort following Generation X and preceding Generation Z. There are no set definitions although researchers and popular media tend to use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years. It has been argued that millennials are typically defined as the generation born between 1981 to 1996, although 1980 has also been used as an earlier starting birth year."

Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.Let me also correct your opening statement here: "Wikipedia is not being vague; it is defining a vague concept" Let's be absolutely clear, Wikipedia is made up of its contributors - of which includes both you, me and everyone else in collaboration. You are not the authority on Wikipedia. Language like that suggests that you have no interest in listening to other points of view. I see that you have been engaging in the same debate for at least the last 4 years. Is this subject personal to you at all? I am curious because I would suggest that it defies logic and is motivated by you attempting to gatekeep the page. May I also correct your 3rd point. Some of my sources actually do argue that 1980 is 'widely accepted'. May I also add another very reliable source that also claims 1980 is the starting year:

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-07/Ipsos%20-%20Millennial%20Myths%20and%20Realities.pdf

Not such an outlier opinion is it?

Richie wright1980 (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Betty Logan. The most commonly used year belongs in the lead, the distant second doesn't. Also note, if you look at the Date and age range definitions section of the article, there are 26 sources giving a start date of 1981, all of them more authoritative than the sources on your list. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Prove that each one is more authoritative. List them all and explain why each source is more authoritative. We can discuss each one in turn. This is also a tone deaf response. My proposal is not to contradict the popularity of 1981, rather to clarify that 1980 is the earliest starting date in use. It isn't a huge deal.Richie wright1980 (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current, long-standing lead Researchers and popular media use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1981 to 1996. summarizes the Date and age range definitions section of this article in accordance with WP:NPOV/WP:DUEWEIGHT and does so just fine. 1980s already includes the year 1980; there is no need or reason to specify that that specific year "has also been used as the earliest starting birth year." Some1 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentJust because something is longstanding does not mean it is accurate. It just means people are uneasy with changes. You are literally standing by sources that are out of date on the page. The claim that 1981 is widely accepted - above all the others - is pinned on a claim within one source only. This is not encyclopedic but a dogmatic attempt to force 1981 as the default date against all the available evidence. Wikipedia should not even claim that it is widely accepted - this is not a neutral statement but a loaded one - it should simply inform that 'it has been argued that it is widely accepted' and then present the alternatives. Besides 'early 1980s' is not an encyclopedic expression when there is plenty of evidence to justify 1980 as a good and well used example of a starting point.Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See points #3 and #4 above by Betty Logan. The point of the WP:lead is to concisely summarize the most important points of the article. There is no reason to specify that "1980 has also been used as an earlier starting birth year", the same way there is no reason to say "1983 has also been used as a later birth year". It's superfluous, unnecessary, and insignificant. Early 1980s already encompasses this. Some1 (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment* What about them? Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment* I am happy to broaden the 'Date and age range definitions' section because there are enough persuasive sources there to suggest that 1980 is being used. Certainly a lot more than some here have suggested or given credit for. It definitely is not a tiny viewpoint when the likes of CNN are suggesting it as an alternative. And certainly not insignificant or they would not have mentioned it. In that case, when the 'Date and age range definitions' has been broadened, I would suggest that there would be even more of case to single out 1980 as a starting year. Likewise, there is absolutely no need to use vague expressions such as the 'early 1980s' when there are sources available to warrant more accurate and precise wording. I find it quite bizarre why there is resistance to a simple change. It's quite religious and I would argue unnecessary. Very bizarre.Richie wright1980 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Don't see how 1980 is in any way special when it is not the most popular starting year. The lead already says early 1980s, so obviously the common starting years are limited by being 1980 or later. This is a clear example of a personal view/preference of the years being forced unduly. BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – the range seems like the better choice here. I've read the rationales by other editors and I agree with them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Richie wright1980: Please do not undertake a complete restructuring of the date range section, as you did here, without first obtaining a consensus. The way you have framed the section makes it look like there is a huge debate over whether 1980 or 1981 is the "start" date for being a millenial. As you can see from the RFC above, we do not accept that such a debate exists. The emerging consensus from the RFC is that 1980 should not receive any more prominence than the other dates, so I suggest you let that finish before initiating any more changes to the framing of dates in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for consensus on this. Plenty of reliable sources have now been provided to support 1980 as the starting birth year as proposed by media, government institutions and academics. The comments above were based on information before this was posted as you are well aware. Whether there is a huge debate or not is not for you and I to settle - the structure is organised in the way that information is presented on the internet. If you insist on reverting these edits whilst reliable information is posted you are in breach of neutral point of view and will be reported to ANI. It is simple as that. Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia runs on consensus--see WP:CONSENSUS. There's no list of exceptions. In addition to Betty Logan's points, your change makes the section longer to no clear benefit, almost certainly fails WP:UNDUE / WP:BALASP, and is either carelessly done or done in bad faith, since many of the citations don't mention 1980. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every single source of information that I have provided specifically and explicitly mentions 1980 as the starting birth year. Every single one has been carefully selected. This is entirely good faith.Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) Your restructuring makes the section unnecessary long. 2) No one is disagreeing that 1980 is being used by some as the starting birth year. The current section already states that some sources use 1980. 3) And as Betty Logan said, splitting 1981 and 1980 into separate sections makes it seem as if there's some sort of huge debate between the two years as the starting birth year, but that's not the case at all. Splitting it like that is misleading and fails WP:NPOV. 4) "Geriatric millennial" describes a proposed microgeneration in a tongue-in-cheek way, and is not meant to seriously define the Millennials generation at all. Some1 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that debate - whether real or imagined - is not for you and I to settle. we describe the alternative points of view we do not engage in them and that is precisely what I have done. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very strong case to split and clarify the 'Date and age range definitions' section to include information regarding the different starting birth years for millenials - most notably 1980 and 1981. 69 reliable sources listed below justify a separate sub-heading for 1980 and 1981 as starting birth years for millenials. This is supported by evidence from the media, government institutions and academics and is the most up to date available. Long term contributors to the page must be careful not to revert any changes based on WP:OWN. Contributors with different points of view are specifically invited here to improve the 'Date and age range definitions' section. I have included proposals for this below:Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This change was already addressed in the "Date range section" section above, and there was a clear consensus against it. In addition to the issues pointed out there, the change is biased and non-NPOV. You claim 69 sources but you have only about 30, and half of these come from the somewhat fantastic claim that any publication mentioning the obscure term "geriatric millennials" even once is endorsing this date range even if they never mention 1980. There's no evidence that the "Google/Flamingo /Ipsos" study defines "millennial" at all--it's only mentioned in passing in the HuffPo-UK article (not the other two sources), and that one is a blog post and probably not a RS. You also include sources that mention both 1980 and 1981 in the "1980" section only. With one or two exceptions the rest of your sources are obscure, unlike the "1981" sources, which are all major. Please stop beating this dead horse. Dan Bloch (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2023 (PDT)

Further to our recent communication, thank you for the reply and I have noted the comments above. I have referred to all 69 sources as a whole, not just my own. I have argued that all of them combined justify a separate sub-heading for 1980 and 1981. Some of those sources refer to 1980, some to 1981 and some to both. They confirm the existence of both date ranges.

Reply to @User:Danbloch:

Thank you for the reply and I have noted the comments above. I have referred to all 69 sources as a whole, not just my own. I feel that all of them combined justify a separate sub-heading for 1980 and 1981. Some of those sources refer to 1980, some to 1981 and some to both. They confirm the existence of both date ranges.

The comments above address concerns regaring the lede, this section is about improving the 'Date and age range definitions' based on persausive sources. There is a request on the article page to consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. This new discussion I have started here addresses this request and must not be confused with the discussion above concerning the lede.

I am willing to adapt the proposed sub-headings to '1981 as starting birth year', 'Other definitions' and 'Micro-generations'. That maintains the primacy of 1981 whilst addressing any concerns that neglected view points are properly addressed. It also addresses the concern that the article needs to be more readable.

For example, the BBC, The Guardian, Time Out etc... have referred to 1980 in some of their articles only. It must be worth mentioning that and not mislead that they have only ever referred to 1981 as the section currently implies.

What do you think?

Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest, Richie, is that you leave off from editing the article until the RFC concludes, and let us get that issue resolved first. In the meantime, what you could do is go through your sources and clearly list each source separately with the range it uses (i.e. not just the start date, but the whole range) here on this talk page, preferably providing any contextual sentences, and if possible the date the sources was published. For example:

CNN (2022): Born 1981-1996 (Sometimes listed as 1980-2000)

Also, please don't cherry-pick dates. If your source provides other ranges then please also provide those too. We have no interest in creating a link farm, but if we have sources saying conflicting things then that is noteworthy. If there are date ranges we haven't covered that is noteworthy. Also, scholarly articles (especially by demographers) are considered the highest quality sources, so we'd be especially interested in those. So as a first step, we need to review what you've found, but it also needs to be in a digestible format so editors can make sense of it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the following paragraphs within the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing article?

The following constitutes Tendentious editing:

Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources

Expecting others to find sources for your own statements

Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others

This request here is simply asking too much from any Wikipedia contributor. If good faith reliable sources are persistently overturned that in itself constitutes tendentious editing. Are you aware of that? Richie wright1980 (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeated ad nauseum, the problem is not so much the sources but what we consider your non-neutral framing of the sources. You are the editor seeking to change the article, so the onus is on you to obtain a consensus. I am simply suggesting an approach that would help other editors here review the sources you seek to introduce into the article, which we think is a task you have not undertaken neutrally so far. Betty Logan (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see above that I have modified my proposals throughout and now plan to introduce subheadings as follows: '1981 as starting birth year', 'Other definitions' and 'Micro-generations'. This has addressed any concerns about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and framing the sources to cause any undue weight. It also addresses the concern that the article needs more subheadings – which is requested at the top of the article page. You have also been significantly accommodated throughout this discussion to maintain your assertion that 1981 takes primacy. There is not a lot more anyone could do to compromise any further.

I again draw your attention to this particular paragraph of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing:

"There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number of or validity of the information cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint."

This is what you are engaging in now and I urge you not to do this. By doing so, you are undermining a valid and constructive discussion. Moreover, your use of, and threat to use again Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling to maintain your preferred version is also undermining any collaborative effort.

Within this policy is the following which I draw your attention to:

"While it's very difficult for one editor acting alone to succeed with stonewalling, if only two or three are involved, who don't even have to be coordinating their efforts, their ability to successfully build and maintain a stonewall retaining the status quo can be distressingly effective. With a few more editors it becomes even easier."

I urge all editors not to engage in this behaviour and to take seriously on board what is a perfectly reasonable proposition and one which is perfectly compliant with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

You really must move on from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view argument now, this has already been substantially addressed.Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal affords to much WP:WEIGHT to 1980, and it is still manufacturing a debate around when the cohort starts. When the cohort ends is just as important—perhaps more important because it takes in more dates. You are also listifying the section and turning it into a link farm to distort the coverage of 1980 dates in relation to other dates. Likewise, I could similarly scrape for more sources for 1981–1996 and make the section twice as large, and I could bump up the sources for the other dates too.

The sources are clear about this: 1981–1996 is the dominant date, the de facto definition, and then there are other dates ranging from the early 1980s to early 2000s. That is how the section needs to be structured because that reflects the reality of the date ranges in reliable sources. It is not necessary to detail every single source that has used a specific date range; if anything there are too many sources in the section already because we don't need to know the dates various publications use. It should be evident to you that you do not yet have a WP:CONSENSUS to alter the structure of the section. Betty Logan (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan With respect, you have been the most vocal opposer of this throughout and resorted to Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling to maintain your position. Your concerns have been substantially addressed already and I would urge you to read Wikipedia:You don't have to win by arguing. There is no such expression as a 'link farm' on Wikipedia - there would be no encyclopedia at all if that were the case. Furthermore, if that is the case then let us reduce the number of sources for 1981 since the point has been sufficiently made about its prominence already. So long as sources meet reliability and verifiability, editors are encouraged to use them. I am not concerned with making more of 1981's case here - I think you have done enough of that already. What these amendments are concerned about is taking more into account neglected viewpoints. Furthermore, the text as it stands now is misleading. Some of the publications quoted as using 1981 also use 1980 solely with no mention of 1981. That is worth mentioning. In any case, I am keen to include other editors here with different arguments as these repetitive arguments are circular and unhelpful. Richie wright1980 (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy for the "media outlets" that are given as examples of usage in the 1981–1996 paragraph to be deleted. I think the statistical organizations should remain though. Betty Logan (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually being sarcastic. I do not advocate deleting the pertinent citations of others. I am not here to undermine the good faith contributions of fellow editors. However, if we have reached common ground in agreeing that this article requires better balance then my work is done.Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have cracked it folks! I am genuinely appealing for your support on this as I have taken every single person's views on board - including my own! I am going to design a table for the 'Date and age range definitions' section. It will list all the available date ranges in use and there will be a part to list all the sources that use those date ranges. It will reflect what is currently on the page as well as incorporating the sources that I have accumulated to support 1980. That way, the appropriate due weight will be obvious to the reader as the most popular date range in use will have the most sources. I think that way we give the appropriate amount of weight to each date range as well as breaking up the monotony of the page. It will look something along the lines of this...Pride Quarter, Liverpool#Timeline of Liverpool's LGBT scene. The page let's face it needs breaking up as the improvement labels suggest. Come on guys support this! Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose turning the section into a table as it would remove the context and put all dates on an equal footing, when in reality we know that is not the case. If there are date ranges from the section that are omitted then by all means add them with an appropriate source. Prose is more effective at framing the commentary about the dates. If you persist with breaching WP:NPOV I will be left no choice but to report you at ANI again. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back with a threat again Betty? Would you like to demonstrate some good faith on this please? Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a proposal for completely restructuring the section then you will first need to obtain a consensus for such a change, especially if it continues affording too much weight to non-prominent dates. If you attempt to edit-war it into the article as you have been doing then it is likely your next block will be much longer. Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new proposed Date and age range definitions section takes on board the Talk page discussion in hand and is as follows:

I'm okay with this text. The latest version addresses the major issues with previous changes: it's clear from it that 1981 is the most used, and it doesn't make it look like there's a big controversy about it. This isn't an edit I would have made, but that's true of most of Wikipedia. It would need some further editing, e.g., seventeen citations for "geriatric millennials" is ridiculous, but these could be made after the fact. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dan, much appreciated. I will of course reduce the geriatric sources.I will count you as a supporter of the above proposal. Thanks again. Richie wright1980 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The additions seem reasonable to me, though I am not familiar with some of the sources. What does "WFXB" stand for? Dimadick (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha that's a new one I must admit. It can go - not that important. I can only play a guessing game as to what it could possibly mean! Thanks for your support! Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still disagree with this restructuring. The proposed section is unnecessary long and why do we need a separate section titled "1981 as starting birth year" again? Some1 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions, I have proposed subheadings because there is a suggestion label at the top of the article which requests that more subheadings be added. It also breaks the page up and makes it more readable. I have used 1981 because the date aspect of the definitions seems to be the most contentious aspect. I have also addressed the concern that neglected viewpoints need to be expanded upon. So the proposed restructure is a compromise of all of that. Do you have a suggestion to improve the article as the labels on the page encourage that work needs doing on it. Consensus doesn't require unanimity but it does require working together individually. Do you have any suggestions? Richie wright1980 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is long because of other sections (basically everything below the Cognitive abilities section). The Date and age range definitions section as it currently stands is a decent length. seems to be the most contentious aspect This seems more like an opinion rather than a fact. Are there sources saying that this is a contentious aspect? I have also addressed the concern that neglected viewpoints need to be expanded upon. You were the one that added the Unbalanced template after all your edit-warring [2]; it wasn't there before.

If you do want to split the section into smaller parts, I suggest adding a heading titled 1981-1996 (rather than "1981 as starting birth year") and another titled "Other definitions". That way, the section is focused on the ranges, instead of on single starting birth years/end years. Some1 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with that personally and have no problems. However, I fear it will open a can of worms with other editors in what seems to be a precarious and prolonged discussion. What I would like to avoid is any sort of dispute resolution that prolongs the consensus building process. Sometimes, part of consensus building is accepting 'a less-than-perfect compromise'. Would you be happy with that and have no objections to the above on that basis? Wikipedia:Consensus Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clear something up. Usually the encyclopedia is improved after one person makes an edit and the next and the next and so on without any form of objections. That way things would evolve naturally. Unfortunately, we have ended up here because people sought to revert good faith edits. As you can see this discussion is designed to iron out the disagreements. Previous objectors are obviously keen to see this discussion come to a conclusion. I understand your concern about the overall length of the article - I think there are discussions ongoing about that. Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you said you proposed subheadings because there is a suggestion label at the top of the article which requests that more subheadings be added, would you be opposed to splitting the section up into "1981-1996" and "Other definitions"? Some1 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that 100%. What do others think? Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with how the current Date and age range section currently is, but if we are to add more subheadings to the Date and age range section, I suggest the below (using 1981-1996 instead of 1981 as the starting birth year (which was proposed by Ritchie) as the subheaders). The content is the same as the current section, but with more subheadings; I also removed some media outlets such as The Washington Post,[49], The Wall Street Journal,[51] PBS,[52] The Los Angeles Times,[53] The Guardian,[54]CBS,[61] and ABC Australia.[62] per Betty Logan's comment above [3] but kept the widely known ones. Some1 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the general idea of the below, however, I would have to insist on the sources above for 1980 standing - two editors support their inclusion. They are reliable and verifiable sources after all. I think it looks as though the overall length of the article will eventually be reduced as per the discussion to split lots of content below where you have pointed out. So, longer term the article looks as though it will be reduced. But other to that generally happy with your idea. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed version in the green box above is suitable. It makes it clear which definition is most commonly used and notes that there are alternatives. I don't have a problem with the phrase "geriatric Millennials" since, after all, Millennials are finding out what it means to get old. A friend of mine, who studies medicine, told me that Millennials are now facing diseases that mostly affect old people, such as heart problems. (That's before we talk about young people's diseases, like syphilis, which has been rising in prevalence thanks to Millennials and Generation Z. I have not updated either pages yet.) Nerd271 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My main questions are, why is the focus on 1981 as the starting birth year (why does it require a separate section)? Why not a separate section titled 1996 as the ending birth year? (Rhetorical question, I don't support that either.) Which is why I proposed 1981-1996 below which focuses on the range instead of separate start/ending years. Some1 (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It all started because I added a simple tiny addition of 1980 in the lede and it all got completely overblown after. And the rest is history! Unlike geriatric millenials who are still fighting fit! Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha love it! It looks like things currently stand like this.

Danbloch – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above

Dimadick - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above

Nerd271 - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above

Some1 – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above - with more clarification for 1981-1996

Zillennial - awaiting feedback

Clovermoss - awaiting feedback

Redrose64 - awaiting feedback

BappleBusiness - awating feedback

Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t edit this page but as an editor of other generation related pages including Gen Z I thought I’d share my opinion here as well. I don’t see how this edit is necessary at all honestly and I would strongly oppose similar edits on pages that I edit. You should focus on making the date and range section shorter and more concise instead of making it more verbose and convoluted. There’s no need for subtitles or this many paragraphs to get the message across. Use notes to summarize sources. Look at the Gen Z page, although it’s far from perfect, the message is conveyed without giving the reader a seizure. Wikiboo02 (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, however, that has been addressed already in the week long debate. Consensus has now been achieved to implement the changes. If you have serious doubts about that based on substantive reasoning then by all means open dispute resolution. At this point in time, I suspect editors are keen to move on to other editing. (Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

• Oppose for the following reasons:

Existing version can be viewed here for the purpose of comparison: § Date and age range definitions

1. I fail to see what that this redraft is supposed to be fixing. If there are dates that are missing, they can simply be incorporated into the existing section, provided they are appropriately sourced.
2. I don't quite understand why the section needs to be broken down into very small sub-sections. It is one of the smallest sections in the article, and not a large section by the conventions of Wikipedia. That said, I don't oppose sub-sections in principle, I just don't see how they improve the article.
3. Richie's preoccupation with the start date still persists. Date ranges are defined by a start date, and an end date. Structuring sub-section headings around start dates violates WP:DUE.
4. The supposed re-write listifies a prose section in a prose article. The section as it currently stands is just easier to read, if you are reading through the article. It's a step backwards for the article and violates MOS:PARA.
5. This section should be providing coverage of the spectrum of dates, not providing coverage of organizations and publications that use those dates. The views of demographers and statistical organizations should be included, as should commentary about the various definitions, but why on Earth does this article need to to inform the reader that The Guardian and a Spanish newspaper has used the year 1980 in its definitions? This proposal essentially turns the section into a WP:LINKFARM.

The whole problem I have with Richie's approach here is that he is proposing a solution to a problem that only he thinks exists (as evidenced by the outcome of the RFC). Betty Logan (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus so far approves of the change.

Danbloch – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above

Dimadick - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above

Nerd271 - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above

Some1 – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above - with more clarification for 1981-1996

Zillennial - awaiting feedback

Clovermoss - awaiting feedback

BappleBusiness - awating feedback

Betty Logan - oppose

If these emotive comments continue and the natural process of gaining consensus is further disrupted the best of course of action would be to seek dispute resolution. Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Framing someone's opinion as "disrupting" the "natural process of gaining consensus" after you have solicited feedback is a strange take. Betty Logan (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I fully agree with this. I fail to see how this extensive change to a functioning undisputed section would benefit anyone. It feels like none here truly wants to change it but there’s one editor that is pushing for it to happen. I think that sources could be put into notes and the section made shorter and more concise, but this edit seems too unnecessary and honestly doesn’t add value to the section. If the issue is an underrepresentation of sources supporting a 1980 start, which is debatable, then simply adding those sources should suffice. Wikiboo02 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the summary above mischaracterises some of the responses so I have incorporated some corrections below . So far, three editors support the draft above, and two editors support the existing version in the article.
  • Danbloch – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above
  • Dimadick - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above
  • Nerd271 - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above
  • Some1 – supports the existing version currently in the article
  • Zillennial - awaiting feedback
  • Clovermoss - awaiting feedback
  • BappleBusiness - awating feedback
  • Betty Logan - supports the existing version currently in the article

Betty Logan (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Some1 I think your comments have been in really good faith so I have amended the proposed subheadings to incorporate 1981-1996 as the prevailing date range. I imagine this will receive wide support. Clovermoss has confirmed they will shortly be adding their feedback. I think once the overall article has been split it won't be as long to read in the longer term. The consensus is as follows:

• • Danbloch – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above – suggestions incorporated (reduced number of citations for geriatric millennials)
  • Dimadick - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above
  • Nerd271 - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above
  • Some1 – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section above – suggestions incorporated (changed subheading to 1981-1996. Also Renoved The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, PBS and Los Angeles Times)
  • Zillennial - awaiting feedback
  • Clovermoss - awaiting feedback
  • BappleBusiness - awating feedback
  • Betty Logan - oppose

Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Other definitions section, I re-arranged and copy-edited few things, and made four deletions: I removed the Time magazine sentence since the source is old (from 2013) and the 1981-1996 section already has the newer source for Time. Similarly, I removed the Guardian mention since the source is old (from 2017) and the 1981-1996 section already mentions the Guardian with a newer source; I removed the Investopedia source since it says 1981-1996 is the main range, but says that others might use early or later birth years, which doesn't add anything new to the article; El País uses 1981-1996 in this article [4] dated 08/13/2022, but less than two months later, on 10/3/2022, used 1980-1996 [5], so they are not very consistent in a short time span. See the collapsed box below for my revisions. The other two sections look fine. Some1 (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree to your changes. I've added some clarification from the The United States Library of Congress which I think explains everything: "The United States Library of Congress explains that date ranges are 'subjective' and the traits of each cohort are generalized based around common economic, social, or political factors that happened during formative years. They acknowledge disagreements, complaints over date ranges, generation names, and the over-generalized "personality" of each generation. They suggest that marketers and journalists use the different groupings to target their marketing to particular age groups. However, they cite Pew's 1981–1996 definition to define millennials."

I think we might be reaching the consensus now and hope we are able to implement this very soon. I have also added your new section above. Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for incorporating these changes. You can put me in the Neutral camp for now; I still support the existing version, but don't oppose the newly amended proposal either now that my issues with it are somewhat rectified (the section is unnecessarily long). I suggest holding off on implementing any new changes and just wait for more feedback, since those who supported the original proposal (Danbloch, Dimadick, Nerd271) might not be in support of the amended proposal anymore after all the recent changes. Some1 (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks but this shouldn't have to drag on indefinitely. We are volunteers and time is precious. For now, it looks as though there are no more substantive objections. Certainly none that haven't been addressed. That is the basis for deciding on consensus. I think the only way to resolve more serious disagreement would be for us to enter dispute resolution where the concerns are discussed at length with administrator oversigh. are you willing to do this all over again? All editors involved would be pinged again for administrator attention. Alternatively, we implement as discussed with the promise the editors will not engage in edit war. (Richie wright1980 (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

There is no rush in implementing anything. I suggest pinging the editors above (Danbloch, Dimadick, Nerd271) and asking if they prefer the existing version or the amended proposal. Some1 (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited some things and made some minor changes to the proposal to reduce the number of paragraphs. The only non-minor changes I made were combining the Other definitions and Micro-generation sections into one section, and removing CBS, ABC Australia, NYPost, and the Evening Standard. See below. Some1 (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely support your new paragraph below and it certainly does look more concise. Please be bold and implement this. I think the main crux of people's concerns were not to portray a big controversy. I think the most up to date proposal below has taken all these views on board extensively, it portrays all the different date ranges in use and has explained reasoning behind it without any bias to any particular date. Therefore, neutrality is in tact. I would welcome you implementing this and would be willing to defend it in the event of any sudden reverts based on the consenus we have achieved. Richie wright1980 (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I still have a preference for the existing version and think that adding the sub-headings is largely unnecessary for such a short section, I am not opposed to Some1's re-write directly below. It addresses most of my concerns. However, I don't think there is any pressing urge to install it straight away. If you are happy to leave it 3 days for further feedback and there are no more opposes, then I will not revert if Some1's version is installed in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]