Talk:Millennials

Discussions

Talk:Millennials


Attribution needed for Generation Y (Millennials) date range

Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This appears to raise a concern under WP:NPOV. The current phrasing (e.g., “generally defined as people born from 1981 to 1996”) presents a single definition of Millennials as standard without attribution, thereby creating a misleading impression of scholarly consensus. Reliable sources indicate that generational boundaries are inherently contested and vary across institutions.

When wording such as:

“…generally defined as people born from 1981 to 1996”

is used, it risks presenting one specific range as the default. In practice, this range is most commonly associated with the Pew Research Center. By presenting it as “general” without attribution, the text may:

• implicitly treat a specific source as authoritative  

• downplay alternative scholarly definitions, which vary across studies  

For example, different institutions define Millennials differently. While some frameworks place their birth years from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s, others propose slightly different cut-offs. Encyclopaedia Britannica notes that generational boundaries are debated and lack universally agreed cut-offs. Similarly, McCrindle Research and McKinsey & Company use comparable but not identical generational frameworks, further illustrating the absence of a single standard definition.

This may raise concerns under WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as presenting a single range as standard without attribution can give undue weight to one framework (see also WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV).

To maintain neutrality, the sentence could be revised as follows:

Millennials, also known as Generation Y, are the demographic cohort following Generation X and preceding Generation Z. Definitions of Millennials vary across sources, with researchers and popular media commonly placing their birth years from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s; for example, the Pew Research Center defines Millennials as those born between 1981 and 1996, while McCrindle Research places Millennials between 1980 and 1994. By these definitions and U.S. census data, Millennials constitute a large demographic cohort in the United States. Many Millennials are the children of baby boomers and older members of Generation X, and many are the parents of Generation Alpha. Sivaragam (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is already well covered in the first paragraph of date range section. The lead gives an accurate description of the overall picture: the 1981–1996 is the most commonly accept definition, but there are other start dates in the early 80s and a range of end dates ranging from the mid-90s to early-00s. We don't need to get into specific definitions by specific companies in the lead, that is not its job. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

WP: UNDUE

This may raise concerns under WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as presenting a single range as standard without attribution can give undue weight to one framework (see also WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Sivaragam (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
The attribution is in the appropriate section, where every date range is attributed and cited. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the article—read MOS:INTRO and MOS:CITELEAD. Betty Logan (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cars

Latest comment: 3 months ago23 comments3 people in discussion

I retooled the following paragraph, which is florid bullshit:

A working paper by economists Christopher Knittel and Elizabeth Murphy then at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Household Transportation Survey, the U.S. Census Bureau, and American Community Survey in order to compare the driving habits of the baby boomers, Generation X, and the oldest millennials (born between 1980 and 1984). That found that on the surface, the popular story is true: American millennials on average own 0.4 fewer cars than their elders. But when various factors—including income, marital status, number of children, and geographical location—were taken into account, such a distinction ceased to be. In addition, once those factors are accounted for, millennials actually drive longer distances than the baby boomers. Economic forces, namely low gasoline prices, higher income, and suburban growth, result in millennials having an attitude towards cars that is no different from that of their predecessors. An analysis of the National Household Travel Survey by the State Smart Transportation Initiative revealed that higher-income millennials drive less than their peers probably because they are able to afford the higher costs of living in large cities, where they can take advantage of alternative modes of transportation, including public transit and ride-hailing services.

The source framing itself is largely to blame for the bullshit, but I will articulate here the fundamental problem: performing a regression on some trend does not make the trend "cease to be"; it offers an explanation for why the trend is occurring. If you find that regressing out cigarette use makes lung cancer rates equal between smokers and nonsmokers, you don't get to claim that you've made lung cancer go away, or that lung cancer is no longer an issue, or that we don't need to think about lung cancer any more. This paragraph has other problems, like having an argumentative tone, and relying on a single boosterish source for a large amount of section text, but overall the bullshit was the worst part of it. Einsof (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

There was subsequent attempt to revert this, resulting in the problematic statement that once various factors [...] were taken into account, Millennials actually drive longer distances than the Baby Boomers. The sentence "Millennials drive more than Baby Boomers" is just a basic statement about a population: either it is reflected in the base dataset or it isn't. You can't arrive at a statement like this by regressing away the population that you're trying to make the claim about. Again, it is like saying, "if you control for cigarette consumption, nonsmokers actually have more lung cancer than smokers". The factors being regressed out here are the whole point. Einsof (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have now added to the article a source that describes a newer study from 2022. It says straightforwardly that millennials drive fewer vehicle-miles-travelled than previous generations and does not try to bamboozle the reader out of that basic fact by misusing regressions. As near as I can tell, the previous study and source (from 2019) seems like it might have been written in the context of some kind of pro-car propaganda war that was waged in response to the emerging (and now confirmed) data that millennials aren't driving as much (the US national transportation survey was released in 2017). Einsof (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Nerd271 is repeatedly inserting low-quality text that is not supported by sources, and removing sources that contradict this low-quality text. In particular, this edit blew away the 2022 survey and its source for no justifiable reason. It also incorrectly describes a restricted cohort of elder millennials as "millennials" without qualification, which is a misrepresentation that has been pointed out multiple times now. But most egregiously, it inserts the false claim that "Millennials actually drive longer distances than the Baby Boomers" and censors the source that points out the claim's falsity. We cannot have false claims inserted into the encyclopedia and I will continue to revert these inappropriate edits to the extent allowed by policy. Einsof (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
You started off by a lack of civility and now you are threatening another editor?
Not sure where you got that information from but that article was not part of some kind of "pro-car propaganda." Just because the data does not support your view does not mean it is propaganda. In real life, people may or may not drive as much because of a great variety of circumstances. Accounting for those variables is important so that we avoid comparing apples to oranges.
Feel free to add more sources. Being uncivil may result in consequences. Nerd271 (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to add more sources. I did, and you removed it in favor of text that is not supported by any source. Einsof (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The source is at the end (from CityLab). Nerd271 (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are not substantively engaging in the objections that I have raised and have continued to censor sources that contradict the low-quality text that is repeatedly being reinserted. I believe an RfC is in order. Einsof (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I updated the page after reading the Quartz article you cited. I have the right to take my time to read. Nerd271 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
One of the corollaries of WP:OWN is that nobody gets to rip out text from an article just because they haven't gotten around to reading the sources yet. Also consistent with WP:OWN, I preserved a large amount of the previous content even though I find the source it is based on to be not of great quality. Einsof (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
You were being rude and argumentative, and quite possibly, disruptive. So don't complain if people are skeptical. Wikipedia editors do not just update and check for orthographic and grammatical errors but also protect pages from potentially damaging edits. And no, you can't accuse others of "censorship" if their updates actually incorporate information from a source you provided. Keeping at least some of the previously given sources was the right thing to do. I did, however, removed some outdated information. Nerd271 (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Something still needs to be done about the statement once various factors [...] were taken into account, Millennials actually drive longer distances than the Baby Boomers for all the reasons articulated above. It is also now in apparent contradiction with the 2022 source, which says (correctly) that millennials actually make fewer VMTs than boomers at the same age. The regressed nature of the first statement is not being presented clearly. Einsof (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Your comparison with smoking is a false equivalence. People do not need to even touch a cigarette. But some of them have no other options than driving. Besides, I don't see a problem with simply admitting that the sources are contradictory. They are, however, about slightly different groups of people. One talks about older Millennials whereas the other about Millennials as a group. I have corrected the section. Nerd271 (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
The paragraph at the top of this discussion reads ok to me; it is not denying a trend exists, but rather explaining the underlying factors of a trend to tackle what it believes is a misleading interpretation of the data. The source is attempting to make an "apples for apples" comparison i.e. when comparing cohorts as a whole millenials drive less, but if you compare—for example—surburban millenials with a couple of kids to suburban boomers with a couple of kids (along with other normalizing factors), the source is arguing the difference is accounted for. Betty Logan (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
There is no "misleading interpretation of the data" for the authors to argue against. Millennials drive less and own fewer cars. That's the central statement to make from the extant data, and this source is obfuscating that statement with its bullshit. It took a tremendous amount of bullshitting on the part of the source article author, and to an extent the study authors, to turn a regression exercise into something that might appear to support the source's bullshit subheading "Despite the buzz around ride-hailing and bike lanes, car ownership among younger Americans looks a lot like that of older Americans", which obviously functions to negate the basic statistical fact that Millennials are biking and ubering more and driving less. It's a textbook example of lying with statistics, and like I said, if I were the sole editor of this article I would simply trash this source entirely and work to blacklist the authors from being cited again on this encyclopedia.
Fortunately, I was able to find a source that makes the correct statement, free of the bullshit of this other source. Einsof (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Whether millenials drive more or less than previous generations is a largely pointless comparison, if you are not making an "apples for apples" comparsion. The authors are simply making the case that millennials do not have predominantly different attitudes to driving than previous generations, but rather various life factors simply provide fewer opportunities or less need to drive. It is the kind of nuance you would expect to find in a study of inter-generational trends. Betty Logan (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Conflating the statement "If millennials lived like boomers, they'd like cars just as much as boomers do" with the statement "Millennials like cars just as much as boomers do" is the exact opposite of nuance: it's bullshit. Einsof (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
That statement does not appear in your quote at the top of the section. I agree it is bullshit, but you are the one spouting it. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
You said yourself: The authors are simply making the case that millennials do not have predominantly different attitudes to driving than previous generations, which is a statement about an actual population that was arrived at by regressing out the features of that actual population that make it different from the population of previous generations. So I'm glad you agree their case is bullshit. Einsof (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
My observation bears no relation to your twisted play on words. The source is talking about millenial attitudes to driving compared to previous generations, and whether they drive more or less does not actually inform that analysis. The fact that a suburban Gen X with children drives more than a millenial living on their own in the city with accessible public transport does not actually tell us anything meaningful about a generational shift in attitude towards driving. If you want to keep deliberately missing that point then go ahead and amuse yourself, but the discussion has become boring for me. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
No, the source is explicitly trying to claim "Millennials Drive a Lot", like the headline says. Fortunately, this source also admits that "an uncontrolled comparison suggests that Millennials are traveling less than their predecessors were by the same age", so I've now put that into the article. Einsof (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I also want to come back to the assertion that Whether millenials drive more or less than previous generations is a largely pointless comparison. It's actually a massively consequential comparison that influences local and national government policies relating to transportation. It's the impetus behind fundamental structural changes like road diets and cycle tracks, which come about by local advocacy and demand that didn't exist as strongly in previous generations but exists now. It is so strange to call it "pointless". Einsof (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nerd271: With regard to this misguided edit, the source is quite clear that the two statements refer to the same study: "Running the same tests to see how annual vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) stacks up by generation, the authors find a similar pattern: an uncontrolled comparison suggests that Millennials are traveling less than their predecessors were by the same age. But when factors like educational attainment, marital status, number of children, and whether they’ve settled in a city are factored in, it turns out Snake People actually rack up slightly more VMT than Baby Boomers did." I have reverted your erroneous edit. Einsof (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Suggested edit: Reliability and attribution in “Historical knowledge” section

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The statistics in this section appear to rely on polls commissioned by advocacy groups, including the Claims Conference and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, rather than peer-reviewed research or independent polling institutions. Because these studies have been criticized for methodological issues, such as reliance on open-ended “cold recall” questions, I suggest revising the text for NPOV by either: Explicitly attributing the figures to the organizations that commissioned them; or Balancing them with independent data, such as Pew Research Center polling, which reports higher historical literacy rates under standard polling conditions. ~2026-36366-49 (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2026

Latest comment: 11 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe the current definition of the Millennial generation as ending in 1996 should be presented with greater consideration of the broader range of definitions found in the academic and demographic literature. Generational boundaries are not universally established scientific categories, and different researchers have proposed substantially different endpoints for the Millennial generation.

For example, the Strauss–Howe generational framework places Millennials within a much broader period, extending from 1982 to 2004. This demonstrates that the 1996 endpoint is not the only established framework for defining the generation, and that individuals born in the late 1990s and around 2000 or 2001 have also been included within Millennial definitions in published sources.

A further consideration is that generational experiences cannot necessarily be determined solely by year of birth. Technological adoption and access to the internet, smartphones, social media, and other digital technologies developed at very different rates across countries, regions, and socioeconomic groups. Consequently, a person born in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, or 2001 could have experienced childhood and adolescence in a technological environment substantially different from that of someone born in the same year elsewhere.

This is particularly relevant when attempting to apply a single, globally consistent generational boundary. A boundary based primarily on the technological and cultural development of the United States may not fully represent the experiences of people who grew up in countries or communities where the transition to smartphones, broadband internet, and social media occurred considerably later.

For this reason, I suggest that the article should avoid presenting 1996 as an absolute or universally accepted endpoint for Millennials. Instead, it would be more accurate and encyclopedic to acknowledge the existence of broader definitions, including frameworks that extend the generation into the late 1990s, 2000, and 2001.

I am not suggesting that the 1996 boundary should necessarily be removed. Rather, the article should make clear that it represents one particular generational framework among several competing definitions. Given the substantial variation in published definitions and the unequal pace of technological change around the world, considering 2001 as a possible endpoint provides a broader framework for understanding individuals who experienced both Millennial and early Gen Z cultural and technological influences.

Sources:

  • [Pew Research Center source discussing the uncertainty and variability of generational boundaries]
  • [Strauss–Howe source defining Millennials as 1982–2004]
  • [Additional reliable academic source supporting a 1997–2001 or broader Millennial range] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsAnybody (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
The Millenials page already reflects the changes you're requesting. Millennials are defined broadly (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), and the nuances are discussed in the "Date and age range definitions" section.
Also, for future edit requests, please note the request format described in WP:ER. Danbloch (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.