Talk:Generation Z/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Date range dispute

Agrso and Zillennial, I think it is time to settle your dispute regarding the date range.

Frankly, Agrso, I should report you for either edit warring or disruptive editing - for completely ignoring the consensus that you helped reach on the talk page not even a month ago (Talk:Generation Z/Archive 4#Date range revertion) by readding the 2019 Irish Times source. It seems to me that you have a bias toward 1995 and you need to evaluate your editing. And honestly Zillennial, you are not completely innocent either, I think you should examine your bias towards 1997 as well. One example is shown at Talk:Generation Z/Archive 4#New Source Supporting Generation Z start date at 1996 where a 1996 source was thrown out due to your preference for 1997 (by the way, I have added this source, since we cite them in other areas of the article). These biases are clear in the sources you both add, and I remind you that Wikipedia should be written in a neutral point of view and you should try to achieve balance in your sources.

I mention your editing patterns because I think (or at least want to think) that you both genuinely want to help make the article better, even if your biases (which everyone has, including myself) can get in the way. So I think it's time we establish a consensus on appropriate guidelines for what should be included in this section. If we need to, we can seek dispute resolution, but we should try to do this by ourselves first. I hope we can agree right off the bat that 1995 and 1997 will not be recognized as the sole beginning year on this article for a while; it is simply too contentious, not only here but in the actual world.

I think there are 2 main issues that need to be addressed:

• Should only the most recent definition from a source be included?
  • On one hand, definitions are ever-changing, and including fluctuations in a source's opinion can reflect this.
  • On the other hand, including outdated definitions can hold back the encyclopedia's ability to reflect consensus and clutter an already overly-large page (see Talk:Generation Z#Article too long?, this article currently has 132 kB of readable prose).
• What kinds of sources should be included?
  • Types of sources that have been used include: newspapers, online news publications, demographers & experts, think tanks & analytics companies, marketing firms, consulting firms, banks, government sources, and dictionaries. (let me know if I missed any)

If we can settle these issues in this discussion, we can, hopefully, end this continuous dispute. And if this doesn't, we can at least have a consensus to point to in the future. Agrso, Zillennial, and other editors, please give your opinions on the issues listed above. BappleBusiness (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Kindly note that I have been following Wikipedia policies. Frankly BappleBusiness, you can report me for either edit warring or disruptive editing - you are free to report me anytime you want. But just so you know, I have already reported this matter to Wikipedia administrators and this resulted in Wikipedia administrators blocking user Zillennial because he violated Wikipedia policies. I was not blocked. Zillennial was blocked. In case you haven't noticed, I have regularly added sources for various different starting birth years including 1990, 1993, 1994, 1996, and 2001 which proves that I have little bias. On the other hand, the user Zillennial rarely adds sources for any starting birth year other than 1997 and other users in the talk page have already noted this user's bias toward 1997 (this has been noted various times, check the Generation Z talk page archives). In fact, the Wikipedia administrators sided with me last time I reported user Zillennial (for violating a wide range of Wikipedia policies - you can check this user's block log). User BappleBusiness you don't seem to be a Wikipedia administrator (correct me if I'm wrong). To be honest, you seem like a relatively new Wikipedia user, so are you sure that you can threaten me and hurl these accusations? Personally I do not want to respond in a controversial manner. Wikipedia administrators have already analyzed this situation before and accordingly blocked user Zillennial. By the way, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007. Best regards. ---Agrso (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Very respectfully, I don't care that you've been editing since 2007. I also never claimed that Zillennial was in the right; in fact, if you read the original post, I said that their editing practices were also problematic. I was specifically pointing out your readdition of the March 2019 Irish Times source, which you previously agreed to remove. If I couldn't trust you to create consensus, it would make it difficult to work with you (but I have noticed you removed it again, so thank you). My intention was not to threaten you at all - I don't plan to report anything; I really do believe you are working in good faith. I wanted to just summarize how toxic this discussion has become (though perhaps I went about it the wrong way) and present a solution: have a content-driven discussion about the article and establish a precedent and consensus. I can imagine that having the same content arguments over and over again for almost a year now is tiring. So please, can you give your opinions on the issues raised above so we can start such a discussion. Bapple Business (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will not be changing Agrso's additions and have let up since the previous months. All I have been adding is various sources that add to the changing date ranges. If you look at the newest edit I have added new sources that include a 1998 start date and readded the Strauss and Howe Generational Theory (as it is still an important source). Also, might I add that whenever Agrso has been accused of disruptive edits, they play victim instead of owning up to what has been done. Yes, in the past year or so they consistently changed the sources to fit their own personal narrative, and yes I was adding a "1997 start date" as well, which I will own up to it. I've since begun adding different view points. There's not much else to be said. I will not change Agrso's additions to the part of the article from now on UNLESS there is good reason. --Zillennial (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Because of the dispute between the two users above (Agrso and Zillennial), the 'Date and age range' section of this article has basically become inundated with years from random, non-notable newspapers or marketing/consulting companies (what makes definitions from Metro Weekly, a 2015 article from MTV, Adweek, etc. noteworthy for inclusion?). More weight should be given to ranges from demographers or those who actually research or study members of the generation. "Should only the most recent definition from a source be included?" I think so; listing that organization V used year X in 2018, year Y in 2019, year Z in 2020, and year A in 2021 is impractical; just use the year from their most recent report since that's what they're presently using to define Generation Z. I have attempted to clean up the overly long section with what I think should stay and should go per WP:WEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I like your edits Some1, and I think it makes sense to limit it how you did. But two sources I was wondering why you chose to remove from your revision were the Center for Generational Kinetics and Strauss & Howe. I'm personally not sure how notable the Center for Generational Kinetics is, but they do seem to be in the area of sources we would want if they are significant enough. As for Strauss & Howe, I would argue that even if one disagrees with their theory, it's hard not to acknowledge their significance in the field. The only question is whether The Homeland Generation actually corresponds to Generation Z - even though they label it as after Millennials, their date range is way off the consensus. I'm not disagreeing with your choices per se, but I'm curious to understand your thought process. BappleBusiness (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how notable the Center for Generational Kinetics is, but after googling them some more after your comment, it seems like Jason Dorsey is the president of that organization and he or his company was referenced in some recent and reliable secondary sources [1][2][3][4][5] that have to do specifically with Generation Z (one of my reasons for keeping/removing the sources the way I did), so I will add that back. Strauss and Howe I asked the same; I couldn't find multiple recent and reliable secondary sources using Strauss/Howe's years for Generation Z in their research or report that primarily focuses on Gen Z. So I agree with you that their "date range is way off the consensus"; per WP:WEIGHT and WP:VNOT, their definitions don't warrant inclusion, especially when no recent reliable secondary sources use their definition of Generation Z (assuming that their Homeland Generation actually corresponds to Generation Z first). Some1 (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright I'm pinging Some1 (talk) and BappleBusiness to say that from forward on I will only update the article to fit what sources are already added. The date ranges DO however change every year, the American Psychological Association uses 1998 as a starting date for Gen Z now. 1 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zillennial (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User Some1 (talk) the CNBC source is from June 2021. It's recent enough, especially given the fact many of the 1997 sources in the section are from 2020 even 2019. Why was the 1995 CNBC source from June 2021 removed? It's only from last month. Please clarify the reason behind the removal. Also, are you a Wikipedia administrator? Agrso (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

These sources don't really improve the article as much as they provide justification for the claims that a given year or range is heavily cited. So more and more, I am thinking that it makes sense to limit media sources to those that don't flip-flop. Perhaps a source must keep a consistent definition for the previous 18 months or else we won't include it in the section (to me, 18 months seems like a satisfactorily long period of time without it being unreasonably long). Additionally, from now on, a discussion should proceed the addition or removal of sources. This will help ensure that new sources are significant enough to include and that dates aren't cherry-picked. Also, as the purpose of a source is justification for a specific date range, the addition of a source should bring value that is not already provided by other sources. What do you all think about these basic guidelines? We could include them in a hidden note at the top of the section for other editors. BappleBusiness (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging BappleBusiness (talk). I have been trying to update the sources to 2021 as most of them usually change overtime, but Agrso (talk) continuously reverts them back to what they were. In the last day I read the articles that quoted a "1995-2009" Gen Z date range, and corrected the sentence "Various media outlets cite 1995 to 2009 as a date range" to "cite McCrindle's date range" (which is the source these news companies are reporting. Agrso (talk) proceeds to revert it back and says that "there's no evidence suggesting it's using McCrindle's range". Actually there IS evidence. On This article which is cited there is a sentence that says "Researchers detailed their poll results this week in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition." If you click the link that is highlighted it will take you here. This is an article that directly cites McCrindle's date range.. It cites McCrindle right here. So the question is: why is this user continuously deleting any changes that goes against their narrative, and then plays victim when called out for it? I feel as if this is abusive behavior and violates Wikipedia's rules. Is there anything to back this up? For example, instead of taking responsibility when we were BOTH called out for edit-warring. They just went on to say in direct quotes: "are you sure that you can threaten me and hurl these accusations? Personally I do not want to respond in a controversial manner. Wikipedia administrators have already analyzed this situation before and accordingly blocked user Zillennial. By the way, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007.". and "Also, are you a Wikipedia administrator?". They won't take responsibility for their actions or even apologize at this point. I don't see how this behavior is continuously been allowed on this page. Sure, we all may have biases, but personally I have been better. I've been adding sources by actual research firms, that are credible and USED by media outlets. Yes, I would like to apologize over the issues with this article in the past, but I think we can all start to agree on WHAT needs to be submitted with guidelines that you proposed. I am okay with that. --Zillennial (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Zillennial kindly note that if you have legitimate concerns and evidence to substantiate your claims then surely the Wikipedia administrators in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard would have noticed that you are "continuously updating the section with up-to-date sources" and user:Agrso is "continually reverting your up-to-date sources". I am certain that Wikipedia administrators would have noted this alleged conduct as you have already reported me three times in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: First time, Second time, and Third time. In fact none of the Wikipedia administrators found my conduct troublesome and you're the one who got blocked twice as displayed in your account block log first in 2020 and then again in 2021. With regard to the McCrindle Research Centre's definition, none of the sources cited the McCrindle Research Centre like you claimed and most sources in that sentence are using different date ranges not McCrindle Research Centre's 1995-2009 definition. Please refrain from making accusations and personal attacks (one of the reasons you were blocked) because it violates Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:Personal attacks and Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Additionally, it is well known that Wikipedia:Cherrypicking and Wikipedia:Citation overkill reduce the overall quality of the article. --Agrso (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Why not list a definitive range?

It's getting kind of annoying having people "speculate" a year range not understanding that almost every article/researcher is using PEW's date range currently. In fact most of the "sources" that are listed in the "date range" are now using a '1997-2012' year range. I can happily list newest articles that contradict what is being said; especially how millennials are "well agreed to be 1981-1996 by researchers". As described by Brookings Institution senior "Jonathan Rauch". (who is an extremely credible person that has worked for The Economist). By a simple Google search [[and selecting "News" then sorting it by date, you will see that every recent article has used PEW Research's Definition.]] Therefor why are we not honoring this by at the very least stating "With those born loosely from the late 90's to early 2010's as a popular range. This way there are no specific years being posted, and nobody has their own opinions ignored. Pinging BappleBusiness --Zillennial (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Over the past 2-3 years, many talk page discussions have already been made regarding Generation Z specific date range and many Wikipedia editors and administrators participated but no consensus could be reached. Of course looking at the talk page archives, the age range debate has been going on for over 10 years (Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4). No consensus could be reached every time (see examples: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10, Example 11, Example 12). The debate over Gen Z's start date and end date is not just going on in Wikipedia, it's rampant in real life as evidenced by the Cusper Zillennial social media debate. Many established media outlets are still using the mid 1990s as a start date and the late 2000s and mid 2010s as the Gen Z end date; the Pew centre is an American think-tank that is specifically definiting the generation for America (in the context of 9/11) whereas international news organisations like The Guardian in the United Kingdom are using the mid 1990s as a start date. This is the English language Wikipedia it is not specific to the USA only so one American think-tank which specifically defines the generation for America doesn't suffice. Most media outlets are not sticking to one specific date range they're still flipping the date range from one article to the next. A generation is defined as "the average period, generally considered to be about 20–⁠30 years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children." Late 1990s until early 2010s is not long enough to be a full generation because generations are supposed to be around 20–⁠30 years. Generation Z will continue being hard to define until it fully comes of age in the mid-to-late 2020s. We're currently in 2021 which is the early 2020s. Agrso (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on a few things. On your point that Pew Research Center isn't sufficient, I agree that it wouldn't be sufficient alone, but when numerous media sources cite Pew as an authority on this, we should give what they say more weight. We also need to follow what the sources are saying, not what we believe a generation should be (in your case, 20-30 years). ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The main issue is that the vast majority of sources identify Generation Z as "young people in their teens and early 20s" yet people born in 1997 are now in their mid 20s. These sources are contradicting themselves when they use a 1997 start date for Generation Z. Also, bear in mind that the term "Generation Z" was only popularized in the mainstream media very recently; hence it's prone to significant fluctuations. When the "Generation Z" terminology first emerged in the late 2000s and early 2010s, there is no doubt that 1995 was within the defined "age range" according to scholarly and media "consensus" (at the time). The term is still relatively recent and the generation has not fully come of age, so that makes it up for debate. Prior to the year 2020, the term "Gen Z" was not very common in the mainstream media, social media, and the general public. In the year 2015, the Washington Post published an article about generation date ranges and the term "Millennial" was used to refer to young people born between 1981 and 2000 according to the Pew Research Center. This is the same think-tank. In the year 2014, Pew Research Center explicitly stated "This report focuses on Millennial adults. However, the youngest Millennials are in their teens and no chronological end point has been set for this group yet.↩" The Pew Research Center think-tank will probably change its Millennial/Gen Z date range definition again (as they have done so many times before over the past few years). We should wait a few years because of Gen Z's very recent popularization and its ever-changing date range. Nothing is set in stone. The date range debate happened to all generations including Baby Boomers who are now uniformly defined as 1946 to 1964 (18 years). Not all generations are within 20 to 30 years but ~ 18 years span is more reasonable than Generation Z's 15 years. In the year 2023 or 2024, the 1997 start date may no longer be in usage. In a few years, if it is in popular usage then by all means we can all agree on adding it to the article there are no objections from me. I have no problem with the 1997 start date but I think we should wait a few years given the fact 1997 is no longer "young people in their early 20s". In a few years, the early 2000s may very well become the most popular Gen Z start date. Agrso (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

After looking at the date ranges for Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Alpha, the end date for Generation Z is very much undefined and up for debate (even most sources diverge on the end date). I think it's very likely that in a few years 2014 will be the most common "end date" for Generation Z (not 2012). Demographically, it's not realistic that Generation Z ends in 2012 based on the generation's most common age range (early teens to early 20s). The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and CNN currently identify Gen Z as "young people in their teens and early 20s" but for now that doesn't include early 10s (10 to 12 age group) and mid 20s (24 to 26 age group). Generation Alpha's date range is currently undefined that's why I think we should wait a few more years before specifying 2012 as the end date for Gen Z (but we could add 1997 as Gen Z's start date for now; if its lack of inclusion bothers user Zillennial so much). Agrso (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Just want to point out that those born in 1997 are turning 24 years old in 2021, meaning there's still a bunch of people born in 1997 who are 23 years old/in their early 20s right now. So no, sources aren't "contradicting themselves when they use a 1997 start date". Using the 1997-2012 definition, the majority of Gen Z are in their teens and early 20s (the youngest turning 9 and the oldest turning 24 in 2021). Some1 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Mid 20s are 24 to 26 years old. Most people born in 1997 are already 24 years old by now because we are currently in September 2021 (the year is almost ending; it's nearly 2022). In the year 2022, all 1997 births will be in their mid 20s and Generation Alpha remains undefined in terms of specific date ranges. Consequently, how can we specify a start date for Gen Z but not an end date? When Generation X and Baby Boomers date ranges were defined, both generations were fully "coming of age" (unlike Generation Z and its current successor Generation Alpha). As of September 2021, Generation Alpha does not have a defined start date and end date. A few years ago, most sources identified Generation Z as starting in the mid 1990s on the basis that these are young people "in their early 20s". Now since Generation Z still hasn't come of age, how can we be sure the 1997 to 2012 date range will be in popular usage a few years from now? The 2012 end date itself is problematic because Generation Alpha remains undefined and early 2010s are "2010 to 2013" (not 2012). That's why I believe we should wait until the mid-to-late 2020s because that's when Generation Z will fully come of age and Generation Alpha will have its own specific date range. It's too early to list an exact date range in the lead right now. Agrso (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You linked to a generic Google search link which didn't support your claim that the sources were contradicting themselves by using 1997 (they're not); please link specific sources instead to support your claim, but that's irrelevant to the point of this discussion though. I'm not saying there should be a specific range listed in the lead for Generation Z; I actually think there shouldn't be one just yet; the lead currently does a decent job summarizing the Date and age range section of the article. Maybe in the next couple of years when the date ranges for Generation Z have stabilized according to reliable sources then one could be added. Some1 (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If I were to guess, I personally believe that the date range will settle in the 1997-2012 range, but I don't think we're at a point yet where there is a concrete age range consensus. If this is like a voting thing, I would put my vote for 1997-2012 as the primary definition-- that's not my personal opinion of what it should be, but my opinion of what the sources say. But though I agree that 1997-2012 seems to be used by the majority of sources (so if we need a definitive date range, for, say, the generations template, we would use that one), that doesn't mean it's a consensus; it's still up for debate. I would be open to putting 1997-2012 as the primary definition while also making sure to contextualize it by mentioning it is in no way set in stone yet. But I can also understand the viewpoint that we should wait a few years as Gen Z fully comes of age and researchers can form a fuller consensus. I think that there are a lot more important content issues with this article that we should be focusing on (its size, overlapping information with other articles, unrelated content, etc.), so I'm just hesitant to add fuel to this fire. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 20:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you in that it's not a consensus and it's up for date that's why I think we should we should wait a few years as Generation Z fully comes of age and researchers can form a fuller consensus. The reason is most sources are currently identifying Generation Z as "young people in their teens and early 20s" yet people born in 1997 are currently in their mid 20s (24 years old). Consequently, these sources are contradicting themselves when they use a 1997 start date. It's nearly 2022. In 2022, people born in 1997 will turn 25 years old. As a result, various media outlets are now using 1998 as a start date instead of 1997. The date range is obviously still changing and not set in stone. We should wait a few years until this generation fully comes of age. Instead of the date range debate, I think we should focus on this article's most troubling issues (size, trivia, references, etc.), it feels like over the past 10 months too much emphasis has been placed on the date range and too little on the actual article. Agrso (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Like I stated above, there are people born in 1997 who are still 23 (which is in their early 20s), so no, those sources aren't "contradicting" themselves for using 1997 as the start year.

Unlike the other generations, the date range for Generation Z hasn't stabilized yet since the generation hasn't fully come of age (researchers are still focused on studying Generation Z as opposed to studying Generation Alpha), so I don't believe there should be an exact date range listed in the lead just yet. We'll have to wait for reliable sources (not opinion pieces) to say that a particular range is "widely accepted", "typically used", "generally used", etc. to define Generation Z before adding an exact range to the lead to avoid WP:SYNTH. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Some1 Agrso BappleBusiness The reason I brought this up was that clearly PEW's range is the most popular definition right now, the problem is; is that if you google search "Gen Z" and see the results there's no consensus where it starts. Most sources DO say 1997, but 1995 all the way to 2000 aren't out of the question. Agrso does however make a good point that you can't really "fully define a generation until they come of age" but with this idea, some could argue that even the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory holds weight "e.g. a 1982-2004 date range". Just because there is no consensus. All I was trying to say was that by saying "Loosely" (Keyword being 'LOOSELY')- "loosely defined from the late 90's to early 2010's", actually holds weight that it pin points a specific range. Clearly 1996 is well agreed to be the Millennial end date, (a simple google search yields this result) BESIDES McCrindle or Deloitte but the other sources use this as an accepted end date. Meaning the 1997 (onwards) is a good choice to have for the "current" Z range. I propose that the top date range says "mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years.[3] Loosely being defined as late 90s to early 2010's as a popular definition. This way the whole article does not have to require people to scroll down and read that a source like "Statistics Canada (who have since used PEW's range in recent years)" as a credible source. Zillennial (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of adding "loosely being defined as late 90s to early 2010s" after "mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years". I feel like that idea is already being communicated. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 20:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Today (October 6 2021) User:Zillennial added two sources to specify a definitive range that has not been determined in the talk page discussion. These two sources are questionable. The first source is an opinion piece by the Guardian newspaper and the second source is a Forbes article that does not include any specific date range (no mention of 1997 or 2012 anywhere in the Forbes article he added). The Forbes article just says Gen Z 'consists of people born after 1996' without specifying any end-date so it doesn't support user:Zillennial's claim that "Almost every single article uses 1997-2012 as a range" as shown in the edit summary today. The Forbes article looks like an opinion piece too (but doesn't specify a definitive range). Agrso (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Agrso How many times is this going to go back and forth between us? I can support my point that almost (9/10 times) every article is using a 1997-2012 range. This is simply just a waste of time arguing about this so, I'll just let you say whatever you want. Zillennial (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm really frustrated by this recent edit by Zillennial. They knew that on the talk page, in the discussion they started, it was agreed not to include a definitive date range (even in the most generous interpretation, there was no consensus). And yet they still added the definitive range. Let's remember why the discussion on the talk page was spawned in the first place. On September 5, Zillennial tried to institute the 1997-2012 range in the lead without consensus, then after this was reverted, they slightly changed the wording ("late 90s" is pretty much interchangeable with 1997 when 1995 and 1997 are the two main years), again without consensus. Especially with the numerous prior disputes over the date range, I don't understand how Zillennial could have possibly thought that trying to make these three changes without community consensus was appropriate. An invisible comment in the lead even says This range is based on the sources given in the text below; please seek talk page consensus before changing right where Zillennial made their edits. I will just note that 2 out of 3 of these changes were labeled minor edits when they were clearly not, potentially going underneath the radar of some watchlists, but I'm assuming ignorance and placing a notice on their user talk page.

Zillennial has already been blocked twice over disruptive editing (I'm pinging Swarm who blocked them in October 2020 and March 2021, in case they want to give their input) and I'm thinking this could possibly be a third time by repeatedly ignoring community input. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

when looking through this page something caught my attention the dates for generation z (gen z) is incorrect The gen z starting year is correct but gen z only goes up to 2009 therefore the statement saying "early 2010s" is factually incorrect 2010 is the start of the new generation and there is only up to 2009 this minor mistake seems to have caused some confusion. 83.216.147.54 (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There is not enough information to declare that. In fact most sources point to PEW's range which ends Generation Z in 2012 or even later. Zillennial (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Biased Viewpoints

I noticed that some sections do not contain a neutral point of view, especially when the topic of education is discussed. While I agree with some arguments, I think that readers should be allowed to draw their own conclusions.

Under the "North America" tab, beneath the "In the workforce section:" " Nevertheless, 21st-century manufacturing is increasingly sophisticated, using advanced robotics, 3D printing, cloud computing, among other modern technologies, and technologically savvy employees are precisely who employers need. Four-year university degrees are unnecessary; technical or vocational training, or perhaps apprenticeships would do." I know the last sentence comes from a book, but if we are going to present one author's viewpoint on the necessity of a four-year education, than we should show an opposing argument (I did not see any discussion of 4-year vs. vocational degree earning potentials, only employment opportunities) -- or avoid viewpoints altogether.

Under the "Cognitive abilities" section, beneath "Health issues:" "For example, among children with ADHD, 33-45% also suffer from dyslexia and 11% from dyscalculia. Normal or high levels of intelligence offer no protection. Each child has a unique cognitive and genetic profile and would benefit from a flexible education system." Again, while I agree with the last sentence, I do not think a taking side on education reform should count as a neutral viewpoint.

It may be a good idea to sweep the article and make sure we are presenting an unbiased view. I strongly believe in education reform as well, but an encyclopedia page should remain neutral and informational.2600:1702:250:4360:B118:3AF6:5218:B370 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Big Brother telling people what to think. It is merely an encyclopedia with sources. Readers are of course free to think for themselves. Those sentences are all backed up by reliable sources. Nerd271 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021

The image of the sleeping girl is creepy; the angle of perspective and her lack of clothing is disturbing viewer context, especially provided that the subject is of a CHILD!!! People remove this image - viewers are more sensitive regarding depictions of children more than ever. 47.40.29.3 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done I removed it, mostly because it doesn't contribute anything to the understanding of the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Plumsac.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fjones26. Peer reviewers: Lkevincastillo, Martin123451234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BillyDoo2 Connecticut College students in Wiki Ed course "The Net Generation" are undertaking a significant revision of the page on 12/10/15 based on research of this topic conducted in fall 2015..

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Gen Z Consumers

With 2.5 billion Gen Zers globally, the economic power of this generation cannot be underestimated. In a study published in 2021, it was estimated that Gen Z's disposable income in the United States alone has reached $360 billion. The figure is based on research of US government's employment data as well as self-reported data as it pertains to parental support and earnings generated from 'side-hustles'. But having money doesn't translate into careless consumption. Gen Zers grew up during the 2008 recession, often watching their parents lose jobs and struggle to keep up with mortgage payments; it stands to reason they’d be anxious it could happen to them too. More recently, they have felt the economic impact of COVID-19. The result of all this is that Gen Zers are in fact cautious, calculated, and long-term oriented consumers. They are far more interested in securing their financial future than investing in the latest per of sneakers and by doing so are challenging some key assumptions about youth consumptions that were used by consumer brands for years. 02:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)02:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiosity2022 (talk • contribs)

OK. But this is already in this article or Generation Z in the United States. Nerd271 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split. Wgullyn (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

---

The article's Education section should be split into a separate article Education of Generation Z. Right now that section is extremely large and has more than enough content to warrant a separate article. Wgullyn (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree: I actually mentioned this in a talk page discussion about 6 months ago or so (see here). Though I would be fine with making an Education of Generation Z article rather than my previous suggestion. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. This is not a bad idea. Nerd271 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reminder to report dates, not decide them

I would like to remind people that on a Wikipedia article like this, people should be citing the dates used by the media and sociologists, not only the citing the ones they like while omitting the ones they don't like. Its also really important to do this because Gen Z is a new generation with dates not set in stone, and there are different popular date ranges across different countries. 7288P (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, but at the same time we want to avoid WP:UNDUE. When end dates for Gen Z are given, they are usually either 2010 or 2012 (something that I personally disagree with, by the way, but that's not my role as an editor). When making a statement in the lead, we can make generalizations that can be explained in a later section. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 16:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The United States Library of Congress's official citation of Pew's Definition

As of 2022, the federal government in Washington D.C. has cited the 1997- 2012 date range. This can be seen on the Gen Z page. Not only that, but the Millennials Wiki page has the 1981-1996 date range at the top while the wiki page for Generation Z in the United States as well.

After putting the United States Library of Congress's source to the top, Agrso has committed another edit war and even reported me to the Wiki administration. What I don't understand is why because this source is from the federal government itself as of 2022. Agrso even has accused me of a sockpocket investigation. The Millenials page has the 1981-1996 definition at the top. I only added 1997 and not even an end date since the majority of online sources are citing the 1997-2012 range. I only put it in because of the Library of Congress in Washington DC. This is from the Feds, not even a fake or pop source.

Generation Z Gen Z

The world needs to change the term "Generation Z" to "Generation F" (Freedom) in protest of Russian aggression in Ukraine. It seems to me that millions of children born in 1997-2010 would not want to be at least somehow associated with the racist swastika. Sergii Koretskyi (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sad BS.

Adding 1997 as typically being defined as the start of Gen Z towards the top?

Over on the Millenials wiki page, 1981-1996 are typically being defined as the Millenial age range and are added towards the top in the first paragraph. Although the end date of Gen Z is not official yet, the majority of sources are typically putting 1997 as the start of Gen Z, so that should be at least added. One example is the United States Library of Congress as of 2022, or the Brookings Institute. 68.62.155.13 (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism on the date age ranges

It appears that someone is putting outdated sources in the Wiki and taking out sources that are up-to-date, such as the United States Library of Congress as of 2022. 1997 is seen as the start of Gen Z by the majority of sources, not 1995. No end date hasn't even been added. Just the start date which has been in popularity as of date. GhostlyOperative (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone report editor AGRSO for repeated vandalism

AGRSO has been warned multiple times to stop vandalizing this Wikipedia page. This editor has been committing multiple edit wars not just here, but on other Wikipedia articles. GhostlyOperative (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear GhostlyOperative, kindly note that I did not edit war. There is an established talk page consensus (continuation) between Wikipedia users like User:BappleBusiness and User:Some1 regarding the Generation Z date range; therefore any changes made to the section must be discussed to reach talk page consensus. Any changes that aren't discussed are removed per the talk page consensus that was made. Additionally, it is important to note that WP:AGF, WP:CON, and WP:CIVIL are important Wikipedia policies therefore kindly refrain from making provocative accusations on my talk page and elsewhere (using your IP address and main user account).

Kindly refrain from removing this from the Generation Z date range section per the talk page consensus:

BEFORE CHANGING SOURCES: start a discussion on the talk page. New sources should bring value that is not already provided by other sources. All sources must keep a consistent definition for the previous 18 months (with respect to the current date). SUITABLE SOURCES: avoid marketing/consulting companies, non-notable media sources, and institutions not related to studying generations. Instead, focus on demographers and experts, generation-research firms, government sources/censuses, and notable dictionaries. Notable media/newspapers may be used in a limited fashion in tandem with another appropriate source as listed above.

Best regards. Agrso (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You have been warned multiple times. Your Wiki talks page shows that this isn't your first time committing an edit war. You have a repeated history of vandalizing this page and others by adding outdated sources for unknown reasons. Many other editors have added the 1997- 2012 age range because of the Federal United States Library of Congress's decision this 2022 year. The Millennial Wiki page has the 1981-1996 date range. Only the start of 1997 is being added, not even the end date. Over on the Generation Jones Wiki page is the same. You added a comment about the American Census Bureau making the decision of the Generation Z date range when this is incorrect. They only offically recognize the Baby Boomer Generation. Your history appears to be that you are vandalizing this page due to personal rather than factual reasons. GhostlyOperative (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Millennials

The description is nonsense. Millenials became aware of the Internet and able to surf it from a young age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.23.104 (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop using "Z"

The whole world should rename Generation Z to something else. It is disgusting because it reminds us of Putin. It is similar to Harkenkreuz.--150.31.56.91 (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Utter ignorant BS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.23.104 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

While we are doing that, we should definitely delete the letter Z from the alphabet, who cares that it has a phonetic purpose, we'll just call them xoos and xebras. 🙄🦃 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Statistics Canada's April 27th 2022 Gen Z Date Range Update published in their 2021 census

On a Reddit thread I saw the official reddit account for statistics Canada u/StatCanada announce that they would make an official change to their Gen Z definition and that the older 1993 definition would be archived: https://www.reddit.com/r/generationology/comments/trdp2v/question_on_the_statistics_canada_definition_of/i2u9chy/?context=3

In addition, as of Arpil 27th, 2022 they published a report titled "a Generational Report of Canada's Aging Population where they've since updated Generation Y (millennials) to be people aged 25 to 40 (born between 1981 and 1996), Generation Z: people aged 9 to 24 (born between 1997 and 2012), and Generation Alpha: people aged 8 or younger (born between 2013 and 2021). 99% of the Generationology community has agreed that the definition for Gen Z starting in 1993 is outdated and Statistics Canada themselves have archived the original report. I'm here say that this definition is no longer officially recognized by statistics canada and should therefore be taken off this page's section on Gen Z date ranges and replaced with their current one.

Here is a link to the 2021 Generationa; census report: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-X/2021003/98-200-X2021003-eng.cfm And here is a link to their updated report on transgender and nonbinary people that references the Generational date ranges in this report: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220427/dq220427b-eng.htm?utm_source=rddt&utm_medium=smo&utm_campaign=statcan-2021census-diss-demography-en

Based on their official reddit account's comments, the archiving of the legacy 1993 gen z definition and the updated census report, coupled with the fact that nearly all of the community does not consider Gen Z to start in 1993, I'd like to remove the statistics canada 1993 gen z definition from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NezukoKamado (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is biased toward the boomers

Going on the internet is really no different than reading besides perhaps blue light — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.80.84 (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ya someone really hates Gen Z if the last paragraph in the intro has anything to say about it. This page needs to chill out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.220.200.218 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

So are we going to add the "typically defined as 1997-2012" at the top?

Been waiting quite a bit of time, nearly all of the articles released in the last 3 months (that define gen z) list Gen Z as "1997-2012" following PEW's definition. I'm fine with keeping it flexible, but now that this definition seems to be more and more solid are we going to define it at the top of the article or not?

Zillennial (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

We should a link

There is a place in the article that says sleep deprivation which maybe should link to Sleep deprivation 73.211.222.82 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Seemingly contradictory statement

In the political paragraph, several sentences state that the zoomers tend to have more left-winged views than previous generations. In the middle of it, there's a sentence saying "In some European democracies, such as France, national-populist politicians and political parties tend to be the most popular among voters below the age of 40." This is in contrast to everything else that's said in that paragraph, but it's also not entirely pertinent, given that "below the age of 40" identifies a larger group of generations, not just the zoomers. It's very unfocused data for what's relevant here. It should either be removed, better analyzed with more sources, or at least moved at the bottom of the paragraph following some "in contrast with this" introductory lead. The way it's placed now, it's just confusing. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The marijuana section is kinda sus

Why is there an entire lengthy paragraph on the effects of marijuana when there wasn't any effort to actually tie it to Gen Z? It'd be one thing if it discussed the potential harmful effects and then cites some numbers of these being seen in Gen Z, but... it doesn't. It just laundry lists why marijuana is bad, and I don't understand why that's there when that's not the subject of this article? 2600:1700:4600:3950:E1B4:604B:2FB0:C711 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and have boldly removed a big chunk of that section. Thanks for raising the issue. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OneGoodNut (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by OneGoodNut (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Highly problematic page

Hello all, sorry am new to all this but reading this article on gen z, i've stumble across many many problem statements most of which reflect deeply entrenched biaises... for example, the statement : "Moreover, the negative effects of screen time are most pronounced on adolescents compared to younger children." is incorrect (on every level). This entier page needs a deep deep rewrite. NinaDuque (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I would add that many of the author's cited (along with their works) have been dismissed by the scientific community ... for example Jean Twenge's work on gen z is no longer accepted as valid. NinaDuque (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we don't remove content for being "problematic", and we cite our sources. As far as negative effects of screen time on adolescents, there are plenty of sources to confirm this. for example. Since we have a resource on the relative damage and no evidence to the contrary, it would be silly to remove it from the article. We also don't remove sources because another source says they don't like the researcher or the research itself. Thespearthrower (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

am i gen z?

i was born in 2010, some sources say i am a gen z some say i’m alpha. which is correct? 47.157.90.93 (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing your generation, but you are Gen Z. 1997-2014 and sometimes 2001-2016 are used for Gen Z. Thespearthrower (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Generation Zoomer

I think generation zoomer are people from 1996 to 2010 102.68.31.241 (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Strauss & Howe Missing

The lack of information from Strauss-Howe Generational theory is conspicuously missing from this article. They define this generation (Homelanders) as starting in 2005 as the cohort grew up in the post-9/11 surveillance state as well as growing up on smart phones. A generation is about 20 years as that's the general age at which people start having children, but according to the article this generation is only 10 years in length. Generations aren't the same as peer groups.

Also, the term "Generation Z" defines the cohort in terms of their predecessors (Generation X) instead of defining them by the characteristics of their generation. I'm not sure why so many people just accept this rather than finding it insulting.

I'm making this comment based on informative accuracy, not because of some personal stake (I'm a Millennial). Lastly, the reason I'm commenting in talk rather than "being bold" is because in past I've spent hours researching and editing an article only to have someone less informed remove my changes without justification. Wikipedia hasn't been good at preventing users with an agenda from removing accurate information and nuance. This is also related to why I no longer sign in. 2604:2D80:DE11:1300:5C95:F49D:6C9A:1F0D (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Very little reliable secondary sources define Generation Z using Strauss & Howe's dates. Per WP:DUE, Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject; that's why it's not included in this article. Some1 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Who started Gen Z usage?

in this very lengthy article with a much more lengthy list of references, nowhere does it mention where this ridiculous term GenZ came from to begin with, only mentioning it’s assumed skyrocketing popularity in the United States media/social media influencer world.

nor is there a discussion of how ignorant the term is given that there never was actually a Y, and more importantly I have actually heard young people assume that the letters actually do go all the way back to MJ starting perhaps with the founding fathers. It was a mistake to allow it to propagate the way that it has into popularity and simply saying it is popular so we’ll let it be popular doesn’t answer the question who is running the train when it comes to grammar and logical references; nor does it track down the source of this ignorant terminology.

lastly it does not mention that the only reason why generational terms are used as for marketing purposes primarily these days, which is why not only does this youngest generation already have a name ascribe to them, but so does the generation that is barely in school and have no attributable personality traits, calling them alpha of all things, continuing the ignorant idea that we’ve always use the letters when we never have until acts which meant something specific.

i’ve written many letters to many national radio shows practically begging them to at least have a discussion about the issue instead of just constantly referring to young people as GenZ, a generational title which means absolutely nothing outside of the fact that it shows that some ignorant person looked at Gen X, and was able to count two letters down and decided to use that easy lazy letter instead of thinking about what a generation was actually about - or better yet, letting the generation pick their own damn title if there is and must be one.

i’m so sick of generational conversations nationally. If it’s one thing that we learned, every single one of us in every “generation“, it’s that every person at any given age is unique, and there’s no such thing as everybody the same age being exactly like each other at all.

The very idea is ridiculous. yes, it is true that technologically and socially every year we gradually change. We do not change suddenly at the end of some designated D range that some people think makes us this or that or another thing. Most especially when you consider the fact that all of us any given age are raised and incredibly different families with incredibly different access to resources and incredibly different responses within and without our community based on who we are.

just stop it with the generational talk unless you’re going to explain and discuss why it’s even necessary and why we let some ignorant person start using letters beyond Gen X which meant something specific. (and frankly, that was a pretty stupid title too, but at least it landed correctly: young people at a place and time where it didn’t seem feasible to believe in the American dream any longer. That wasn’t generational, that was realism in 1995.

Thanks you for listening. Please someone do something about this. Make it stop - and tell marketing teams to get a real job. 2601:602:8001:21A0:40B8:DC62:A094:ED58 (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2022

Can you change 2012 to 2011 because that's when gen z ended 147.129.200.9 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry! But the sources say 2012, or thereabouts. Nerd271 (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

"21st century"

Cornellier has repeatedly edited this article to change occurrences of "21st century" to "2000s" (and similarly for 20th century) without giving any explanation as to why this might be an improvement. Here are some reasons it's not an improvement:

• "21st century" is the current WP:EDITCONSENSUS. There are many uses of it in the article by many editors.
• "2000s" is already used in a handful of places, specifically to refer to the first decade of the century. Changing all the other occurrences makes this use much less clear.
• The use of the "21st century" form is endorsed in MOS:CENTURY.

@Cornellier, do you have any counterarguments? Or anyone else, would you like to chime in? Dan Bloch (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

"21st century" is not specific enough. These people are from the early twenty-first century. The cohort born in, say, the mid-twenty-first century will most likely be different from them. Nerd271 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't in regards to the definition? The debate is in regards to using "2000s" where "21st century" is currently used. Every instance of "21st century" is qualified with "early", "late", or certain "decades of", so specificity isn't an issue. In fact, using "2000s" where "21st century" is used would only confuse things. The only reason provided by Cornellier is "This isn't a literary magazine." which is not a valid argument and is outweighed by the reasons Dan Block provided. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Danbloch Phrases such as the examples below could be clearer per WP:PLAINENGLISH. Please compare the left side (from article) with right side:

• "schoolchildren in 1960, but by the start of the 21st century" -> "schoolchildren in 1960, but by the start of the 2000s"
• "During the first two decades of the 21st century" -> "During the first two decades of the 2000s"
• "parents in the early 21st century" -> "parents in the early 2000s"
• "at the turn of the century" -> "around the year 2000"

Adjectival forms can be used when necessary but the year numbers are to be prefered as that is how people speak in real life. I will perhaps take it up at MOS:CENTURY. Cornellier (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is my talk article deleted?

Do you see yourself as a god? It’s the Talk section, this is what it’s for - discussion of the article, which i did, as well as the majority of the references that were included. And my questions and comments still stand.

No one in the article discusses exactly where the term GenZ originated, and nowhere in the article is anyone discussing the validity of such a thing, or the marketing landscape’s usage of it, or whether or not the generation so-called deserves to choose a title for themselves.

You simply say that it was recognized as popular and therefore they decided to keep doing that.

It was a fair and clearly written talk response and there is no reason why someone should act like a little God and remove it.

(No) thank you for making Wikipedia less than it could be.

-Richard Sauvé 2601:602:8001:21A0:CC8B:3B11:DF15:DCA2 (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, according to my reading of Wikipedia:Editing others' comments, the removal of your comment by Nerd271 was not legitimate.

Re your other two points, I think the term Generation Z was invented by a number of people independently. I don't think there's a known source for it. And while there is a lot of doubt about the legitimacy and value of social generation terms, it applies to all of the generations, not just Gen Z. It's covered a bit in Generation#Criticism. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I just restored the section that was illegitimately deleted by Nerd271. However, I would advice you to read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK. Your questions are somewhat answered by the etymology and nomenclature section. Like what Dan Bloch said, I would infer that "Generation Z" was coined by many people at once, especially after Ad Age coined Generation Y for the millennials (more in Millennials#Terminology and etymology) and established that pattern. But I'm not sure what we can add regarding that topic, since there hasn't been a source that we can cite that investigates that question, at least to my knowledge. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 18:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Anything irrelevant or polemical will be deleted. Nerd271 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Polemical" is not grounds for deletion. See the Wikipedia guideline above. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. WP:UNCIVIL seems surprisingly lax. No wonder people often leave Wikipedia. Nerd271 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum, you are correct, but that is not grounds for deletion. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in Generations Z and Alpha

I find it interesting that as a major event, the COVID-19 pandemic was listed on the page under Gen Alpha, I consider the effects of countermeasures and isolation, among others, to have had a greater affect on Gen Z than Gen Alpha.

An example of this, I would not cite the 2008 Stock Market Crash, as a major event of Gen Z, despite many being alive during it, it has not had any great effects. The same ‘should’ go for Gen A and COVID-19.

This is of course only my opinion. 17mtv (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

An economic crash which did not directly affect Gen Z at the time, and a pandemic which directly prevented social contact with peers in the most developmentally sensitive period for Gen Alpha are entirely incomparable, and as such no parallels can be drawn.

Of course, it may even be the case that both the 2008 collapse and the pandemic had the same (negligible) effect on thier respective generations, but one cannot say BECAUSE one was the the case, the other must also be. The devil is in the details.

Following, research has indeed show huge detriments to the health and life quality of children and young adults since the start of the pandemic. VarezTico (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

I suggest that any gendering of people in photos be changed to gender-neutral language, especially photos of children in the article. 96.248.74.197 (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2022

47.155.77.16 (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Generations Z 1996-2010

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible changes to the Generation Z birth statistics

The high number of visitors this page collected comes from confusion on when Generation Z started to have a start birth date and ending birth date or why Bernie Sanders called Maxwell Frost Gen-Z. Many news reports and some government are using Pew Research as a define start when to call someone Gen-Z. Pew Research does not say the date was used for defining Gen-Z, it was a cut off to have better data on the people. "Pew Research Center decided a year ago to use 1996 as the last birth year for Millennials for our future work."

The United States still does not have an official cut off when Gen-Z started and ended. Many other governments do not either, only news reports have started to use Pew Research as a define cut off. Canada, as reference in this page does not declare the date as 100%, it only mentions as trust in Pew Research then puts in the numbers.

Pew Research may have gotten something wrong, their reason why the 1997 was a cut off is due to the 9/11 attack. Pew Research believes Millennials remember the major event. This may not be correct because this is only involving United States Millennials. Many other children at the time are not involved, United States also during at that time did not want children to be viewing dangerous content. More talk about Pew Research data and decisions are welcome, as they wrote:

"Pew Research Center is not the first to draw an analytical line between Millennials and the generation to follow them, and many have offered well-reasoned arguments for drawing that line a few years earlier or later than where we have. Perhaps, as more data are collected over the years, a clear, singular delineation will emerge. We remain open to recalibrating if that occurs."

If anything, i like people to know Pew Research started the birth statistics and then news report started using that to define Gen-Z on people.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6707:C100:65A5:7622:5255:D04A (talk • contribs) 14:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Sources that don't talk about Generation Z.

We should be more cautious about using sources that don't talk about Generation Z as a concept. While there is some disagreement over the term (so we could reasonably use sources that just use another name for it), I think it's inappropriate and WP:OR / WP:SYNTH to use sources that just talk about demographics in general to make sweeping claims about Generation Z. --Aquillion (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Date range sources dispute

Both @GhostlyOperative and @Wikiboo02 have been adding/removing numerous sources and it is approaching an edit war. There have been numerous discussions on this in the past few years, arguably most notably two sections from July 2021 into October 2021. A consensus was formed that new sources should bring value that is not already provided by other sources, and that all sources must keep a consistent definition for the previous 18 months (with respect to the current date). Consensus was also established that suitable sources include demographers and experts, generation-research firms, government sources/censuses, and notable dictionaries. This consensus was labeled on the respective section through invisible comments, but alas, the dispute has continued (albeit with different users). I haven't gotten to take a look at these new sources because they are numerous; I am opening up this discussion at the request of Wikiboo02. I am reverting the section to the WP:STATUSQUO until this dispute is resolved; I will report for edit warring involved users who edit it further. Personally, I think we may have to approach this section in a completely different fashion to avoid seemingly inevitable disputes over sources and WP:DUE. We may also need an RfC, though let's see if we can handle it on our own first. I am pinging users who were involved in the discussions mentioned above: @Agrso, @Zillennial, and @Some1. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 23:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for opening this discussion. I think it’s better to have a neutral participant with experience so that anyone can voice their opinion to them and debate in a civil manner without accusations. This is a free encyclopedia were no single user should be in charge of what gets to be added or not. The content should with appropriate weighting reflect reality and I don’t object that. What we have here though is aggressive citing that many times is in violation with the citation rules. News articles are being added without considering their relevance or the fact that different author use different ranges even within the same agency, company, et cetera. We saw this with Forbes among others, the mere fact that none of the news agencies declare official ranges means citations shouldn’t make it seem as if they are adopting said ranges. Some of the latest citations added aren’t in any way consistent and were added despite the company in question was using different ranges just months ago, the citations from this fall even had conflicting ranges, yet they were from the same company. Some are only based on a range of ages such as young adults with no mentioning of any primary source such as Pew, et cetera. Again showing that companies don’t officially declare ranges and the relevance of citing fifty articles for one range is too much. The citations should be consistent over a period of 18 months which many of them are not and most citations aren’t being questioned by other users because there’s no discussion prior to adding them and most people have no clue about the history of a specific company and what ranges they use. This is a huge drawback to this article as it relies on only a few select people and their decisions on what is appropriate. Such a popular article should ideally require more than a handful of people when reaching a consensus.

Regarding my dispute with GhostlyOperative, I would like him to stop accusing me multiple times of edits I haven’t done especially warning me two times for a single edit as well as replying to any question I might have on his entries on my talk page. Reverting my edit yesterday in its entirety was uncalled for as up to date citations from reliable sources were given to balance the article. I could accept that my approach was wrong but the reaction was definitely uncalled for. I also request more neutral points of view as the users involved in this dispute have been too one sided in which ranges they even allow to be presented on this page. I’m not interested in an overhaul here but that we can respect former consensus and only add new citations after carefully considering them. Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikiboo2 has been adding outdate sources that conflict with the 18-month disclaimer. Many of the sources that they have posted are outdated, such as Pricewaterhousecoopers's 2022 survey. They have been adding misleading information. GhostlyOperative (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As for other wiki editors who read this, WikiBoo2 had deliberately cited 2018 and 2020 citations this 2022 year, even though 2022 citations had already existed. Deloitte and Pricewaterhousecoopers are two examples of this. Both had 2022 Global surveys at the beginning of this year, yet WikiBoo2 decides to cite the 2018 and 2020 versions. This is what I mean when they are being manipulative and misleading. GhostlyOperative (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

These are the accusations. @BappleBusiness and other users can check my edit history and see that they’re false. Wikiboo02 (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You posted multiple outdated sources such as the Deloitte one. You are lying. GhostlyOperative (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

All of those news articles were already there, but posted in the 1995 section. I wanted to remove them in the first place, but you guys would have reported me. So I simply updated the dates. I didn't put them there in the first place. Others who had attempted to have them to support the 1995 section did. GhostlyOperative (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As for the accusations that I’m trying to mislead readers BappleBusiness and other users are free to check out my edit history. I wish that GhostlyOperativ stop these accusations in order to put me in an unfavorable light, from now on I will assume he’s doing it in bad faith. I wish that he stops one-sidedly adding his own citations while not allowing other people to add theirs if this is how he wants to continue. Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

For example, WikiBoo2 had removed my World Economic Forum citation, yet hypocritically attempted to include information that conflict with other sources. GhostlyOperative (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you GhostlyOperative for replying. You were actually the one who removed it from the 1995 section which I undid because the source there was still viable and a conflicting citation from Weforum doesn’t change that. You could have added it in the 1997 section without removing the one that was in the 1995 one. I only undid the attempt of removing the citation that was already there. Have you ever considered two citations coexisting? Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yet you completely removed mine without even citing yours too. You were deliberately removing my sources before I posted the one that was written by the head officer at the World Economic Forum. GhostlyOperative (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I am simply updating sources as of 2022. WikiBoo2 had been deliberately citing past sources without checking for updated ones. I never removed a single source, but simply updated. Yesterday, WikiBoo2 had attempted to include articles that did not include sources. GhostlyOperative (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources? You mean citations? The latest from 2022 means it’s impossible for 18 months to have passed. Can you tell us how you’re following this rule yourself? I added citations from 2022, why are yours allowed and mine not? Two of your McKinsey citations don’t even include a range and one of them surveys young adults ages 18 to 24 in 2020 yet you included it as a range that starts in 1997. Can you disclose any bias you might have? Because I’m only seeing accusations but nothing about you and the insane amount of edits you’ve been making lately. Also don’t revert during a dispute. Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Pricewaterhousecoopers had published a 2022 survey, yet you posted a 2020 one. United Press International had posted multiple 2022 articles, yet you have a 2020 one. You added Deloitte and Pricewaterhousecoopers, yet did not include Ernst and Young or KPMG. This can be seen in almost all of your citations (most come from 2018 or 2020). The World Economic Forum is a November article written by a chief operating officer. When I posted it, you took it out without citing both at the same time as you said. Hypocritical. GhostlyOperative (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t add anyone of those, they were already there which you can easily check through my edit history. I can see they’re from 2022 before you edited them so I have no idea why you are regurgitating this. As for the last sentence you can do that yourself, I’m not going to do something that you can easily do yourself. If you had added your source without touching the other one I wouldn’t have reacted. Wikiboo02 (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

When I contacted you about this, you wrote to me nonsense that didn't make any sense. You attempted to include a 1996-2015 paragraph yesterday without discussing it first. GhostlyOperative (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And in that 1996-2015 paragraph, you deliberately added a citation that DID NOT include any single source. It literally was a pointless article. GhostlyOperative (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As for the Deloitte citation that you have included, I have no idea why you would cite a 2018 survey when Deloitte had already made a 2022 one at the beginning of the this year. I updated it of course. GhostlyOperative (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That’s correct, I wanted to separate the sections into three different ones, any mistakes I make here are overshadowed by your inability to discuss things in the talk page or respect the 18 month rule which nearly all of your recent citations do. The Bain & Company one is more valid than a lot of the citations you provide. Wikiboo02 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you included 2020 and 2018 citations tells me other wise that you respect the 18 month rule. GhostlyOperative (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I had reached out to you for the World Economic Forum. You responded to me with nonsense that contradicts with what you are saying right now. You removed my November 2022 citation without stating of having both at the same time. All of your citations were outdated, some of them by years. GhostlyOperative (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Explain to me the Pricewaterhousecoopers and Deloitte citations that you added. You cited both of these sources this 2022 year, yet you decided to choose citations that come from 2018 and 2020. Both Pricewaterhousecoopers and Deloitte had already published 2022 global surveys since the beginning of this year. This is what I mean when you are deliberately misleading readers and being manipulative. GhostlyOperative (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

All three McKinsey 2022 citations state their sources. You have to click the blue number 1 at the top to read them. As for you, when I first reached out to you to discuss the situation, you were very avoidant and barely messaged back. You are presenting yourself as reasonable and writing long paragraphs here, yet with me you were distant as well passive-aggressive. You also were spouting nonsense statements that contradicted with each other. Very manipulative. You did post multiple citations knowing that they are outdated. I feel that I'm talking to a brick wall that is playing mind games. GhostlyOperative (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of the sources in the 1995 section are outdated. Many are from past years such as 2018, and those organizations had been updating with 2022 sources. WikiBoo2 is treating the wiki article as a fandom, putting information that shouldn't even be there. Their last citation did not include any sources. GhostlyOperative (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As for the so-called personal bias, I left the citations that were correctly up-to-date such as the Deloitte one. I didn't take them out. As I said, almost all of the sources in that paragraph are outdated by many years. GhostlyOperative (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in the so-called "edit war" in 2021 with @Agrso, we both came to the agreement to add meaningful updated sources that include general consensus of when Gen Z starts and ends. Quoting outdated sources or ones that are not reputable companies (like Forrester Research) are not relevant to this discussion. I think we should reduce the size of the Date & Age range article and publish a larger variety of date ranges, for example the Millennials page includes Strauss and Howe Generational Theory (which is a much more valid source than any of these marketing companies listed just using Pew Research). Would also like to spot out that Beresford Research has a constantly updated page listing generation ranges[6] that I think could be a great addition to this page, while we could reduce lots of the "cited by major media companies". The whole section is clunky at this point due to constant edit war. Zillennial (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

As I was saying, those citations that WikiBoo2 is talking about were not added by me in the first place. I wanted to remove them, but I was afraid that someone would have reported me for being biased. Many of the sources in the 1995 section were posted in an attempt to give it credit, despite the fact that almost all of them were outdated. For example, the United Press International was already there in the 1995 section (despite the fact that it is outdated for two years now.) I never added or taken out a single article that wasn't already there on this Generation Z page. The only exemption was the Rolling Stone interview with American politician Maxwell Frost, and the reason why I added is due to someone putting an Inc. magazine that was in the 1995 section. GhostlyOperative (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we can structure the section differently to not just be a list of sources. We could split it up by type of publication (governments, news, consulting firms, etc.) and then include the sources in notes (as opposed to a sea of names in the body). This doesn't completely avoid the problem, but it would lead to better readability and places the sources in a less prominent place so the incentive to war over it would be decreased. One example could be: Numerous news outlets cite Pew Research Center's definition of a starting birth year of 1997. Other news outlets have used 1995 as the starting birth year. In a 2020 publication, the US Census defined Generation Z as being born "after 1996".^[ref] ...

There is also, of course, the question of what sources to include in these notes. Major news sources, as they are numerous, can be included in notes. I think we've seen that news agencies often have many writers with dissenting opinions; I don't see a reason why one writer should be prioritized over another. Major firms that aren't dedicated to generations can also be placed in notes. Government sources I think should be displayed prominently (i.e. not in notes), as well as sources that are cited by many other reliable major sources (e.g. Pew) . Notable scholars that are dedicated to generations as their work and are cited by many sources (e.g. Jean Twenge, Strauss-Howe?) should also be placed prominently. Major dictionaries should be placed prominently and should be quoted. We can note when dissenting ranges (like Strauss-Howe) are mentioned.

What do people think of this framework? ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I can get behind this. I think there should be a clear distinction between actual sources of ranges and writers citing them which is merely the act of acknowledging said ranges. I don’t oppose the addition of more sources such as Strauss-Howe as well as governmental sources. I have one concern and that is the fact that this article could potentially act as its own source if it gets too one-sided getting precedence over other sources. With the intention of being descriptive it risks reinforcing the ranges it favors so that they over time get more popular. In short this article is influential and should therefore not appear to take a stand on the ranges nor that there is a consensus or conclusive range, therefore I stand behind the somewhat loose yet succinct description in the beginning with a clean date section following your proposed template. Splitting it that way is better than splitting it by start year. Wikiboo02 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Why don't we create a sandbox of the "Date and age range" section where users can edit/discuss proposed changes to the section? And whatever gets consensus in that sandbox gets added to the actual article? We could start with the March 26, 2022 version of the section as the starting point for the sandbox since it's pretty bare bones. Regarding the current version of the section, I think we should focus more on trimming down some of the excess sources instead of adding more. Some1 (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I don't know how to make sandboxes for individual articles, so would you be willing to do it, @Some1? ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Here you go: Talk:Generation Z/sandbox. I added a link to it in the hidden note: [7]. Some1 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is WikiBoo2 moving the 1996-2015 citation into the Pew Research section at the very top? There is no consensus to do this.

Moved to Talk:Generation Z/sandbox

 – Some1 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Date range sources don't seem right.

Moved to Talk:Generation Z/sandbox

 – Some1 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Western or worldwide?

Gen Z is described as a Western cohort. The page for Western world specifically excludes Africa, the Middle East, and China. And yet, this page includes them. Is Gen Z Western or worldwide? I.grok (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Move page to "Zoomers"?

It doesn't make any sense why the Generation Y article was moved to the cohort's "full" name (Millennials), yet the Generation Z article still uses a placeholder letter. Zoomers is currently the most popular alternative name for Gen Z. 174.55.91.169 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Generation Z is the WP:COMMONNAME. "Zoomers" is nowhere near as recognizable (or popular) as "Generation Z". Some1 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It just seems silly that the current naming scheme on Wiki goes X-Millennial-Z, when X-Millennial-Zoomer would make more sense given the Gen Y name was phased out.--174.55.91.169 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Millennials are Generation Y. Please see that page. Nerd271 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, but Millennials has become their primary name on Wiki and elsewhere, taking precedence over Gen Y. One would likewise expect Zoomers to by now be the primary name instead of Gen Z, but it isn't.--174.55.91.169 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

silly that the current naming scheme on Wiki goes X-Millennial-Z, Well, it's Baby boomers-Gen X-Millennials-Gen Z. 'Generation Z' isn't a "placeholder" name the same way 'Generation X' isn't. Anyway, Wikipedia follows what WP:reliable sources use, and the overwhelming majority of them use "Generation Z" as the primary name for this generation. Some1 (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2023

On the Census part in "Date and age range definitions", please update

"Although the U.S. Census does not identify Gen Z like it does the baby boomers, a U.S. Census publication in 2020 described Generation Z as the “young and mobile” population with oldest members of the cohort born "after 1996"."

to

"Although the U.S. Census does not officially identify Gen Z like it does the baby boomers, a U.S. Census publication in 2022 noted that Generation Z is "colloquially defined as" the cohort born from 1997 to 2012, using this definition in a breakdown of Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data."

174.55.91.169 (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Y Done! Nerd271 (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. However, the source you added in the article has the wrong URL. It still links to the 2020 article (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/03/reaching-out-to-the-young-and-mobile-to-respond-to-the-2020-census.html), when it should link to the 2022 one (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/08/wealth-inequality-by-household-type.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.91.169 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to change the link. Fixed! Y Nerd271 (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

References

"live more slowly"

Is there any verifiable source that suggests the passage of verifiable time progresses objectively slower for Gen Z than the rest of humanity, or should this statement be rephrased to suggest perceptive differences? Are they physically aging at a slower rate than previous generations? This statement is just silly. 2600:100B:B107:4484:0:12:C6D4:D601 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not about the passage of time or aging but rather being less inclined to have a fast and furious life compared to older generations (especially when they were at the same age). It is about lifestyle. Nerd271 (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe then that should be rephrased to be more clear. BappleBusiness^[talk] 02:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Somebody added an internal link to the intro. That's a good fix. Nerd271 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Internet

Gen Z we’re not the first generation to use the internet. The internet was made available o the public in 1993 so therefore millennials and generations before were the generations to use it first. Gen Z we’re way to young to even comprehend computers until the 2000’s 2600:6C60:427F:FCE8:B0CE:BD5A:FB75:DA7B (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The Internet was not that common until the 2000s. Nerd271 (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That's debateable. History of the Internet, History of the World Wide Web and Internet articles suggest that the Internet as we know it started it's rise in 1995 and was already well established by the millennium. not that common is too vague a term to apply really. However, the article says "As the first social generation to have grown up with access to the Internet..." not just using it, and that's probably accurate. I was an avid internet user back in 1994 for both domestic and work, but I didn't grow up with access to it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

How common it is depends on where you are and how strict your parents were. This article is supposed to be global in scope. Nerd271 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

That's true today. I think the text - assuming that specific passage is the concern - as it stands is sufficient and accurate enough. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Bruce Tulgan's Gen Z Definition

A few days ago a writer named Bruce Tulgan writing for Forbes defined Generation Z as "The post-Millennial generation, known to most as Generation Z, begins with a birth-year roughly around 1997." and adds: "No matter which specific definition you use, we can all agree Gen Zers were tiny children on September 11, 2001. They were about a decade old at the end of the deepest and most protracted global recession since the Great Depression, in 2008. And they began entering high school, pursuing post-secondary education, or entering the workforce during the disruptions of the Global Pandemic in 2020. [8]

My question to fellow Wikipedia contributors: is this a relevant and verified enough opinion to add to this article? Zillennial (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on this one. It does not contain what anyone who uses the Pew Research Center's definition does not already know. On the other hand, it is still to early to say whether and how this cohort will recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated economic disruptions. Nerd271 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Can we keep that article on watch? It's bound to change sometime in the future and may come out with updated research. Looks like Bruce Tulgan is a credible writer when it comes to sociology and demographics.

~~ Zillennial (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to how significant Bruce Tulgan is, so I'm not sure if it's worth it to add the source, especially since we already have a Forbes source. I would be open to replacing the current Forbes source with this one, since Bruce Tulgan is more notable (i.e. has a Wikipedia page). BappleBusiness^[talk] 00:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind this but I'm unsure as to where it should be placed and in all honesty the article is bloated as it is. Aside from that it summarize things nicely. Wikiboo02 (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be tucked in one of the preexisting notes. We wouldn't include the quote I would assume. BappleBusiness^[talk] 00:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

^ This works. Nerd271 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Risky behaviors

Is pornography viewership actually a risky behavior? This section takes that claim for granted. There are certainly criticisms of pornography and psychological/sexual development, but they are not cited here. It may be worth mentioning that this is a criticism from some people but not others. Additionally, this section doesn't address how Gen Z are different from other generations (Millenials especially) on this issue. Gen Z will also not be teenagers forever-- some are now in their 20s-- so focusing on generational differences in porn viewership rather than focusing on teenage viewership of porn would be more relevant. Catboy69 (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a date (2020) right at the start. One could always find additional sources if they are available. Nerd271 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes no sense

I’m born in the last year of millennials and my parents we’re generation X I don’t know anyone that is a gen Z that is born by a gen X. If you do the math at least 90% of gen z are children of us millennials. 2600:6C60:427F:FCE8:B0CE:BD5A:FB75:DA7B (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Your sample size might be too small to be statistically significant. Depending on which country you are from, people may or may not have children that young. Nerd271 (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

lmao my parents are gen x and I'm gen z Catboy69 (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Adding "generally defined as being born between 1997 to 2012" under header?

Does everyone who contributes to this page agree that we could add "typically born from 1997 to 2012" under the header? I get that there is still some debate as to when Gen Z begins and ends but the majority of credible scholars, sources, and recent articles really are beginning to see eye to eye on it being about 1997 to 2012. I do understand that it could change in the future and have no problem if it does shift in the future that we can update it immediately. Highly credible sources that support this claim are the Library of Congress [9] and Statistics Canada [10] that use this range to measure their rightful demographic. When looking at the recent news articles for Generation Z that are written by major media sources there are more that are using pew's generation range than different ones at this point. Zillennial (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wikiboo02 @BappleBusiness @Nerd271 @Danbloch What does everyone think about this? Should we continue to wait until it gets 'finalized' by more institutions or go ahead and add it? If not agreed (instead of adding it into the header), What about below "Date and Age Range" section first paragraph? Something like this for example: Sandbox Edit #1 or Sandbox Edit #2? This is the idea for the Header (feel free to play around with various ideas too). Zillennial (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I don't entirely oppose the idea but I have a few remarks that makes me hesitate adding it. I summarize my thoughts below,

1. I do think it's too early to add it, most generations had time to fully form and be extensively studied before a final range was decided. We're not quite there yet and while one range could be more common, the act of adding it to the article means we're prematurely forcing that range as that's what people are going to use when they see it on Wikipedia; on the contrary, not adding it won't have any negative impact as the status quo description does the job.

2. I think we should sort out the sources for a while and see what they converge towards, there are sources that are outdated or misleading, for instance Ipsos has consistently started Generation Z in 1996 in the past two years yet it's under 1997 on this article. I can also see you removed an outdated source earlier; which was justified, so we should fix those things firsts. While it seems to be converging slightly the fact that it's still debated means there's no hurry.

Sometime in the future, I could see something Bruce Tulgan style being added though, this quote "The post-Millennial generation, known to most as Generation Z, begins with a birth-year roughly around 1997." doesn't sound too bad in the Date range section, these are my two cents. Wikiboo02 (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I can agree with this. For the header it might be a bit early to distinguish specific birth years. Updating sources is also a good point, and we can get on that. I also have another idea too to give less bias on Pew Research's defintion - would you be alright with including an introduction in the 'Date and Range' area that looks like this that will give more of a general idea of when Gen Z starts? If we don't want to include specific years, maybe something like "starting with a birth year around the late 90's"? Zillennial (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd say wait for some more years. The youngest among them at this time in history are just about to finish primary school. Nerd271 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Arguably there are sources that do consider Gen Z to end in 2009 or 2010 meaning that the youngest would be teenagers. Zillennial (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Social Media use statistics?

Hello! In the social media section, I'd like to add statistics on how many generation Z people are using social media. On this site, it shows that 90% of teens 13-17 have used social media, 75% have at least one social media account, 51% say they go on at least one social media daily, 66% have their own devices with internet, and teens are online for almost 9 hours a day. What do you guys think about these statistics? Although it's data from 2018, I think when they reference teens, it must be generation Z people due to the time frame. Jenguin (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Insights on dating app use in the US

In the romance and marriage section, I would like to add insights from two studies showing that the primary age demographic for dating apps such as Tinder is 18-34 which covers most of the age range of Gen Z [11]. The studies also suggest that out of these demographics, the culture of engaging in relationships is changing (naming practices such as "hooking up or fwb aka friends with benefits") and that the large gender imbalance along exacerbates differences in motivations to use the apps [12]. Deicidenow (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You should bring this material over to Generation Z in the United States. Nerd271 (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Deicidenow: Online dating is another good place for this information. Nerd271 (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Addition to Mental Health Section; Climate-change anxiety

Hi! In the mental health section, I would like to add some additional information from a study conducted with Gen Z individuals relating to climate change anxiety and mental health. Climate anxiety (or eco-anxiety) is defined as "heightened emotional, mental or somatic distress in response to dangerous changes in the climate system" by the The Handbook of Climate Psychology [13]. This study focused on the link between psychological distress, mental health, and climate-change anxiety. The study suggests that "higher climate change anxiety significantly predicts lower mental health" in Gen Z individuals, however, the study also suggests that these "emotional responses should not be immediately seen as pathological— instead, [these emotional responses are] a motivation to find solutions to combat climate change"[14]. BasilLemonade (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, climate change and mental health issues are certain important and relevant issues. But the sample size for the first study is too small and the second consists of mere hypotheses. Nerd271 (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that! Regarding a sufficient sample size for a study, what would you say is 'big enough'? Does it need to be an international study or can it be a nation-wide study? I think there are some other sources I can look to. BasilLemonade (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a sample size of over a thousand people for a national study. For an international study, a few thousand at least should suffice. In the case of a U.S.-specific study, please bring it over to Generation Z in the United States. Nerd271 (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I found an international study with a sample size of 10,000 (1,000 people ages 16-25 from ten different countries) that surveyed the participant's thoughts and feelings towards climate change. They found that 59% were extremely worried and 84% were moderately worried. Further, at least 45% reported that their feelings towards climate change "negatively affected their daily life and functioning". They correlate the reported thoughts and feelings of the participants to climate anxiety and distress. They link this to the "perceived inadequate government response and associated feelings of betrayal"[15]. BasilLemonade (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Implemented. I added it to both the sections on their political views and their mental health because the source notes their dissatisfaction with their governments. Nerd271 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary dead link

Zillennial, could you please update the source for Oxford Dictionary? It says "dead link". Wikiboo02 (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for letting me know. Zillennial (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Who are the parents of Generation Z

The parents of generation Z those people born from 1997-2014 . Are primarily Older Millennials Born from 1981-1988 and Younger Gen-X born 1975-1980. With the micro Generation known as Xennials those born "1977-1983" being The largest age group of parents of Generation Z children born after the year 2000. Deathlands82 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

At what stage are you gonna rename this page to Zoomers?

--116.240.236.234 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrong

Whoever changed the top to say late 90s only are absolutely wrong and ignorant

Many sources also start gen z at 1995 goes to show wikipedia is not to be trusted

https://mccrindle.com.au/article/topic/generation-z/gen-z-and-gen-alpha-infographic-update/

https://amp.9news.com.au/article/8b510a2b-a5a4-4d0a-9885-3d8174ebeeb4 49.191.59.20 (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Generally, there should be a consensus when changing the definition at the beginning or introducing new sources that significantly alter the structure of the date and age range section. I will revert this and ask the user to try to reach a consensus in the Generation Z sandbox which was specifically created for these things. If I am not mistaken, we recently had a discussion about this and it seemed like there was no intention to change the definition. Wikiboo02 (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!

If there’s actual evidence of multiple media outlets or researchers changing their years I will understand but as far as i know 1995-1997 is still the spectrum used. 49.191.59.20 (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries. There certainly is a spectrum and while one year may have an advantage it's still too early to unnecessarily narrow down the definition as that could be seen as synthesizing facts. I think the article seems to maintain a fair balance, and there is no need to provide any particular year with additional advantage. Wikiboo02 (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect

Many sources state that gen z ends at 2009 and kids born 2010 or later are part of gen alpha

here r some sources:https://www.britannica.com/topic/Generation-Alpha https://mccrindle.com.au/article/topic/generation-alpha/generation-alpha-defined/ 174.50.182.135 (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

One of these sources is a tertiary source and is written by a non-expert. The other one is just one company and it seems like most other definitions end later than that, I’m not sure though. Wikiboo02 (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect information

'As the first social generation to have grown up with access to the Internet and portable digital technology from a young age'. This is false I am a millennial(an older one born in 1989)I had the Internet from 1996 when I was 7 which I would count as a young age and game boys and calculators are portable digital technology. For some younger millennials the Internet was already mainstream at the time they were born so this feels like a huge exaggeration. 2A00:23C7:5AD0:8F01:8008:839B:B96:8FE1 (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Pew

Pew has retired generations from now on they’ll use age groups rather than generations + the article does not give the 1995 start point the same attention making the article a bit biased, for example Jean Twenge + McCrindle + Deloitte + David Stillman & Jonah Stillman All follow the 1995 start and much more .

Also the chart needs to be removed bc it only uses 1 start year, so either add charts for 1995 and 1996 or delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.235.180.87 (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

They haven't "retired generations". They just stated that they won’t always "default" to using the standard generational definitions and won't use them in situations where they're "not appropriate". https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/22/how-pew-research-center-will-report-on-generations-moving-forward/ Some1 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

On another note, the user above might have vandalized my user page. [16] (This was done on the same day this was posted) Zillennial (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of east Asian education?

I do not see relevance of the following passage in the Gen z article. This broadly discusses differences between different educational systems in a way which does not specifically focus on Gen z, nor does it contribute to other areas of the article.

In Asia, educators in the 2000s and 2010s typically sought out and nourished top students; in Western Europe and the United States, the emphasis was on poor performers. Furthermore, East Asian and Singaporean students consistently earned the top spots in international standardized tests in the 2010s. 107.192.182.169 (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is also very narrow. It could possibly go in the Education section, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead section. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

re: "Food Choices", change: "The food choices made by Generation Z reflect the generation's concerns about climate, sustainability, and animal welfare. A study by catering firm Aramark found 79% of members of the generation would like to eat more meatless meals go meatless one to two times a week.^[229]" Offbrandonbrand (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Dan Bloch (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2023

It says that gen z ended in 2013 but in reality it ended at the very start of 2012 Wikimaster888320 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It's not clear what you want changed. Nowhere in the article does it state that Generation Z's ending birth year is 2013, other than a quote from the U.S. Census attributed to them. Tollens (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2023

The years for gen Z is 1997 to 2011 Hotminashido (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This is already stated in the article as one interpretation commonly used. See Generation Z#Date and age range. Tollens (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

2A01:4B00:BB10:6200:F0F7:F69B:4F54:FD9C (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC) gen z ends In 2010

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Millenials and GenX are parents of GenZ

If you look at the average age for Is women having their first chold in the GenZ years 1997-2013 once you get closer to the 00s and 10s, you can tell millennials are the mothers of the last wave of Gen Z Even the smallest amount of research can disprove any feelings. Of adversity about this

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db232.htm Deathlands82 (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Baby boomers are not the parents of GenZ Generation x and older millennials are !

Someone keeps posting this information from some obscure article ! What if you track any of the United States? Birth rates for those years and the average age of a woman when she has her first child you will See that it is generation x and millennials that are the parents of generation z ! Especially considering that there are now millennial grandparents who to do you think is giving birth to those grandkids smfh 🙄 I fixed work said generation x and baby boomers are parents of generation Z

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/millennial-grandparents-unequal-generation/618859/ Deathlands82 (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Original research

"In Asia, educators in the 2000s and 2010s typically sought out and nourished top students; in Western Europe and the United States, the emphasis was on poor performers. Furthermore, East Asian and Singaporean students consistently earned the top spots in international standardized tests in the 2010s."

This appears to be original research. Citation 45 mentions in passing that Asia and the mideast spent more on gifted students, but only speaks of Europe in comparison. Citations 46-49 are a random selection of test performances. Furthermore, neither 45 nor 46-49 even mention Gen Z specifically. I also noticed this wasn't established in the main body, either. So this is a really tacky mess of wp:or and maybe WP:LEADBOMB? A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, if you read the full article (citation 45), you would realize that gifted education in United States is the main topic of discussion, but Asian countries (including China and those in the Middle East) are mentioned, alongside Europe. The second sentence pertains to the same period as the coming of age of Generation Z, and is therefore relevant. For more information, please see the page Education of Generation Z. That page is linked in the relevant section of the article. Nerd271 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Generation boundaries in peer-reviewed literature

As I conduct research on GenZ boundaries, I've observed that the current article lacks comprehensiveness. Accordingly, I aim to enhance the article by incorporating additional sources and pertinent information, providing a complete perspective of the generational boundaries. J E F-T (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The references you're referring to are literally in the highlighted babyboomer4,5

" Deathlands82 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Older millenials are parents of GenZ

This is the link that is on the page and it clearly. States GenZ are born to younger baby boomers and that younger gen z are the children of millennials, but yet that parts left off why? I'm not sure why we're cherry. Picking facts to harass and bully me. Just because I want the truth and its entirety on the page as it should be.

https://www.audacy.com/podcast/working-with-gen-z-0d9dc/episodes/gen-y-vs-gen-z-understanding-similarities-differences-and-leadership-challenges-opportunities-1f6ff Deathlands82 (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Is direct quote from link sourcing

"Comparatively a small proportion of Gen Z are children of younger Baby Boomers and the youngest of them are children of Millennials. Predominantly parents of Gen Z’s are Gen Xers." Deathlands82 (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2023

Grammatical error in second paragraph under Arts & Culture > Common Culture. The sentence "Although nostalgia is normally associated with the elderly, this sentiment is now commonplace those who came of age during the 2010s and 2020s" should be changed to "Although nostalgia is normally associated with the elderly, this sentiment is now commonplace among those who came of age during the 2010s and 2020s" or something along those lines. 50.41.25.190 (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your feedback! Nerd271 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2024

In the 'Economic trends' part, there is a wrong wiki link. It should go to a different article. Change the wiki link from going to an article about Pigouvian tax, to an article about sin tax. Julka1912 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done! Nerd271 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Is july 7 2010 gen z

I wanted to know if i was gen z 75.141.169.17 (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please discuss elsewhere. BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if you use the 1997-2012 range. No, if you use the cleaner-looking but less accurate range of 1995-2009. 170.79.220.137 (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Deloitte marked 1995 as the starting year for gen z

+ McCrindle and many more . I don’t know why they only mention 1 name! 144.86.54.27 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Gen Z Birth Year is arbitrary not set

“ Researchers and popular media use 1997 as starting birth year” this is not correct its anywhere from mid-late 1990s who on your team keeps changing it?
https://www.c-span.org/classroom/document/?20837
https://www.mybusiness.com.au/how-we-help/be-a-better-employer/managing-people/a-snapshot-of-gen-z
https://amp.9news.com.au/article/8b510a2b-a5a4-4d0a-9885-3d8174ebeeb4
https://freebeacon.com/culture/mind-the-generation-gap/
49.191.53.187 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 49.191.53.187 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

i was born in 1995 we are not full millennials we are cuspers 1.146.107.220 (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I was born in 1995 and definitely gen z.

most “academic” studies suggest 1995! 144.86.54.27 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The age ranges for a generation are not clear. It could be 15 years or 18. Depending on what you believe (which includes your own personal biases), it could be 1995 to 2009, or it could be 1997 to 2012. Anyways, the rationale for 1997 to 2012 that researchers use is that people born in 1997 would have no or little memory of life before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and for the final year of Gen Z being 2012 is because most 2012 born people started school before COVID or before Trump became the 45th president. The article does not establish a specific date for Gen Z because of how the age range is still under debate. User73663828 (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"Baby Zoomers" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Baby Zoomers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16 § Baby Zoomers until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2024

I would like to request the end date of the Gen Z generation to 2011 instead of 2010. Thank you. Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years.< changed to Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and early 2011 as ending birth years.< THePerSOn (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Edits to the date and age range of Generation Z require consensus at this talk page or at Talk:Generation Z/sandbox. —Sirdog (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)