Jump to content

Talk:Generation Z

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Additional sources for use of 1995 as start of Gen Z

[edit]

Please include the following sources in the list of sources that define Gen Z's starting year as 1995:

  1. Sacks J. Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times. Basic Books; 2020.
  2. Guillén MF. The Perennials: The Megatrends Creating a Postgenerational Society. 1st ed. St. Martin’s Press; 2023.

J F-T (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not credible sources. Majority of sources define Gen Z as being 1997 as a start year. Zillennial (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that sticking with both 1997-2012 and 1995-2009 would be the best approach, as 1995 and 1997 are equally common starting points for Gen Z. Kapartem (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is misleading. While Pew's 1997-2012 definition is commonly cited by a wide range of multiple sources such as the Library of Congress and others; few credible sources actually utilize McCrindle's 1995-2009 definition if at all. All the other 1995 citations utilize different end dates, such as Jean Twenge who ends Gen Z at 2012 or others that end it at 2010. I have made a request to revert these edits as possible vandalism. 2601:940:C100:8890:FDFB:B2AC:7D50:BE99 (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The range 1995...2009/2012 is supported by thousands of credible sources including the Department of Education, the State of Ohio, and numerous government agencies. As I have noted before, neglecting to recognize the mid-1990s as the starting point for Generation Z would run counter to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality. Kapartem (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my other reply. 2601:940:C100:8890:14A8:7038:F82:11BE (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: Wikipedia:Defining generations is hard
Zillennial (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2025

[edit]

Please correct a typo of the word "world" in the last sentence of the 4th paragraph in the introduction, as it is incorrectly spelt as "wolrd". Cloaker1 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thank you! Some1 (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request/ Undoing Vandalism and Possible Sockpuppetry 2025

[edit]

Please revert possible vandalism that includes the phrase "1995 to 2009" in introductory paragraph as well as other recent edits related to it. Editor claims that multiple sources cite McCrindle's 1995-2009 definition, when this is not true. Most other 1995 citations in the Wikipedia article as well as Talks Page utilize an end date range consisting of 2009-2012 and even later; meaning that there is no true concensus on the end date compared to Pew Research Center's 1997-2012 definition that is both commonly and consistently cited by credible government sources. Probability that editor is utilizing sockpuppetry via a VPN as their Talks Page edits are similar to other editors making similar requests. 2601:940:C100:8890:FDFB:B2AC:7D50:BE99 (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m concerned about the lack of neutrality in the definition

[edit]

The definition of this article feels far too biased, treating 'Pew Research' as the definitive, 100% official source while disregarding other perspectives like University of Southern California, Jean Twenge, McCrindle, and McKinsey & Company.[1]Kapartem (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my replies that I have added to your other comments. There is no concensus on an end date for the other 1995 citations. McKinsey and Company isn't reliable as they have different definitions for Gen Z depending on the writer of the article. There is no concensus for a 1995-2009 definition; in fact Jean Twenge ends Gen Z at 2012. Pew Research Center's definition is consistently referenced and cited by government sources. Simply adding citations just because they start with a 1995 date without contributing anything informative is disruptive. 2601:940:C100:8890:F925:5E20:3CD7:633A (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1995...2009/2012 range is also backed by a lot of government agencies, I’d be happy to list a few if you're curious. Not including the mid-'90s as the start of Gen Z in the main definition goes against Wikipedia's neutrality policy and can really mislead people.[2][3][4] Kapartem (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the citations that you have listed explain their reasoning on why the 1995-2012 date range. They do not cite or even mention Jean Twenge who is the researcher that created that definition. The argument still stands that there is no consensus for the 1995 end date, as McCrindle utilizes the different range of 1995-2009; which is the specific one that you added to the introductory paragraph. My point stands that adding these citations only because they start with a 1995 date is basically cherry picking at this point. 2601:940:C100:8890:14A8:7038:F82:11BE (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://libguides.usc.edu/busdem/age
  2. ^ https://nihrecord.nih.gov/2022/06/10/expert-gets-us-talking-about-generations
  3. ^ https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618792
  4. ^ https://www.civilservice.louisiana.gov/files/divisions/Training/SuccessSeriesWebinars/CommunicatingAcrossGenerationsHandout.pdf

Details on reverted edit to date range section

[edit]

I've reverted this change by Mirenism. The change added three sources (McKinsey, BBC, and Harvard Business Review) to the date range section and sorted the text roughly into chronological order by start year of the generation. This change had the following issues:

Even if the added sources had been valid, they would have violated WP:UNDUE. Most of the existing thirty or so sources appear with just the name of the source in the Notes section, with some others getting a short sentence. Giving these sources a full paragraph each gives them undue weight.

But in this case none of them were valid. The McKinsey source[1] is from 2018. The McKinsey source already in the article[2] is from 2024, so it has precedence. Similarly, the BBC source[3] is from 2022 and I was easily able to find a source with a 1997 start range[4] from 2024. In this case I think the BBC probably doesn't have a company-wide definition so I didn't bother adding that as a source. And the Harvard Business Review article is just that, an article. It reflects the views of the authors, not of HBR.

Regarding chronological order, the WP:EDITCONSENSUS is that most-widespread-first is more helpful. Please discuss here before changing. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

@Some1, @Dan Bloch, @Nerd271, and @Zillennial, just wanted clarify that there was an agreement to include the following in the introductory paragraph since August? : "mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation most frequently being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012." If so, @Kapartem has edited the introduction despite knowing of the concensus from August. I am also suspicious of @Kapartem's account. Many of their requests and edits are similar to those of others from the past, such as @Mirenism. 2601:940:C100:8890:4957:B52D:9893:48F0 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Generation_Z&oldid=1283332479"