Talk:Generation Z/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Late 90s?

Who keeps changing the top part and say late 90s?

its abritary. A few popular sources start gen z in 1995

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

https://www.c-span.org/classroom/document/?20837 1.132.24.174 (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It isn't arbitrary. Majority of sources that quote the term "Generation Z" in 2024 use a starting date of 1997. Yes, there are some sources that use the start years of 1995, or 1996, but they are not widely used. That is why the word "generally" is included above.

Those two sources you've provided are either a year old (C-Span) while the other one (Mark McCrindle) has not been updated since 2020. Look at the infographic chart, it states the smart speakers are "new".

Zillennial (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

To be fair he/she completely right you can’t go kicking people out when you feel like it 🤡

here is a updated source that uses 1995 as the start

its 100% abritary

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/realestate/rental-homes-millennials-gen-z.html Wrldfait (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wrldfait

As mentioned above, even though there are occasional sources that use 1995 or 1996 it does not mean that it's a widely considered or accepted viewpoint. You're ignoring that the word "generally" is used in the header, and there are also still mentions of earlier start years under the Date and age range portion of the Wikipedia article.

Please also refrain from personal attacks. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable if you continue to persist with this behavior, administrators will be notified.

Zillennial (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Dear User Zillennial,

While many sources do use 1997 as the starting date for Generation Z, there are also significant news outlets that start it in 1995 just as frequently. We need to be objective about this. It's not accurate to exclusively use "late" 1990s when there are numerous pages that start Generation Z in 1995 (mid-1990s). Here are some sources from the past few months that start Generation Z in the mid-1990s, aligning with your citation of news outlets: AL.com TIME The Guardian Click2Houston

Given this evidence, it's appropriate to recognize the mid-1990s as a valid starting point for Generation Z. Kapartem (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Danbloch, @Some1, and @Nerd271

We need your input on a matter involving user @Zillennial, who is repeatedly changing the definition of Generation Z to start solely in the late 1990s. This is not entirely accurate, as many reputable news outlets still use the mid-1990s as the starting point. Since this user has cited news outlets, it's important to consider all perspectives and sources. Thank you, and I look forward to your opinions on this matter. Kapartem (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

References

This page is missing loads

I see paragraphs of female gen z interests like fanfiction but where is opium? Ken Carson? Nettspend? Phonk? Gym culture?? This page makes me and my generation as a whole feel underrepresented on this website and I find it quite demeaning… I would gladly edit these facts in with citations and sources however the page is protected 2A01:B340:63:BE47:E08B:C750:95C4:99C7 (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

damn! u aint even lying 78.16.52.197 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

None of the 'interests' that you've mentioned above pertain to the majority of Generation Z. In fact, much of what you mentioned sounds like it is an interest of a small fraction of Generation Z.

Zillennial (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

compared to fanfiction? many more young people listen to rap music than post cottagecore and thats in the article. 78.16.52.197 (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Constant Vandalism of Header

Before I address the issue I would like to notify @Danbloch @Some1 and @Nerd271 who have been contributing to this page for years to also give their opinions on this issue.

On July 20, 2024 I figured that it would be appropriate to delete the word "mid-to-" on the Generation Z article header that displays "Researchers and popular media generally use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years". My reasoning behind this action was that majority of the top overall trusted American News Outlets are continuously using the '1997-2012' Gen Z year range for their reporting. BBC just published this article. PBS consistently uses 'born after 1996' , WSJ consistently reports 'Americans born in 1997 and after'. I could essentially find articles published by these media outlets from the last month and cite them, although at this point it feels like it is beating a dead horse. Now I'm not discrediting that there are sources which state year ranges besides this one to define the term "Generation Z", but I don't feel like it is significant enough to still include in the header at this point. Years ago when there was a constant debate about the definitions it made sense to include it, but it's not as ambiguous anymore as it was. There is already a mention of the other sources which include a different opinion under the Generation Z#Date and age range section that it shouldn't be needed to include in the header.

Now to address the name of this talk page section: I'm under the impression that the various (what it is trying to appear to be) different users above who are are all one single person. The unregistered user (@1.132.24.174) who created the topic on this talk page above is also @49.191.53.187. That IP address originally replied beneath my response 45 minutes before @Wrldfait went and deleted what was written by them. Then replied to me with a personal insult and accusation and the same link included in 49.191.53.187's response. Now today (July 31, 2024) the user @Kapartem went ahead and changed the header on the article to the preference of the three (likely sock puppet accounts) to what they had mentioned on this talk page just a day ago. I have reason to believe that this is likely all one person that is intentionally being deceptive. If the header is changed again, I believe that this might constitute WP:Edit_Warring and I will be notifying the administrators to resolve the issue.

In the mean time, please @Danbloch @Some1 and @Nerd271 chime in with your opinions about the header. If you all do not think we should update it to say just "late 1990s", I will throw the towel in and we can revert it back to what was included before.

Zillennial (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with "late 1990s" as long as the change isn't being done by accident or by stealth. Also note, there are a couple of other references in the article (the short description and an internal comment) which should be changed to match the visible text. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm also fine with "late 1990s" since the body of the article supports that per WP:NPOV. I would also be fine with rewording it to something along the lines of: Researchers and popular media typically define the generation as those born from the mid to late 1990s, with 1997 often used as the starting year, through to the early 2010s. Some1 (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this one, following the Millennials page template is the best idea to keep in the header. Zillennial (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

New essay

I've written an essay, Wikipedia:Defining generations is hard, which may be of interest to readers of this page. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Different interpretations of the birth dates of generation Z: from 1995/2003 to 2009/2024.

Many reputable sociologists argue that the advent of the Internet and mobile communications is a global trend that has affected all countries. In addition to the data from the Pew Research Center (describing buzzers as born in 1997-2012), there are also data from the international American consulting company McKinsey, which names representatives of generation Z of people born from about 1995 to 2010 or the McCrindle International Research Center, according to which generation Z or buzzers are determined from 1995 to 2009. There is no single interpretation of the birth date of generation Z, but referring to all existing interpretations, generation Z (buzzers) are those who were born no earlier than 1995, which means that the approximate beginning of the birth dates of generations Z will be 1995. Georgii Valentinovich (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism Concerns on This Page

Generational labels are not firmly set and may change over time. However, the majority of sources generally place the start of Generation Z from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s. Notable sources that support a mid-1990s start include Stanford University and Mark McCrindle. Pew Research Center, on the other hand, begins Generation Z in the late 1990s. The U.S. Census Bureau uses 2001 as the starting year for Generation Z, aligning with their definition of Millennials spanning from 1982 to 2000. Given the significance of the U.S. Census Bureau's data, it is crucial to address the ongoing vandalism and strive for an objective consensus. Therefore, the most balanced starting date for Generation Z should be considered as mid-1990s to early 2000s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapartem (talk • contribs) 02:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If you read the Date and age range sections of the Millennials article and this article, you'll find that Although the United States Census Bureau have said that "there is no official start and end date for when Millennials were born" and they do not officially define Millennials, a U.S. Census publication in 2022 noted that Millennials are "colloquially defined as the cohort born from 1981 to 1996" and In a 2022 report, the U.S. Census designates Generation Z as "the youngest generation with adult members (born 1997 to 2013)." Also, the "majority of reliable sources" do not "generally place the start of Generation Z" in the early 2000s; only a minority do and following WP:NPOV, we avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to that viewpoint, especially in the lead. In contrast, most reliable sources use 1997 which is why "late 1990" is included in the lead. Some1 (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how Stanford University isn't considered a reliable source. As I mentioned, we need to be objective on this matter. We should use the mid-1990s to late-1990s as the starting birth years for Generation Z on the leading page. A quick Google search for Generation Z shows a mix of pages starting in the late 1990s, some in the mid-1990s, and others in the 2000s. While we can disregard the sources that start in the 2000s, significant sources like Stanford University and Mark McCrindle start in the mid-1990s. Therefore, it's appropriate to maintain the mid- to late-1990s as the starting years for Generation Z on the lead page. Kapartem (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There is also data from the international American consulting company McKinsey, which says that generation Z are those who were born from about 1995 to 2010; there is also the international Australian McCrindle research Center, according to which generation Z is defined as people born from 1995 to 2009. those who were born no earlier than 1995, which means that the approximate start of the birth dates of generations Z will be 1995, so this is all conditional. Georgii Valentinovich (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"with the generation generally being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012"

This phrase should be reconsidered because there is no universally agreed-upon or official definition of when Gen Z begins and ends. Instead of specifying a single range, the definition should present the various years commonly associated with Gen Z. This approach would better align with Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and objectivity. Advocating for one specific range over others could be a result of bias, which we should avoid to ensure the most accurate representation of generational boundaries. However, I respect that others may see this differently.Kapartem (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. "Generally defined" feels like an overstatement to me too. I'd be happy with "most frequently defined". Dan Bloch (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Danbloch,

I believe we should remove the entire statement "with the generation generally being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012" because it implies a consensus that doesn't exist. A quick search for Generation Alpha often shows the range as 2010-2024, which would place Gen Z from 1995-2009. Both ranges—1995-2009 and 1997-2012—are equally valid, and no single range should be favored over the other. To maintain neutrality and accuracy, it’s important that we reflect the diversity of views rather than endorsing one specific range.

Thank you! Kapartem (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with this. "Generally" does imply a consensus which doesn't exist. But I think that "most frequently" or "most commonly" is supported by the citations in the Date and age range section (including the notes in that section). The argument based on Gen Alpha's start date is WP:SYNTHESIS. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You may proceed with changing the term from ‘generally’ to ‘most frequently,’ which is acceptable. Kapartem (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kapartem I'm entirely fine with the change to 'most frequently' from 'generally'. Even though it places an emphasis on 1997-2012, it does at least demonstrate there are other definitions out there. Zillennial (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2024

Nicung26 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Most members of Generation Z are the children of younger Baby Boomers, Generation X, or Older Millienals.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⸺(Random)staplers 17:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Promoting under-age sex?

How come Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z, according to Wikipedia, only have 15 years per generation? That would mean the people of each of those generation have an average of 14.25 years from birth to their own pregnancy (and then give birth at 15 to the next generation baby). Something is very wrong here. 185.13.50.211 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to biological generations. This article, and the other ones you mentioned, discuss social generations. Nerd271 (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

change "was" in first line of second paragraph of "common culture" under "arts and culture" to "were", as in: "The COVID-19 pandemic struck when the oldest members of Generation Z [were] just joining the workforce and the rest were still in school." SirRacha (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Agree that it was a number mismatch in its prior wording. —C.Fred (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2024

I’m a working gen z and I’m requesting a change because of our beliefs

gen z is a generation that purely believes in just getting through our days and working just to get by in the world day to day but we want to help everyone in the world the best we can and living a simple lifestyle with the benefits we have 73.130.170.45 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

 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. M.Bitton (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2025

Genz starts from 1995 to 2009, correct that information. The researchers state that the 1995 babies were 5 during the millenium therefore they are part of the Genz. Here is an article from the reserachers to back this : https://mccrindle.com.au/article/topic/demographics/the-generations-defined/ 168.167.23.48 (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no general agreement on an exact date range for Gen Z. McCrindle is mentioned, among many other sources, in the Date and age range section. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Reading

The lead currently states this: Around the world, members of Generation Z are spending more time on electronic devices and less time reading books than before. This directly contradicts other reliable sources that conclude the opposite: that Gen Z are reading more and mostly on paper. See . Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I have made an edit to try and improve the situation I discussed in the comment above. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2025

In Art & Cultures, Reading habits, change
"Reading habits
According to a 2019 OCED survery,"
to
"Reading habits
According to a 2019 OECD survey," 156.37.198.42 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Dan Bloch (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2025

Change Generation Z from 1997-2012 to 1995-2009. This is because from pervious stated generations, they are 15 years long and since Generation Beta started in 2025, 15 years ago is when Alpha started (2010) meaning Z had to have ended in 2009. Please change this, and thank you for reading. Yazenkob (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2025

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)

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

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

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)

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

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.Kapartem (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. Kapartem (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

References

Details on reverted edit to date range section

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 is from 2018. The McKinsey source already in the article is from 2024, so it has precedence. Similarly, the BBC source is from 2022 and I was easily able to find a source with a 1997 start range 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)

Edit warring

@Some1, @Dan Bloch, @Nerd271, and @Zillennial, just wanted to clarify that there was an agreement to include the following in the introductory paragraph since August of 2024? : "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 existing concensus from August, claiming as if this isn't the case. I am also suspicious of @Kapartem's account. Much of Kapartem's requests and edits are similar to past editors, such as @Mirenism and others. 2601:940:C100:8890:4957:B52D:9893:48F0 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this was arrived at in Talk:Generation_Z/Archive_6#"with the generation generally being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012". This doesn't mean it's set in stone, but it shouldn't be changed without discussion. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. 2601:940:C100:8890:48DD:466E:F94E:BCCE (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Its still in debate If GEN alpha is 2011 or 2012 AlexroostermmanYT (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes - there was a consensus reached in August of 2024. The recent article edits are disruptive and could fall under Wikipedia:Edit warring. I'm fine with the header being changed as long as a consensus is reached among this talk page. Zillennial (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Cool. I wanted to make sure because I was confused in what Kapartem was talking about in the revisions history tab, when Kapartem was clearly aware of the August discussion. The archive #6 that Dan Bloch posted above shows that Kapartem had responded to the discussion in August when the decision was made. 2601:940:C100:8890:B1E1:88A8:7DE1:73AE (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

As I noted at ANI, I'd sgree there seems to be very weak consensus to say "Researchers and popular media use the 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." Since there seems to be dispute, editors need to stop trying to change this until and unless there is new consensus. And any discussion should be based on our policies and guidelines and the lead should summarise what the article says based on reliable sources. What people find when they search Google is largely irrelevant. One things is for sure, whatever our article says it should not be "Researchers and popular media use the 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 the mid-to-late 1990s to 2012." which is extremely poorly worded since it's almost complete duplicative. If it's felt there can be no more specificity on the starting year but there can be on the ending year, then we should say something like "with the ending birth year most frequently being defined as 2012" rather then repeating the starting birth year saying the exact same thing. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that articles and sources added to the date and age range section must come from researchers that are actual demographers rather than marketers and pop culture sites. Examples of these include Pew Research Center and McCrindle. Adding official federal government sources as well as reliable firms that specifically cite said mentioned demographers in their articles to back up and boost their credibility is a must; rather than coming up with a random date range on their own. Adding in "sources" and articles because they come from Gemini and Google Ai is a no-no, as well as purposely adding in articles that are outdated and irrelevent by many years or that don't provide anything of substance other than starting with a specific date just for cherry picking purposes. I believe that this is one of the reasons why Jason Dorsey's date range was removed from the Wiki years ago. Jason Dorsey is a marketer, he's not an actual demographer. His date range is also very unpopular and not common (such as starting the Millennials at 1977). 2601:940:C100:8890:D468:6AE9:316F:4105 (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone keeps adding 1995 to the header. This is not a common start year of Gen Z. Please remove. @Some1 2600:387:15:4F17:0:0:0:4 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

There are three sources given for that year. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The sources are academic research which are peer reviewed and deserve to be append by Wikipedia standards. “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Gandtha (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Also please stop attacking other contributors as vandalism which hold only on your opinion. These actions risk violating and therefore flagging you as Wikipedia:Disruptive user. Specifically number 4: “Posting rumors or lies about other Wikipedia users, such as false accusations of vandalism” Gandtha (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Gandtha, I don’t know whose OP’s original account is, or whose IP address that created this Talk Page topic is, but that is not my IP address. As from me, you are ignoring the consensus to discuss in the talk page before making any edits to the date range in the introductory paragraph. This has been emphasized multiple times in the talk page this past 2024 and 2025 year, yet you are choosing to ignore it. So yes, your edits are vandalism. Your account barely has made any contributions to the Wikipedia site, and your edit history shows that you were indeed involved in a past edit war over an unrelated Wikipedia article last year in 2024. 2601:940:C100:8890:55C6:3705:ABEE:5744 (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

This is personal attack and ad hominem. I find debating these with you is not futile. Gandtha (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Update to introductory paragraph concensus April 2025/Possible Date Range Section Update As Well

@Zillennial, @Danbloch, @Some1, and @Nerd271, seeing that Wikipedia editors are still choosing to ignore the consensus to discuss making changes in the talk page before editing, I propose that a new 2025 consensus be discussed. @Nil Einne has made this suggestion the last time things were getting heated, with me commenting on the importance of demographic research sources over pop culture and marketing articles. I also propose that it is time to update the Date Range Section, seeing that much of the sources were last updated in 2022. For example, the Fortune article has now since been updated in 2025.2601:940:C100:8890:55C6:3705:ABEE:5744 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I've seen some dumb crap argued about on this website, and this is one of those. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from utilizing personal attacks, harassment, and crude language, thank you very much. Otherwise I will report this to the admins next time you do it. 2601:940:C100:8890:55C6:3705:ABEE:5744 (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am commenting on the dispute, not the individuals. It is a waste of time trying to insist on a preferred year. We describe what the reliable sources say. They say some use 1995 others user 1997. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the past talk page topics above this post, you will see that @Danbloch and @Zillennial had already commented that you need to discuss in the talks page before making any edits. A concensus was reached in August 2024 about this, detailing the contents of the introductory paragraph. You are choosing to ignore this. You are also being disrespectful, utilizing the word “dumb crap”. We are adults, this isn’t 4chan. 2601:940:C100:8890:55C6:3705:ABEE:5744 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

You also did not “specify” that the comment was for the dispute, and the comment came out as a passive aggressive remark directed at me. As for the dispute itself, the past Talk Page topics have discussed about those “reliable” sources in the past. Much of the 1995 articles are simply articles. They are not demographic research. This has already been discussed by @Zillennial and @Danbloch. 2601:940:C100:8890:55C6:3705:ABEE:5744 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. These people are ignoring some year like they has been personally attacked by it. Gandtha (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Nil Einne, sorry for pinging your name here in the discussion. Just wanted to inform you that I did what you suggested: to discuss and create a new, stronger concensus this 2025 year. 2601:940:C100:8890:5D25:6AB:EB89:3CE7 (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Refrain form being article owner

Some users @zillennial and @2601:940:C100:8890:55C6:3705:ABEE:5744 is acting as article owner and try to undo all other contributions. This is dangerously violating Wikipedia guidelines in Wikipedia:Ownership of content. They are continuously revert the article to match their opinion but this is not how Wikipedia work. I have add credible and peer reviewed research regarding on this subject but they keep reverting it and I cannot find any consensus they are talking about in this talk pate too. Perhaps the consensus they're referring is making between two users which might be sock-puppet accounts Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry Gandtha (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

So, making dangerous accusations can get you into trouble. I utilize my IP address so that everyone can see who I am; as well as the fact I spent most of my time in the Wikipedia talks pages rather than editing stuff with BS accounts without permission. @Danbloch and @Some1, feel free to check my IP address. I'm not a sockpuppet account. As for @Gandtha, the concensus that @Zillennial is talking about can be found in the Talk Page for Gen Z in one of the topic descriptions, so I don't know what you are talking about. This has been a topic going back this past month. 2601:940:C100:8890:5D25:6AB:EB89:3CE7 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

This is why I callout you as article owner. Ignoring the supporting evidence. Show me the passage of that consensus. Gandtha (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, here you go: Talk:Generation_Z/Archive_6#"with the generation generally being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012". 2601:940:C100:8890:5D25:6AB:EB89:3CE7 (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

That is not consensus... Gandtha (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zillennial, did @Nil Einne agree that there was a concensus to the 1997-2012 date range, although it was a weak one? And this was the point for the new discussion in order to create a stronger concensus because @Nil Einne suggested this? Anyway, I'm done here with @Gandtha. As you can see for yourself, the serious allegations that this guy is making up is an absolute circus. 2601:940:C100:8890:5D25:6AB:EB89:3CE7 (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

And also I see that @zillenial just talking to themselves in Talk:Generation Z/sandbox which is not CONSENSUS Gandtha (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Need new consensus for article abstract

I suggest adding phrase "specifically 1995 by some academic" to the article abstract since it reflect and use in academic area which correlate with the begining of paragraph as "Researchers and popular...". Gandtha (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that. I've also added sources here on the talk page before, but some users have deleted them. I'm not sure why the user 'Zillennial' keeps reverting edits—I don't recall any consensus being reached. Kapartem (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The consensus reached was the one that was suggested by @Danbloch back in August, @Kapartem. You know this already. 2601:940:C100:8890:D562:7E0F:9806:A0B7 (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Generation_Z/Archive_6#"with the generation generally being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012". You cosigned it, @Kapartem. 2601:940:C100:8890:D562:7E0F:9806:A0B7 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It can be changed. It is not set in stone. Gandtha (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

A couple of hours ago, you were saying that it was not a consensus and that it didn't exist despite it being available to see in the talk page. Also, I have not forgotten the serious allegations that you were making about me and @Zillennial. I will see whether other editors will report this, or if I will have to do it. @Zillennial, the allegations are found in the "Refrain from being article owner" topic above. 2601:940:C100:8890:D562:7E0F:9806:A0B7 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been reverting edits to the lead paragraph because of WP:UNDUE. The Date & Age Range section already gives focus on other start dates of Gen Z. Zillennial (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Since I keep getting pinged all over the place I'll just leave a few quick comments. Some of you seem to be getting ahead of yourselves in trying to edit the WP:lead. If you have new sources to support 1995, you should be modifying the body first and adding these sources along with appropriate text. The lead should just summarise what the body says and often doesn't even need sources. As it stands, the body talks a lot about rough ranges like mid 1990s and late 1990s and then talks a lot about 1997 especially about Pew Research using it which seems to have been adopted by some prominent government bodies. It then says

In her book iGen (2017), psychologist Jean Twenge defines the "iGeneration" as the cohort born between 1995 and 2012.[78] Other news outlets occasionally use 1995 as the starting birth year of Generation Z,[d] as do various management and consulting firms.[e]

and

The Australian Bureau of Statistics have used 1996 to 2010 to define Generation Z in a 2021 Census report.[86] Similarly, various management and consulting firms have used 1996 as a starting date for Generation Z.[f]

So I can perfectly see a reason to only include 1997 as the most frequently used starting year. Notably, I see no reason to mention 1995 but not 1996, since both seem to have about equal weight in the body. Besides Jean Twenge, there is no mention of any academic use of 1995. If this is wrong, you should be convincing editors by modifying the body, rather than continually trying to mess around with the lead.

As for the lead, I remarked before I see a very weak consensus here Talk:Generation_Z/Archive 6#"with the generation generally being defined as people born from 1997 to_2012" to only mention 1997 as the most frequently used starting year along with mentions of the rougher age ranges. However since only 3 editors participated in that discussion is a very weak consensus. Still, it's the only time so far that editors on both sides seem to come to some sort of agreement so it's fair to take it as a starting point. If editors want to change it, since there's clearly dispute they should try and establish a new consensus.

It seems unlikely these discussions are going to achieve anything considering how poor they've been so far, so I suggest some sort of WP:Dispute resolution needs to be attempted. In particular, I'd suggest either a facilitated discussion at WP:DRN, or you start an WP:RfC to get more input. I'd emphasise again that especially if you are going the RfC route you need to improve the body first. Again arguing over sources for the lead is generally unconvincing. The lead follows the body and as it stands, there seems to be good reason to give priority to 1997, but little reason to mention 1995 but not 1996. (This means if you start an RfC with the body as it is, there's a far chance you'll fail to get 1995 no matter what sources you present since editors are just going to see the body and think the lead is following the body as it should.)

Also if you are going the RfC route, please, please, please don't let it be the case that some random editor just starts a poorly worded RfC which doesn't even present the best text. Instead discuss among yourselves first what you want to say in the RfC and come up with the best text. In this case, I'd suggest you offer two options, one is the status quo text which only mentions 1997 (along with the rough ranges), the other which mentions multiple starting years. And make sure your text flows well. (The most recent change attempt isn't too bad but one of the earlier ones was very poorly worded.) Remember also that the RfC itself needs to be neutrally worded so will most likely just consist of something like 'Should the lead say option A or option B' and then provide the two options without any arguments for or against either option. Any arguments for either option should be presented in responses to the RfC not in the RfC itself.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to add two options isn't the only choice. You can present more feel it's needed. Significantly, perhaps you might want to present one option which is the status quo, one which mentions 1995 and maybe other years, and one option which does not mention any particular years and only mentions rough years (mid to late 1990s or whatever). Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Gonna leave my suggestion here, the same that I posted in the topic section below:

Hey @Zillennial, the way I see it I think that the best course of action is to do what Nil Einne suggested with the WP:DRN/WP:RfC. But before you submit it, add the USC source to the 1995 section. I also recommend that we update all of the articles that are found in the date range section to their 2025 versions, since most of them were last updated in 2022. For example, I don't think Fortune cites Deloitte anymore in 2025. Deloitte cites Pew's 1997-2012 definition now instead. Some1 also has grouped the 1995 and 1996 sections together, which I agree with. As Nil Einee has explained, much of Gandthas as well as Kapartems' arguments are very weak, and we pretty much will be here all day wasting time arguing in the Talks pages. 2601:940:C100:8890:B1BB:B3F7:E2D0:93FF (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Whatever, stuck to ideological believe. I would not waste anymore time with this... Gandtha (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Please reach a consensus before header change.

Hello everyone, I've gone ahead and reverted the recent header change edit that was done by @Gandtha. The Generation_Z#Date_and_age_range section of this page already gives information on both 1995 & 1996 start years. The header already includes "mid-to-late 1990s" which should already suggest that it is ambiguous.

I'm posting this for user @Gandtha and @Kapartem who are interested in reaching a new consensus for this page. I am personally fine with a header change if a consensus can be reached on this talk page. As of August 2024, there was already an agreement that '1997 - 2012' would be the year range included in the header. This was done because a majority of reliable support quote this date range (WP:UNDUE). If something has changed within the last 9 months and this is no longer true, please support the claim, and I'll throw in the towel for shifting the range to include 1995. Zillennial (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

There’re no consensus for the year range and I did not see any talking about these either. Do not acting like article owner. It is violating Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Gandtha (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

And you're ignoring academic resources which I've attached in the article:

"There may be some slight variations in the definitions of a specific "generation", but the following list generally reflects the standard years ascribed to each: The Greatest Generation – born 1901-1924. The Silent Generation – born 1925-1945. The Baby Boomer Generation – born 1946-1964. Generation X – born 1965-1979. Millennials – born 1980-1994. Generation Z – born 1995-2012. Gen Alpha – born 2013 – 2025." from University of Southern California .

"Students classified as Generation Z were born between 1995 and 2000." from Generation Z Goes to College by Corey Seemiller and Meghan GracePublished by Jossey-Bass. Reviewed by Re’Shanda Grace-Bridges, Director of New Student Programs at University of Dayton .

"Generation Z. These are the people born between 1995 and 2010. This is the generation which is the newest generation to enter the workforce. They are the most technologically adept generation and are highly connected to the social media web. These concepts had their origin in the Western context. Gen Z: An Emerging Phenomenon by Gopal P. Mahapatra M, Naureen Bhullar, and Priyansha Gupta from The NHRD Network Journal is the official publication of the National HRD Network. The aim of the journal is to compile and publish the research and professional views and experiences of reputed HR professionals, line professionals, CEOs, researchers and academicians in different specialised areas within the field of human resource development.

I hope you read all these references thoroughly and carefully before revert any change. Gandtha (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m with Gunther. 1995 is cited just as often as a Gen Z starting point as the late '90s. Even 1994 comes up sometimes when you search "Gen Z celebrities". It feels like revisionism to pretend those don’t exist. Google it, and you’ll mostly see birth years from 1994 to 2005. We can’t ignore that, especially when reputable sources like the New York Times have articles starting Gen Z in 1995. Calling it “late '90s to early 2010s” just doesn’t line up with all that. Kapartem (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank @Kapartem for your comment. I would like to invite you to participate in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Zillennial-20250417225400-Gandtha-20250417185800 to callout this inappropriate behavior of some users. Gandtha (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

This seems irrelevant. AFAIK there has never been any support for saying late 1990s. Instead the support has always been to say what we always say which is mid-to-late 1990s which covers 1994, 1995, and 1997. Dunno about the ending years, as that hasn't been brought up much before. Also I'll repeat again that "Google it" is extremely useless. If any editor actually has decent sources they should be expanding the body which still says very little about 1995 and does not mention 1994 at all. If editors want to have any chance for change they need to actual put in the work, find sources and improve our article not tell other editors to "Google it". AFAICT, there's still been almost no attempt to improve our article by expanding the body with all these great sources that allegedly exist instead editors still just want to dick around with the lead without doing the work of fixing our allegedly broken article. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I somehow thought the comment I replied to came after my comment below. Still most of what I said applies regardless. There's no point telling anyone to Google it etc. Instead put in the work and fix the body then you might have a chance of changing the lead. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Behavior and Expectation During Working

Behavior and expectations during working refer to the commonly accepted standards, norms, and guidelines that govern employee conduct and performance in professional environments. These expectations are shaped by organizational policies, industry standards, cultural norms, and legal regulations. Typical behavioral expectations include professionalism, punctuality, respect for colleagues, effective communication, adherence to company policies, and ethical decision-making. Workplace behavior influences organizational culture, productivity, employee satisfaction, and team dynamics. Employers often formalize these expectations through codes of conduct, employee handbooks, and training programs. While core expectations are relatively consistent across industries, specific behaviors may vary depending on job roles, regional cultures, and evolving workplace trends, such as remote work and digital communication.

Understanding and meeting workplace expectations is considered essential for maintaining a positive, inclusive, and legally compliant working environment. Ahyen Bai (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the article? Nerd271 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"hesitant to identify as 'feminist' ..."

@Nerd271, I wanted to discuss a preferred wording for the sentence in § Political views and participation starting with Some individuals who support gender equality are hesitant to identify as "feminist". I hope I explained my reasoning well when I rolled back your first revision of the sentence, and I can answer any questions you may have about it. I have similar concerns about your second attempt. The because there are different interpretations of what it means, to me, affirms that there are multiple distinct meanings of the word "feminist", which the source does not specifically say, making this potentially improper synthesis. My preferred wording, the status quo citing differing interpretations of what the term represents, does not state that there are multiple meanings, only that different people have different ideas of the connotation of the word "feminist". That said, perhaps the sentence can be improved without changing its meaning. I would like to work with you on this. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

There are different "waves" of feminism, which confuses people. Some take "feminism" as "gender equality." But the way "feminism" is used by some today, especially those in academia or those with degrees in the likes of gender studies, may be taken as misandry by the general public. This is why some people hesitate to identify themselves as "feminists," even if they genuinely support gender equality. A direct quote from the source: Some of them would definitely call themselves feminists but others might shy away from the term due to misunderstandings about what it actually stands for.

So here is another solution. Some individuals who support gender equality are hesitant to identify as "feminist" due to confusion over what that means in contemporary society. I really like this proposed revision. As Strunk and White would advise, "Vigorous writing is concise." Nerd271 (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I still have concerns about using the word "mean". While you make a great point about the waves of feminism and conflation of feminism with misandry, the source doesn't mention any of that. We have to make sure we don't add anything to what the source already says. Bowler the Carmine | talk 22:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, people are confused about what "feminism" means, are they not? Interpretations or "what it actually stands for" are meanings. Nerd271 (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

1995-2009

I don’t know why Wikipedia says Gen z is 1997-2012 but that is just wrong. Generations since millennials have been 14 years in length. That is to keep it cohesive. Gen alpha 2010-2024 is 14 years and Gen beta will also be that to most likely. I hope this error gets corrected soon. Jellowd2 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Any suggestions you made here will not get into any consideration because of the “article owner” won’t let anyone change anything. But feel free to participate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Zillennial-20250417225400-Gandtha-20250417185800. We can callout the Wiki admin for this inappropriate behavior. Gandtha (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Why won’t they change it? Jellowd2 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

What is done for other generations is largely irrelevant. What is done for this generation accordingto sources is what matters. But also this statement makes no sense since 2010-2014 is 15 years, not 14 years. So too is 1995 to 2009 of course. If every generation was only 14 years, we wouldn't keep having nice round numbers. While off by one errors are common, any source who makes such an obvious mistake here should be ignored. Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

2010-2014 is 4 years. Jellowd2 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

There are already sources in the Date and Age Range section that show varying opinions. Zillennial (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Zillennial, the way I see it I think that the best course of action is to do what Nil Einne suggested with the WP:DRN/WP:RfC. But before you submit it, add the USC source to the 1995 section. I also recommend that we update all of the articles that are found in the date range section to their 2025 versions since most of them were last updated in 2022. For example, I don't think Fortune cites Deloitte anymore in 2025. Deloitte cites Pew's 1997-2012 definition now instead. Some1 also has grouped the 1995 and 1996 sections together, which I agree with. As Nil Einee has explained, much of Gandthas as well as Kapartems' arguments are very weak, and we pretty much will be here all day wasting time arguing in the Talks pages. 2601:940:C100:8890:B1BB:B3F7:E2D0:93FF (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

That works, but I also just think that people should add in the Date & Range section. Zillennial (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I just wish they put a definitive range there like 1995-2009. Jellowd2 (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2025

I would like to correct some data like Years of Gen Z and that picture of Gens Whitch doesnt make any sence gen Z is 1995-2010 not 1997-2012

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies

in this there is literally written Some sources. and when Gen Alpha begin

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Generation-Alpha

If you want i will add more sources

FactCorrection123456789 (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 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. Dan Bloch (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

These sources are already added in the Date & Range section. Zillennial (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Millennials is 1980-1994 Gen alpha is 2010-2024 both are 14 years so Gen Z fits nicely between those at 1995-2009. Jellowd2 (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no general agreement on the date ranges. Neither range is right and neither is wrong. See Wikipedia:Defining generations is hard for discussion. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Additional sources for use of 1995 as start of Gen Z

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

See my other reply. 2601:940:C100:8890:14A8:7038:F82:11BE (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Defining generations is hard

Zillennial (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

What are our thoughts on starting a discussion about changing the "Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years with the generation loosely being defined as people born around 1997 to 2012" line in the lede to remove "...with the generation loosely being defined as people born around 1997 to 2012"? (Or replacing it with a line that says 1995 and 1997 are common starting years, and 2009 and 2012 are common ending years.) As @Kapartem said, the starting year 1995 is equally as common as the starting year 1997, and the ending years 2009 and 2012 are comporably common. RichardMcKee (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree Gandtha (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. Limiting it to 1997-2012 feels pretty biased. Kapartem (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@J F-T some users being article owner, trying to suppress a reliable sources. Please join us to call out this misbehavior on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Zillennial-20250417225400-Gandtha-20250417185800. Gandtha (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Situation with generational articles on Russian Wikipedia

Hello, I would like to consult with experienced contributors about the situation of the article on Generation Z and other generations in the Russian Wikipedia. Since most of the information is translated from here. One of the contributors nominated them for deletion under strange pretexts. He claims that “the whole concept applies only to US society”, that “the authors on the English Wikipedia stretch it to include all of humanity”. Yet the article describes generation in relation to all major world regions. The website of psychologist Jean Twenge also doubts the authority of this information. Are the sociological studies cited in the article really wrong? YillowsGiblles (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Jean Twenge studies (mainly) American society. Her book Generations (2023) makes that pretty clear. We do have an article titled Generation Z in the United States if you want something that talks almost exclusively about that country. This article is supposed to be global and we include relevant information from all parts of the globe. Nerd271 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Relevance of Items in Lead

The lines

"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.[36] East Asian and Singaporean students consistently earned the top spots in international standardized tests in the 2010s.[37][38][39][40]"

do not seem to fit in the article lead. According to the manual of style, the lead is supposed to briefly summarize the most important points in the article. I do not feel as though these sentences are the most important points, nor are they an adequate summary of the education section of the article.

Does anyone else agree that this section should be removed, or at least edited to be better summary of Gen Z education?

(I am new to Wikipedia, so excuse me if I'm wrong. ) NumelCase (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

No, the introduction is fine as it is. And no, the introduction is not a lede. Nerd271 (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

NumelCase is right. This doesn't belong in the lead section, for the reasons they gave. The statement that the lead section should summarize the most important points is a direct quote from MOS:LEAD. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

No, their education is crucial for their future, given this the age of history they live in. I suppose it can be expanded. But removing it is ill-advised. Nerd271 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. There's no basis for saying that education is more important than arts and culture, economic trends, health issues, religious tendencies, family life, and all the other top-level topics in this article which don't appear in the lead section. This is a very long article and not everything goes in the lead. This paragraph isn't even directly about Gen Z. It's about (a small part of) education policy. Dan Bloch (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you think these lines are an appropriate summary to the education section? To me it looks like specific facts about educational policy in certain countries.

I also agree with Dan Bloch in saying that education shouldn't go in the lead, but that's not a hill I will die on. NumelCase (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Older Millenials and younger Baby Boomers?

"Most members of Generation Z are the children of Generation X with Some having Older Millenials and younger Baby Boomers as parents" 2001:7D0:8445:6180:41D1:A45F:9E5:677D (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2025

Cleaning up charged language.

Change: Nevertheless, these broad trends conceal a significant gender divide across the Western world, with young women (under 30) being vocally left-leaning and young men being fiercely right-leaning on a variety of issues from immigration to sexual harassment. Into: Nevertheless, these broad trends conceal a significant gender divide across the Western world, with young women (under 30) being left-leaning and young men being right-leaning on a variety of issues from immigration to sexual harassment.

Change: Even those who support gender equality hesitate to identify as "feminist" due to confusion over what that word actually means in the current era. Into: Some individuals who support gender equality are hesitant to identify as "feminist", citing differing interpretations of what the term represents in contemporary society.

Change: Even those who support gender equality hesitate to identify as "feminist" due to confusion over what that word actually means in the current era. Into: In many countries, younger men are increasingly critical of aspects of contemporary feminism, while older men tend to align more closely with women in their views on gender issues Note: The source should change to the actual study cited that supports this point not a secondary source: https://www.ipsos.com/en/international-womens-day-2025 https://www.kcl.ac.uk/giwl/assets/iwd-2025-survey.pdf 188.39.38.26 (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: your third proposed change isn't exactly clear to me, but I implemented your other two requested changes. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no problem with using a secondary source. In fact, Wikipedia generally relies on reliable secondary sources. (Don't people know how to use the magic word anymore?) Nerd271 (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

This is tangential, but edit requests are not places where politeness is expected. All that should be in an edit request is the material that needs to be changed and what to change it to. Ideally, an editor with the right permissions should be able to simply copy and paste it into the article. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems that this request has been sufficiently answered – marking it as such. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Lede

So polling has shown Gen Z to be more sympathetic to socialism and critical of capitalism then millennials. If it's going to be included on political leanings, it should. Des Vallee (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, the Millennials were reportedly sympathetic towards socialism and communism, too. But that does not seem to be accurate anymore, at least not on a global scale. Electoral results over the least few years prove that. As for Generation Z, they are highly heterogeneous and polarized. That's the best way to describe them. Nerd271 (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2025

Insert the following after the current paragraph that references Strauss and Howe and ends with the phrase "...September 11 attacks.[56]"

Neil Howe, author of "The Fourth Turning Is Here: What the Seasons of History Tell Us About How and When This Crisis Will End" (Simon & Schuster, 2023), describes the current Millennial Saeculum, that includes the following generations(1): Baby Boom: Born 1943-1960, the Prophet archetype. GenX: Born 1961-1981, the Nomad archetype. Millennial: Born 1982-2005, the Hero archetype. Homeland: Born 2006-202?, they are the Artist archetype

(1) Howe, Neil. The Fourth Turning Is Here: What the Seasons of History Tell Us About How and When This Crisis Will End. Simon & Schuster, 2023. Igranderojo (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This addition is about Strauss-Howe generational theory, not about Generation Z. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

There is little information about the fact that Generation Z has been born since 1995.

There is a lot of information about the fact that Generation Z is made up of people who were born after 1995, and many people (such as the McCrindle Research Center, McKinsey, David Stillman, etc.) have spoken about this. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, this information is not being taken into account. Prostouchastnikvwiki (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It is impossible to determine what specifically you think is missing from the article. The dating methodology is discussed too much, even. Remsense 🌈 论 21:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I wrote in my comment above about what is missing: a description of the birth dates of Gen Z according to McCrindle (1995-2009), McKinsey (1995-2010), and David Stillman, author of "Gen Z @ Work: How the Next Generation Is Transforming the Workplace" (1995-2012). If this is mentioned, I would like to know which section it is in. Prostouchastnikvwiki (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

It's in the "Date and range" section. You can also use the search function of your web browser. Nerd271 (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

More specifically, McCrindle is in footnote e, McKinsey is in footnote f (but with a 1996 date), and Stillman doesn't appear in the article. If he were added, he would go in a footnote to the "Date and age range" section as well. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

And yet, in the article "The True Generation: Gen Z and Its

Implications for Companies", McKinsey specifies the age range from 1995 to 2010. I provide a link to this article:

https://www.mckinsey.com.br/en/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies Prostouchastnikvwiki (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Like @Danbloch wrote - there are already mention of alternative date ranges in the "Date and Range" section. Zillennial (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If you're asking specifically about McKinsey using both 1995 and 1996, I couldn't tell without more investigation. Either they changed their definition between 2018 and 2023, or they don't have a company-wide definition and different writers use different ranges, or some combination of the two. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

1997 to 2012 is the most commonly accept range. The link provided is created when people are still debating over the range at the time. It is also accepted that 1995 and 1996 are millenial years. Most of the infomation presented by people you mentioned are outdated. Oh by the way, McKinsey had updated the range: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/email/genz/2025/02/2025-02-25b.html

SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

According to other authoritative sources, those born in 1995 and 1996 are no longer considered millennials, but rather belong to the Z generation, which is still relevant today.

https://mccrindle.com.au/article/topic/demographics/the-generations-defined/ Honest Ctizen (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Wrong timeline

Gen z is 1995-2009 Ulsterball (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

They changed the definition now. It is now accepted that Gen Z is 1997 to 2012. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

In fact, there is no single interpretation of the birth dates of Generation Z, so this is a misconception. In addition to the interpretation given above (1997-2012), there is another interpretation that defines Generation Z as those born between 1995 and 2009. These discussions on this topic are still relevant today.

https://mccrindle.com.au/article/topic/demographics/the-generations-defined/ Honest Ctizen (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Question about McKinsey and PricewaterhouseCoopers sources

@Some1, @Zillennial, and @Danbloch, wanted to ask that since McKinsey has updated their definition with the 2025 source citing Pew’s 1997-2012 definition, should the former 2023 source be removed from the 1996 section? SpinnerLazerz has already updated and added the new one to the 1997 section, so is it pointless leaving the old one? Also, PricewaterhouseCoopers has also created a new report that also now defines Generation Z with 1997 and 2012, which I will prove the link. I wanted to update both McKinsey and PricewaterhouseCoopers myself, but the page is semi-page protected so I can’t edit, and I also want to ask permission. The new PricewaterhouseCoopers source with 1997-2012 def: https://www.pwc.com/mt/en/publications/other/reaching-gen-z-online.html

McKinsey’s new 2025 source with 1997-2012 def: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/email/genz/2025/02/2025-02-25b.html 2601:940:C100:8890:61CD:58E8:CDC8:A203 (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The Lede

The description of the first paragraph has 2010 as the supposed ending year for Generation Z. However, the main body that contains the date ranges do not reflect this. The 1997 section most frequently has Pew's 2012 end date for the majority of the citations sourced. Even when reading the 1995 and 1996 sections, 2012 is also very common (examples with Jean Twenge and Ipsos) and shows up more frequent than the 2010 date. That being said, I'm not touching the lede, and will wait to see what everyone else agrees on. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

This change was made four days ago. I'd stopped paying close attention to changes and apparently so did everyone else. I've reverted the change (back to 2012) with a comment that changes to dates require consensus. Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the 1997-2012 range, and I think the best thing we can do is just use it as an general term instead of useless debating. The Based Baptist YT (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I, for example, do not agree with this point of view and believe that generation Z is born in 1995-2012. And I think that the best thing to do is to take into account alternative statements, then there will be fewer reasons for disputes, which are here to be. Sober User (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone here that the introduction and the "lede," in the parlance of journalism, are not the same thing. Please see MOS:NOTLEDE. Nerd271 (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Name abbreviation

We should add that Z means "Zenith" in the first line because some people need that information for essays, websites, etc. 104.251.245.22 (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Repsol does not specialize in generational research/Source contradicts itself

The recent edits added in by @Niralbhatt had attempted to remove the Library of Congress citation located in the leading paragraph. The edits had also sneakily changed the succession and preceding boxes found at the bottom of the page (located above the Authority Control Database). This was also done to the Millennials, Gen X, Baby Boomers, Alpha, and Beta pages. As for the Repsol source itself, Repsol is a Spanish company that specialize in petrochemical energy including petroleum oil, gas, and oil refining. The source even contradicts itself. For example, Repsol defines Gen Z as 1996–2010 but then proceeds to use the Pew 1997–2012 range only a few paragraphs later. They use both 1981–1997 and 1981–1995 to define Millennials, and 1966‐1981 and 1965-1980 to define Gen X. They don't provide an explanation or citation. I don't see how this source should even be included since they are not a think tank, consulting firm, or generational researchers, let alone changing the main body consensus. There are around 25 sources for the 1997 start date, 6 for the 1995 start date, and 2 for the 1996 start date. Edits should be in good-faith. As for the Australian Census that uses 1996–2010, it is not popular or cited by any other, and contradicts with the Australian McCrindle researcher who's 1995–2009 range has a much greater influence. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

On further inspection, the Repsol source is absolutely terrible. It doesn't even mention Gen Beta, so I have no idea why Niralbhatt was attempting to define Gen Alpha and Gen Beta with date ranges that don't even exist in the same source that they are trying to include. Repsol source is found here: link ChicagoGirlD (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah! I have not even stated the Repsol's research for other pages, rather than directly edited them with more accurate range. And if Repsol is not a good source I have other sources too stating this range. If you permit me I can tell the name of that other source.

Thanks,

Niralbhatt (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Nah, I think I'll pass. I was checking your Talk Page and noticed that your article request for the so-called Niral's Generation Formula was denied by editor pythoncoder. After inspecting it to see what this Niral Generation Formula was about, I was quick to realize that it is absolute self-original crackpot doo–doo pseudoscience. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

"Accuracy is over wide acceptance". The denial was because of secondary sources ie, someone else talking about this please read properly. Mathematics toppers can never be defeated. Anyways let's stop this fight will fight later on, I have lot's of work to do.

Thanks!!

Niralbhatt (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, Australian Bureau of Statistics (link) in their 2021 report stated that the Generation Z, stated the start and end years of all the generations. This is also accurate by the "Gregorian Calendar", the calendar which we use in our daily lives also, it says that 1BCE was directly followed by 1CE, so if no year "0" then any year starting from "0" in any range is not possible, and thus this research corrected the 1995-2009 range. The 1997-2012 is far more inaccurate, but due to its wide acceptance it is considered as the range for Generation Z. And if we look at Gen Alpha now it says 2013-2024, that includes only 11 years so inaccurate. If we check 1996-2010, it has 15 years in it, it also satisfies as an "Arithmetic Progression", which is taught as early as Class 10th, in our country. Now try to see the range 1996 to 2010, and do let me know what you think after this.

Thanks for readin'!

Niralbhatt (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The Australian Bureau of Statistics source is already found in the main body along with the McCrindle, Jean Twenge, and Japanese sources. As for your further explanation, its absolute self-original research and pseudo crackpot science. There are around 25 sources, including the American Library of Congress that specifically mention Pew's 1997–2012 range for the Gen Z generation. They are found in footnotes a,b, and c. You have also made edits to pages that haven't reach a consensus yet such as Gen Alpha and Gen Beta. Your edits are self-original research. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2025

gen z ends in 2012

gen z should end in 2012 Xaersk (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: - The graph in the article already says 1997-2012. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to request here. Please be more specific. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Original research not allowed

@Niralbhatt, you were already told by pythoncoder that original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is why your Niral's Generation Formula article creation request was denied. Please stop making edits that go against the consensus. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing

@Niralbhatt, you have gone too far this time. Also, Jimfbleak has deleted your draft proposal for the Niral's Generation Formula because it is considered self-advertising and self-promotion. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

What's the current consensus of changing the wording "loosely" to "generally/typically" in the leading sentence?

I was doing the calculations, and there are around 25 sources in the 1997 section, with a majority of them specifically utilizing the Pew 1997–2012 range, including the Library of Congress. As for 1995, there are six. Of those six, two utilize a 1995–2012 range (Jean Twenge and University of Cali), two utilize 1995–2009 (McCrindle and CBS news), one that utilizes 1995–2007 (United Press International), and one with 1995–2010 (Japanese census). As for 1996, there is one (Australia census 1996–2010). Notably the Australian census conflicts with McCrindle's range, since McCrindle is an Australian organization. I was in contact with Japanese Wikipedia editors and administrators, and they tell me that they don't even utilize or mention the Japanese census source, instead they prefer what the English page defines Gen Z as. I double checked and their Wiki says the Pew 1997–2012 range. Do we still wait for something else, a couple more years? ChicagoGirlD (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this change. "Loosely defined as" suggests that the definition itself is loose. "Generally" or "typically defined as" make clear that many but not all sources adhere to this definition. Of these two, I prefer "typically". "Generally" is a stronger claim and seems stronger than the circumstances justify. Danbloch (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I also prefer the word "typically." Nerd271 (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2025

Gen z ended in 2009 108.39.33.213 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 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. Day Creature (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2025

Gen Z ended in 2010 not 2012 ~2025-41152-64 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 19:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Generational labels are arbitrarily defined by various marketers and don't have official beginnings and endings

Wikipedia, please PLEASE stop promoting determinism and pseudoscience by pretending they do with infographics which purport to show the "official" beginnings and endings of arbitrary generation labels, which people see on Google and take to think are official and objective fact. This is damaging to society as a whole. ~2026-17541-2 (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That diagram is only for visualizing the birth years of various demographic cohorts. This Wikipedia article is supported by numerous reliable sources, which readers are encouraged to read for themselves. Wikipedia in general does not pretend to dictate how things are. It only reports things that can be verified by consulting the sources. Nerd271 (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

This page is supported by exactly 414 sources and 7 external links, and there are references at the bottom. see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and other related pages, and quick to note that Wikipedia is supported by numerous sources, which are reliable. Judging by the watchers on this page, such errors (lack of or incorrect sources) can and will be corrected. Also, I think there are other big things damaging society more than this, Have a great day. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 07:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, generations are a "soft subject" meaning there's no clear beginning or end and is dated vaguely (I think?), like "early 2010s (Generation Alpha's page)" for example, so don't worry too much about the boundaries. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 07:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Jazz and nostalgic music interests

Generation Z has been known to gain significant interest in jazz music, alongside derived genres like jazz fusion. Their interest in "nostalgic" and "retro" genres like Japanese city pop and synthwave may also be a good addition. If anyone can find reliable articles regarding Gen Z's interest to those genres, it would be a great insight. Any addition of that information would be welcome. Pravito (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Generational Cohort Range

While researchers and popular media loosely identify the mid to late-1990s as the starting birth years and the late 2000s or early 2010s as the ending birth years, these ranges are not precisely defined and may vary depending on the source. Sivaragam (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It's obvious that these generational date ranges aren't "precisely defined", but there are "commonly/typically/generally" used ranges, and that's what should go in the lead per WP:NPOV. Some1 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

McCrindle’s data is the most reliable because the age gaps are fixed at 15 years.

Matthew McCrindle coined the term Gen Alpha, defining it as those born between 2010 and 2024. This adjusts the previous generations as follows - Gen Z from 1995 to 2009, Gen Y from 1980 to 1994, and Gen X from 1965 to 1979.

The Baby Boomers are placed between 1946 and 1964. Their generational label is derived from the baby boom that occurred after World War II, when the fertility rate was about 3.5 babies per woman.

Those born before 1946 are referred to as the Builders. Sivaragam (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

As of 2026, the vast majority of the sources in the body are specifically citing the Pew Research Center's 1997–2012 range, including Deloitte, McKinsey, PriceWateterhouseCoopers, the United States Library of Congress, the government of Canada, most major news outlets such as Forbes, etc. Even Jason Dorsey now cites the Pew 1997 range since 2025. Most sources that used to cite McCrindle such as the USC and Deloitte are abandoning McCrindle's range because its seen as being outdated. Generations are defined by historical events, not just the 15 year range. For example, the Greatest Generation goes from 1901 to 1927, based on those who fought in WW2. The Baby Boomers are 1946 to 1964, based on the famous Baby Boom event. Do not change the lead per WP:NPOV, or add bogus sources that aren't credible or are oudated. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

According to Pew’s logic, how can a person born on 31 December 1996 remember 9/11, while someone born on 1 January 1997 cannot?

Not everyone around the world uses the generational definitions of the Pew Research Center. In Japan, the classifications are different, and in Australia they are different as well. So you cannot draw a clear-cut line.

If Mark McCrindle is correct about Gen Alpha, then he is also correct about Gen Z.

31 December 1994 completes half a decade, and 1 January 1995 begins the next. Sivaragam (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Heck, the Australian government doesn't even use McCrindle's range, despite the fact McCrindle is from Australia. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

After reading your comment on the "Generation Z In the United States" talk page, I'm going to go ahead and provide you BOTH of the updated McKinsey articles from 2025 in which they SPECIFICALLY use Pew's 1997–2012 range. They are already found in the footnotes, but it appears folks don't know how to use their mouse and keyboards: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/email/genz/2025/02/2025-02-25b.html and https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/future-of-wellness-trends ChicagoGirlD (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

What I’m saying is that there is some dispute about the exact boundaries. Some people consider those born from 1995 onward as Gen Z, and years like 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 can also be included in Gen Z depending on the definition.

However, the division Mark McCrindle made is more systematic because it splits generations into clear half-decades. Mark McCrindle also coined the term ‘Gen Alpha’ and defined its range as 2010–2024, which starts at the beginning of a new decade.

If we follow that logic, what is really the difference between 2012 and 2013, or between 1995, 1996, and 1997 according to Pew?

For example, consider a person born on December 31, 2012, and another born on January 1, 2013.

But 2009 and 2010 fall in different decades. Sivaragam (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. We put what the majority of the sources of the body says, not you. The McCrindle source you showed me is from 2024 and is OUTDATED. Can you not read? McKinsey has added 2 sources last year in 2025 that uses the PEW RESEARCH CENTER'S definition. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@ChicagoGirlD Chicago Girl doesn’t seem to need Jason Dorsey, even though he said Gen Z starts in 1996. It looks like you’re trying hard to fix the year. Many people check Wikipedia, see Pew’s 1997-2012 range, and then repeat it in their articles, forgetting other ranges like 1996–2015 or 1995–2009 that some researchers use. Earlier, this person told me to refer to Jason Dorsey. I included his research as much as possible and even provided the website. But now, according to this person’s logic, everyone should only use the Pew Research Center. For this person, everything seems outdated except Pew’s research.Sivaragam (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

How many times do I have to repeat myself, @Sivaragam? Jason Dorsey is already found in footnote b in the 1997 section. He uses 1997–2012, not 1996–2015. One again, here it is from HIS MAIN PAGE: https://jasondorsey.com/blog/featured-in-readers-digest-on-generational-identity/. He now cites the Pew range since last year in 2025. Here it is again, and the 2025 interview he did with Readers Digest, in which he once again cites the 1997–2012 range? Quit lying: https://jasondorsey.com/blog/featured-in-readers-digest-on-generational-identity/ and https://www.rd.com/article/generation-years-and-names/. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

What about this? https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-gen-z Sivaragam (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

That McKinsey article is from 2024. McKinsey has already published 2 new articles LAST YEAR IN 2025 in which they use the Pew 1997–2012 range for both of them. They are found in the footnotes of the main body, and I've already provided the links to you. At this point, I'm going to presume that you are feigning ignorance. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or for personal bias. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyone who sees this can decide for themselves. Chicago Girl is not accepting that generations don’t have a clear-cut starting year, and different researchers have different opinions. Chicago Girl mentioned Jason Dorsey, and he said Gen Z starts from 1996 onward, so there isn’t any uniformity.

There are also criticisms that these generational labels are created by survey researchers, journalists, or marketing firms and that they promote stereotyping and quick judgments about people. Sivaragam (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

WP: NPOV edits

Hey @Some1 and @Nerd271, so pretty much I did what I could do dealing with @Sivaragam,'s edits. However after so many reverts, I'm tired of playing childish games with him, and am not keen with further discussing with a full grown adult throwing temper tantrums. He already knows about the main body sources, yet he chooses to ignore them. He's flip flopping, picking McCrindle as the main source one day and then Jason Dorsey today (despite the fact that Jason Dorsey has already cited Pew's 1997 definition not just once, but twice, both in his official website as well as an interview he had with Reader's Digest last year in 2025). I've already added them to the 1997 section, yet Sivaragam is choosing to ignore this. I'm going to do one more revert, but after this I'm done because I don't want to break the 3-revert rule. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

These ranges are not precisely defined and may vary depending on the source.

Chicago Girl, you mentioned Jason Dorsey, and according to him Gen Z starts in 1996. Why do you want to change it to 1997, brother? Let researchers do their job. Sivaragam (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sivaragam, Jason Dorsey has updated his range and SPECIFICALLY cites Pew's range on his main website. He has also had an interview with Reader's Digest last year in 2025 in which he also uses the 1997–2012 range. He does not use the 1996–2015 anymore. https://jasondorsey.com/blog/featured-in-readers-digest-on-generational-identity/ ChicagoGirlD (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The majority of the sources in the body cite Pew's range. You are making your own personal edits. A couple days ago you use McCrindle as the main source, now today you are using Jason Dorsey? You are not being honest with your edits. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I added Mark McCrindle’s research, which represents a more recent generational framework, above Pew because you mentioned studies that were outdated. McCrindle coined the term Generation Alpha and defined it as those born from 2010 to 2024, so by that logic Generation Z would be 1995 to 2009. I was trying to show that these ranges are not fixed, but the Chicago girl wanted to fix them to a single range.

Readers should also know about McCrindle and Jason Dorsey. Sivaragam (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

How many times do I have to repeat myself, @Sivaragam? Jason Dorsey is already found in footnote b in the 1997 section. He uses 1997–2012, not 1996–2015. One again, here it is from HIS MAIN PAGE: https://jasondorsey.com/blog/featured-in-readers-digest-on-generational-identity/. He now cites the Pew range since last year in 2025. Here it is again, and the 2025 interview he did with Readers Digest, in which he once again cites the 1997–2012 range? Quit lying: https://jasondorsey.com/blog/featured-in-readers-digest-on-generational-identity/ and https://www.rd.com/article/generation-years-and-names/. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Given the preponderance of the body of this article, I support the status quo, which is the version of ChicagoGirlD. Most sources designate Generation Z as a demographic cohort born between the mid-to-late 1990s and early 2010s. Nerd271 (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The Pew Research Center previously described Generation Z as people born between 1997 and 2012, but it now says these kinds of generational boundaries should not be treated as strict or scientific rules. Pew explains that the exact start and end years of generations are somewhat arbitrary, because people born just a year apart often grow up with very similar experiences. Because of this, Pew plans to focus less on fixed generation labels and more on broader factors like age, life stage, and historical events when studying social trends.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/22/how-pew-research-center-will-report-on-generations-moving-forward/

I was right. Even Pew Research Center says generational ranges aren’t strict, but many people still treat them as fixed boundaries while ignoring other research.

In 2019, Pew Research Center used 1997–2012 as the range for Generation Z, but in 2023 it clarified that generational boundaries are not fixed and shouldn’t be treated as strict definitions. @ChicagoGirlD@Nerd271@Some1@The Bushranger Sivaragam (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Right, that's why the article does not and should not state that Generation Z are those born between 1997 to 2012. The current sentence in the lead says Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, which encompasses the wide range of years that researchers and popular media use. Some1 (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Some1 is right here. The highlighted quote from the introduction reflects the body of the article. It should not be changed without consensus. Nerd271 (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

yes, the article should not state that Generation Z are those born between 1997 to 2012. Sivaragam (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

You are still trying to change it in your own way. He clearly wrote that the article should not state that Generation Z are those born between 1997 and 2012.

Why do you still want to stick to Pew when Pew itself clarified this in 2023? Sivaragam (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't state that specifically. It merely mentions it as one common definition, but not the only one. I don't think anybody here is rigid about it. Nerd271 (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

He clearly wrote that the article should not state that Generation Z are those born between 1997 and 2012. If you're referring to me, I mean the article should not state plainly and directly in the lead that: "Generation Z are those born between 1997 to 2012" (like that exact sentence, word for word, which is why I had it in the red quote template), because that would be suggesting a rigid and fixed boundary.

The status quo wording does not say that though or suggest any rigid/fixed boundaries; it says Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012, which is more nuanced and encompasses a wide range of years used by researches/popular media/news outlets, while providing a date range that is commonly used by them. If I hadn't made it clear from my comments in this discussion, the status quo version is fine as is. Some1 (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Sivaragam said: McCrindle coined the term Generation Alpha and defined it as those born from 2010 to 2024, so by that logic Generation Z would be 1995 to 2009.

Not exactly. Interestingly enough, this ABC News article, which references both Pew Research Center and Mark McCrindle, says Gen Z is generally defined as those who were born between 1997 and 2009. https://abcnews.com/GMA/Living/generation-names-and-years/story?id=114802892 According to the ABC News article:

• The Greatest Generation: b. 1901-1927
• The Silent Generation: b. 1928-1945
• Baby boomers: b. 1946-1964
• Generation X: b. 1965-1980
• Millennials or Generation Y: b. 1981-1996 (citing Pew)
• Generation Z: b. 1997-2009
• Generation Alpha: b. 2010-2024 (citing McCrindle)
• Generation Beta: b. 2025-2039 (citing McCrindle)

Some1 (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• The page has been fully protected for two days due to the ongoing content dispute. Please discuss here to establish consensus to resolve the dispute. Resumption of the edit-warring once the block expires will likely result in sanctions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The Pew Research Center previously described Generation Z as people born between 1997 and 2012, but it now says these kinds of generational boundaries should not be treated as strict or scientific rules. Pew explains that the exact start and end years of generations are somewhat arbitrary, because people born just a year apart often grow up with very similar experiences. Because of this, Pew plans to focus less on fixed generation labels and more on broader factors like age, life stage, and historical events when studying social trends.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/22/how-pew-research-center-will-report-on-generations-moving-forward/

I was right. Even Pew Research Center says generational ranges aren’t strict, but many people still treat them as fixed boundaries while ignoring other research.

In 2019, Pew Research Center used 1997–2012 as the range for Generation Z, but in 2023 it clarified that generational boundaries are not fixed and shouldn’t be treated as strict definitions. Sivaragam (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Please stop duplicating huge chunks of your comments in the same discussion; that makes it harder for us to know where and which comment to respond to. Some1 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I was referring to systematic research that usually places about a 15 - year gap between generations after Baby Boomers, so how does a generation suddenly become so long? Why should someone born in 1995 be placed in Millennials? According to McCrindle Research, the cutoff is 1995, meaning someone born on January 1, 1995 is considered Generation Z while someone born on December 31, 1994 is a Millennial. According to Pew Research Center, the cutoff is different - December 31, 1996 versus January 1, 1997. So neither boundary is objectively ‘right,’ but the McCrindle approach seems more systematic because it keeps a consistent generational gap. I also like that it places 2010 in Generation Alpha, starting the generation with a new decade. By that logic, people born in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 could reasonably be considered part of Generation Z. Sivaragam (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Sivaragam The problem here is that you appear to be conflating social generations or demographic cohorts (such as Millennials and Generation Z) with biological generations. There are three to four biological generations per century. But each social generation, as it is commonly defined, is only half a biological one. Thus, Millennials and Generation Z are the same biological generation, even if we consider them to be different demographic cohorts for reasons having to do with social and cultural change.

Besides, if definitions for demographic cohorts are not strict or clear-cut, why should we insist on a fixed period of time for their birth years? 15:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC) Nerd271 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/22/how-pew-research-center-will-report-on-generations-moving-forward/

Pew itself said there isn’t really a need for rigid generational boundaries, but you wouldn’t accept what I was saying and instead insisted on sticking strictly to Pew’s definitions while undermining other views. You were all busy creating a generation where the real Gen Z, as suggested by many researchers and media outlets, those born in 1995 and 1996, were excluded, while people born later who should probably belong to Gen Alpha were included.

In fact, there wasn’t even a real need for this kind of generational branding in the first place. Sivaragam (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that from but I am not insisting on a particular range. The status quo merely mentions one common one but does not insist on it. Nerd271 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The status quo wording is fine as is. There's a difference between saying with the generation typically being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012 (giving a common range that is used) and "Generation Z are those born from 1997 to 2012" (rigid definition). 1995 and 1996 are already included in the Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years... part of the sentence.

I'll also add that the common date range can change over time, especially for this generation where the youngest members aren't even adults yet. Pew used 2012 as the tentative end year for Gen Z, but they could decide on a different year in the future. It is also possible that more and more reliable sources will cite McCrindle Research instead of Pew in the future. If and when that happens, the date range in the lead will change accordingly to reflect the sources. Some1 (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a good point. We can and should update the page if and when the most commonly cited definition changes because analysts and commentators reach new conclusions after examining new data. But for now, that part of the introduction is fine as it is. The youngest members of Generation Z are still in adolescence, for heaven's sake! Why the rush? Nerd271 (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m not sure whether I can take part in the discussion of a protected page. All of you raise valid points, but since the introduction currently mentions the range 1997-2012, a reader like me who only reads the introduction might not look at the dates and ranges explained in other sections. Because of this, I feel that the rigid boundary should be reconsidered. Instead, the introduction could redirect readers to the section where the different ranges are discussed in detail. More information could be included there about sources such as McCrindle, Pew, McKinsey, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Japan, and others. Thank you as well to the person who suggested earlier starting years for Generation Z, such as 1995 or 1996. ~2026-14496-28 (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

So my question is: if there isn’t a general range for this, why is the range (1997–2012) given? Why not count all studies? As it stands, it seems to give weight only to Pew.

People born in 2010, 2011, and 2012 may identify as Gen Alpha. Before 2019, many sources also classified those born in 1995, 1996, and 1997 as Gen Z. Therefore, assigning a fixed range (1997-2012) to a debated generational boundary is problematic.

So my question is: if there isn’t a general range for this, why is the range (1997–2012) given? Why not count all studies? As it stands, it seems to give weight only to Pew.

People born in 2010, 2011, and 2012 may identify as Gen Alpha. Before 2019, many sources also classified those born in 1995, 1996, and 1997 as Gen Z. Therefore, assigning a fixed range (1997-2012) to a debated generational boundary is problematic.

I’m not in a rush to fix this. Gen Z is typically defined as people born from 1997 to 2012, but this range mainly comes from Pew Research Center, which in 2023 stated that generational boundaries should not be treated as a rigid scale. Therefore, why can’t it be defined differently, such as 1996-2010 or 1995-2009? This effectively gives an unfair advantage to Pew. Sivaragam (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• "if there isn’t a general range for this" - there is. As the status quo sentence states, it's the mid-to-late 1990s to the early 2010s, and the most common range used is 1997-2012
• "Why not count all studies?" - we do, they're in the body of the article (Generation Z#Date and age range definitions). As for the lead, we are not required to give prominence to all studies per WP:NPOV; we give prominence to ones that have been widely published in RS
• "it seems to give weight only to Pew." - because most RSes cite Pew or use 1997-2012 per the sources in the #Date and age range section and WP:WEIGHT
• "People born in 2010, 2011, and 2012 may identify as Gen Alpha." - we have an article called Zalphas for about those born in the ending years of Gen Z and in the early years of Gen Alpha
• "Gen Z is typically defined as people born from 1997 to 2012" - so you agree?
• "this range mainly comes from Pew Research Center" - Pew uses it, yes, but as the #Date and age range section states: "Most news outlets, management and consulting firms, think tanks, and analytics companies frequently use the starting birth year of 1997, often citing Pew Research's 1997–2012 range". See footnotes A, B, C.
• "generational boundaries should not be treated as a rigid scale." - no one is treating it as such. The sentence states that the generation is defined as those born from the mid-to-late 1990s to the early 2010s, and gives a common date range that is used by RS. The sentence in the lead summarizes the #Date and age range section of the article. See my earlier comment above about this.
• "why can’t it be defined differently, such as 1996-2010 or 1995-2009?" - some do define it that way and they're listed in the #Date and age range section. As for the lead, are those the common date ranges used by RS?

We could rewrite the sentence to say: Researchers and popular media typically use 1995-1997 as starting birth years, with the end years of the generation tentatively being in the early 2010s. But I could foresee driveby editors attempting to "fix" the wording for "consistency" with the other generation articles, or disruptively modifying the years to other years "for fun". So I believe the current status quo wording is the best we have. Some1 (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Zalphas and Zillennials are micro-generations.

Since we are discussing generations, it might be better to focus on the main generations rather than micro-generations when considering generational ranges.

Researchers and popular media typically use 1995-1997 as the starting birth years, with the end of the generation tentatively placed in the late 2000s or early 2010s. As you said, this is actually the best approach because it encompasses nearly all the research. ~2026-14889-22 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies,the previous reply was mine. I had forgotten to log in. Some1

This would be perfect: Researchers and popular media typically use 1995-1997 as the starting birth years, with the end of the generation tentatively placed in the late 2000s or early 2010s. Sivaragam (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

After the page protection ends, we could try that sentence and see how it goes. If others dispute or revert it, that means there's no consensus for the change, so the status quo wording remains. Please be careful not to edit-war. Some1 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, mate. I think you understand the value of knowledge.

Yes, we can edit that. But responsible people who understand the value of knowledge would not edit it. People have the right to know everything. Sivaragam (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nerd271 and @Some1, I wanted to make a last suggestion before I go. From reading the conversions with Sivaragam and the IP user, it appears to me that it is time to move the sources found in footnotes A,B,C, and D back to the original paragraph form, the same how it is with with Gen X and Millennials. I don't think most readers are checking the footnotes at all, they are hidden. For example, the various cases when users were mentioning Deloitte and McKinsey as sources for 1995 and 1996 multiple times, despite the fact that other Wikipedia editors had already added the update versions in the footnotes (McKinsey has two articles from last year in 2025 both using Pew, yet they still try to use the 2018 and 2024 versions as the source). When it comes to the sheer number of sources in the body, Pew eclipses with the most (around 25) but is funnily enough the one at the disadvantage because most readers are not reading the majority of them (most are hidden in footnotes). Meanwhile the only source the 1995 and 1996 section has hidden in footnote D is the CBS News article that I updated myself back in August. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the Brookings Institution, Gallup, and Ipsos can be moved out of the footnotes, but the rest can remain in them. We don't want that section to become bloated or a laundry list. Some1 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Can McKinsey be moved as well? Mainly because of the 2018 and 2024 situation vs the two from last year. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, that works. Some1 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

these ranges are not precisely defined and may vary depending on the source (see § Date and age range definitions).

So this is the best way, similar to the wording used on the Generation Alpha page. Sivaragam (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Cool, @Some1 and @Nerd271. I think that it's best that I'm not the one who makes the edits with the footnotes. I was send the message about edit warring, and I don't want to get sanctions. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

With respect, I have always wanted to ask something about this. You mentioned that Pew represents updated research. If Pew were to redefine the boundaries in the future and place 1997, 1998, or 1999 back into Millennials, would we then say that 1997 belongs to Millennials, similar to how earlier definitions of Generation Z sometimes started in 1995 or 1996?

These definitions are not really “updates” in the strict sense; they are studies produced by different research organizations using different methodologies. Because of that, the starting years can vary depending on the source.

For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics places Generation Z roughly between 1996 and 2010, while some Japanese sources begin the cohort around 1995. This shows that different institutions approach the boundary differently.

At the same time, if McCrindle becomes the frontrunner or the primary or dominant reference in the future, then Pew and others should also be counted. If different research organizations provide varying definitions, it may be more balanced to acknowledge that range of views rather than relying on a single source alone.

I say this with full respect for the sources being discussed and the views already expressed. @ChicagoGirlD Sivaragam (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk to you. When I mean "updated", we are meaning that the other secondary sources are choosing to cite Pew's range when they are defining Gen Z in the current time and moment. McKinsey used to say 1995 to 2010 and 1996 to 2010 a couple years ago, HOWEVER the most recent article that they have written specifically use 1997–2012, and they have two of them in 2025. The sources in the footnotes are important BECAUSE they back up the 1997–2012 range. The only source that backs up McCrindle is the CBS News article, and that's it. I can tell that you are very bias, not based on the sources, but on personal feelings on the matter, whether you are a 1995/1996 born or friends/relatives to someone who is and wants to be Gen Z, despite the sources saying otherwise and that Wikipedia isn't a forum the same as Reddit. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Researchers and popular media typically cite the mid-to-late 1990s as the starting point for Generation Z, with common starting years ranging from 1995 to 1997, and the end of the generation tentatively placed in the late 2000s or early 2010s.

Given this, it may be helpful to reflect that range in the wording of the article and include the relevant sources in the date and range sections rather than relying heavily on footnotes. Several organizations and studies use slightly different starting points within this range, and presenting them clearly would better reflect the diversity of sources.

It may also be worth noting that creating a strict boundary can be problematic, as generational definitions are inherently approximate. As noted by the Pew Research Center in more recent commentary, generational cutoffs are analytical tools rather than fixed biological or social divisions.

Since many commonly cited sources converge around 1995, 1996, and 1997 as possible starting years, presenting that range may better represent the current research landscape while avoiding the impression of a single rigid cutoff. Sivaragam (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I still support the status quo wording, but if we want to try something new, perhaps:

Researchers and popular media generally use 1995 to 1997 as starting birth years for the generation, with the ending birth years tentatively placed in the late 2000s/early 2010s.

Some1 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I also support and prefer the status quo wording, but I know it's not up to me. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The best approach may be to direct readers to the “Date and age range definitions” section. In that section, the sources can be presented clearly, starting with Pew, followed by McCrindle, then Japanese definitions, and finally the definitions provided by dictionaries.

We could also make a slight tweak to the status quo by removing the highlighted Pew definition, which currently makes some readers believe the range is rigid. As the IP user mentioned, many readers may have this confusion. This may help avoid the impression that there is a single fixed definition.

Alternatively, the wording “1995-1997 as starting birth years, with the end placed in the late 2000s or early 2010s” would also be fine.

We should also try to address similar issues on the Generation X and Generation Y pages if possible. Up to the Baby Boomer generation, there are no disputes about the boundaries. Sivaragam (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

No, this is not a committee to rewrite or edit the other articles. We are only discussing this one. Nerd271 (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The new phrasing by Some1 works. Nerd271 (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Going to be honest, @Some1. The more I read Sivaragam's suggestions and replies, the more I disagree with him and think that this is a terrible idea and a disaster for the Wikipedia articles. He's already making personal plans for the Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Millennial articles despite that those have been carefully curated by other editors over the years. I think that he's basing this on personal feelings rather than the actual sources in the bodies and footnotes. I go for the hard disagree for the new change in the lead, and strongly suggest keeping the status quo. But I will give up the argument if you, @Nerd271, and the others think otherwise. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. As I said in my comment above when I initially proposed an alternative wording, I foresee driveby editors going around to other generation articles and attempt to "fix" the wording for "consistency" purposes. That'll just cause so much needless debate and disruption, that at this point, I prefer the sticking to the status quo wording. Nerd271, you still prefer the status quo wording too, right? Some1 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Some1 Yes, I do. Nerd271 (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

"We should also try to address similar issues on the Generation X and Generation Y pages" - No we don't. Whatever we decide on this article has no impact on the other generations articles. Also: The lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article, and if readers want to read and learn more about these different date ranges, they can just scroll down the article to the "Date and age range" section. If they don't bother to scroll down, then the lead already summarizes for them what the section is going to say (that the start years are in the mid-to-late 1990s and that the end years are in the early 2010s, and that the common range used is 1997-2012). Some1 (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Some1 Not sure if you noticed this, but in the new interface for desktop and laptop computers, there is a drop down menu on the left-hand side. So navigation within an article is easy. Nerd271 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

ChicagoGirlD His argument that people might get confused is unsound. It is as plain and clear as it can be. Wikipedia and its editors cannot be held responsible for people misreading things. The Pew Research Center's definition is given as only one possibility. Nerd271 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree @Nerd271. I also don't like how Sivaragam is diminishing the importance of the footnotes. Anyways, I apologize to you and Some1 for the inconvenience. When it's trustworthy Wikipediators that are calling the shots and making the edits, I have full support. I stepped in this time because what Sivaragam was planning I strongly disagree with. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a dispute about the years for Generation X and Millennials, with differences of one or two years. I simply pointed that out.

The main article about generations also exists, right?

My question is why the Chicago editor is saying that only Pew Research should be used. Even Pew itself is moving away from strict boundaries.

So, let’s remove the “common range” part for now. Sivaragam (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that from. But I have been writing these articles and reading from Pew for years now (since before the pandemic, in fact). Pew has never stated their date range was rigid. Like other things in the social sciences, the boundaries are not fixed. They only stated a range out of necessity. Jean Twenge makes the same argument, even if her range is different.

But at the time of writing, the body of the article contains sources that mostly use the range 1997-2012, so that is the one mentioned in the introduction, as is standard practice. The introduction must reflect the body of the article. Nerd271 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/05/22/how-pew-research-center-will-report-on-generations-moving-forward/ Sivaragam (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

That article does not contradict what Nerd271 has said. Some1 (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

So, we could either add the year ranges used by other researchers or remove the fixed boundary of 1997-2012. Like many things in the social sciences, these boundaries are not fixed and are often stated as ranges out of necessity.The main introduction is what most readers look at first.

Since many researchers define the years differently, we should allow multiple reliable sources to be represented rather than indirectly giving importance to just one. Sivaragam (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m only talking about the use of a rigid definition. Some sources place the start of Gen Z in the mid-1990s, while others place it in the late 1990s. Because of this variation, I don’t think we should insist on a single “common” definition based only on Pew. Sivaragam (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I've already answered all of your concerns in my comment: here. We'll have to agree to disagree. Some1 (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

If readers are directed to the “Date and age range” section, they can learn more about the different ranges used by researchers. (Neutral Approach)

I’ve already mentioned in my earlier replies that Zillennials and Zalphas are generally described as micro-generations rather than full generations.

My main concern is the fixed range of 1997-2012 in the introduction, presenting a single fixed range in the lead may give undue weight to one source.

A more neutral approach would be to direct readers to the “Date and range” section, where the different ranges used by reliable sources can be summarized. Since the introduction is what most readers see first, it should avoid implying a single rigid boundary when the literature itself shows variation.

Not everyone reads the full article, so the introduction should avoid presenting one specific range as if it were universally agreed upon. Otherwise, readers may assume that 1997-2012 is the only accepted range and remain unaware that other reliable sources define the years differently. Wikipedia’s purpose is to share knowledge broadly, so readers should be able to see that variation rather than being limited to a single definition. Sivaragam (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Wanted to clarify what the consensus was again, @Some1 and @Nerd271? @Sivaragam went ahead with his edit, however we agreed to the status quo wording, right? Especially because there is the great likelihood that editors are going to vandalise the other generation articles and the sources/wording in the main body paragraphs? I disagree with what he is doing, but I'm not going revert the edit because I'm going to get sanctions on my account. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@ChicagoGirlD: He was not supposed to ignore talk-page consensus. I reverted those edits. Nerd271 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nerd271 I was checking the other generation articles, and had to revert the edits made by @Sivaragam towards Generation X. He also changed the descriptions for all of the generations in the general Generation Wikipedia article, which includes Gen X and the Millennials (this still hasn't been reverted). With what he was saying yesterday as well, I don't agree with what he's doing and why I'm adamant of being against the changes towards the the Gen Z lead. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@ChicagoGirlD: I support the status quo. Some1 previously expressed the same view, which you can check by scrolling up. Nerd271 (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Nerd271. You're the best. I'm going to go ahead and revert Sivaragam's edits over on the general Generation Wikipedia page as well (the one that has all of the generations put together, including the micro–generations). ChicagoGirlD (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I’m also writing an article on this, which is why I came here.

I’ve enjoyed discussing this with you and hearing your perspectives.

@Nerd271@Some1@ChicagoGirlD Sivaragam (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Dear moderator, for your information, Some1, ChicagoGirlD, and myself have reached a consensus to maintain the status quo with respect to the sentence in dispute (in the opening paragraph of this article). Sivaragam is the sole dissenter. Nerd271 (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Nerd271 Admins aren't mind readers. You can try reporting Sivaragam to the WP:Edit warring noticeboard since The Bushranger said above that "Resumption of the edit-warring once the [full page protection] expires will likely result in sanctions". Some1 (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Some1: Thank you for your suggestion. But that was actually not my intention at all. I was merely informing a moderator who previously took action here. Unfortunately, now that another edit war is afoot, you are right. But could you please file that notice? I would rather not be the only one taking action. Nerd271 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:TALKDONTREVERT

Researchers and popular media generally use 1995 to 1997 as starting birth years for the generation, with the ending birth years tentatively placed in the late 2000s/early 2010s. these ranges are not precisely defined and may vary depending on the source (see § Date and age range definitions).