Talk:Generation Z/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Europe is apparently suffering.

Just had a little edit skirmish with Nerd271, from which I have made a tactical retreat to this Talk page, a place I had asked him to come, but which he chose not to. He has added some content referencing some potentially useful sources, but presenting content from those sources in Wikipedia's voice, rather than as being something someone else said. The one that first really caught my eye, perhaps because I am of mature years myself, was "At the start of the twenty-first century, Europe suffers from an aging population." Suffering? Really? That's clear non-neutral POV on display there. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that being said in Wikipedia's voice. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral with respect to the sources. As long as we make sure our sources are reliable, there should not be a problem. Apologies if this touches a nerve, but all the information I presented is mentioned in the sources. I am not making anything up. Moreover, it is no secret that Europe is having an aging population (which we even have a page for), which comes with various economic, social, and political problems. For example, who is funding pensions for today's retirees? Nerd271 (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do you ignore my fundamental point here? You wrote the word "suffering" as if it is an unarguable fact. The ageing population is the healthiest one of that age the world has ever seen, and many of its members are making massive contributions to society, even though you might see being over 50 as geriatric. I note that, although you are still arguing, you've changed the wording to something almost as bad - "Europe has an aging population, a situation unprecedented in human history." That's just nonsense. It NOT unprecedented. At any point in time, populations are either aging, or getting younger. It has aged many times in the past. Just slow down in your editing, and be careful to NOT write as if Wikipedia is saying what others have said. It's fine to write "Person x writes that Europe is suffering..." (If they did say that.) But we don't write such things as absolutes. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Eric Kaufmann is a demographer and political scientist. We have a page for him, too. Yes, human life expectancy has never been higher in history. But when coupled with sub-replacement-level fertility rate, it means an aging population. Think in terms of a population pyramid. If your pyramid is bulging out at the top, it means you have an aging population. It does not matter for how long people are living.

Your comment about people being "geriatric" is purely speculation on your part. I never said such thing. It is true, though, that some countries are trying raise the retirement age or perhaps to get their elderly people back to work (at a reduced schedule). Nerd271 (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

At no point have I argued with the point that the population is ageing. What is not so certain is that an ageing population is automatically a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe you something to that effect, albeit implicitly. You said that the elderly population makes "massive contributions to society." This is not entirely wrong. But you cannot expect old people to work the way young people do. Is old age not one of the reasons why people retire? Moreover, if you read the whole thing and check all the sources, having an aging population is quite a problem for the countries facing it. (A brain drain or a stagnating economy makes it worse.) Nerd271 (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

In that you are clearly expressing your own non-neutral point of view, something we don't do in Wikipedia. It's common to do so, and those that do it often cannot comprehend that there are other ways of looking at things. IF you can find a source that supports your POV, you can use it to write content that says something like "xxxx writes that so and so is true", but you cannot simply write "so and so is true". HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You complain that those who support a "non-neutral point of view" are unable to "comprehend that there are other ways of looking at things" yet here you are insisting on a different presentation from what the sources say. Once more, check our article on the aging of Europe. With regards to the first paragraph you contested, one source is a peer-reviewed research paper by a notable academic in the field and the other is a book review of works by the same academic and two others by The Economist, considered reliable by the Wikipedia community. (See the list at WP:RS.) Given that all the sources I used acknowledge that having an aging population, which, for the purposes of this article at present, means not enough of Generation Z has been born in large parts of the world, is potentially troublesome. I dare say my presentation is accurate with respect to the sources. Unless you provide reliable sources (that cover the subject matter in a way relevant to this topic) to support your "different" point of view, I'm afraid it must be classified as original research.

Again, if you have issues, please read the whole thing, check the sources, and come back with any specific questions, should you have any. Nerd271 (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect start range

User talk:Some1 The most reliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory suggest the start range from 2004, most of the sources use the starting dates late 1990s to early 2000s, so why based on personal judgement are editors of this artciles giving the starting range mid 1990 to late 1990? Even the mid 1990 to early 2000 range is more accurate. The millennial were by terminology the last to be born at the end of the last millennium, 1981-2000. Most of the sources are also unreliable, we must give priority to WP:RS and the only source that seems to meet the guideline is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory I won't discs here further, just stating the obvious, I will leave the matter to what majority of the editors decide. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Some1 here. The Strauss-Howe generational theory is not accepted by mainstream academics. If you go through the appropriate section of the article, you will find that the lead correctly states one of the most common ranges while acknowledging that others are in use. Most sources here are reliable and even have a green check mark at WP:RS. Nerd271 (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok then, I agree with this. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Cutoff

The Pew Research Center has selected 2012 as the last birth year for Generation Z in their work.

Yes, but we already have that link in the 'Date and age range definition' section. I appreciate your enthusiasm, however. Nerd271 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

First usage/coinage of this term?

What's the earliest usage of this term? There's logs on this article going back to 2003, so it must have existed before then.--98.235.178.140 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the term "Zoomer" be mentioned in terminology?

The term Zoomer (a play on the term Boomer) has increased in use online in the past couple of years when referring to gen Z. It is used frequently on reddit and 4chan. wiki/zoomer already lists this page under the possible meanings portion. this term refers to the fast pace at which tech and gen z culture changes in the formative years of "Zoomers" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.51.142 (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I could be added if you can find a decent source. Reddit/4chan is not a good source. --Frmorrison (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that it really should be, but I can't find any Wikipedia-approved source that mentions this. Too bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyfume (talk • contribs) 22:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• It showed back up again, with only Reddit, 4chan, and Urban Dictionary cited as sources. I removed it per WP:RS and this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I have almost never seen Generation Z called this way, and I do read a lot about this demographic cohort. It does not appear mainstream to me. Nerd271 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It has recently become widely used online beyond the above mentioned sites, and I agree it should be added, although I don't have the priveleges to do so. The following sources aren't about the terminology itself, but show it to be in common use:

• "However, Gen Z kids (also known as “Zoomers”) are apparently very aware that they can get more bang for their buck on the used market." https://www.thedrive.com/news/26165/young-drivers-would-rather-buy-expensive-used-cars-than-cheap-new-ones-report
• "Members of Gen Z, those born between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s, are considered Zoomers." http://www.citypages.com/music/i-tweeted-at-lil-nas-x-and-now-the-teens-wont-stop-dragging-me/508940281
• "It felt fitting, then, that on a night when most of the attention was on a millennial being put out to pasture, the two members of his squad who can unambiguously count themselves as ‘Zoomers’ should combine to score" https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/england-usa-wayne-rooney-cap-trent-alexanderarnold-goal-jadon-sancho-a8636216.html
• "...while simultaneously ensuring that Zoomers and future generations do not live in an unpredictable world..." https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/eat-less-meat-if-you-care-about-climate-change-742452.html
• "...teenage “Zoomers,” also known as Generation Z" https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/tekashi-69-rise-and-fall-feature-777971/
• "If you’re not a proud member of Generation Z who’s currently sporting a sassy bucket hat while bumping Billie Eilish (do Zoomers say “bumping?”), here’s a quick primer on what, exactly, “clout” means." https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/alist/influencers-will-do-anything-for-clout-including-getting-married-a4197511.html
• "The millennial stereotype of Boomers, as computer-illiterate gullible reactionaries, is not only unfair but ignorant. It denies the radical political lessons that Boomers left for our generation, and which we and Zoomers have yet to learn." https://www.salon.com/2019/05/12/why-millennials-will-miss-boomers-when-theyre-gone/
• "Depending on the study, Gen-Z (also called the i-Generation and Zoomers) identifies as between 51% and 33% Queer." https://25yearslatersite.com/2019/08/02/stonewall-how-far-have-we-come-in-50-years/
• "According to one survey, 35 percent of zoomers know an enby, as nonbinary people are known." https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/07/26/40876911/eliabeth-warren-goes-all-in-on-the-woke-vote

MegaPowerTape (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@MegaPowerTape: Thank you for you proposal. But please keep in mind that just because someone puts something on the Internet does not mean it's true. We should stick to reliable sources. That rules out opinion pieces, blog posts, and pretty much all pages that are not exactly factual in nature. Opinions of people with the relevant expertise, such as sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and demographers, however, do count. That means only the Rolling Stone and The Independent satisfy the requirement of reliable sources here, though some editors advise caution when using the later after March 2016. But in your Rolling Stone link, the author cites 4chan, which is not a reliable source. For more information, please refer to this list. Nerd271 (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I think a number of those sources do qualify according to that list however, including the independent, rolling stone, and others (as well as a couple which are yellow, such as salon). It also just seems appropriate, since the term Zoomer is the most predominantly used term for people in generations z other than the two already listed (i.e. sites such as tik tok, parts of reddit, 4chan, discord, etc). If we're concerned about people putting down lots of nicknames we can just remove those that don't have a source Haxonek (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that term had been added back in. I've edited it to add references to a factual piece in Vogue and a column in The Times. I have also removed "Zoomers" from the list of "Some other names suggested...", as this is the list of names suggested by a USA Today poll, not generally suggested names for this generation - and "Zoomer" was not suggested in the poll.

With respect to my examples being "opinion pieces" and not eligible, the article currently quotes opinion pieces from The Australian, The Spectator and an opinion poll in USA Today for other terms. Regarding "Generation Snowflake", the term is clearly insulting, and is used as such in the opinion pieces cited. Personally, I also think this section could do with a prune of some of the terms which do not seem to have any wider use beyond the citation. MegaPowerTape (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the text about other uses of "Zoomer" as in my view it was not pertinent to an article about "Generation Z". I don't feel that the non-relevant history of a single term needed that level of detail - does it add much to our understanding the topic to know that people used to call PDAs "zoomers"? MegaPowerTape (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

There are a total of four sources following that list of alternate names. At least one of them contains 'Zoomers'. Somebody put it there with The Spectator as a source to satisfy those who want that name included. I have seen and heard young people, Millennials and Generation Z, referred to as 'Generation Snowflakes'. The name should stay. We even have an internal link for it, in addition to multiple sources, one of which is a dictionary. Note that there is a difference between purely opinion pieces or blog posts and publications or magazines, where factual reporting, analysis, and opinions are mixed. When talking about a word, its etymology is definitely relevant. Nerd271 (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Generation Alpha

It was requested that the discussion goes here.

@Robert McClenon: You wrote, "This draft has been repeatedly resubmitted after a deletion discussion." This was the first time this particular draft was submitted. If you are thinking of the other related ones, such as Generation A, which dates all the way back to 2009, when Generation Z was not even done being born, I was not and am not involved in those. I cannot speak for the other editors of this article, however. Two such individuals are Sapphire Williams and McGeddon. (McGeddon's involvement dates back to the time when it was discussed whether or not to redirect Generation Alpha to (a section of) Generation Z. See this talk page and this history page.)

Moreover, because Generation A was deleted so long ago, one cannot view its history and contents prior to its deletion. However, because it is from eleven years ago, there is no reason to believe it bears much resemblance to the draft in question. Here is what Generation Alpha looked like before the its contents was deleted and the page itself redirected. Clearly, it is different from the draft in question. Nerd271 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Nerd271 - I am aware of all of those details. Various drafts have been repeatedly submitted and deleted. I am only saying that the discussion should be here. I also think that the draft should be accepted and that questions about its content can be addressed by normal editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon You declined the draft for Generation Alpha very recently by saying it doesn't meet notability guidelines, but you wrote here that the draft should be accepted. The draft seems fine to me but maybe there is something missing. It has plenty of sources to show that Alpha is at least a common name for the generation after Gen Z. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Frmorrison - Sometimes the decline reasons that the script gives me are not clear. I wasn't ready to accept the draft because it needed discussion here first. There is a common problem, not with this draft, of editors persistently resubmitting the same draft when they have been told to discuss it. I think that it should be accepted, but only after discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for clarifying. I think your suggestion that the discussion should take place here is a good idea because it will probably receive more attention. Nerd271 (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be accepted as an article. I think it has enough cited information and pictures to be accepted as an article. I feel this topic is also notable because of the aforementioned discussions above and also the inclusion of the generation after Gen Z which already exists. SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 04:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Good to see you again, Sapphire Williams! To everyone reading this, I need to point that that Generation Alpha currently redirects to the last section of Generation Z. Apparently, we need an administrator to merge the histories. Alternatively, we can do it manually, cutting and pasting then redirecting the draft, then file a request for history merging here. Nerd271 (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

To Robert McClenon, Frmorrison, Sapphire Williams, and anyone else reading this, it has been a couple of weeks since this discussion started and the general consensus seems to be that the page is adequate for publication. Assuming it does not change dramatically, I will institute the changes explained above in order to move the draft to main space some time this weekend. Thank you for your inputs, everyone! Nerd271 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Howdy folks! The draft is now its own article. On the second thought, I don't think merging histories – a tricky process – will be necessary. It is probably enough to note in the edit summary where the contents came from. Thank you all! Nerd271 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately that did not work, so I filed a technical move request instead. Let's see what happens. Nerd271 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It is done. Many thanks to Anthony Appleyard. Nerd271 (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The defining line

The years vary on Gen Y vs Gen Z. The defining factor is if you could remember life without the internet or social media. If that is the case you are most likely gen X. If you have always had access to the internet and can't remember life without technology you are Gen Z. This Starts as early as 1990 for some Americans. this is incorrect. Gen Y starts at 1980 and goes to about 2000 so gen Z can't start at 1990! Gen Z is not millianals as is so often confused please do some more research and correct this page. gen Y and Gen Z can't be a carbon copy of each other or they wouldn't be two different generations now would they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.171.166 (talk • contribs)

According to the Pew Research Center, Generation Y (the Millennials) were born between 1981 and 1996 while Generation Z were born between 1997 and 2012. Each demographic cohort has a range of birth dates of 15 years. See more here. Nerd271 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

According to Neil Howe, Millenials end at 2004. The line depends on who you ask and who you believe. JohnT122 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Neil Howe is not a demographer or a statistician and so is not as credible as the Pew Research Center. In any case, we note in the introduction that there is no consensus (yet). Nerd271 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nerd271, I see that Pew states they have not set an endpoint for Gen Z, they merely used 2012 for that particular analysis.[1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: Yes, that's what I meant by 'tentative'. Starting from Generation X, a demographic cohort is 15 years, or roughly half a human generation (~30 years) for Pew. Of course, that number of increase and the end point would be different. We'll have to wait and see. Nerd271 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that fits. Pew is not tentatively defining Gen Z as ending in 2012 generally, they are just defining that end year in one analysis. We could say that Pew has stated that they have not "set" a definition for the endpoint of Gen Z, but that they did use the 1997 to 2012 definition for an analysis in 2019. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: That also works. Nerd271 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"Generation V" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Generation V. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

198.163.223.197 (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

GAGE IS PART OF GEN Z

 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. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"Most members of Generation Z are the children of Generation X and sometimes Millennials or Baby Boomers."

Not only is this unsourced, I don't see how it adds anything. It is essentially saying "their parents are in an older generation than they are". How is that useful in the lede? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie and Paleontologist99: I think it is fairly useful to be in the lead section. Please keep in mind that a cultural generation is roughly one half a human generation. Thus, it is possible for one cultural generation to be born to parents from different older cultural generations. In this case, members of Generation X reached their reproductive age during the birth years of Generation Z. Baby Boomers were by this time generally too old while Millennials were typically too young, meaning it is possible, but less likely that they have children who are members of Generation Z. Nerd271 (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it would sound less vague and confusing if it just said "Most members of Generation Z are the children of Generation X" (with a source, of course). Do we really need to mention all of the edge cases in the lede? The word "most" already implies there will be exceptions. A parent and child could both be members of the same generation depending on the range definition. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, there are Baby Boomers who are parents of Baby Boomers (the very first and the very last, respectively). But I can certainly pull up a source. Nerd271 (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ohnoitsjamie and their edit summary [2]. The sentence is not only unsourced, but also unnecessary and unnoteworthy. User:Paleontologist99 has been warned about adding unsourced materials multiple times before, and most recently (to another generation article) [3][4][5] and [6]. This form of disruptive editing needs to stop. Some1 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Nerd271 and Ohnoitsjamie, most of the older generation articles are also unchecked by both of you. Paleontologist99 (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that "checking" other generation articles is a prerequisite for weighing in on this one?OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Introduction to Generation Alpha

@Danbloch: Surely you must realize that Wikipedia does not have a single editorial board. This means that there is no need for articles to follow the same conventions, except for, say, the Manual of Style. Just because something is done or not done in some other articles does not mean we should do or not do the same thing here. There is no need to check other articles before editing here. We only need to add relevant materials backed up by reliable sources. Nerd271 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271:It isn't entirely true that there's no need to check other articles before editing, for example if you're editing 2020 United States presidential election your format had better match 2016 United States presidential election, etc., but fine, you can argue that the generation articles fly in looser formation. Still, this should at least suggest that none of the editors of the preceding articles saw a benefit to a successor section.

For those following along at home, the question is whether this section adds benefit to the Gen Z article:

Successors

Matt Carmichael, former director of data strategy at Advertising Age, noted in 2015 that many groups were "competing to come up with the clever name" for the generation following Generation Z. Mark McCrindle has suggested 'Generation Alpha', noting that scientific disciplines often move to the Greek alphabet after exhausting the Roman alphabet, and 'Generation Glass', for the digital glass screens that have become the primary medium of content sharing. McCrindle has predicted that this next generation will be "the most formally educated generation ever, the most technology-supplied generation ever, and globally the wealthiest generation ever." McCrindle defined Generation Alpha as people born between 2010 and 2024.

I'm arguing that it doesn't since anyone interested in Gen Alpha can trivially go to the Gen Alpha article and so it's a net negative for the usual reasons--it takes time to read, it isn't directly about the article's topic, and it duplicates information on the Gen Alpha page. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, it is an introduction. How long can it possibly take to read a few sentences? Besides, it provides some continuity. Generation Z has predecessors, Generation Y, and parents, Generation X. So it is quite natural to talk about their successors, Generation $\alpha$. And no, I really do not care about articles from a completely different set of topics. Maybe the editors for the other articles have not done it because they think it is not necessary. Or may be they were not interested. Or perhaps at the time of writing, there was not a lot of information. Either way, we should be making our own decisions. Just because somebody does something does not mean you should do the same thing. Anyway, let's see what other editors think. Nerd271 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

It's noted in the opening paragraph that 1997 is the "widely accepted beginning", however this is simply not true. PEW uses 1997, granted, but other generational institutes such as GenHQ or market analysts (e.g. Business Insider) use 1995-1996 as the start years. In fact PEW is one of the only main sources using 1997, so I think either the birth-year should be omitted in that section or it should be clarified that the majority of sources use 1995/1996 (and not 1997). Stopthepurge (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Pew is a highly respected source and their research is widely used in the mainstream news outlets. Nerd271 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a respected source, but it's not the definite one. After a quick Google search, I found:

GenHQ (Generational Research Institute): https://genhq.com/igen-gen-z-generation-z-centennials-info/ (1996)

Statistics Canada (Official Canadian Govt. Agency): https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-311-x/98-311-x2011003_2-eng.cfm (1993)

IPA UK (Official UK Govt. Agency): https://ipa.co.uk/knowledge/publications-reports/gen-z-exile-on-mainstream (1995)

Misc from financial, business, and marketing companies:

Business Insider (Financial & Business News): https://www.businessinsider.com/generation-z (1996)

McKinsey & Company (Management Consulting Company): https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies (1995)

Vision Critical (Customer Intelligence Platform): https://www.visioncritical.com/blog/generation-z-infographics (1996)

Kasasa (Financial Services Company): https://www.kasasa.com/articles/generations/gen-x-gen-y-gen-z (1996)

Wall Street Journal (Business Newspaper): https://www.wsj.com/articles/generation-zs-7-lessons-for-surviving-in-our-tech-obsessed-world-11548478811 (1996)

I could go on. The only source using 1997 is PEW, and PEW were using 1999 up until a few years ago, then they dropped it to 1997, etc. Surely using PEW as the definite source goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, when the majority of sources use 1995/1996? Stopthepurge (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Change the date back to 1995

There are many sources that uses 1995 Bighead411 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Bighead411, you are a Cusper, if that makes you feel better.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

London is considered one of the best places to live for Generation Z

How does that image contribute to article's quality? It's so random and void of necessary information. --89.246.121.84 (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

If you read the whole thing, the information is discussed at length in its section. Moreover, whether or not the photo appears out of place depends on whether or not you have an exceptionally wide screen. Nerd271 (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"Zoomers" still not notable enough to be put in the lead?

The term Zoomers is already gaining traction with the mainstream. It started off as a mere meme, but people and sources like Merriam-Webster, Nate Silver, Mike Huckabee, The Guardian, NBC News, John Corryn, Marvel Comics, etc. have increasingly used this term, and there's even a delivery business in California called Boomers to Zoomers where teens help the elderly. Yet every time someone adds the term to the lead, it gets reverted.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Workplace mindset of Generation Z vs. Generation X

While the youngest are still being born, the oldest members of Generation Z are now 25 years of age and are making the journey from full-time education to the workplace. They are eager, digital natives with a unique approach to the concept of work.

Gen Z is acutely aware that the lines between work and personal life are blurring. Work is a mindset for them, not simply a set of tasks to complete or objectives to reach. And with constant access to email and the latest collaboration platforms, most don’t switch off. But while conversations about this always-on workforce have focused on the technologies involved – the separation between work and personal devices becoming increasingly rare – little attention has been given to their mentality.

Meanwhile, younger generations are shaping their careers. Generation X are now typically reaching middle or senior management positions. Millennials are starting to make headway and rise up through the ranks. And now, of course, we have Generation Z; keen trailblazers, who are just leaving the education system and entering the world of work.

Businesses must embrace this unique mindset toward technology and the concept of work in order to harness Gen Z’s natural always-on attitude. This will prove a key tactic to embracing digitalisation, improving agility and adopting new collaboration platforms across the business.

As a case study, we can take Ricoh as an example

References

Looks like somebody forgot to sign. Nerd271 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Concensus of when generation Z starts is 1995 as it states it's the mid 1990s, therefor not 1997, if anything 1996 is the most common year

Undid revision 943917248 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk) The consensus when generation Z starts is the mid 1990s which would be 1995. Not 1997. Troll edits will be removed and reported. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Please provider a link to that consensus discussion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.businessinsider.com/generation-z?r=US&IR=T https://www.forbes.com/sites/deeppatel/2017/09/21/8-ways-generation-z-will-differ-from-millennials-in-the-workplace/#2b6bf7b276e5 https://jasondorsey.com/about-generations/generations-birth-years/ Various links. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC) More sources https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/canadian-university-report/the-genz-effect/article26898388/ --Gaudi9223 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC) For the none sourced further discussion the consensus from the most popular dictionary for young people https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Generation%20Z also states the starting point is the mid 1990s which is 1995. Yet another source. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies

Those all seem to be out of date.  Most sources started using 1997 in 2018.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleaner view of all the provided links. https://www.businessinsider.com/generation-z?r=US&IR=T 1995 https://www.forbes.com/sites/deeppatel/2017/09/21/8-ways-generation-z-will-differ-from-millennials-in-the-workplace/#2b6bf7b276e5 1995 https://jasondorsey.com/about-generations/generations-birth-years/ 1995 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/canadian-university-report/the-genz-effect/article26898388/ 1993 https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies 1995 https://www.engarde.net/introducing-generation-z/ 1995

I could go on forever, there is literally hundreds of these and the most common search is 1995. For further none sourced discussion the most popular dictioinary for young people (urban) even most commonly states the starting year to be 1995. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Generation%20Z 1995 (Public opinion) --Gaudi9223 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

According to the sources in the article, the majority of sources say 1997:

1997

Pew [7]

Bloomberg: [8] (article published 2019, says ages 7-22, which corresponds to 1997 - 2012)

American Psychological Assocation:[9]

Economist: [10]

Harvard Business Review: [hbr.org/2017/08/a-survey-of-19-countries-shows-how-generations-x-y-and-z-are-and-arent-different]

Wall Street Journal: [11]

1995

BBC: [12]

Business Insider: [13]

Forbes: [14]

1993

Statistics Canada: [15]

Your Globe and Mail does not say 1995. While one Forbes source above says 1995, here are several other Forbes articles that say 1997: [16],[17],[18] OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing set in stone that 1997 is the starting year. Different researches say different things. The consensus is " the mid 1990s " which would be 1995. There are posts saying the starting year is 1993 (Canadian research) and there are those that say it's 1996 and some that say 1997. Therefor it only makes sense to have it 1995 since that would be the equalizer of all these different years. Since the public opinion based on discussion also states it to be 1995 then it would only make sense to have it at 1995. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Interview with so called " gen Z's " which include people that are 20 and 23+. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC) https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/gen-z-in-their-words.html

I could see a argument to be made for 1996 to be the starting year but there is no clarity in the matter except something that all sources claim, which is that the starting point for gen-Z would be the mid 1990s. I therefor propose the edit to be either 1995 or possibly 1996. But there is no unified evidence that the starting year would be 1997. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

As seen in this discussion page there is no logic in using a specific year as consensus marks the start of Gen-Z as the mid 1990s. Sources differ and could be interpreted as being either 1993, 1995, 1996 or 1997. What however is agreed upon by all sources is that the beginning is the mid 1990s. Therefor not 1997 or any other specific year. The new edit will just include the previous version before any specific year was added since it is the only claim that can be verified by all sources. Starting point mid 1990s and ending at the start of the 2010's. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Would also just like to add that the Pew Research source is a dubious and nearly none credible source. In the scientific community it is frowned upon due to dubious practices from some of their other work. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think that omitting a specific year from the intro and letting that issue be handled later in the prose is a good solution. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with C.Fred. I have undone the edits of Ohnoitsjamie as he is not participating in the discussion nor motivating his edits. There is no agreed upon date therefor omitting a specific year is a indeed a good solution. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Please try re-reading this section; I have indeed participated in it. May I also remind User:Gaudi9223 of WP:3RR. Regarding C.Fred's proposal, I'm fine with "mid-1990s" or "1993-1997 (depending on the source, see below)" or something like that, though the latter may be unnecessarily awkward. My chief objection is declaring unilaterally that there is a consensus for the starting year is 1995 (there is not), when it seems pretty clear that most sources use 1997. If we insist on picking a specific year, it should be a function of what the majority of reasonable WP:RS sources say. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for returning to the discussion Ohnoitsjamie . Unfortunately there is no agreed upon date and sources differ a lot but it is clear that people born in the mid 1990s to 2010's can choose to identify themselves with being Gen-Z as mid 1990s is the only recurring thing in all different interpretations. 1997 is not recurring in the same sense therefor simply stating that 1997 is the starting year would be false as there is not enough validation behind this claim. Simple polls done by a single group (in this case, Pew Research) which is already criticized for some of their practices is not enough to go by when there are professors, other polls and various groups saying otherwise. However once again, it is recurring that the concept of the mid 1990s being the start of Gen-Z. Therefor until future studies agree upon a date no specific year can be set as it all varies from 1993, 1995, 1996 and 1997.

Logically speaking however the mid 1990s is 1995. I still agree with what is previously said and the discussion point made by User:C.Fred that omitting a specific year from the intro and letting that issue be handled later in the prose is a good solution. This discussion will be a lot easier to participate in the future when all Gen-Z's come of age. Very rarely do groups get defined so close to their birth, it usually takes much longer to get a understanding of which age belonged to what group and so forth. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Please provide better sources for starting years before 1997. Please find sources after the years began to stabilize in 2018. The text in your provided sources is unclear. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If disruption continues, this article may become fully protected, meaning that only administrators could edit the page. Paleontologist99 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The source based entirely on a single poll made by the already criticized and dubious Pew Research Center is not enough to single out the other sources. Here are some of the other sources as already seen in the Wiki-page. In Japan, generations are defined by a ten-year span with "Neo-Digital natives" beginning after 1996. PBS and Reuters define Generation Z as the group born after 1996.

BBC describes the cohort as anyone born after about 1995. Business Insider defines Generation Z as those born between 1996 and 2010, as does Forbes who also uses 1996–2010.

In a study conducted in 2015 the Center for Generational Kinetics found that American Generation Zers, defined here as those born 1996 and onwards, are less optimistic about the state of the US economy than their generation predecessors, Millennials.

• Clearly the sources differ way too much to reach a consensus. Therefor the only logical solution is as suggested by C.Fred and i quote "*I think that omitting a specific year from the intro and letting that issue be handled later in the prose is a good solution."

• You aren't motivating your edits and need to elaborate to fully participate in the discussion. It is generally stated that the mid 1990s is the start of Gen-Z and 2010's it's end. Therefor placing a firm number is impossible when the sources differ from 1993, 1995, 1996 and 1997. A source being made after another without disproving previous claims and facts does not make it more or less valid than the previous. Hence the dilemma. I strongly urge you not to keep reverting your own edit. In that case i will have to make a report for warring as you are avoiding to participate in the discussion and lack motivation of your edits, which aren't agreed upon here in the discussion page Ohnoitsjamie . --Gaudi9223 (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've edited the page a total of two times today, and I have not edited it since I posted my last comment above. You've reverted to your preferred versions at least seven times against four other users while accusing everyone else of edit-warring. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Please sign your comments otherwise it's hard for an admin to interpret who said what. What you need to understand is that the discussion elaborated on the topic and you could not motivate your edits as we've all agreed that the sources differ greatly and therefor a conclusion can not be made. However you still repeatedly ignored participation in the discussion and went ahead with your edit anyhow. I had computer issues with several tabs displaying at once which lead to confused edits. I do not defend my errors, i am fairly new to a lot of the tools used on wikipedia but i still defend my criticism of your claims which do not have sufficient sources to be valid. They all contradict each other as there are several interpretations, hence the problem. Some say the start of Gen-Z is 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997. However most do point out that the start would be the mid 90s which simply mathematically speaking CANNOT be 1997. This is why i agreed with C.Fred' on the concept of omitting a specific year from the intro and letting that issue be handled later. Your disregard for discussion and insisting on getting your own opinion through however does not seem to be in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. This is a shared venture not a dictatorship, you are displaying several immature tendencies by not listening to what has been discussed or motivating your edits. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I commented here before and after my last (and second) revert of your version. Your aspersions are not supported by the edit history of the article or this talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

1997 can sometimes loosely be considered mid-90s. I've heard people describe the "mid 90s" as 1993-1996, 1994-1996, 1993-1995, 1994-1997, 1995-1997, etc.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• There has been no effort to take the different suggestions raised here, both me and C.Fred agreed that it would be wise to omitting a specific year from the intro as it's highly questionable due to all the sources saying different things. You stated previously that " I'm fine with "mid-1990s" or "1993-1997" but yet you are taking zero responsibility in actually trying to take this to application. This is supposed to be in the spirit of Wikipedia and to respect the grounds of discussion. This is starting to get really silly. Warring like this and not being able to come to terms and accept criticism is exactly why Wikipedia is still being questioned as a valid source to this very day. The sources do NOT all say that 1997 is the starting year of Gen-Z yet you make it sound like it is. The other sources are just as valid as the one you've provided but you just don't wanna care for that since it's clearly your way or the highway. I will add the edit you suggested and see if it holds. By your own words "mid-1990s" or "1993-1997. We need to find a compromise or this will never end by the looks of it. I am trying to elaborate in my argumentations and motivating my reasoning, you are just posting 1-2 sentences with no substance what so ever and not responding to any of my statements or criticism that have been raised. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• In response to Kolya Butternut's request to find sources that are within 2018 and after. The claims that 1997 is the most common interpretation is wrong and is solely based on 1 source by the Pew Research Center (see my complaint raised towards that post further up in the discussion) but in reality the most common interpretation being people born after 1995. Which would make the first year 1996 and onward, not 1997. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sources that are 2018 or later, as late as February 2020 stating that the start of Gen-Z is people born 1995 or after 1995.

https://eu.citizen-times.com/story/opinion/2019/04/14/generation-z-isnt-ignorant-its-inspiring-opinion/3440522002/

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

https://mdle.net/Journal/A_Tsunami_of_Learners_Called_Generation_Z.pdf

https://www.inc.com/marla-tabaka/gen-z-will-make-up-24-percent-of-global-workforce-in-2020-heres-what-employers-need-to-know.html

https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/3-ways-millennials-differ-from-generation-z-in-2019-trends.html

https://www.informationweek.com/strategic-cio/team-building-and-staffing/is-your-it-department-ready-for-generation-z/a/d-id/1336663

https://www.synchrony.com/generation-z-overview

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/23/enough-of-gen-z-sorry-generation-game-get-the-boomers-onside

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petersmirniotopoulos/2019/12/09/gen-z-of-no-fixed-address/#c3f5ee16ed12

https://www.forbes.com/sites/remyblumenfeld/2019/10/15/gen-z-at-work8-reasons-to-be-afraid/#159f70fe33a9

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/members-of-generation-z-are-financially-better-armed-and-better-educated-than-millennials-were-at-their-age-2020-01-29

https://www.salesforce.com/blog/2017/10/how-millennials-and-gen-z-are-different.html

https://www.salesforce.com/blog/2017/10/how-millennials-and-gen-z-are-different.html

https://www.silive.com/news/2020/02/report-gen-z-a-step-ahead-of-millennials-financially.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-20/many-millennials-gen-z-pessimistic-on-life-deloitte-survey

https://www.ccul.org/93-uncategorised/resources/cuweekly/2291-what-generation-comes-after-millennials-meet-gen-z

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328564137_The_characteristics_of_Generation_Z

https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2019/1/11/18178800/jonathan-haidt-coddling-american-mind-book-nyu-scott-galloway-pivot-podcast

I have literally about 40 more of these and all are made within 2018. You do not have any way near these amount of sources. I am not trying to discredit you but you can clearly see that there is NO way a " widely accepted beginning " that Gen-Z starts at 1997 based on this amount of contradicting information. Saying such would simply be to lie! I feel disrespected and not listened to. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and i will raise this complaint to an admin tomorrow if we cannot agree upon a compromise. I have proven my point and if you don't choose to listen then that is not OK, no single person owns Wikipedia. It is a joint effort. --Gaudi9223 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed the specific stating year until the Gen Z definition stabilizes more in the media. Right now most of them are using 1946-1964 for boomers, 1965-1980 for Gen X, and 1981-1996 for millennials, but when it comes to Gen Z they can't decide between 1995-2009, 1996-2010, or 1997-2012 for now.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Gaudi9223, Consensus takes time, sometimes weeks.  I understand the frustration, but we can't barrel through the process.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

References

They need to change it back to 1995 because majority of sources including individuals themselves born in 1995 and 1996 identify as Gen Z Bighead411 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Creating new throwaway accounts with zero other edits may not be the best tactic for establishing consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Change it back to 1995 you people know nothing about my generation Bighead411 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bighead411: Ohnoitsjamie has a point here. It does not get more obvious than that. As Kolya Butternut pointed out, you cannot force your way to towards a consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative project.

To everyone: I notice something similar over in our page for the Millennials. Some people want to extend the defining birth range of this cohort (to the early 2000s) whereas others would like to restrict it (to the mid-1990s) for personal or intellectual reasons. They might want or not want to be associated with a certain cohort, or there might be a sociological theory they really like. Hopefully, this will not lead to anything that noticeably undermines the quality of our coverage. Nerd271 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

How is Jamie talking about consensus when he's like the only one that seems to be pushing 1997 really hard for some reason? 1997 is the LEAST used. all because he noticed a FEW sources say something different? noticed this as I've been reading through all of this. Others clearly disagree with him. and acknowledge that there are various dates. he continues to keep changing it to his liking when the most logical route would have been to leave it as it was or remove specific dates until more information is given. No one mentioned it needed a change. and no i'm not the same person as anyone here as you try to claim others are. Stewlive10 (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you're definitely not User:Stewyl, who also has no other edits besides this article. The only thing I'm pushing hard for is a consensus version of the article. Throwaway accounts with no other edits do not build a consensus.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

1996 has always been the year it started. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

2015 as the ending year due to coronavirus

I just had a thought that covid is going to be this generational disaster that separates the new gen from the last like 9/11 & Millenials/GenZ, which would put ~2015 as the ending year for Gen Z and 2016 as the start of alpha, who wont remember pre-covid like Z can't remember pre-9/11. Obviously this is just a thought and shouldn't be put into the article yet but in a few years we can see if this observation is right.  Nixinova   T   C   07:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There's evidence to suggest a significant new baby boom is occurring which will likely be sustained if there's an economic recession. We'll have to wait for time to pass and articles to be posted to mark it as a generation change though. 2A01:388:290:150:0:0:1:85 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the fatalities and economic realities, however. Nerd271 (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"Are not necessarily Digitally literate"

I don't get why this was inserted into the Gen Z introduction, since Generation Z is probably the most digitally literate generation currently around, possibly even more so than Generation Alpha which feels inundated with corporate takeover of internet culture (just look at TikTok and Fortnite). I think this research institution put it nicely when saying: "Now a new generation of influencers has come on the scene. Members of Gen Z—loosely, people born from 1995 to 2010—are true digital natives: from earliest youth, they have been exposed to the internet, to social networks, and to mobile systems. That context has produced a hypercognitive generation very comfortable with collecting and cross-referencing many sources of information and with integrating virtual and offline experiences."

I also think this is important to the article: "Our study based on the survey reveals four core Gen Z behaviors, all anchored in one element: this generation’s search for truth. Gen Zers value individual expression and avoid labels. They mobilize themselves for a variety of causes. They believe profoundly in the efficacy of dialogue to solve conflicts and improve the world." This is by far the core of Generation Z's identity and this article should reflect that better. As a well-connected Gen Z myself I feel very in-tune with that statement. Katabatic03 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies but I must say I am not convinced. Just because someone uses something a lot does not mean they are knowledgeable about all or most of its aspects. For example, not all native speakers of the English language can use it at a high level. There is no reason to expect "digital natives" to be masters of electronics. It depends on how you use it, and what you use it for. Frankly, the quotes you gave sound more aspirational and promotional than factual. They say Generation Z avoids labels, which is fair, since one should not expect stereotypes to be accurate, yet they attempt to stereotype this very demographic cohort.

A problem when it comes to discussing demographic cohorts or cultural generations is that different groups and individuals will try to spread their views on how they would like them to be, not what they actually are. Our job here at Wikipedia is to inform the public using reliable sources, and, when necessary, clarify common misconceptions. Nerd271 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I must say I am not trying better the perception of my own generation. What I quoted from the article itself just doesn't seem accurate to me being part of the generation. Katabatic03 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I was also going to say that the article used to say "Are not necessarily Digitally literate" is from 2015, and just from reading it, it feels like the writer is confusing Millenials and Gen Z because they do not yet understand Gen Z. It's also from The New York Times, meanwhile the article I linked to is a marketing consultation firm, Mckinsey & Co. Both sources may be "deemed credible", but the latter is part of the industry trying to understand demographic cohorts as correctly as possible to capitalize off them, which I can admit does feel weird to defend. Katabatic03 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No, there is an entire section on their digital literacy. Please read it. Sources are from 2019. As before, familiarity does not imply competency, as my analogy with the English language illustrates. Nerd271 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That's sad. Katabatic03 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we clarified a common misconception. This is why I put it at the top. Mass media often stereotype people. Generation Z, and, for that matter, any other demographic cohort, is not necessarily who people think they are. Nerd271 (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference 13

@CherokeeJack1: Please correct Reference 13. It is empty right now. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Zoomer boldfacing

At least boldface the first mention of Zoomer in the 'Terminology and etymology' section. I'd added it as a bo​ldfaced alternate name in the lead and that was reverted, and so boldfaced it in the section (where it appears, with sources, as an alternate name) and that was reversed. Not understanding why, this term is being used more and more and should be in the lead as an alternate name (and will be at some point soon, and may rival 'Generation Z' as primary), but boldfacing its first appearance seems appropriate per common sense. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

First, if no other nicknames or alternate names are in bold, then neither should 'Zoomers'. Second, Wikipedia does not lead but follows and reports. Unless there are reliable sources telling us that that is indeed a popular nickname for Generation Z, it should neither be in the lead nor in bold. Nerd271 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

AOC is using it in a positive manner, and where AOC goes, Zoomers will follow. In any case, the section itself has several good sources. Wikipedia would not be leading in boldfacing the name in the Terminology section, but would be reflecting sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned to other people above, what one sees on social media may not necessarily be representative of real life. By the way, social media posts are generally considered unreliable by the Wikipedia community (unless you are writing a page about a particular person). Please find the entry for Reddit at WP:RSPSOURCES. User-generated sources are generally considered unreliable. Nor is it guaranteed that this demographic cohort will follow a certain public figure. Nerd271 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If AOC is using the term, as her statement suggests, then it's mainstream. Notice all I'm suggesting now is to boldface the term in the section, although dollars to donuts (yummm, dollars) it will become the de facto term for the generation before society can blink twice. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Zoomers"

I think the Zoomers term should be removed since it is obviously colloquial slang that not enough people use to be treated as a definition yet. It's essentially a dead meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katabatic03 (talk • contribs)

@Katabatic03: Please come back and sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you!

I agree with what K said. Having looked at the two sources provided, I have reached the conclusion that it is at best an informal name, which should not be in the introduction. Nerd271 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that Zoomers shouldn't be in the lead per WP:WEIGHT. The only other place in this article that mentions "Zoomers" is the Terminology section, which states that the term became known because of a meme and is used as a slang/informal term in an ironic, humorous, or mocking tone. None of the sources state its noteworthiness or that it is a widely or commonly used alternative name for "Generation Z". Per WP:WEIGHT, it shouldn't be placed in the lead alongside Generation Z and Gen Z.

The WP:ONUS is on the editor trying to add disputed material. Per WP:BRD, pinging CherokeeJack1 to join the discussion since they made the WP:BOLD edit adding "Zoomers" to the lead. Some1 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Zoomer is rapidly rising in popularity. On sources such as the Washington Post, it's been used as a legitimate name for Gen Z, on the "U.S. full-time workforce by generation" chart: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/27/millennial-recession-covid/. It's currently trending on Twitter in a political context, relating to teens purchasing Trump rally tickets and not going: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8443751/American-teens-sabotaged-Trumps-Tulsa-rally-reserving-tickets-hundreds.html. It's been used by politicians and political commentators like Mike Huckabee, Nate Silver, and AOC. I feel it should be included in the lead as it's the most popular alternative name for Gen Z right now. In the articles I linked it's used as a serious term, not as a joke term.--CherokeeJack1 (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I read the first article and stated my opinion above. As for the second, the Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source by the Wikipedia community. Please find its entry at WP:RSPSOURCES. Since you brought up the political context, please keep in mind that what one sees on social media may not necessarily be representative of real life. In fact, we have an entire paragraph in the section on their political views and participation explaining that. Nerd271 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I Agree, Zoomer is a very stupid word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C012:5730:E808:F003:4337:5438 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I see Zoomer very frequently in popular fora such as Reddit and Discord, both inside and outside Gen Z, and nobody uses any other term. It doesn't matter what you think of the term or if you don't think it's clever or descriptive enough. Once a term catches on, particularly among members of the generation itself, it's too late to change. 174.251.67.161 (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

May I remind you guys that social media does not necessary represent real life. Perhaps the term will catch on, perhaps not. We'll see. Nerd271 (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Zoomer as alternate name

Besides the AOC usage mentioned above here's a good source for Zoomer which includes quotes from other sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is an important quote from that source. Words We're Watching talks about words we are increasingly seeing in use but that have not yet met our criteria for entry. Also see the Terminology and Etymology section, especially the last sentence of the first paragraph and the last paragraph. Nerd271 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times usage quoted in the source, in what seems to be a commentary, gives the word more credibility. With its usage ramping up, when does Wikipedia join in, when Merriam Webster accepts it as a generational label? Just a matter of time, but would be nice to know what the bar is for inclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point, there. But I'd rather not use an opinion piece in to support a factual statement. (If that opinion piece links to a factual article as a source, use that one instead.) It is entirely possible that the word 'Zoomer' could enter common usage in the near future. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be a trend setter but rather a reporter. Given that Merriam-Webster follows word usage for a living, I think waiting for them to include that word in their online dictionary is a perfectly reasonable criterion. Nerd271 (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Generation Z Official start year

Being someone born in the year 1996, I find it largely inaccurate to include people of the year 1996 as part of the Millennial cohort. The Pew research center are who began usage of this year as the end time point for the millennial cohort and their reason for doing so is that they assume people born in the year of 1996 remember the 9/11 attacks firsthand. I have discussed with many of my peers born in the year and not one single person remembers the occurrence first-hand, additionally I have absolutely no recollection of the day of the attack, only what was told to me about it later on. Additionally, technology and internet usage we’re intertwined with our life throughout our entire life growing-up. Pew research center, claims this as a second point for the year selection, claiming people born in the year 1996 did not have technology and internet readily available to us growing up, which I can affirmatively say we (people born in the year 1996), 100% definitely did. Jrisc96 (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem with your argument can be summarized with a single question: Is your sample size statistically significant? With regards to "technology" -- I assume you mean electronic devices -- and Internet access, it depends on which part of the world you came from and the income level of your family. Nerd271 (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Electric kick scooters

It is worth illustrating with an image of an electric kick scooter being ridden as this is associated with Generation Z and not any other generations.--Darrelljon (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The article at present does not mention anything about those vehicles. Thus the photograph looks rather out-of-place. If you want to include it, please write a few sentences explaining why it is a distinctive feature of this demographic cohort with reliable sources. Nerd271 (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Date ranges

Is it time to add that "1997-2012" is the widely accepted date range used for Generation Z? Seems that almost every news outlet is using this date range to define them as of 2020. The older definitions seem to be 1995 to 2010 or 1996 to 2010 where they aren't really from credible sources. For example: kasasa.com (which is one of the first items that pops up on google to "define" generations) is not even a real research company. All they are is a " a financial and technology services company." https://www.kasasa.com/articles/generations/gen-x-gen-y-gen-z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zillennial (talk • contribs) 17:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say so, as I don't see any reason for not adding it. QuestFour (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As of 2020, I don't think that now is the time to add that because every year since 2008 the widely accepted "date range" for Generation Z keeps on changing, it keeps on moving further toward later birth range dates initially the starting birth year was 1990 and now we're at 1997 pretty soon it will be starting at 2000 or 2001. This has been going on for several years now and can be found in many credible news outlets including the New York Times, LA Times, Time Magazine, etc. every year they keep on changing the "date range" for Generation Z. Furthermore, there are actually many news outlets that use the 1995 year as the starting point for Generation Z and several famous researchers as well. Therefore it is unfair to suddenly change that. Every year the date range keeps on changing/starting at a later starting year. Give it a few years from now and 1997 will no longer be part of the date range for Generation Z. The only organization that indefinitely considers it the starting year is "PEW research" but they predominantly focus on the United States of America (not global/worldwide). In a global sense, even CNN South Korea is using 1995 as the starting birth year in its date range. In addition, it is important to note that many news outlets currently use 1995 as the starting birth year for Generation Z. They can be found using a simple Google search. There are countless reliable credible sources you can google them or check Google News. Therefore it is unreasonable to remove 1995 from the Generation Z date range. It is also important to note that late 1995 and early 1996 are considered closer to the late 1990's than they are to the early 1990's. It is a cusper period. The lines are blurred because it is often difficult to strictly define the date range for each generation until the generation fully comes of age (at the end of this current decade). Considering the fact that the date range for Generation Z keeps on changing every year and moving further and further toward later birth years, we should tread carefully. In terms of academic research, there are many scholarly articles published in renowned journals that consider 1995 the starting birth year. But once again, the date range keeps on changing every year therefore it is more reasonable to wait until the generation fully comes of age during the mid-to-late 2020s.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.71.229.138 (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

QuestFour, I do not have access to enter this information into the Generation Z page, do you think that someone with the necessary permissions could do it. As for 188.71.229.138 Regardless of the history of the dates being inconsistent, in 2020; the most popular definition that is being used is 1997-2012. Even if it's not black and white you could provide information on the page about the cusp in this article; which my username is (Zillennials if they ever approve the article} or add information to the cusper page? Also, I'm looking at Google and if you look at the date of these so-called "research groups" almost every single one of these articles is outdated from years ago. (you said that the dates keep changing as time is going on?) then why is so solidified that 1995 is the so-called "start" of Generation Z? Also, there is not one single piece of information I see as "CNN South Korea" that talks about Generation Z. Alongside this; different countries have different generations. This article is specifically designed for the English Wikipedia page. Why not just add the improvement, and then delete it next year if it's not valid anymore? It's just a simple click away. Zillennial (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed the Deloitte reference.[19] Deloitte uses these date ranges when comparing cohorts but does not necessarily define the generations with these date ranges. Deloitte even used Pew's date ranges in 2015, "In this report, we follow the definitions of Generation X and Millennials from the Pew Research Center".[20] We should be cautious when pulling out date ranges used in individual studies; it is preferable to use sources which actually give their opinion of the definition. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

1995 References

Regarding this line: Generation Z starts in 1995 according to UPI, Forbes, Telegraph, Financial Times, and Fortune in 2020, please be careful with news sources which don't always use a consistent date range.

• Forbes, Feb 18, 2020: "While there is some disagreement about the age range of Generation Z, Pew Research defines it as those who were born between 1997-2012, so this is the timespan used for this article."[21]
• Telegraph, October 6, 2020: "those born in 1996 or later".[22]

I don't know that the other new sources are consistent or worth citing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Since we do not always see a consistent date range, why on earth are you deleting the 1995 references but all the 1996 and 1997 references are not getting deleted by you despite the evident inconsistency across multiple sources? Kindly stop deleting information and references just because they do not fit your own individual views. Using your logic, even the 1996 and 1997 references should be deleted because many sources are inconsistent in their Generation Z date range. This is the English-language Wikipedia but the whole English-speaking world does not revolve around the United States of America and Pew research is simply a non-partisan think-tank. There are many think-tanks in America. The whole English-speaking world does not conform to think-tank Pew's date range. Kindly stop your bias and unfair deletion of 1995 references just because they do not conform to your own individual views and agenda. This is simply unprofessional. There is inconsistency across multiple sources yet you only delete 1995. You keep all the other years except 1995. You should be held accountable for your blatant bias. Your conduct is not appropriate. And the user Zillennial barged into my talk page and wrote unprofessional and unsubstantiated claims against me. Where are the administrators in Wikipedia? Seems that every user is allowed to shove their own views down our throats and act with impunity. Simply unacceptable conduct. Agrso (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The USA-centric think tank Pew Research is not the sole authoritative source on the whole wide English-speaking world. This is the English-speaking global Wikipedia not the United States-centric Wikipedia. Pew research is just a think-tank that focuses on the United States of America. There are so many other think-tanks in the Untied States of America. Kindly stop citing Pew as the only acceptable source in all Wikipedia pages (it's always coming from certain users with US-centric agendas). Many international sources from the English-speaking world do not conform to US-centric Pew research's date range. This makes the English-speaking Wikipedia more dubious and questionable. Even within the United States, many sources do not use Pew's date range. It is laughable that you keep on recycling the same Pew source over and over again and that you consider it the sole acceptable source for usage in English-language Wikipedia articles. Why must all references conform to Pew research's date range? This is bias and unfair to the global English-speaking international community. Simply put, Pew research is not the most reliable source out there because many Western sources simply contradict the Pew research date range that you keep on recycling. Agrso (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL while we work towards WP:CONSENSUS. The 1995 additions were disputed so I examined those first. The difference between Pew and a newspaper is that Pew has one consistent definition at a time, while newspapers may publish different definitions by different writers, so it takes more research to accurately represent their opinion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User Zillennial should be WP:CIVIL. He started it. He went to my talk page and wrote disrespectful and inconsiderate accusations. My talk page's history proves it. He provoked me first. Agrso (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Agrso How is what I posted to your Talk page disrespectful? I have no bias towards any specific date of when Generation Z starts/ends, but it is clear that you have become obsessive about how it starts in 1995. Stop spreading this article with false information and overciting useless articles that do not prove anything. If you want to discuss generationology, please go over to Reddit. There is an entire subreddit to discuss when generations start/end. --Zillennial (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Agrso I have reported you for screwing with this page. Why do you keep adding unnecessary information and incorrect view points...? You clearly want Gen Z to start in 1995 for some weird reason. You're obsessed and it's weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zillennial (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

According to Pew Research Center Gen Z birth years are from 1997-2012. MeSoreal (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2020 (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. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• That definition is already listed in the section on dates and age ranges. —C.Fred (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Generation Z begins with 1997 according to Pew Researchers. mid-to late 90s is not quoted in any articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeSoreal (talk • contribs) 23:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Many sources start it in 1995 or 1996. Therefore, that should be mentioned in the opening. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.215.203 (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No, if you read the 'Date and range definition' section, you will find other definitions. This is not concrete, at least not yet. The introduction must reflect the body. Nerd271 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How is zoomer a cruft?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Z&type=revision&diff=993266187&oldid=992802132 - I get that zoomer isn't an official name, but is "cruft" the proper terminology? Couldn't there be a statement saying that it's unofficially known as Zoomers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.190.243 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Because it is not a serious name and has no place in the introduction. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a satirical site. Nerd271 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Use of term “novel pneumonia pandemic”

Hi everyone, I’m curious towards the use of the phrase “novel pneumonia pandemic” within the article, specifically in edits by the prolific Nerd271. While early cases initially presented as pertaining to pneumonia in late 2019, it quickly became apparent that pneumonia was only a symptom and not the cause of illness. I would suggest it would be more apt to replace these phrases with wording closer to the “COVID-19 pandemic”, especially with the information we have now. This would also fit more in line with wording elsewhere on Wikipedia and in media.

I didn’t wish to simply replace the wording as Nerd271 has clearly put a lot of effort into this page and I wouldn’t want to impede on this work without starting a discussion first.

Thanks, Geesi (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so that thing causes more than just pneumonia. Thank you for your feedback! Fixed! Nerd271 (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The usage of the term "perceived mental health problems"

The usage of the term "perceived mental health problems" does not show up in the citations for the claim, nor have I found any studies showing in an increased rate of mis, or self-diagnosed mental illnesses. The term seems biased towards the opinion that the more common rates of mental illness are an indication of higher self or misdiagnoses. Overall, I feel the term might, in some views, undermine the severity of the increasing rate of depression and anxiety, and it would be more clear to remove the word perceived from the sentence. I don't have that power yet, so I hope someone can have that sentence updated.

(the term is used in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the article.)

Blipslisle (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Blipslisle: (Edited) You will notice that the word 'perceived' is in parenthesis. Some cases are real; others are self-diagnoses. That diagnoses have gone up could also indicate less social stigma and increasing awareness. Moreover, this is the introduction. We have an entire section on their mental health problems. Nerd271 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nerd217 Then I think it would be better to phrase the clause as "awareness of mental health problems as well as an increase in diagnosed mental illnesses." Blipslisle (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Blipslisle: That's too long-winded. The introduction should reflect the body in a concise manner. Nerd271 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nerd271 How about,"They have higher rates of allergies, mental health problems and awareness, etc..."? Blipslisle (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Blipslisle:  Done! Thank you for your suggestion. Next time, please use colons (:) to indent your talk-page comments. Check out how I did it. Thank you! Nerd271 (talk)

Contentious reverting

Hi, there. It's clear that the term "Centennials" is broadly used to describe the "Generation Z" generation. I find the editors who reverted this to be engaged in contentious editing.

One of the links I added was this one: CBS News link - CBS News is clearly a reliable source. Quoting the site: "Generation Z is also hugely synonymous with technology because Centennials grew up in the era of smartphones. In fact, most of today's youth can't even remember a time before social media." The term is obviously used as an equivalent, and CBS News clearly regards the terms as equally current.

I also provided a Google link in my comments, so all other editors could judge for themselves whether the term "Centennials" is used broadly: Google search on "Centennials generation" - and instead of bothering to check to see the broad argument for including this, people seem to want to pretend the issue is about each link I provide.

It is not a violation of WP:REVERT to add new links in an effort to convince people in a good faith way that their position about something is mistaken. I will continue to do that here. It is clear the term is broadly used and deserves to be reflected in the lede.

I am asked to please seek consensus. I am following that advice here. Actually look at the evidence for how this word is used, and stop treating this page as if it were your own personal property. Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick comment, but your statement above of "It is not a violation of WP:REVERT to add new links in an effort to convince people in a good faith way that their position about something is mistaken" is wrong. This is called edit warring Re-adding anything after it has been reverted (with some very specific exceptions, such as vandalism) is poor form and should be avoided. This is the core concept of Bold, revert, discuss - not Bold, revert, bold & discuss. Saying "I will continue to do that here" implies that you are going to reinsert the data regardless of discussion outcome - that should be avoided, and to do so could lead to blocks.

Concerning Centennials, you may be right - you may be wrong. But if you want to gain consensus - which is in some ways more important than being right - you need to go about it the correct way, and also casting accusations of ownership probably doesn't help your case either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What Chaheel Riens said. Furthermore, you cannot use Google as a source. It is your responsibility as an editor to carefully select reliable sources. Do not just throw a pile of links at the page. In this case, the question here is whether or not it is a commonly used name. Just because somebody came up with it, some outlets use it on occasions, or some advertising agencies push for it does not mean it is commonly used. Only the most common of names should appear in the introduction. We do not want to overwhelm it with a bunch of names from across the Internet that readers are distracted from the contents of the article as summarized in the introduction. Nerd271 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You've done everything except consider my arguments...which was my point, that you're so busy lecturing me about good form that you are not responding to anything I said about the changes I was making.

You chide me for violating a revert policy I did not violate (only did two reverts, not three), you say that "I will continue to do that here" is enough to get me labeled, but you announce what you will continue to do with it implying nothing about your motives. You cheerfully ignore the long-standing Wikipedia norm of assuming good faith - you take it from my suggestion that I will stick with trying to get this change done that I must be of bad faith. There are dozens of links on that Google search which show the term Centennials is used broadly, but you designate that it's my job to select the right one - and yet, you will consider my selecting one I haven't selected yet to be pursuing the matter in a way that could be considered edit warring...so I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Of course, CBS News is a reliable source - you have offered no justification for why my inclusion of that link doesn't demonstrate the term has wide enough currency to be used by the reliable source.

I asked for an evaluation of the arguments I made about including Centennials. You have offered none and have instead offered forth Wikilawyering bafflegab to justify offering none. Please do not find convenient excuses for dodging the issue this time. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

In the interests of offering an olive branch - I can see my way clear to dropping the matter if someone can explain to me why "Zoomer" is the one alternative name that gets lede status, seeing as how my edit has been banished to the etymology section...why didn't this get similarly banished? I would appreciate it if someone would respond to that question with some degree of respect instead of trying to take me to the woodshed. This is a good faith question. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zachary Klaas: Be specific who you are responding to. Also, threatening an edit war and accusing others of trying to "own" the article is not doing you any good.

The term 'Zoomer' has an entire paragraph in the 'etymology' section, so at someone else's insistence, it was added to the introduction. Your term was only mentioned in passing. Yes, CBS is a reliable source, but they only mentioned it in passing. A casual mention does not necessarily indicate it is of common usage. It could be somebody trying to push their term for this demographic cohort. (I am not saying CBS is specifically trying to do this.)

There is a reason why we ask people to use the talk page before drastically change the date range or the alternate names, which is to avoid nasty edit wars. If you made an edit somebody else disagreed with, it is your job to use to talk page to convince them. Nerd271 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What was the rationale for your collective agreement to including Zoomer at someone else's insistence? Did they not accuse you of trying to own the article, and otherwise there is no reason? Anyway, like I said, I can accept being sloughed off to the etymology section if you can explain to me why that person won space in the lede. I'm not here to make friends with other editors, I'm here to make productive edits. Could care less whether any of you like me. Just explain why you agreed to that but not to this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A more positive attitude could do you some favors in any community, not just here. To answer your question, once again, that term already has an entire paragraph in the Terminology and Etymology section. The other fellow was more persuasive and did not threaten us in anyway. So including it in the lead as one of the most popular alternative names is not exactly a problem, though we should be careful not to include too many it becomes distracting. After all, we already have an entire section in alternative names. Nerd271 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the way any of you have treated an editor offering first edits to a page he has not attempted to edit previously. I'm not going to pretend I like it, you've all acted dismissively. That said, I have made every good faith effort to respond productively to your comments. I read the paragraph in question. "The other fellow was more persuasive" does not explain how that person persuaded you, so I gather you are basing your decision on whether that other fellow flattered your ego rather than on what the argument was. I probably could have been persuaded you're merely trying to keep down the number of these alternative names if you hadn't all immediately reacted as if there were no way you could be persuaded, you're just going to lock out any input from me. One possible way you could persuade _me_ (if that interests you at all - it doesn't appear it does) is to make the argument that "Zoomer" is the only alternative name to be considered for inclusion in reliable source dictionaries. Is it? I suppose you can just say "Yes" and I'll go away. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You assume too much. We do not need to state all the reasons in an edit summary because (1) that takes too much space and (2) there is the talk page should a discussion be necessary. Again, if multiple editors are disagreeing with you, it is a good idea to convince them on the talk page. Nerd271 (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Every time I suggest a way to resolve this, you keep taking me to the woodshed. We are on the talk page now. I brought my concerns here because that is what other editors told me to do. That is an act of good faith. I also suggested that I would accept that "Zoomer" is the only alternative name in the lede if it was the position of other editors that it was the only one so deserving because it is being considered for inclusion in Merriam-Webster as a word in the dictionary. Is that your position? It's a yes or no question. Say yes and we're done arguing. Ignore the question and everyone can see why we're arguing - because you're deliberately stoking the argument.

By the way, I read through WP:OWN and found this bit, which explains why some of you are mad at me: "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect. Often, editors accused of ownership may not even realize it, so it is important to assume good faith." I was not familiar with this part of what appears in that guide, and if I appeared aggressive or personally attacking, I am sorry for that. However, on the flip side, "editors accused of ownership may not even realize it" also resonates with me. The immediate pouncing on me for making a small change about nomenclature appeared aggressive and personally attacking to me, but perhaps you reacted that way because you did not even realise that you were behaving in an owning sort of way with respect to this article. I will not apologise for making you aware of that now - that is indeed how it appears to me. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I ran through the sources again to find those that discuss 'Zoomer' as a term on its own rather than just in passing. I edited the article to reflect that. The WP article is about the Millennials. Nerd271 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If the term Centennials is going to stick, and it probably will, it just needs a little more time and a few more good sources to show that it is a common term. Wikipedia patience is built into the 20-year concept. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. It does look like it is the favoured term of advertising analysts, whose sources form the majority of the links to which I originally referred people on that Google search. Probably we can pick this discussion up again in a little while. Zachary Klaas (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bâtiment de physique (H-Bar) Faculté des Sciences - Université Paris-Saclay.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Where to introduce "Generation Alpha"?

Generation Alpha only appears in the lead, but it needs to be in the body too. There is no consistent way that the other generations articles introduce the subject of the next generation. There's Generation X#Offspring, but it's at the end of the article. Any ideas? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: And over on the page of the Millennials we have Family life and offspring. I suspect we do not have a consistent way to introduce cohorts because these pages were and are developed organically rather than systematically. In this case, Generation $\alpha$ is the offspring of Millennials, in most cases, rather than Generation Z, whose offspring would, if the naming convention continues, be Generation $\beta$. Generation $\alpha$ is the successor, not children, of Generation Z. When the time comes, I'm sure somebody would add a section for the children of Generation Z, if such exist. Nerd271 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

My Predictions of Future Generations:

Generation β 2020s-2040s Generation γ 2040s-2060s Generation δ 2060s-2070s Generation ε 2070s-2090s Generation ζ 2090s-2100s Generation η 2100s-2120s Generation θ 2120s-2140s Generation ι 2140s-2150s Generation κ 2150s-2170s Generation λ 2170s-2180s Generation μ 2180s-2200s Generation ν 2200s-2220s Generation ξ 2220s-2230s Generation ο 2230s-2250s Generation π 2250s-2260s (Note: if you see a four-digit number that was featured in Pi and If they are born are March 14th, let's just say, they are pretty much going to be famous) Generation ρ 2260s-2280s Generation σ 2280s-2300s Generation τ 2300s-2310s Generation υ 2310s-2330s Generation φ 2330s-2340s Generation χ 2340s-2360s Generation ψ 2360s-2380s And last but not least... Generation ω 2380s-2390s I still haven't Identified the 25th-century generations, we need to expand this by another alphabet! But anyway, I hope you liked our predictions, bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.108.116 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Date Range "War"

User Agrso continuously has gone onto this article to change the date ranges to specify his/her bias of Gen Z starting in 1995. I'm not going to indulge anymore in this "edit war" and next time they revert it back to their edit, I will be reporting it to the vandalism page. This is unacceptable because they are specifically using outdated sources linking all the way back to years ago to "define" Gen Z, even though newer information has been developed/defined overtime. On their contributions they have also gone to the Millennials page to change the definition to their own preference before which constitutes vandalism.

Zillennial (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed removal of detail stating the release date of a poll

Concerning my recent edit, reverted here: I believe that the last two sentences of that paragraph — "Results from this Harris poll were released on the 50th anniversary of the riots that broke out in Stonewall Inn, New York City, in June 1969, thought to be the start of the LGBT rights movement. At that time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness or a crime in many U.S. states." — are irrelevant for the topic. Anyone reading this paragraph will want to learn about the attitudes of Gen-Z individuals to LGBT issues, namely the results of available polls, and not their release dates or any historical significance thereof, which would be largely unrelated to the topic. However, as my edit has been reverted, I think we should discuss the issue. LongLivePortugal (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021

"Overall, the effects of screen time are stronger among adolescents then* children." --> *Change "then" to "than" Kalemir (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do we need outdated sources in the Date range section?

Like stuff saying "In 2018, Forbes defined Gen Z as starting in 1995. Since 2021, Forbes has described Gen Z as starting in 1997." Why is it necessary to list the 2018 date ranges, when it's obvious the sources updated their range in 2021 and are now going by those? I mean, the Census Bureau in 2004 defined "Older Gen Y" as being 1976-1985, and Pew Research defined Millennials as 1977-1990 in 2009. Heck, there's articles from 2010 saying Gen Z is 1990-2005. Do we need to list those outdated sources as well (even though the Census and Pew updated their ranges in recent years)? Why is outdated information necessary to list?--DruidLantern8 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Climate change not being addressed?

Climate change is a principle concern of most Gen zers -- they are the driving force of Fridays for future and other political movements addressing climate change. However, the topic is conspicuously absent from the lead and barely present in the article -- I am wondering if there is good way to work it in? Sadads (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead for this article is already the longest one of all the articles about each of the existing generations. In addition, the remaining articles' leads don't seem to usually make references to political topics; they tend to focus on other issues (in this case, Internet usage, risky behaviours, health and education). This suggests to me that the lead wouldn't be an appropriate place to include information about climate change activism. However, I believe that it could go very well in the "Political views and participation" section. I think you can add a subsection there (after the "General" one) and insert there any information you find useful from the sources presented in that Google search. LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

What LongLivePortugal said. I will also point out that (1) this article is already long so please be as concise as you can and (2) please include only reliable factual sources, for, when it comes to social generations, there is a lot of aspirational rather than factual reporting. Moreover, what they say is one thing, what they actually do is another. Humans are a eusocial species after all. People might say certain things to in public but whether or not they actually believe them is another. Nerd271 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

New Source Supporting Generation Z start date at 1996

Hi, I was wondering if someone could please help me to add a source supporting the Generation Z start date at 1996, thank you! Jrisc96 (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC) https://genhq.com/igen-gen-z-generation-z-centennials-info/

@Jrisc96:Jrisc96 Most articles now start Gen Z at 1997, and there isn't enough information to support a 1996 starting date as only Business Insider seems to define it around that time, along with less known research groups. As time goes on we will receive a better understanding of a generation z start date. --Zillennial (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Zillennial I am not really sure why your strong bias towards information confirming the Gen Z start date as 1997 is, but there is still ongoing conflicting evidence of the start-date. Also, to be quite honest, I find the 1997 start date as offensive considering it assumes that people born in 1996 have recollection of 9/11, meanwhile I have literally 0 memories in regard to the day of the event. 1996/1995 would be a more logical delineation considering it will assure basically all millennials have primary recollection of the day (which is assumed to be the main reasoning for the cut-off date). Jrisc96 (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

It is worth mentioning that Gen Z has no official start or end date, however, the most popular starting and ending dates are 1995-2012, 1997-2012, 1997-2015. Anna0303PGB. (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It does cover the dates, but to use those specific ranges we would need sourcing. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Electronic devices imply lesser attention span?

I'm sorry I'm too new to this to directly edit, but here's something I noticed :

On the article, last paragraph of the introduction, it says : with implications for their attention span,[36].

However, if you go to article 36, absolutely nothing is said about attention span, let alone that "spending more time on electronic devices causes it". I suggest finding an actual source about that or removing this bit.

109.10.222.183 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You are correct. But I have found two sources for that claim. I will insert them now, substituting them for the one you mentioned. LongLivePortugal (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Dubious statement in Common Culture section

Image blurb states, 'Young people want museums and galleries to "modernize" and cater to their interests'. This seems dubious with no linked source.

 Done, removed for editorializing. Good find, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Declining cognitive abilities

Hi Nerd971, I don't really understand the point of writing that In some European nations, they are facing declining cognitive abilities, especially among the cognitive elites [23]? The cited papers [24][25] argue that the evolution in IQ varies from country to country, with some evidence that they are declining in Nordic countries and in Britain, but that they are increasing (or remaining stable) elsewhere. There is no general trend that can be extracted from that. Also, it's not really the takeaway one gets from § Cognitive abilities (MOS:LEADNO). JBchrch (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It means that the Flynn effect has gone in reverse in the aforementioned countries, but not South Korea and the United States. In the Netherlands, France, and Australia, things remain rather vague. This is a recent and notable trend. Nerd271 (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

But how is that relevant to the lead of an article on the Generation Z? This trend is established only by one source in only a handful of European countries, and different (or uncertain) trends are observed in many other countries. As such, it is not conform to WP:DUE and WP:WORLDVIEW. JBchrch (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Demographics section not related to Generation Z

I think a Demographics section could be really helpful for this article, but right now the section is primarily the population trends of each continent (I guess there is an argument to be made that Gen Z fits into that, but it's a real stretch). The uselessness of the section is only compounded with the fact that it is practically identical to the Demographics sections of most of the modern generations' articles. I've been trying to figure out ways to salvage what's already written but to be honest, I think we might have to start from the ground up. The section could talk more about the demographics of groups within the generation, rather than the demographics of the generation within the world. Alternatively, we could focus more on how this generation plays into population trends rather than the trends as a whole. Obviously, completely rewriting the section would be an enormous task and I would need more editors helping. Does anyone else agree with rewriting the section? BappleBusiness (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No. It should be remembered that social generations are different from biological generations. The former was introduced by marketers though later adopted by some demographers. It therefore should be no surprise that certain things are similar. Nerd271 (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem isn't that things are similar, that would be expected obviously. Certain subsections are completely identical (see Generation Z#Europe, Millennials#Europe, & Baby boomers#Europe or Millennials#North America, & Baby boomers#North America). Also, the scope of the section is a little too large. The aging of each continent could be addressed briefly, but I don't think it should be the main focus. The section seems to be about the birth rates and future projections of the total population/economy, and while I was reading I had to remind myself that the article is supposed about a specific demographic cohort. I think it's a waste of space (especially since these articles are a bit too long anyways) to repeat the same aging trends over and over in various articles, especially when there are designated articles for said trends. BappleBusiness (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Date range revertion

Hi User:Agrso, I noticed that you reverted my edits. Firstly, I'll be returning the (mostly formatting) edits to other sections other than date ranges, since I don't think you have an issue with that. Secondly, I have noticed that you've been constantly reverting changes to this section for months (specifically edits that remove sources listing the starting birth year as 1995) so if you don't try to make an effort to work this out, I'm going to have to report you for edit-warring. So, I was hoping to give you my reasoning for getting rid of the content that I did, sourced it may be.

• Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - I don't think a bank of St. Louis is a significant enough source to include. We have these huge media companies and then a bank of a minor city, it doesn't fit.
• Randstad Holding + Epsilon - Consulting/marketing firms are probably not the kind of sources we want to include. Better sources would be sociologists, media companies, descriptive dictionaries, government sources, and demographers.
• Blue Book Services - not only would a consulting firm for the lumber industry not give it much weight, but the company is also so insignificant that it doesn't even have a Wikipedia page of its own.
• The Irish Times, March 2019 - I only removed the March 2019 version because it is an outdated source - there is a September 2019 source that w can use instead. We don't need to give outdated sources to display the uncertainty of the date markers, we address the uncertainty with the opening sentences and the variety of years cited by reliable sources.

I'll also be pinging User:Zillennial in case they want to give their opinion, since they have been somewhat active in this discussion with you as well. BappleBusiness (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

These all look like good changes to me. This section was too long and disorganized.

Marketing firms are more appropriate here than in the average Wikipedia article, since a lot of generation-related activity is driven by marketing, but the two references you removed don't seem compelling. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi BappleBusiness. Thank you for explaining the reason you removed the sourced content. I re-added your changes. Agrso (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

BappleBusiness (talk), Hi. I have not been super active on this page for a while because User:Agrso had reported me whenever I tried to clean up most of the page or update it to newer sources. They had reported me for vandalism and got me blocked for a year for editing this page. I agree, the sources that say "1995" as a starting date of Gen Z have mostly been updated to 1997. There are new articles coming out everyday from the sources that User:Agrso has listed that have been using a different Gen Z start date than 1995.

Zillennial (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Political views of Generation Z

I've worked on Draft:Political views of Generation Z (which no longer includes Religious tendencies) for a while now, and I believe it's ready for mainspace. It's not perfect obviously, but the changes that need to be completed at this point are more suitable for an article rather than a draft. We need to reduce the size of this article, as I previously said in Article too long?. I think this subject in particular is especially appropriate for an article, as it can and almost definitely will grow as the generation ages. I put the split template at the top of the section to get people's attention, so please leave me your thoughts. BappleBusiness (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Also note that I expanded and reorganized the section in the draft, so please look at that!BappleBusiness (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Article too long?

I'm considering adding a "too long" header at the top of the article. I noticed that Millennials already has one with 182 kB of prose , and Generation Z has 151 kB , which is pretty similarly sized. And according to WP:SIZERULE, this article "Almost certainly should be divided". But I wanted to ask for other opinions before I added the header.

As for how to fix the large size: One of my ideas was to make a separate article from Religious tendencies as well as Political views and participation, possibly Political and religious views of Generation Z. Another way to get the size down is to rehaul the Demographics section (as I mentioned in another talk page section). As for the education section, there's a variety of things we could do with it; making it a separate article could work, though the section as it stands right now might be a little broader than just Generation Z, so I don't know what such an article would be called. But I think the main issue is that there's just a lot of irrelevant (to the article) information throughout the article right now that we could get rid of. BappleBusiness (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I made the draft article Draft:Political and religious views of Generation Z by just copying the sections already in this article. It obviously has some work to do before being published, we need to develop the content and rethink its organization (possibly by country/region?) if it's going to be a full-fledged article. BappleBusiness (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Goodness sake! Kids these days are already politicized despite the fact that not all of them can even vote yet. But back to your suggestion, I think we should also consider cutting out the bits that pertain only to the United States as opposed to mentioning it in the global context for members of Generation Z in that country already have a dedicated Wikipedia article. Nerd271 (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree. Though I think we should still keep some sort of summarizing information about Generation Z so that this article doesn't become "Generation Z in the world except for the United States", and then link the US sections on this page with those summaries when possible (using see also or main article templates) BappleBusiness (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait, reading your response back, I'm now unsure what you meant. In my other response, I thought you meant removing sections pertaining to the US in this article. If you meant removing the sections pertaining to the US from the Political views article, I have mixed feelings about that. We should try to move the in-depth political information about the generation (no matter what the country) to the Political views article-- that option will allow us the most room to expand in the future. Though we can and should have a good amount of information about the subject in the US article, I think moving the main efforts to the specific Political views article makes more sense.BappleBusiness (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Generation timeline.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Education section split into new article

As part of a continual effort to shorten this page and other generation pages though the Summary style, I was thinking about splitting the education section off due to it being extremely long. However, as I look at the section more, it seems to me that if we were to split it off, it may make more sense to call it something like Educational trends of the 21st century or 21st-century educational trends as opposed to Education of Generation Z. Since education, especially primary/secondary education, is more of a product of the decisions of older generations, it may make more sense to leave generational labels out of such an article. Any thoughts? BappleBusiness (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"Educational trends of the 21st century" This would expand the scope considerably. Millennials were still in their school years in the 2000s, and part of Generation Alpha has started their school life in the 2010s. Dimadick (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes it would, but I'm not sure if that would necessarily be a bad thing. It would definitely be a more useful article than Education of Generation Z. Most of the work is already done in this article and Millennials#Education and Generation Alpha#Education. BappleBusiness (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)