Talk:Generation Z

Additional sources for use of 1995 as start of Gen Z

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

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

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

These are not credible sources. Majority of sources define Gen Z as being 1997 as a start year. Zillennial (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe that sticking with both 1997-2012 and 1995-2009 would be the best approach, as 1995 and 1997 are equally common starting points for Gen Z. Kapartem (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This is misleading. While Pew's 1997-2012 definition is commonly cited by a wide range of multiple sources such as the Library of Congress and others; few credible sources actually utilize McCrindle's 1995-2009 definition if at all. All the other 1995 citations utilize different end dates, such as Jean Twenge who ends Gen Z at 2012 or others that end it at 2010. I have made a request to revert these edits as possible vandalism. 2601:940:C100:8890:FDFB:B2AC:7D50:BE99 (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The range 1995...2009/2012 is supported by thousands of credible sources including the Department of Education, the State of Ohio, and numerous government agencies. As I have noted before, neglecting to recognize the mid-1990s as the starting point for Generation Z would run counter to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality. Kapartem (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Please see: Wikipedia:Defining generations is hard

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

See my replies that I have added to your other comments. There is no concensus on an end date for the other 1995 citations. McKinsey and Company isn't reliable as they have different definitions for Gen Z depending on the writer of the article. There is no concensus for a 1995-2009 definition; in fact Jean Twenge ends Gen Z at 2012. Pew Research Center's definition is consistently referenced and cited by government sources. Simply adding citations just because they start with a 1995 date without contributing anything informative is disruptive. 2601:940:C100:8890:F925:5E20:3CD7:633A (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The 1995...2009/2012 range is also backed by a lot of government agencies, I’d be happy to list a few if you're curious. Not including the mid-'90s as the start of Gen Z in the main definition goes against Wikipedia's neutrality policy and can really mislead people. Kapartem (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

None of the citations that you have listed explain their reasoning on why the 1995-2012 date range. They do not cite or even mention Jean Twenge who is the researcher that created that definition. The argument still stands that there is no consensus for the 1995 end date, as McCrindle utilizes the different range of 1995-2009; which is the specific one that you added to the introductory paragraph. My point stands that adding these citations only because they start with a 1995 date is basically cherry picking at this point. 2601:940:C100:8890:14A8:7038:F82:11BE (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Details on reverted edit to date range section

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

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

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

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

Edit warring

@Some1, @Dan Bloch, @Nerd271, and @Zillennial, just wanted to clarify that there was an agreement to include the following in the introductory paragraph since August of 2024? : "mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation most frequently being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012." If so, @Kapartem has edited the introduction despite knowing of the existing concensus from August, claiming as if this isn't the case. I am also suspicious of @Kapartem's account. Much of Kapartem's requests and edits are similar to past editors, such as @Mirenism and others. 2601:940:C100:8890:4957:B52D:9893:48F0 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

As I noted at ANI, I'd sgree there seems to be very weak consensus to say "Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation most frequently being defined as people born from 1997 to 2012." Since there seems to be dispute, editors need to stop trying to change this until and unless there is new consensus. And any discussion should be based on our policies and guidelines and the lead should summarise what the article says based on reliable sources. What people find when they search Google is largely irrelevant. One things is for sure, whatever our article says it should not be "Researchers and popular media use the mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years, with the generation most frequently being defined as people born from the mid-to-late 1990s to 2012." which is extremely poorly worded since it's almost complete duplicative. If it's felt there can be no more specificity on the starting year but there can be on the ending year, then we should say something like "with the ending birth year most frequently being defined as 2012" rather then repeating the starting birth year saying the exact same thing. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2025

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

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

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

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

If you want i will add more sources

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dan Bloch (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please reach a consensus before header change.

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

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

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

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

"There may be some slight variations in the definitions of a specific "generation", but the following list generally reflects the standard years ascribed to each: The Greatest Generation – born 1901-1924. The Silent Generation – born 1925-1945. The Baby Boomer Generation – born 1946-1964. Generation X – born 1965-1979. Millennials – born 1980-1994. Generation Z – born 1995-2012. Gen Alpha – born 2013 – 2025." from University of Southern California [5].

"Students classified as Generation Z were born between 1995 and 2000." from Generation Z Goes to College by Corey Seemiller and Meghan GracePublished by Jossey-Bass. Reviewed by Re’Shanda Grace-Bridges, Director of New Student Programs at University of Dayton [6].

"Generation Z. These are the people born between 1995 and 2010. This is the generation which is the newest generation to enter the workforce. They are the most technologically adept generation and are highly connected to the social media web. These concepts had their origin in the Western context. Gen Z: An Emerging Phenomenon by Gopal P. Mahapatra M, Naureen Bhullar, and Priyansha Gupta from The NHRD Network Journal is the official publication of the National HRD Network. The aim of the journal is to compile and publish the research and professional views and experiences of reputed HR professionals, line professionals, CEOs, researchers and academicians in different specialised areas within the field of human resource development. [7]

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

Refrain form being article owner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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