Talk:Generation

Anybody who thinks generational theory is not pseudoscience, please write here why. Safyrr 16:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Uses of this tag require strong sourcing that establishes that the topic is widely considered to be pseudoscience; I'm not seeing that here, and the idea of a "generation" is widely-used concept, not a branch of science. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie It is widely understood that grouping people in 15-30 year cohorts and then assigning personnalities to these cohorts based on supposedly shared experiences is bogus at best, propogating harmful stereotypes at worst. Generational theory also wants us to believe that a person's generation is just as important a factor in people's perspectives and behaviours as other factors like social status, class, age, race or sex. Generational theory is popular, like the chinese zodiac or astrology signs, but just like them, they assign personnality traits to large swaths of people just based on the date of their birth. It has been researched, and there is no real scientific basis for the existence of generations.^[1] Differences between age cohorts are very slight and are often simply the result of age; people at certain ages value certain things, and their priorities and values will shift when they grow older. The practice of continuing to propagate generational theory is mostly done by marketers to sell things, journalists to get clicks, and teens on social media because they want an identity to latch on to.

The practice is called out in all kinds of journals, I've included a few from the last few years:^{[2][3][4][5][6][7]}. There is even an open letter to the Pew Research Center by more than 150 scientists of different universities to telling them to stop using these labels:^[8]

This is obviously pseudoscience and no one can deny that. That is why the template should be included. Maybe one would argue that the template shouldn't be included because they think it is not "widely believed to be pseudoscience". I think it is hard to empirically prove if most of the world's population believes generational theory to be pseudoscience because to my knowledge no poll like that has been conducted on the matter (and likely never will). However, I think if you went out on the street and asked: "Would you avoid talking with someone born in the year 1964 because they are a Baby Boomer and they ruined the economy for future generations, while having no issue socialising with someone born in 1965 because they're a Gen-X-er and they're chill and they like rock music?" most people would just laugh and say no because that is absolutely ridiculous. They do not actually believe in this being real or science. If most people actually believed in this, there would also not be backlash against using words like Millennial or Baby Boomer. Safyrr 18:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Flawed research" is not the same thing as "psuedoscience." I have no objections to the article discussing criticism of generational labeling, but it doesn't seem appropriate to tag "generation" with the same tag used for Palm reading. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s often approaches the same level of credibility as palm reading though. Big demographic shifts (like the baby boom) are worthy of study and definitely have effects, but it makes no sense at all to extrapolate that to having compulsory generational cohorts every twenty years. That’s just complete and utter nonsense and is more likely to obscure than explain anything. Flawed research is a sure sign that we’re moving into pseudoscience, much like the whole ‘men are from mars’ industry which lost touch with actual science quite a while ago. ⚜ Moilleadóir ✍ 04:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Add the “decreței” generation that came when communist leader Nicolae Ceaușescu gave the decree that no abortion can be done anymore (starting may 1966 until he died) 95.87.210.142 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Who and when invented these Western world generation names? Calimero (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The generation labels seems to be USA-based. I'm from the UK, and have never heard of most of them.

I've heard of "Boomer" onwards, becuase they've entered the popular discourse in recent years (and we know of Generation X from the 1990s Coupland book). Digging around on Wikipedia a bit, I see that the term "greatest generation" was "popularized in 1998" (not in the UK it wasn't). And we certainly don't say "generation GI" (we didn't have GIs).

The term "silent generation" was apparently in time magazine in the 1950s. It still isn't a well known term in the UK.

As far as I can tell, this article, and others relating to social generations, seem to take a heavily US slant, and assume that the rest of the "western world" uses these terms, and thinks of the generations in this way. Rg9320 (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I see that Baby boomers § Etymology says, "The term baby boom refers to a noticeable increase in the birth rate. The post-World War II population increase was described as a "boom" by various newspaper reporters, including Sylvia F. Porter in a column in the May 4, 1951, edition of the New York Post, based on the increase of 2,357,000 in the population of the U.S. from 1940 to 1950.^[1]" and, "The first recorded use of "baby boomer" is in a January 1963 Daily Press article by Leslie J. Nason describing a massive surge of college enrollments approaching as the oldest boomers were coming of age.^[2][3] The Oxford English Dictionary dates the modern meaning of the term to a January 23, 1970, article in The Washington Post.^[4]" Quoting from the Daily Press article cited there:

That's clearly U.S.-centric.

I was born in 1943 and grew up in the U.S. during the Boomers generation. I noticed the usage as a teenager and came to think of myself generationally as a "pre-boomer".

Digging around a bit, I came across McCrindle, M.; Wolfinger, E. (2011). "Generations Defined". The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the Global Generations. UNSW Press., from Australia. Take a look at the image at the bottom of p.22 in there. Pre-boomer. that doesn't fit with the U.S./PEW picture. You say that the picture is different in the UK, and it is surely different in e.g., Germany and Japan; probably all of Europe, Asia, Africa. I wonder about South and Central America.

The article needs some revamping to tone down the U.S.-centrism. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It certainly does. I'm an Australian, born in 1948, and can distinctly remember the term "baby boom" being used fairly commonly during my pre-teen years. MY parents used it. Until I discovered Wikipedia I was unaware of any other names for any other generations. That really is a US thing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Following up my comment above, I came across this article which has an interesting chart in it (the first figure shown there). There may be copyright issues re reproducing that chart in Wikipedia, but take a look at it there. As I read it, it shows a clear jump in births immediately following WW-II in the US, the UK Japan, France, Germany, Italy, and Canada -- the only countries shown --, but also shows that it was a short-term increase followed by a decline everywhere but in the US (that's based on trying to imagine what the chart would look like for individual countries if each country's chart had a straight baseline), and a long-term increase in the US which buoyed up world totals. There's OR and guesswork in that, but it might be worth exploring in other sources to clarify how much US-centrism there might be in this and related WP articles.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Would something about zalphas be warranted? Gamerwierdo100 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Baby Busters. Drsruli (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The first picture in the article shows four generations of a family, a rather underwhelming number.

Is there any chance of having possibly the only verified photograph of seven generations as fair use?

Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 08:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

An overwhelming majority of sites claim that Gen Alpha ends in 2024/5, to be replaced by Gen Beta in 2025/6. Is it time to update, and add it to navigation? There is already an article. Orastor (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Oatsandcream, see investigation)

https://generationalpha.com/articles/who-comes-after/

https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-kids-gen-beta-social-media-realization-2023-8

https://mccrindle.com.au/article/topic/generation-alpha/generation-alpha-defined/

https://swz.it/the-next-generation-beta/

https://yr.media/identity/generation-gen-beta-alpha-z-noumaan-faiz/

https://dupeiwashokun.medium.com/the-next-generation-generation-beta-b79f2105c408 Orastor (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Oatsandcream, see investigation)

Note that sites like generationalpha.com and medium.com most definitely do not meet WP:RS. McCrindle possibly, but probably not. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/02/generation-after-gen-z-named-alpha/606862/ Here's one. Orastor (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Oatsandcream, see investigation)

The Atlantic doesn't say that the generation will be called Gen Beta. It says "by McCrindle’s definition...". McCrindle is a market research company in Australia. They don't get to decide the name of the generation. It may well be beta, but there is no widespread consensus yet. As I said previously, see WP:CRYSTAL. Also note that the generationalpha.com website is owned by McCrindle. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Damn. Well, let me know when it eventually DOES become the generation. Do you think (and I want a personal answer, not neutral-wikipedia) it is 2025? 2030? For all I know, Gen Alpha is the cohort from 2012-2100. Orastor (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Oatsandcream, see investigation)

Besides being very good at marketing (they invented the Gen Alpha name), what distinguishes McCrindle is that they say that all generations are exactly fifteen years long and have a start year ending in 0 or 5, so millennials are 1980-1994, Gen Z is 1995-2009, Gen Alpha is 2010-2024, and Gen Beta is 2025-2039. This actually has a lot to recommend it--it means all the generations are the same length, so data analysis is easier, and it means that you know the dates for all the generations instead of everyone having to come up with their own and hope for a consensus. But, they haven't convinced anyone else to use their system.

The most common non-McCrindle dates for Gen Z are 1997-2012. Using this as a starting point, this suggests that non-McCrindle Gen Alpha is most likely to be 2013-2028, and non-McCrindle Gen Beta will start in 2029. There's some slop in that, but I'd be very surprised if it was before 2027. But there's no way of knowing. Maybe McCrindle will do such a good job of marketing that they'll convince the media. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 174.3.207.112 (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you! Orastor (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of Oatsandcream, see investigation)

I think it's too early to write much about Gen Beta, or whatever it will eventually be known as. It's all speculation for now. Let's revisit it when mainstream news widely covers it. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 08:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

generation beta starts in 2028. 15 year rule 2600:1700:53B0:5070:7FD:DB6A:399E:39A5 (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The average age for someone to have their first child is around 25. That is what a generation is, not some "Millennial", "Zoomer", "Gen X" lingo. The official beginning of the Baby Boomers to the end of Gen Z is 66 years. How many 66 year old great-grandparents are there? I suggest major refactoring to the "Social generation" and "List of social generations" sections to emphasize the arbitrary nature of social generation divisions. 104.228.105.47 (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

"The average age for someone to have their first child is around 25. " This sounds too young to me. My father had his first child in his 29th year of life (1976), my maternal grandfather had his first child in his 30th year of life (1956), and my maternal great-grandmother had her first child in her 28th year of life (1934). Marriage in Greece typically took place after a couple of years of mandatory military service. Dimadick (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It differs by region, but not only is the age at which one has children lengthening, social generation labels are getting shorter. Consensus on the length of the social generation 'Baby Boomers' is about 18 years, whereas 'Gen X', 'Millennials' and 'Gen Z' are defined around 15 years. 104.228.105.47 (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I’ve heard the name elsewhere for the Generation before the Lost Generation, and they’re sometimes considered the first culturally distinct one, coming of adulthood during the ‘Gay 90s’ or ‘Nifty 90s’ or just the ‘90s’ at the time(which was the first decade to get a cultural nickname, a trend which would follow into the 20th century with the Roaring 20s, Dirty Thirties, et cetera) 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:CD6D:1808:EA8D:52AF (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know the Missionary Generation is specific to Strauss–Howe generational theory (which had named generations all the way back to 1433), and isn't used by sources other than Strauss and Howe. The Missionary Generation is described in that article, but I don't think they deserve wider mention unless you have other sources. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I've written an essay, Wikipedia:Defining generations is hard, which may be of interest to readers of this page. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we include different definitions for the other generations such as the Silent Generation and Baby Boomers? Why do the Millennials and Generation Z sections have multiple defintions but not the others? I had believed that there was already a majority concensus over on the Millennial page (1981-1996), with there being only a tiny few citations that end it at 1994/1995 (around 5 at most). So why include these but not to the Baby Boomers? 2601:940:C100:3920:95B3:F2A6:8E01:676A (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I am writing this after seeing that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation&diff=prev&oldid=1248369723 got reverted.

The argument given in the edit summary appears is understandable: with the exception of the "Greatest Generation", social generations — which is what this article is mostly about, and why most people read this article, based on the edits by anonymous IPs — are 15-20 years long; not 20-30 years. From the article itself (and backed by numerous sources):

• "The Lost Generation is defined as the cohort born from 1883 to 1900" → 18 years
• "The Greatest Generation [...] were born from 1901 to 1927" → 27 years
• "The Silent Generation [...] were born from 1928 to 1945" → 18 years
• "Baby boomers [...] are the people born [...] from 1946 to 1964. " → 19 years
• "Generation X [...] is generally defined as people born between 1965 and 1980" → 16 years
• "Millennials [...] is generally defined as the people born from 1981 to 1996." → 16 years
• "Pew Research Center describes Generation Z as spanning from 1997 to 2012." → 16 years

What the American Marketing Association source from the introduction is describing are familial generations (which, by the way, is surprising, since in marketing the notion of social generation is more important; but that's not the point).

In my opinion the introduction is confusing / misleading. The very first sentence should be that word generation has several meanings, and that the two main ones are familial generation and social generation. Then a definition should be given for each.

Malparti (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe time to start that page. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change " Generation Beta is the proposed name for the generation following Generation Alpha. There is no general agreement on the birth dates for Generation Beta." to "Generation Beta(or Gen Beta for short) are the succeeding generation following Generation Alpha. Birth dates of Generation Beta start in 2025 and end in 2039. Generation Beta will comprise 16% of the global population by 2035, with many expected to live to see the 22nd century."

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/5060999-a-new-generation-begins-in-2025-marking-the-end-of-gen-alpha/ Justgivemeusernameplease (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This text has had substantial changes since your request was made. Please create a new request if you still don't like it. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The so called late Baby Boomers 1960 to 1964 do not share the baby boomers experiences. They are informally called the Jones Generation or Joneseys. They more associate with Gen x. All the peers around my birth year of 1962 that I have talked about this, and there are many, feel this way. We associate with the late moon landings from in the seventies. We don't remember Woodstock in 1969 or Beatlemania OR THE BEATLES FOR THAT MATTER. ELVIS was the distant past until he was partially revived in 1977 when he died. Vietnam was practically over and don't remember much of it. Some of our teachers were Vietnam vets after their four years of college on the GI bill. It was bed time for Hogan's heros and mission impossible but we watched the Brady Bunch, the Parterage Family and lost in space. All our TV shows were in color if you had a color tv. Baby boomers did not watch Sesame Street except as baby sitters. Our first cars to drive were made in the seventies. 68.193.198.183 (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, anonymous user.

1. generation Jones is mentioned in this article, see §Western world;
2. it also has its own article on Wikipedia;

Having that in mind, what do you think is lacking from the current article? Malparti (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

While most sources that specify a date range for Generation Beta say 2025—2039, this is because the only current definition given for the date range is from Mark McCrindle. What is commonly cited as the beginning and end years for a generation can change over time. For example, McCrindle first proposed Generation Alpha as beginning in 2010, but consensus is growing towards a 2012 end year for Generation Z, including the Pew Research Center. Keep this in mind. GN22 (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Names like Gen Y, Gen Z, Gen Alpha, and Gen Beta are only meant to be placeholders until a proper name emerges. Millennials has pretty much completely replaced Gen Y. So far, Zoomers is definitely the most common name I have seen used for Gen Z. I think it's time to update this article to say "Zoomers, also know as Generation Z (or Gen Z for short)". The placeholder name should be replaced with a proper name. 69.31.34.34 (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

No, Generation Z is the WP:COMMONNAME and nearly all reliable sources discussing this generation refer to it as "Generation Z" or "Gen Z". Some1 (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I just hope the placeholder doesn't stick around forever. 69.31.34.34 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Would you call Generation X a placeholder name? Some1 (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

No, that name was chosen for that generation for a reason. The placeholders started after that with Gen Y, Gen Z, etc. 69.31.34.34 (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe the Graph showing the Social Generation should be updated as it shows Generation Alpha as the Latest Generation Which is now False, It also tells the genearation alpha is still mid 2020 which is now outdated as we define generation Alpha as the people born till December 31^st, 2024 and people born from January 1^st,2025 are classified under Generation Beta ShabdTyagi23 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Génération has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 13 § Génération until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Hi @~2026-17541-2,

There is a thing called <unicorns>. People have been talking about them, and tend to agree that <unicorns have a pointed, spiraling horn projecting from their forehead>. In fact, people have been talking about <unicorns> so much that they have become, de facto, an influential concept. Does this mean <unicorns> are real? And does the fact that they are not real mean that <the spiraling groves on their horns> should not be mentioned in an encyclopaedia?

Anyway: social generations are, or course, largely arbitrary. In fact, if you look at one of the main sources for the beginning and end dates used in this article — namely the Pew Research Center — it clearly states "Some of Pew Research’s demographic analysis has focused on generations, which are a somewhat imprecise but useful cultural grouping of Americans by age." Still, people talk about them and they influence how we think. So they definitely have their place on an encyclopaedia.

Now, if you think that there is a specific problem with the article (for instance, that the fact that the beginning and ending dates are largely "made-up" is not apparent enough, that some important criticism is missing, that the tone of the article is not neutral, etc) feel free to mention it here so the article can be improved. But if your point is "I think <xxx> has a negative impact on society and therefore I would rather it be removed from Wikipedia", then this is not useful.

And, for the record: I also care about not promoting pseudoscience, and I do think this article has tons of problems (I'm just too lazy to try to list and fix them). Malparti (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)