Talk:Generation Z

WP: NPOV edits

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

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

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

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

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

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research, which represents a more recent generational framework, above Pew because you mentioned studies that were outdated.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zalphas and Zillennials are micro-generations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main article about generations also exists, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:TALKDONTREVERT

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

WP:TALKDONTREVERT

Pew Research Center’s foundational Gen Z research focuses on the United States, analyzing American demographic change, political views, and technology use in reports like On the Cusp of Adulthood. Their widely cited Gen Z definition therefore reflects U.S. trends.

Since there is already a separate page for Gen Z in America, the rest of the world should not be limited to a fixed birth-year range based only on U.S. data.

There are also many articles discussing American Gen Z starting from 1996. If this page is still being edited despite that, I do not understand what it means. Sivaragam (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC)