Talk:Generation Z/Archive 5

Agrso and Zillennial, I think it is time to settle your dispute regarding the date range.

Frankly, Agrso, I should report you for either edit warring or disruptive editing - for completely ignoring the consensus that you helped reach on the talk page not even a month ago (Talk:Generation Z/Archive 4#Date range revertion) by readding the 2019 Irish Times source. It seems to me that you have a bias toward 1995 and you need to evaluate your editing. And honestly Zillennial, you are not completely innocent either, I think you should examine your bias towards 1997 as well. One example is shown at Talk:Generation Z/Archive 4#New Source Supporting Generation Z start date at 1996 where a 1996 source was thrown out due to your preference for 1997 (by the way, I have added this source, since we cite them in other areas of the article). These biases are clear in the sources you both add, and I remind you that Wikipedia should be written in a neutral point of view and you should try to achieve balance in your sources.

I mention your editing patterns because I think (or at least want to think) that you both genuinely want to help make the article better, even if your biases (which everyone has, including myself) can get in the way. So I think it's time we establish a consensus on appropriate guidelines for what should be included in this section. If we need to, we can seek dispute resolution, but we should try to do this by ourselves first. I hope we can agree right off the bat that 1995 and 1997 will not be recognized as the sole beginning year on this article for a while; it is simply too contentious, not only here but in the actual world.

I think there are 2 main issues that need to be addressed:

• Should only the most recent definition from a source be included?
  • On one hand, definitions are ever-changing, and including fluctuations in a source's opinion can reflect this.
  • On the other hand, including outdated definitions can hold back the encyclopedia's ability to reflect consensus and clutter an already overly-large page (see Talk:Generation Z#Article too long?, this article currently has 132 kB of readable prose).
• What kinds of sources should be included?
  • Types of sources that have been used include: newspapers, online news publications, demographers & experts, think tanks & analytics companies, marketing firms, consulting firms, banks, government sources, and dictionaries. (let me know if I missed any)

If we can settle these issues in this discussion, we can, hopefully, end this continuous dispute. And if this doesn't, we can at least have a consensus to point to in the future. Agrso, Zillennial, and other editors, please give your opinions on the issues listed above. BappleBusiness (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Kindly note that I have been following Wikipedia policies. Frankly BappleBusiness, you can report me for either edit warring or disruptive editing - you are free to report me anytime you want. But just so you know, I have already reported this matter to Wikipedia administrators and this resulted in Wikipedia administrators blocking user Zillennial because he violated Wikipedia policies. I was not blocked. Zillennial was blocked. In case you haven't noticed, I have regularly added sources for various different starting birth years including 1990, 1993, 1994, 1996, and 2001 which proves that I have little bias. On the other hand, the user Zillennial rarely adds sources for any starting birth year other than 1997 and other users in the talk page have already noted this user's bias toward 1997 (this has been noted various times, check the Generation Z talk page archives). In fact, the Wikipedia administrators sided with me last time I reported user Zillennial (for violating a wide range of Wikipedia policies - you can check this user's block log). User BappleBusiness you don't seem to be a Wikipedia administrator (correct me if I'm wrong). To be honest, you seem like a relatively new Wikipedia user, so are you sure that you can threaten me and hurl these accusations? Personally I do not want to respond in a controversial manner. Wikipedia administrators have already analyzed this situation before and accordingly blocked user Zillennial. By the way, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007. Best regards. ---Agrso (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Very respectfully, I don't care that you've been editing since 2007. I also never claimed that Zillennial was in the right; in fact, if you read the original post, I said that their editing practices were also problematic. I was specifically pointing out your readdition of the March 2019 Irish Times source, which you previously agreed to remove. If I couldn't trust you to create consensus, it would make it difficult to work with you (but I have noticed you removed it again, so thank you). My intention was not to threaten you at all - I don't plan to report anything; I really do believe you are working in good faith. I wanted to just summarize how toxic this discussion has become (though perhaps I went about it the wrong way) and present a solution: have a content-driven discussion about the article and establish a precedent and consensus. I can imagine that having the same content arguments over and over again for almost a year now is tiring. So please, can you give your opinions on the issues raised above so we can start such a discussion. Bapple Business (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will not be changing Agrso's additions and have let up since the previous months. All I have been adding is various sources that add to the changing date ranges. If you look at the newest edit I have added new sources that include a 1998 start date and readded the Strauss and Howe Generational Theory (as it is still an important source). Also, might I add that whenever Agrso has been accused of disruptive edits, they play victim instead of owning up to what has been done. Yes, in the past year or so they consistently changed the sources to fit their own personal narrative, and yes I was adding a "1997 start date" as well, which I will own up to it. I've since begun adding different view points. There's not much else to be said. I will not change Agrso's additions to the part of the article from now on UNLESS there is good reason. --Zillennial (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Because of the dispute between the two users above (Agrso and Zillennial), the 'Date and age range' section of this article has basically become inundated with years from random, non-notable newspapers or marketing/consulting companies (what makes definitions from Metro Weekly, a 2015 article from MTV, Adweek, etc. noteworthy for inclusion?). More weight should be given to ranges from demographers or those who actually research or study members of the generation. "Should only the most recent definition from a source be included?" I think so; listing that organization V used year X in 2018, year Y in 2019, year Z in 2020, and year A in 2021 is impractical; just use the year from their most recent report since that's what they're presently using to define Generation Z. I have attempted to clean up the overly long section with what I think should stay and should go per WP:WEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I like your edits Some1, and I think it makes sense to limit it how you did. But two sources I was wondering why you chose to remove from your revision were the Center for Generational Kinetics and Strauss & Howe. I'm personally not sure how notable the Center for Generational Kinetics is, but they do seem to be in the area of sources we would want if they are significant enough. As for Strauss & Howe, I would argue that even if one disagrees with their theory, it's hard not to acknowledge their significance in the field. The only question is whether The Homeland Generation actually corresponds to Generation Z - even though they label it as after Millennials, their date range is way off the consensus. I'm not disagreeing with your choices per se, but I'm curious to understand your thought process. BappleBusiness (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how notable the Center for Generational Kinetics is, but after googling them some more after your comment, it seems like Jason Dorsey is the president of that organization and he or his company was referenced in some recent and reliable secondary sources that have to do specifically with Generation Z (one of my reasons for keeping/removing the sources the way I did), so I will add that back. Strauss and Howe I asked the same; I couldn't find multiple recent and reliable secondary sources using Strauss/Howe's years for Generation Z in their research or report that primarily focuses on Gen Z. So I agree with you that their "date range is way off the consensus"; per WP:WEIGHT and WP:VNOT, their definitions don't warrant inclusion, especially when no recent reliable secondary sources use their definition of Generation Z (assuming that their Homeland Generation actually corresponds to Generation Z first). Some1 (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright I'm pinging Some1 (talk) and BappleBusiness to say that from forward on I will only update the article to fit what sources are already added. The date ranges DO however change every year, the American Psychological Association uses 1998 as a starting date for Gen Z now. 1 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zillennial (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User Some1 (talk) the CNBC source is from June 2021. It's recent enough, especially given the fact many of the 1997 sources in the section are from 2020 even 2019. Why was the 1995 CNBC source from June 2021 removed? It's only from last month. Please clarify the reason behind the removal. Also, are you a Wikipedia administrator? Agrso (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

These sources don't really improve the article as much as they provide justification for the claims that a given year or range is heavily cited. So more and more, I am thinking that it makes sense to limit media sources to those that don't flip-flop. Perhaps a source must keep a consistent definition for the previous 18 months or else we won't include it in the section (to me, 18 months seems like a satisfactorily long period of time without it being unreasonably long). Additionally, from now on, a discussion should proceed the addition or removal of sources. This will help ensure that new sources are significant enough to include and that dates aren't cherry-picked. Also, as the purpose of a source is justification for a specific date range, the addition of a source should bring value that is not already provided by other sources. What do you all think about these basic guidelines? We could include them in a hidden note at the top of the section for other editors. BappleBusiness (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging BappleBusiness (talk). I have been trying to update the sources to 2021 as most of them usually change overtime, but Agrso (talk) continuously reverts them back to what they were. In the last day I read the articles that quoted a "1995-2009" Gen Z date range, and corrected the sentence "Various media outlets cite 1995 to 2009 as a date range" to "cite McCrindle's date range" (which is the source these news companies are reporting. Agrso (talk) proceeds to revert it back and says that "there's no evidence suggesting it's using McCrindle's range". Actually there IS evidence. On This article which is cited there is a sentence that says "Researchers detailed their poll results this week in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition." If you click the link that is highlighted it will take you here. This is an article that directly cites McCrindle's date range.. It cites McCrindle right here. So the question is: why is this user continuously deleting any changes that goes against their narrative, and then plays victim when called out for it? I feel as if this is abusive behavior and violates Wikipedia's rules. Is there anything to back this up? For example, instead of taking responsibility when we were BOTH called out for edit-warring. They just went on to say in direct quotes: "are you sure that you can threaten me and hurl these accusations? Personally I do not want to respond in a controversial manner. Wikipedia administrators have already analyzed this situation before and accordingly blocked user Zillennial. By the way, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007.". and "Also, are you a Wikipedia administrator?". They won't take responsibility for their actions or even apologize at this point. I don't see how this behavior is continuously been allowed on this page. Sure, we all may have biases, but personally I have been better. I've been adding sources by actual research firms, that are credible and USED by media outlets. Yes, I would like to apologize over the issues with this article in the past, but I think we can all start to agree on WHAT needs to be submitted with guidelines that you proposed. I am okay with that. --Zillennial (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Zillennial kindly note that if you have legitimate concerns and evidence to substantiate your claims then surely the Wikipedia administrators in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard would have noticed that you are "continuously updating the section with up-to-date sources" and user:Agrso is "continually reverting your up-to-date sources". I am certain that Wikipedia administrators would have noted this alleged conduct as you have already reported me three times in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: First time, Second time, and Third time. In fact none of the Wikipedia administrators found my conduct troublesome and you're the one who got blocked twice as displayed in your account block log first in 2020 and then again in 2021. With regard to the McCrindle Research Centre's definition, none of the sources cited the McCrindle Research Centre like you claimed and most sources in that sentence are using different date ranges not McCrindle Research Centre's 1995-2009 definition. Please refrain from making accusations and personal attacks (one of the reasons you were blocked) because it violates Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:Personal attacks and Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Additionally, it is well known that Wikipedia:Cherrypicking and Wikipedia:Citation overkill reduce the overall quality of the article. --Agrso (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It's getting kind of annoying having people "speculate" a year range not understanding that almost every article/researcher is using PEW's date range currently. In fact most of the "sources" that are listed in the "date range" are now using a '1997-2012' year range. I can happily list newest articles that contradict what is being said; especially how millennials are "well agreed to be 1981-1996 by researchers". As described by Brookings Institution senior "Jonathan Rauch". (who is an extremely credible person that has worked for The Economist). By a simple Google search [[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22gen+z%22+born&client=firefox-b-1-d&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=sbd:1&sa=X [and selecting "News" then sorting it by date, you will see that every recent article has used PEW Research's Definition.]]] Therefor why are we not honoring this by at the very least stating "With those born loosely from the late 90's to early 2010's as a popular range. This way there are no specific years being posted, and nobody has their own opinions ignored. Pinging BappleBusiness --Zillennial (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Over the past 2-3 years, many talk page discussions have already been made regarding Generation Z specific date range and many Wikipedia editors and administrators participated but no consensus could be reached. Of course looking at the talk page archives, the age range debate has been going on for over 10 years (Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4). No consensus could be reached every time (see examples: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10, Example 11, Example 12). The debate over Gen Z's start date and end date is not just going on in Wikipedia, it's rampant in real life as evidenced by the Cusper Zillennial social media debate. Many established media outlets are still using the mid 1990s as a start date and the late 2000s and mid 2010s as the Gen Z end date; the Pew centre is an American think-tank that is specifically definiting the generation for America (in the context of 9/11) whereas international news organisations like The Guardian in the United Kingdom are using the mid 1990s as a start date. This is the English language Wikipedia it is not specific to the USA only so one American think-tank which specifically defines the generation for America doesn't suffice. Most media outlets are not sticking to one specific date range they're still flipping the date range from one article to the next. A generation is defined as "the average period, generally considered to be about 20–⁠30 years, during which children are born and grow up, become adults, and begin to have children." Late 1990s until early 2010s is not long enough to be a full generation because generations are supposed to be around 20–⁠30 years. Generation Z will continue being hard to define until it fully comes of age in the mid-to-late 2020s. We're currently in 2021 which is the early 2020s. Agrso (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on a few things. On your point that Pew Research Center isn't sufficient, I agree that it wouldn't be sufficient alone, but when numerous media sources cite Pew as an authority on this, we should give what they say more weight. We also need to follow what the sources are saying, not what we believe a generation should be (in your case, 20-30 years). ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The main issue is that the vast majority of sources identify Generation Z as "young people in their teens and early 20s" yet people born in 1997 are now in their mid 20s. These sources are contradicting themselves when they use a 1997 start date for Generation Z. Also, bear in mind that the term "Generation Z" was only popularized in the mainstream media very recently; hence it's prone to significant fluctuations. When the "Generation Z" terminology first emerged in the late 2000s and early 2010s, there is no doubt that 1995 was within the defined "age range" according to scholarly and media "consensus" (at the time). The term is still relatively recent and the generation has not fully come of age, so that makes it up for debate. Prior to the year 2020, the term "Gen Z" was not very common in the mainstream media, social media, and the general public. In the year 2015, the Washington Post published an article about generation date ranges and the term "Millennial" was used to refer to young people born between 1981 and 2000 according to the Pew Research Center. This is the same think-tank. In the year 2014, Pew Research Center explicitly stated "This report focuses on Millennial adults. However, the youngest Millennials are in their teens and no chronological end point has been set for this group yet.↩" The Pew Research Center think-tank will probably change its Millennial/Gen Z date range definition again (as they have done so many times before over the past few years). We should wait a few years because of Gen Z's very recent popularization and its ever-changing date range. Nothing is set in stone. The date range debate happened to all generations including Baby Boomers who are now uniformly defined as 1946 to 1964 (18 years). Not all generations are within 20 to 30 years but ~ 18 years span is more reasonable than Generation Z's 15 years. In the year 2023 or 2024, the 1997 start date may no longer be in usage. In a few years, if it is in popular usage then by all means we can all agree on adding it to the article there are no objections from me. I have no problem with the 1997 start date but I think we should wait a few years given the fact 1997 is no longer "young people in their early 20s". In a few years, the early 2000s may very well become the most popular Gen Z start date. Agrso (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

After looking at the date ranges for Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Alpha, the end date for Generation Z is very much undefined and up for debate (even most sources diverge on the end date). I think it's very likely that in a few years 2014 will be the most common "end date" for Generation Z (not 2012). Demographically, it's not realistic that Generation Z ends in 2012 based on the generation's most common age range (early teens to early 20s). The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and CNN currently identify Gen Z as "young people in their teens and early 20s" but for now that doesn't include early 10s (10 to 12 age group) and mid 20s (24 to 26 age group). Generation Alpha's date range is currently undefined that's why I think we should wait a few more years before specifying 2012 as the end date for Gen Z (but we could add 1997 as Gen Z's start date for now; if its lack of inclusion bothers user Zillennial so much). Agrso (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Just want to point out that those born in 1997 are turning 24 years old in 2021, meaning there's still a bunch of people born in 1997 who are 23 years old/in their early 20s right now. So no, sources aren't "contradicting themselves when they use a 1997 start date". Using the 1997-2012 definition, the majority of Gen Z are in their teens and early 20s (the youngest turning 9 and the oldest turning 24 in 2021). Some1 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Mid 20s are 24 to 26 years old. Most people born in 1997 are already 24 years old by now because we are currently in September 2021 (the year is almost ending; it's nearly 2022). In the year 2022, all 1997 births will be in their mid 20s and Generation Alpha remains undefined in terms of specific date ranges. Consequently, how can we specify a start date for Gen Z but not an end date? When Generation X and Baby Boomers date ranges were defined, both generations were fully "coming of age" (unlike Generation Z and its current successor Generation Alpha). As of September 2021, Generation Alpha does not have a defined start date and end date. A few years ago, most sources identified Generation Z as starting in the mid 1990s on the basis that these are young people "in their early 20s". Now since Generation Z still hasn't come of age, how can we be sure the 1997 to 2012 date range will be in popular usage a few years from now? The 2012 end date itself is problematic because Generation Alpha remains undefined and early 2010s are "2010 to 2013" (not 2012). That's why I believe we should wait until the mid-to-late 2020s because that's when Generation Z will fully come of age and Generation Alpha will have its own specific date range. It's too early to list an exact date range in the lead right now. Agrso (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You linked to a generic Google search link which didn't support your claim that the sources were contradicting themselves by using 1997 (they're not); please link specific sources instead to support your claim, but that's irrelevant to the point of this discussion though. I'm not saying there should be a specific range listed in the lead for Generation Z; I actually think there shouldn't be one just yet; the lead currently does a decent job summarizing the Date and age range section of the article. Maybe in the next couple of years when the date ranges for Generation Z have stabilized according to reliable sources then one could be added. Some1 (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If I were to guess, I personally believe that the date range will settle in the 1997-2012 range, but I don't think we're at a point yet where there is a concrete age range consensus. If this is like a voting thing, I would put my vote for 1997-2012 as the primary definition-- that's not my personal opinion of what it should be, but my opinion of what the sources say. But though I agree that 1997-2012 seems to be used by the majority of sources (so if we need a definitive date range, for, say, the generations template, we would use that one), that doesn't mean it's a consensus; it's still up for debate. I would be open to putting 1997-2012 as the primary definition while also making sure to contextualize it by mentioning it is in no way set in stone yet. But I can also understand the viewpoint that we should wait a few years as Gen Z fully comes of age and researchers can form a fuller consensus. I think that there are a lot more important content issues with this article that we should be focusing on (its size, overlapping information with other articles, unrelated content, etc.), so I'm just hesitant to add fuel to this fire. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 20:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you in that it's not a consensus and it's up for date that's why I think we should we should wait a few years as Generation Z fully comes of age and researchers can form a fuller consensus. The reason is most sources are currently identifying Generation Z as "young people in their teens and early 20s" yet people born in 1997 are currently in their mid 20s (24 years old). Consequently, these sources are contradicting themselves when they use a 1997 start date. It's nearly 2022. In 2022, people born in 1997 will turn 25 years old. As a result, various media outlets are now using 1998 as a start date instead of 1997. The date range is obviously still changing and not set in stone. We should wait a few years until this generation fully comes of age. Instead of the date range debate, I think we should focus on this article's most troubling issues (size, trivia, references, etc.), it feels like over the past 10 months too much emphasis has been placed on the date range and too little on the actual article. Agrso (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Like I stated above, there are people born in 1997 who are still 23 (which is in their early 20s), so no, those sources aren't "contradicting" themselves for using 1997 as the start year.

Unlike the other generations, the date range for Generation Z hasn't stabilized yet since the generation hasn't fully come of age (researchers are still focused on studying Generation Z as opposed to studying Generation Alpha), so I don't believe there should be an exact date range listed in the lead just yet. We'll have to wait for reliable sources (not opinion pieces) to say that a particular range is "widely accepted", "typically used", "generally used", etc. to define Generation Z before adding an exact range to the lead to avoid WP:SYNTH. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Some1 Agrso BappleBusiness The reason I brought this up was that clearly PEW's range is the most popular definition right now, the problem is; is that if you google search "Gen Z" and see the results there's no consensus where it starts. Most sources DO say 1997, but 1995 all the way to 2000 aren't out of the question. Agrso does however make a good point that you can't really "fully define a generation until they come of age" but with this idea, some could argue that even the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory holds weight "e.g. a 1982-2004 date range". Just because there is no consensus. All I was trying to say was that by saying "Loosely" (Keyword being 'LOOSELY')- "loosely defined from the late 90's to early 2010's", actually holds weight that it pin points a specific range. Clearly 1996 is well agreed to be the Millennial end date, (a simple google search yields this result) BESIDES McCrindle or Deloitte but the other sources use this as an accepted end date. Meaning the 1997 (onwards) is a good choice to have for the "current" Z range. I propose that the top date range says "mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years.[3] Loosely being defined as late 90s to early 2010's as a popular definition. This way the whole article does not have to require people to scroll down and read that a source like "Statistics Canada (who have since used PEW's range in recent years)" as a credible source. Zillennial (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit of adding "loosely being defined as late 90s to early 2010s" after "mid-to-late 1990s as starting birth years and the early 2010s as ending birth years". I feel like that idea is already being communicated. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 20:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Today (October 6 2021) User:Zillennial added two sources to specify a definitive range that has not been determined in the talk page discussion. These two sources are questionable. The first source is an opinion piece by the Guardian newspaper and the second source is a Forbes article that does not include any specific date range (no mention of 1997 or 2012 anywhere in the Forbes article he added). The Forbes article just says Gen Z 'consists of people born after 1996' without specifying any end-date so it doesn't support user:Zillennial's claim that "Almost every single article uses 1997-2012 as a range" as shown in the edit summary today. The Forbes article looks like an opinion piece too (but doesn't specify a definitive range). Agrso (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Agrso How many times is this going to go back and forth between us? I can support my point that almost (9/10 times) every article is using a 1997-2012 range. This is simply just a waste of time arguing about this so, I'll just let you say whatever you want. Zillennial (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm really frustrated by this recent edit by Zillennial. They knew that on the talk page, in the discussion they started, it was agreed not to include a definitive date range (even in the most generous interpretation, there was no consensus). And yet they still added the definitive range. Let's remember why the discussion on the talk page was spawned in the first place. On September 5, Zillennial tried to institute the 1997-2012 range in the lead without consensus, then after this was reverted, they slightly changed the wording ("late 90s" is pretty much interchangeable with 1997 when 1995 and 1997 are the two main years), again without consensus. Especially with the numerous prior disputes over the date range, I don't understand how Zillennial could have possibly thought that trying to make these three changes without community consensus was appropriate. An invisible comment in the lead even says This range is based on the sources given in the text below; please seek talk page consensus before changing right where Zillennial made their edits. I will just note that 2 out of 3 of these changes were labeled minor edits when they were clearly not, potentially going underneath the radar of some watchlists, but I'm assuming ignorance and placing a notice on their user talk page.

Zillennial has already been blocked twice over disruptive editing (I'm pinging Swarm who blocked them in October 2020 and March 2021, in case they want to give their input) and I'm thinking this could possibly be a third time by repeatedly ignoring community input. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

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

when looking through this page something caught my attention the dates for generation z (gen z) is incorrect The gen z starting year is correct but gen z only goes up to 2009 therefore the statement saying "early 2010s" is factually incorrect 2010 is the start of the new generation and there is only up to 2009 this minor mistake seems to have caused some confusion. 83.216.147.54 (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There is not enough information to declare that. In fact most sources point to PEW's range which ends Generation Z in 2012 or even later. Zillennial (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that some sections do not contain a neutral point of view, especially when the topic of education is discussed. While I agree with some arguments, I think that readers should be allowed to draw their own conclusions.

Under the "North America" tab, beneath the "In the workforce section:" " Nevertheless, 21st-century manufacturing is increasingly sophisticated, using advanced robotics, 3D printing, cloud computing, among other modern technologies, and technologically savvy employees are precisely who employers need. Four-year university degrees are unnecessary; technical or vocational training, or perhaps apprenticeships would do." I know the last sentence comes from a book, but if we are going to present one author's viewpoint on the necessity of a four-year education, than we should show an opposing argument (I did not see any discussion of 4-year vs. vocational degree earning potentials, only employment opportunities) -- or avoid viewpoints altogether.

Under the "Cognitive abilities" section, beneath "Health issues:" "For example, among children with ADHD, 33-45% also suffer from dyslexia and 11% from dyscalculia. Normal or high levels of intelligence offer no protection. Each child has a unique cognitive and genetic profile and would benefit from a flexible education system." Again, while I agree with the last sentence, I do not think a taking side on education reform should count as a neutral viewpoint.

It may be a good idea to sweep the article and make sure we are presenting an unbiased view. I strongly believe in education reform as well, but an encyclopedia page should remain neutral and informational.2600:1702:250:4360:B118:3AF6:5218:B370 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Big Brother telling people what to think. It is merely an encyclopedia with sources. Readers are of course free to think for themselves. Those sentences are all backed up by reliable sources. Nerd271 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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

The image of the sleeping girl is creepy; the angle of perspective and her lack of clothing is disturbing viewer context, especially provided that the subject is of a CHILD!!! People remove this image - viewers are more sensitive regarding depictions of children more than ever. 47.40.29.3 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done I removed it, mostly because it doesn't contribute anything to the understanding of the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Plumsac.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fjones26. Peer reviewers: Lkevincastillo, Martin123451234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BillyDoo2 Connecticut College students in Wiki Ed course "The Net Generation" are undertaking a significant revision of the page on 12/10/15 based on research of this topic conducted in fall 2015..

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

With 2.5 billion Gen Zers globally, the economic power of this generation cannot be underestimated. In a study published in 2021, it was estimated that Gen Z's disposable income in the United States alone has reached $360 billion. The figure is based on research of US government's employment data as well as self-reported data as it pertains to parental support and earnings generated from 'side-hustles'. But having money doesn't translate into careless consumption. Gen Zers grew up during the 2008 recession, often watching their parents lose jobs and struggle to keep up with mortgage payments; it stands to reason they’d be anxious it could happen to them too. More recently, they have felt the economic impact of COVID-19. The result of all this is that Gen Zers are in fact cautious, calculated, and long-term oriented consumers. They are far more interested in securing their financial future than investing in the latest per of sneakers and by doing so are challenging some key assumptions about youth consumptions that were used by consumer brands for years. 02:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)02:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiosity2022 (talk • contribs)

OK. But this is already in this article or Generation Z in the United States. Nerd271 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to remind people that on a Wikipedia article like this, people should be citing the dates used by the media and sociologists, not only the citing the ones they like while omitting the ones they don't like. Its also really important to do this because Gen Z is a new generation with dates not set in stone, and there are different popular date ranges across different countries. 7288P (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, but at the same time we want to avoid WP:UNDUE. When end dates for Gen Z are given, they are usually either 2010 or 2012 (something that I personally disagree with, by the way, but that's not my role as an editor). When making a statement in the lead, we can make generalizations that can be explained in a later section. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 16:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

As of 2022, the federal government in Washington D.C. has cited the 1997- 2012 date range. This can be seen on the Gen Z page. Not only that, but the Millennials Wiki page has the 1981-1996 date range at the top while the wiki page for Generation Z in the United States as well.

After putting the United States Library of Congress's source to the top, Agrso has committed another edit war and even reported me to the Wiki administration. What I don't understand is why because this source is from the federal government itself as of 2022. Agrso even has accused me of a sockpocket investigation. The Millenials page has the 1981-1996 definition at the top. I only added 1997 and not even an end date since the majority of online sources are citing the 1997-2012 range. I only put it in because of the Library of Congress in Washington DC. This is from the Feds, not even a fake or pop source.

The world needs to change the term "Generation Z" to "Generation F" (Freedom) in protest of Russian aggression in Ukraine. It seems to me that millions of children born in 1997-2010 would not want to be at least somehow associated with the racist swastika. Sergii Koretskyi (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sad BS.

Over on the Millenials wiki page, 1981-1996 are typically being defined as the Millenial age range and are added towards the top in the first paragraph. Although the end date of Gen Z is not official yet, the majority of sources are typically putting 1997 as the start of Gen Z, so that should be at least added. One example is the United States Library of Congress as of 2022, or the Brookings Institute. 68.62.155.13 (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears that someone is putting outdated sources in the Wiki and taking out sources that are up-to-date, such as the United States Library of Congress as of 2022. 1997 is seen as the start of Gen Z by the majority of sources, not 1995. No end date hasn't even been added. Just the start date which has been in popularity as of date. GhostlyOperative (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

AGRSO has been warned multiple times to stop vandalizing this Wikipedia page. This editor has been committing multiple edit wars not just here, but on other Wikipedia articles. GhostlyOperative (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear GhostlyOperative, kindly note that I did not edit war. There is an established talk page consensus (continuation) between Wikipedia users like User:BappleBusiness and User:Some1 regarding the Generation Z date range; therefore any changes made to the section must be discussed to reach talk page consensus. Any changes that aren't discussed are removed per the talk page consensus that was made. Additionally, it is important to note that WP:AGF, WP:CON, and WP:CIVIL are important Wikipedia policies therefore kindly refrain from making provocative accusations on my talk page and elsewhere (using your IP address and main user account).

Kindly refrain from removing this from the Generation Z date range section per the talk page consensus:

BEFORE CHANGING SOURCES: start a discussion on the talk page. New sources should bring value that is not already provided by other sources. All sources must keep a consistent definition for the previous 18 months (with respect to the current date). SUITABLE SOURCES: avoid marketing/consulting companies, non-notable media sources, and institutions not related to studying generations. Instead, focus on demographers and experts, generation-research firms, government sources/censuses, and notable dictionaries. Notable media/newspapers may be used in a limited fashion in tandem with another appropriate source as listed above.

Best regards. Agrso (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You have been warned multiple times. Your Wiki talks page shows that this isn't your first time committing an edit war. You have a repeated history of vandalizing this page and others by adding outdated sources for unknown reasons. Many other editors have added the 1997- 2012 age range because of the Federal United States Library of Congress's decision this 2022 year. The Millennial Wiki page has the 1981-1996 date range. Only the start of 1997 is being added, not even the end date. Over on the Generation Jones Wiki page is the same. You added a comment about the American Census Bureau making the decision of the Generation Z date range when this is incorrect. They only offically recognize the Baby Boomer Generation. Your history appears to be that you are vandalizing this page due to personal rather than factual reasons. GhostlyOperative (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The description is nonsense. Millenials became aware of the Internet and able to surf it from a young age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.23.104 (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The whole world should rename Generation Z to something else. It is disgusting because it reminds us of Putin. It is similar to Harkenkreuz.--150.31.56.91 (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Utter ignorant BS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.23.104 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

While we are doing that, we should definitely delete the letter Z from the alphabet, who cares that it has a phonetic purpose, we'll just call them xoos and xebras. 🙄🦃 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

On a Reddit thread I saw the official reddit account for statistics Canada u/StatCanada announce that they would make an official change to their Gen Z definition and that the older 1993 definition would be archived: https://www.reddit.com/r/generationology/comments/trdp2v/question_on_the_statistics_canada_definition_of/i2u9chy/?context=3

In addition, as of Arpil 27th, 2022 they published a report titled "a Generational Report of Canada's Aging Population where they've since updated Generation Y (millennials) to be people aged 25 to 40 (born between 1981 and 1996), Generation Z: people aged 9 to 24 (born between 1997 and 2012), and Generation Alpha: people aged 8 or younger (born between 2013 and 2021). 99% of the Generationology community has agreed that the definition for Gen Z starting in 1993 is outdated and Statistics Canada themselves have archived the original report. I'm here say that this definition is no longer officially recognized by statistics canada and should therefore be taken off this page's section on Gen Z date ranges and replaced with their current one.

Here is a link to the 2021 Generationa; census report: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-X/2021003/98-200-X2021003-eng.cfm And here is a link to their updated report on transgender and nonbinary people that references the Generational date ranges in this report: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220427/dq220427b-eng.htm?utm_source=rddt&utm_medium=smo&utm_campaign=statcan-2021census-diss-demography-en

Based on their official reddit account's comments, the archiving of the legacy 1993 gen z definition and the updated census report, coupled with the fact that nearly all of the community does not consider Gen Z to start in 1993, I'd like to remove the statistics canada 1993 gen z definition from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NezukoKamado (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Going on the internet is really no different than reading besides perhaps blue light — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.80.84 (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ya someone really hates Gen Z if the last paragraph in the intro has anything to say about it. This page needs to chill out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.220.200.218 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Been waiting quite a bit of time, nearly all of the articles released in the last 3 months (that define gen z) list Gen Z as "1997-2012" following PEW's definition. I'm fine with keeping it flexible, but now that this definition seems to be more and more solid are we going to define it at the top of the article or not?

Zillennial (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a place in the article that says sleep deprivation which maybe should link to Sleep deprivation 73.211.222.82 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

In the political paragraph, several sentences state that the zoomers tend to have more left-winged views than previous generations. In the middle of it, there's a sentence saying "In some European democracies, such as France, national-populist politicians and political parties tend to be the most popular among voters below the age of 40." This is in contrast to everything else that's said in that paragraph, but it's also not entirely pertinent, given that "below the age of 40" identifies a larger group of generations, not just the zoomers. It's very unfocused data for what's relevant here. It should either be removed, better analyzed with more sources, or at least moved at the bottom of the paragraph following some "in contrast with this" introductory lead. The way it's placed now, it's just confusing. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is there an entire lengthy paragraph on the effects of marijuana when there wasn't any effort to actually tie it to Gen Z? It'd be one thing if it discussed the potential harmful effects and then cites some numbers of these being seen in Gen Z, but... it doesn't. It just laundry lists why marijuana is bad, and I don't understand why that's there when that's not the subject of this article? 2600:1700:4600:3950:E1B4:604B:2FB0:C711 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and have boldly removed a big chunk of that section. Thanks for raising the issue. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OneGoodNut (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by OneGoodNut (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello all, sorry am new to all this but reading this article on gen z, i've stumble across many many problem statements most of which reflect deeply entrenched biaises... for example, the statement : "Moreover, the negative effects of screen time are most pronounced on adolescents compared to younger children." is incorrect (on every level). This entier page needs a deep deep rewrite. NinaDuque (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I would add that many of the author's cited (along with their works) have been dismissed by the scientific community ... for example Jean Twenge's work on gen z is no longer accepted as valid. NinaDuque (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we don't remove content for being "problematic", and we cite our sources. As far as negative effects of screen time on adolescents, there are plenty of sources to confirm this. ^[1] for example. Since we have a resource on the relative damage and no evidence to the contrary, it would be silly to remove it from the article. We also don't remove sources because another source says they don't like the researcher or the research itself. Thespearthrower (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

i was born in 2010, some sources say i am a gen z some say i’m alpha. which is correct? 47.157.90.93 (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing your generation, but you are Gen Z. 1997-2014 and sometimes 2001-2016 are used for Gen Z. Thespearthrower (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I think generation zoomer are people from 1996 to 2010 102.68.31.241 (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The lack of information from Strauss-Howe Generational theory is conspicuously missing from this article. They define this generation (Homelanders) as starting in 2005 as the cohort grew up in the post-9/11 surveillance state as well as growing up on smart phones. A generation is about 20 years as that's the general age at which people start having children, but according to the article this generation is only 10 years in length. Generations aren't the same as peer groups.

Also, the term "Generation Z" defines the cohort in terms of their predecessors (Generation X) instead of defining them by the characteristics of their generation. I'm not sure why so many people just accept this rather than finding it insulting.

I'm making this comment based on informative accuracy, not because of some personal stake (I'm a Millennial). Lastly, the reason I'm commenting in talk rather than "being bold" is because in past I've spent hours researching and editing an article only to have someone less informed remove my changes without justification. Wikipedia hasn't been good at preventing users with an agenda from removing accurate information and nuance. This is also related to why I no longer sign in. 2604:2D80:DE11:1300:5C95:F49D:6C9A:1F0D (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Very little reliable secondary sources define Generation Z using Strauss & Howe's dates. Per WP:DUE, Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject; that's why it's not included in this article. Some1 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

in this very lengthy article with a much more lengthy list of references, nowhere does it mention where this ridiculous term GenZ came from to begin with, only mentioning it’s assumed skyrocketing popularity in the United States media/social media influencer world.

nor is there a discussion of how ignorant the term is given that there never was actually a Y, and more importantly I have actually heard young people assume that the letters actually do go all the way back to MJ starting perhaps with the founding fathers. It was a mistake to allow it to propagate the way that it has into popularity and simply saying it is popular so we’ll let it be popular doesn’t answer the question who is running the train when it comes to grammar and logical references; nor does it track down the source of this ignorant terminology.

lastly it does not mention that the only reason why generational terms are used as for marketing purposes primarily these days, which is why not only does this youngest generation already have a name ascribe to them, but so does the generation that is barely in school and have no attributable personality traits, calling them alpha of all things, continuing the ignorant idea that we’ve always use the letters when we never have until acts which meant something specific.

i’ve written many letters to many national radio shows practically begging them to at least have a discussion about the issue instead of just constantly referring to young people as GenZ, a generational title which means absolutely nothing outside of the fact that it shows that some ignorant person looked at Gen X, and was able to count two letters down and decided to use that easy lazy letter instead of thinking about what a generation was actually about - or better yet, letting the generation pick their own damn title if there is and must be one.

i’m so sick of generational conversations nationally. If it’s one thing that we learned, every single one of us in every “generation“, it’s that every person at any given age is unique, and there’s no such thing as everybody the same age being exactly like each other at all.

The very idea is ridiculous. yes, it is true that technologically and socially every year we gradually change. We do not change suddenly at the end of some designated D range that some people think makes us this or that or another thing. Most especially when you consider the fact that all of us any given age are raised and incredibly different families with incredibly different access to resources and incredibly different responses within and without our community based on who we are.

just stop it with the generational talk unless you’re going to explain and discuss why it’s even necessary and why we let some ignorant person start using letters beyond Gen X which meant something specific. (and frankly, that was a pretty stupid title too, but at least it landed correctly: young people at a place and time where it didn’t seem feasible to believe in the American dream any longer. That wasn’t generational, that was realism in 1995.

Thanks you for listening. Please someone do something about this. Make it stop - and tell marketing teams to get a real job. 2601:602:8001:21A0:40B8:DC62:A094:ED58 (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Can you change 2012 to 2011 because that's when gen z ended 147.129.200.9 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry! But the sources say 2012, or thereabouts. Nerd271 (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Cornellier has repeatedly edited this article to change occurrences of "21st century" to "2000s" (and similarly for 20th century) without giving any explanation as to why this might be an improvement. Here are some reasons it's not an improvement:

• "21st century" is the current WP:EDITCONSENSUS. There are many uses of it in the article by many editors.
• "2000s" is already used in a handful of places, specifically to refer to the first decade of the century. Changing all the other occurrences makes this use much less clear.
• The use of the "21st century" form is endorsed in MOS:CENTURY.

@Cornellier, do you have any counterarguments? Or anyone else, would you like to chime in? Dan Bloch (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

"21st century" is not specific enough. These people are from the early twenty-first century. The cohort born in, say, the mid-twenty-first century will most likely be different from them. Nerd271 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't in regards to the definition? The debate is in regards to using "2000s" where "21st century" is currently used. Every instance of "21st century" is qualified with "early", "late", or certain "decades of", so specificity isn't an issue. In fact, using "2000s" where "21st century" is used would only confuse things. The only reason provided by Cornellier is "This isn't a literary magazine." which is not a valid argument and is outweighed by the reasons Dan Block provided. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Danbloch Phrases such as the examples below could be clearer per WP:PLAINENGLISH. Please compare the left side (from article) with right side:

• "schoolchildren in 1960, but by the start of the 21st century" -> "schoolchildren in 1960, but by the start of the 2000s"
• "During the first two decades of the 21st century" -> "During the first two decades of the 2000s"
• "parents in the early 21st century" -> "parents in the early 2000s"
• "at the turn of the century" -> "around the year 2000"

Adjectival forms can be used when necessary but the year numbers are to be prefered as that is how people speak in real life. I will perhaps take it up at MOS:CENTURY. Cornellier (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you see yourself as a god? It’s the Talk section, this is what it’s for - discussion of the article, which i did, as well as the majority of the references that were included. And my questions and comments still stand.

No one in the article discusses exactly where the term GenZ originated, and nowhere in the article is anyone discussing the validity of such a thing, or the marketing landscape’s usage of it, or whether or not the generation so-called deserves to choose a title for themselves.

You simply say that it was recognized as popular and therefore they decided to keep doing that.

It was a fair and clearly written talk response and there is no reason why someone should act like a little God and remove it.

(No) thank you for making Wikipedia less than it could be.

-Richard Sauvé 2601:602:8001:21A0:CC8B:3B11:DF15:DCA2 (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, according to my reading of Wikipedia:Editing others' comments, the removal of your comment by Nerd271 was not legitimate.

Re your other two points, I think the term Generation Z was invented by a number of people independently. I don't think there's a known source for it. And while there is a lot of doubt about the legitimacy and value of social generation terms, it applies to all of the generations, not just Gen Z. It's covered a bit in Generation#Criticism. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I just restored the section that was illegitimately deleted by Nerd271. However, I would advice you to read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK. Your questions are somewhat answered by the etymology and nomenclature section. Like what Dan Bloch said, I would infer that "Generation Z" was coined by many people at once, especially after Ad Age coined Generation Y for the millennials (more in Millennials#Terminology and etymology) and established that pattern. But I'm not sure what we can add regarding that topic, since there hasn't been a source that we can cite that investigates that question, at least to my knowledge. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 18:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Anything irrelevant or polemical will be deleted. Nerd271 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Polemical" is not grounds for deletion. See the Wikipedia guideline above. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. WP:UNCIVIL seems surprisingly lax. No wonder people often leave Wikipedia. Nerd271 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum, you are correct, but that is not grounds for deletion. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 03:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I find it interesting that as a major event, the COVID-19 pandemic was listed on the page under Gen Alpha, I consider the effects of countermeasures and isolation, among others, to have had a greater affect on Gen Z than Gen Alpha.

An example of this, I would not cite the 2008 Stock Market Crash, as a major event of Gen Z, despite many being alive during it, it has not had any great effects. The same ‘should’ go for Gen A and COVID-19.

This is of course only my opinion. 17mtv (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

An economic crash which did not directly affect Gen Z at the time, and a pandemic which directly prevented social contact with peers in the most developmentally sensitive period for Gen Alpha are entirely incomparable, and as such no parallels can be drawn.

Of course, it may even be the case that both the 2008 collapse and the pandemic had the same (negligible) effect on thier respective generations, but one cannot say BECAUSE one was the the case, the other must also be. The devil is in the details.

Following, research has indeed show huge detriments to the health and life quality of children and young adults since the start of the pandemic. VarezTico (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that any gendering of people in photos be changed to gender-neutral language, especially photos of children in the article. 96.248.74.197 (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

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

47.155.77.16 (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Generations Z 1996-2010

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)