This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Demographics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DemographicsWikipedia:WikiProject DemographicsTemplate:WikiProject DemographicsDemographics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
@Llewee: Thank for for submitting this article for review. But please note the following comment by the previous reviewer. When this draft was last submitted, User:RoySmith stated that it was a content fork. It still appears to be a content fork. Therefore the primary question is whether the existing article should be split. The discussion of whether to split the existing parent article should be at Talk:Generation Z, and if necessary can be resolved by a Request for Comments. Discuss on the talk page of the existing article. Therefore, if you think this article is ready for prime time, please initiate a discussion on the talk page of Generation Z. Nerd271 (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Operational definitions & Alternate names
Since this information is kind of touched on in the parent Generation Z article, perhaps we should remove these sections and merge the material into there. The naming of the generation isn't a uniquely American issue in this case, so it doesn't make sense to repeat the information in both articles. BappleBusiness (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. I'm saying that we don't need the information from the two sections in this article, which is about the generation in the United States, because the categorization of the generation is not US-exclusive or US-unique. We can just keep the information in the parent article; there is no need for duplication. BappleBusiness (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, these are independent articles. You can read one but not the other. As such, they ought to be self-contained. Nerd271 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This article should act as a supplementary article to the main Generation Z article. Information in the US-specific article can be summarized in the general Generation Z article (along with a link to the corresponding section in this article), which makes sense because the global article shouldn't exclude the US. But if we put global definitions and traits that aren't unique to the United States into the US-specific article, there will be way too much overlap and redundant information -- defeating this article's purpose. BappleBusiness (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. This article is literally called Generation Z in the United States. This means that this article is taking the subject described in Generation Z and focusing on a specific country. Therefore, this is a supplement to the Generation Z article, and we don't need to repeat information that isn't unique or exclusive to the United States here. You're acting like these articles are completely independent when they just aren't. BappleBusiness (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the changes made here. We wouldn't want the terminology/nomenclature and date and age range sections of this article to be basically a repeat of the current sections in the main Generation Z article. Some1 (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nerd271 Hi, just alerting you to the talk page once again. You didn't address my June 10 comments, and I saw you were editing other pages, so after a week, I thought it would be okay to readdress the issue. Instead of competely reverting back to my edits, I decided we needed a compromise for some sort of resolution. So what I did was provide summarizing information for the nomenclature and date ranges, and then linked to the original article. I combined the two sections because that makes sense for the small amount of prose needed for this purpose. This compromise would allow the article to address these subjects in this article, which you find important, while also cutting down on unnecessary and repeated information, which I find important. Let me know what you think. BappleBusiness (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored your version (plus made some tweaks and kept the Pew part since 9/11 is US-centric) since we don't want these two sections to basically become a repeat of the main Generation Z article. Some1 (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Readability suffers when the article is too long. 119 kB is too long. I agree that there is a lot of information about demographic cohorts. But when an article becomes unreadable, we have to reevaluate how the information is organized, what information needs to be included, etc.
Request for putting 1997 to 2012 in the description.
The United States Library of Congress cites Pew Research Center to define the generations, including Generation Z. The United States Census also has chosen a specific definition, starting with 1997 births. This Wikipedia article is different from the others since it is specifically about the United States. The latter two mentioned sources are from the government, not just any random think tanks or pop culture irrelevant articles. The United States Legislative and Executive branches are fully aware of the chosen 1997 start date rather than 1995, evidence with the fact that Maxwell Frost (born in 1997) is being classified as the first official Gen Z member of the United States Congress rather than Madison Crawthorn (1995). The 1997 to 2012 date range is seen as the most consistent date range within the United States media. Wikipedia editors aren’t self-aware in that by just throwing a large number of random articles that begin with 1995 or 1996 together isn’t helping their case, but actually detrimental due to the lack of consistency (for example: 1995-2009, 1995-2010, 1995-2012, 1996-2009, 1996-2010, 1996-2015, and even 1996-2006). Jean Twenge has written articles and made comments in interviews about the possibility that she might move her start date to that of Pew’s in the future (this can be read on her official website, as she clarifies that her 1995-2012 range isn’t final; rather subjective to change). What I want to bring awareness, most importantly, is the fact that editors had attempted to delete the mentioned 2022 United States Census source in its entirety, attempting to fully replace it with irrelevant pop culture articles (the Mexican Vogue magazine article written in Spanish), and the suggestion of the inclusion of other dubious articles. For example, Deloitte has cited the 1997-2012 date range as of the 2023 year, not the 1995 one. The complete removal of the United States 2022 Census article was not reverted for several months, suggesting that Wikipedia editors are editing out of pettiness rather than actually helping the website. 2601:940:C180:3DB0:E857:A613:7BF6:3CE (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Atrocious writing, bad sourcing
They read books less often than their predecessors and spend more time in front of a screen.[30][31] They tend to become familiar with the Internet and portable digital devices at a young age,[4] but are not necessarily digitally literate.[32] Spending so much time on social media can distort their view of the world,[33] hamper their social development,[34] and harm their mental health.[35][36][37][38][39]
This ought to be an example of how not to write a lead paragraph. Gen Z spends more time in front of what screens? "Spending so much time on social media"... but how much time do they spend on it?
The sourcing here is also iffy. Citation 33 is a Psychology Today blog post from Jena Pincott. Yet there seems to be a general opinion at RSN that Psychology Today is not reliable.[1][2]
...and yet the source itself doesn't even mention Generation Z, teenagers, young people, etc, at all. It's literally just an article about the broader impact of social media on society.
If you look at the other sources in this article, you'll see this pattern repeated over and over again: some over-reaching editor has synthed together a lot of sources that don't explicitly support what's being said in the Wiki. This is especially problematic given the sheer size of the article. Amaebi-uni (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map of TikTok restrictions on government devices in the United States has been disputed in the edits so moving to the talk page.
I advocate removing the map because it represents: 1) Original research - there is not a source that mentions all the states included in the map that categorizes each state by 'enacting official' 2) Off-topic - if the map discussed bans beyond government devices, that would seem quite relevant to this page, but as it's simply government employees (though without a source it's hard to know exactly which employees, devices, levels of government, etc.), I do not see a connection to this article topic and think it should be removed regardless of whether or not the sourcing and Original Research issue is addressed. Superb Owl (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You asked that over in Project 2025 and I answered your question. Sources are given here, where the map used to be. It should stay because it highlights the difference of opinions between state government officials and young people. This adds to the section where the map is currently located. Nerd271 (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources that describe 'enacting official' and categorize this issue that way. The issue of a TikTok ban on government devices being an issue for Gen Z needs its own citations, or else is also WP:OR Superb Owl (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
