Talk:Generation Z

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Workplace mindset of Generation Z vs. Generation X[edit]

While the youngest are still being born, the oldest members of Generation Z are now 19 years of age and are making the journey from full-time education to the workplace. They are eager, digital natives with a unique approach to the concept of work.

Gen Z is acutely aware that the lines between work and personal life are blurring. Work is a mindset for them, not simply a set of tasks to complete or objectives to reach. And with constant access to email and the latest collaboration platforms, most don’t switch off. But while conversations about this always-on workforce have focused on the technologies involved – the separation between work and personal devices becoming increasingly rare – little attention has been given to their mentality.

Meanwhile, younger generations are shaping their careers. Generation X are now typically reaching middle or senior management positions. Millennials are starting to make headway and rise up through the ranks. And now, of course, we have Generation Z; keen trailblazers, who are just leaving the education system and entering the world of work.

Businesses must embrace this unique mindset toward technology and the concept of work in order to harness Gen Z’s natural always-on attitude. This will prove a key tactic to embracing digitalisation, improving agility and adopting new collaboration platforms across the business.

As a case study, we can take Ricoh as an example[1]

Political Views[edit]

I suggest removing the section on political views until after the 2020 election when those classfied as Generation Z will have actually voted. A couple surveys and opinion pieces do not represent a whole generations political views. In addition just because 34% of students would vote for Donald Trump does not mean that they are more conservative. Also it's not even a majority, most students didn't even answer the surveyAllSportsfan16 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

There is no reason to remove sourced relevant content from the article. Some of what you deleted wasn't even relevant to the U.S. This time you deleted with no edit summary at all, but last time you deleted you made clear that you disagreed with sourced survey assessment that Gen Z tended to be more conservative than Millennials. It's fine to add sourced content to balance this regarding Gen Z tending to be progressive or liberal leaning (as long as it's not original research - please see above talk page section), I've already done so and will continue to do so, when I come across such sourced content, but deleting content because you personally disagree with it just seems disruptive.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The sourced content can be easily disputed. The opportunity lives source talks about data, but then doesn't show any evidence of it. The sources that are used in this section are week. Also one survey of students asking to choose between Clinton and Trump does not indicate whether one is more conservative or liberal. Not to mention over 30% of respondents said that they would not vote, which basically nullifies any conclusions that you try to draw from the survey. There are no data points to prove Generation Z's political leanings because most haven't voted in an election yet. There needs to be data before a claim can be made. From personal experience I can tell that Generation Z will not be more conservative, just look at all the high schoolers staging walkout after the election. You need actual results to tell the political views of generation. This is why that section should be deleted. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Also after a quick google search I found another survey that said the opposite of the Hispanic Heritage one:
If you can "easily dispute it" (with reliable sources in a way that doesn't involve original research) just do that by adding that content to the article, instead of section blanking. I added the Houghton Mifflin mock election results from school children you linked above to the section. I did not add any of the previous content to that section (except the recent NPR source about Gen Z Clinton supporters), but the content about conservatism appears to be solidly sourced, on topic and relevant. Nowhere in the section does it say that it's proven that they are more conservative, the section just reports survey results and attributes them to the sources cited. Seems to be the issue is personal disagreement that Gen Z is more conservative than Millennials, but that appears to be what multiple reliable sources from the U.S and the U.K are reporting right now. Wikipedia is just suppose to reflect reliable sources.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, the sources you've brought to argue against the claims that Gen Z is more conservative compared to Millennials actually support that claim, but the Houghton Mifflin source does not support the Hispanic Heritage survey that this is to the extent that more supported Trump than Clinton. The CNN exit poll you previously linked shows 55% of 18-29 year olds supported Clinton and 36% supported Trump (this would be mostly Millennials or entirely Millennials depending on dates used) [1]. The Houghton Mifflin mock election of older elementary, middle and high school kids (this would be all Gen Z or mostly Gen Z, depending on dates used) supported Clinton less, with 47% supporting Clinton and 41% supporting Trump [2]. I'm not suggesting we add this comparison to the article, because comparing these sources in such a way would veer into original research, but you haven't provided any sources yet that contradict the basic claim you object to, which is that sources are reporting Gen Z is comparatively more conservative than Millennials. Looking at these two sources, they actually support that assertion.--DynaGirl (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
What I'm really just trying to convey is that the politics section shouldn't be in the article because there are only a few data points to go off and they differ from each other and not many people categorized as Generation Z have actually voted. I would hold off on this section for another couple years, but it's clear I'm not going to change your mind so I'll just leave this article to you.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
As previously stated, I didn't originally add this content, but don't support your deletion of this long-standing, referenced content. The way it's written, Wikipedia is not saying that it's a fact that they are more conservative. We're attributing this to source and simply saying that according to the Hispanic Heritage Foundation they are more conservative. Also, the manner in which you're deleting seems disruptive. You previously deleted entire section with no edit summary [3] and recent deletion of referenced text : "According to the Hispanic Heritage Foundation, members of Generation Z tend to be more conservative than Millennials." was made with inaccurate edit summary. You wrote in edit summary you were updating numbers, but didn't update numbers, you deleted this sentence again. [4]--DynaGirl (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree but in a different way. Conservative is to broad. Words like conservative and liberal have a lot of context and I don't think that they can be applied this easily to a generation that doesn't even have 18 year olds in its ranks. Saying "they think X, whereas others generations thought X" is one thing. But they are simply to young and without data to start applying political labels on yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Dubious Sources in Political Views[edit]

The Hispanic Heritage Foundation source ( makes claims about political *affiliation* that the actual data cited doesn't claim. And where the data cited claims to have a 0.5% error margin, the data is terribly skewed racially as to make that claim suspect (for example, Texas is 70% "white" and all correspondents were "hispanic"; other states like New Jersey have racial makeups that do not represent the state, being heavily skewed towards minorities, and some states have no minorities represented at all). Additionally, with how some of the questions are worded (including spelling mistakes) some of the answers seem... odd. אמר Steve Caruso 03:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The text is attributed to the Hispanic Heritage Foundation. Googling "Hispanic Heritage Foundation" it appears to notable non-profit, but looking over the section, I'm not sure the text attributed to website meets standards for reliable sources. It seems to be self published by someone named Anne Boysen. Google search for Anne Boysen doesn't suggest she's notable researcher.--DynaGirl (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The results of the survey can be found here.

Elaborating on Steve Caruso's point, I am removing it from the main page for the following additional reasons:

-Survey does not reveal the specific questions asked to respondents
-Gives an extremely bizarre segment to "first time voters" -which is physically impossible to have its own breakdown segment- given that all highschoolers would be first time voters
-In the methodology, provides this tidbit of info: Research topics and objectives for each phase are identified and refined through a collaborative effort of partnering organizations -suggesting the methodology isn't even handled by the hispanic heritage foundation

LylaSand (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems this large survey from Hispanic Heritage Foundation is being challenged/removed based on disagreement with finding/because President Trump is controversial, and not really because of sourcing issues. The objection that the specific questions aren't given seems strange as this survey is regarding election vote (i.e. Clinton, Trump or declined to vote, not questions). Not only is the original survey from Hispanic Heritage Foundation a reliable source [5], a quick google search shows survey is also covered by multiple other sources [6],[7],[8]. Per due weight seems this should remain in the article. Also, it’s important to note that individual Wikipedia editors disagreeing with a survey or questioning it, isn’t grounds to say this isn’t reliably sourced. Please find reliable sources that contradict or question these findings if you disagree. Some are already in the article and already discussed in the current political views section.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times and National Review are not reliable sources, they are right wing propaganda trying to push an agenda. And HuffPo is usually regarded as clickbait.

The Washington Times, National Review and HuffPo are only being used as back up references as cites for a single sentence, yet I see you used this as your explanation for disruptive section blanking [9].--DynaGirl (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This is getting extreme. While it's clear designations of conservative vs liberal have become increasingly polarized, a lot of the edits to this section lately make no sense. For example, deleting multiple referenced mentions of "conservative" with explanation of globalizing the section [10]. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

deleting word "conservative" from article[edit]

@Auror Andrachome: Why do you keep deleting word conservative from article? You have yet to respond to this in above talk page section, so starting separate section here. Your edit summaries haven’t addressed this, saying “globalize article” or "concise language”, but how does deleting the word conservative globalize the article? You even removed the word conservative when it was part of a direct quote, making the quote inaccurate. I get that conservative vs liberal has become increasingly polarizing, but it’s hard to make sense of these edits, and article text, especially direct quotes, should match source cited.

Your most recent revert marks 5th unexplained deletion of word conservative and you’ve been reverted by 2 different editors at this point.[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] Please engage in talk page discussion and explain your desired changes and attempt to seek consensus. Also please see wp:minor. Please don't mark repeated reverts, especially ones which have been disputed by multiple editors "minor".--DynaGirl (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think "conservative" has different meaning in the US than in other places. That still doesn't excuse the deleting it from the quote, though. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Some of the changes don't even make sense. How can a generation be "fiscally right-leaning [...] with respect to marijuana legalization, transgender issues and same sex marriage"? pwnzor.ak (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Replacing the word "conservative" with "frugal" or "fiscally right-leaning" is confusing and is not supported by sources cited. With respect to globalization, it seems the parts of the political views section using word conservative refer specifically to the U.S. and U.K. where the word has similar meaning. The section is already tagged regarding need for globalization, so hopefully this will encourage editors to add info beyond US and UK but I don't think changing the US & UK info so it no longer reflects sources cited globalizes the section. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Auror Andrachome: at this point you’ve reverted 2 more times to remove “conservative” from article without bothering to participate on talk page at all [16] [17]. This makes your 7th undiscussed revert which has been objected to by 3 different editors. Could you please begin to discuss on talk page? Also, please stop marking repeated reverts WP:MINOR. These are not minor edits. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Tip for fixing the current state of the Political Section[edit]

A quick note to everyone upset about the political bit: You need to properly challenge this through wp:RFC. I've met stubborn people before, this won't go away through discussion. I'm honestly not up for it, but if someone starts it, I'll chip in. Dryfee (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Dates in lead[edit]

Auror Andrachome/IP, would you please explain how changing dates in lead, so they no longer summarize the dates in body of article serves to “globalize” article? [18],[19],[20] It’s inaccurate and it’s not supported by referenced text in body of article to change lead so it says it’s been decided that Gen Z starts in 1996. Only a few US sources use that date, so this doesn’t “globalize” the article. A range of other dates are used. For example, Australia’s McCrindle research uses 1995; Turner Broadcasting uses 1997; Goldman Sachs uses 1998; Asia Business Unit and Philippine retailers use 2001 etc.

Please see “Date and age range defining” section in body of article. Please add dates from notable researchers demographers to that section instead of using popular press sources to repeatedly change dates in the lead. Also, changes to dates in lead shouldn’t be marked as minor edits. Please read WP:MINOR.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Generation Z. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^