Talk:Generation Z

Should we delete these two sentences?

"Because modern youth culture is global rather than local, regional characteristics such as accent features or intonations have disappeared. The Internet has homogenized youth culture." That is a very broad statement, and I dont think it aligns well with wikipedias encyclopedic tone. Do Yall think we should remove it? Caydence2024 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2026

Its 1997-2013 & not 1997-2012 ToBeHeroX (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. See the banners at the top of the talk page. Any discussion on changing the date range and age section should be done on Talk:Generation Z/sandbox first. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Desecularization synth

The section on desecularization in generation Z seemed to contain a lot of WP:SYNTH. Specifically, it appears a thesis was selected and then sources were selected with statistics that were believed to support that thesis. This is not how we write encyclopedia articles as we should be leaving analysis and such to the sources. I've removed the section. Greater care needs to be shown to WP:SYNTH if it is restored. This may also raise WP:DUE considerations if what's left is mainly newsmedia stuff. Newspapers write lots of nonsense about generational cohorts after all. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Also some of the news media sources are pretty clearly opinion pages such as this: - "The Coffee House" section is 100% opinion articles. Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

@Lazarbeem was asking at my user talk what sources I was referring to explicitly as synth. These to start were being used in an explicitly WP:SYNTH fashion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that this secondary source describes the findings of a study apparently without linking to the study (unless I missed it). Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

This is a concern exacerbated by the source being the International Catholic News Weekly - which certainly has a POV to present on matters of faith. As such I'd like to see the actual findings and publication circumstances of the "report" to assess it as an academic source rather than a report about an academic source. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Would Magnus Hagevi (a professor at Linnaeus University in Sweden) analysis on the data here -> Not So Secular Sweden - Comment Magazine count as an academic source? He is responding to data from the SOM Institute of the University of Gothenburg who conducted a survey in March 2025 Lazarbeem (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

Also I don't understand how it would be considered synth if there is data to support it, especially if such data is from government bodies such as Eurobarometer (a survey for the EU) and Statistics Canada (a Canadian government agency). Also how would the current section which mostly talks of secularization not be considered synth? Lazarbeem (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

What are the relevant statistics? Did you weight them based on class or gender? Or did you just look at age weighting because that's the underlying thesis you were approaching. These are WP:PRIMARY. And the big problem with using primary sources is that it invites these sorts of synth frames. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

My edit did adress gender in that edit with this: "Throughout the 2020s, several countries in the Western world saw a rise in Christian affiliation, particularly among males of Generation Z." Lazarbeem (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the National Post that also specifies that while the number of Christians grew, the number of Muslims and of non-believers grew more in the same time frame. Since population is also growing (which the National Post points out) just raw increase in numbers means nothing. The article raises my point “Most of the growth of Muslim and Hindu populations in the U.S. and Canada can be attributed to immigration,” the report noted. Meister says immigration can also add to numbers of Christians as well. Natpo does cite an article in the Economist about generation Z as part of a survey of articles with disparate and conflicting views on growth or decline of religiosity. So I'd say you were engaging in cherry picking within that source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

But that's one sources out of six present. Furthermore, what about growth from the non-immigrant population (which Magnus Hagevi addresses in the case of Sweden.) In terms of Canada, here's a source for young Québécois people going back to church dated April 2026 -> «Une nouvelle image de l’Église»: quand TikTok et Instagram ramènent nos jeunes dans la religion | JDQ Lazarbeem (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

You cited two sources for the claim Throughout the 2020s, several countries in the Western world saw a rise in Christian affiliation and this one only supports that statement if you ignore more than half its paragraphs and selectively parse it. But this points toward one of the issues with WP:SYNTH - weaving a cloth out of disparate and disconnected threads. As you have done here with these edits. I have said my piece. I think we should allow some others to speak now. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2026 (UTC)f

I think that the section should show trends of both secularisation and desecularisation among Gen Z so long as it is backed by some form of reliable data Regna sereno intenso ed infinito (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2026 (UTC)