Talk:Generation Z

Delete the fashion section

First of all, no Gen Zer was into fashion in the early 00s, when the oldest members would be like, six years old. Second of all, even if they were, that fashion surely counts Gen Y too, who were also young in the 00s?

Something's not right

"Unlike Generation Y, they have faint recollection of the September 11 tragedies as children (with the oldest members being 10 years of age during the time of the attacks); some do not even recall them at all."

Wait, this doesn't make sense. If Generation Z is defined as people born in the early 2000s or later, then the oldest members of that generation would be babies during the 9/11 attacks, not 10-year-olds. A ten-year-old during the 9/11 attacks would be a Millennial/Gen-Yer. 70.29.245.6 (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think mid or early 1990's should be the defining start. I, and probably most people my age, can relate a lot more to Generation Z descriptions than Generation Y ones. I have very very faint memories of 9/11 and I was born in 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.202.85 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I was born 1992 and I can more relate people generation z then generation y. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.223.62 (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "Generation Y". If you are referring to early 80's births, than sure. However, those births are often considered cuspers in other circles anyway. Core Generation Y, to me, lies between the mid 1980's and the mid-late 90's. Like I was born in 1989 and I identify with people born in '93 and '86 equally. To me people born in the 1990's are mostly Generation Y (or late Generation Y). I see almost no difference between the high schoolers today and recent college grads like myself. Culturally, economically, socially we are basically the same. We came of age during the war on terror and even if we don't all remember the specifics of 9/11, we certainly remember the world it created very well as formative - the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, homeland security, Apple, Ipods and mp3 players, Hurricane Katrina, the Obama election, etc. I don't see how people can identify the 1990's as a Generation Y period. The 90's belong to Generation X. We were only children then for christ's sake. I don't know a single person in my peer group that remembers grunge at its peak, watching Beverly Hills 90210 on air, Friends, etc For us, it was the era of Pokemon, Nintendo 64, cartoons, Harry Potter and bubblegum pop. Generation Z should begin in the 2000's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.88.115 (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no way...

...that someone born in 1990 is the same generation as someone born today. Or even someone born within the last 10 years. I'm not making any OR changes to the article, but forgive me for treating this talk page as a message board for a moment. Someone born in 1990, such as myself, would have spent childhood watching VHS tapes, likely wouldn't have had a home computer until they were 8 or 9 or so, and most of us didn't get cellphones until we were going into high school. Kids born in the new millennium or late 90s had all these things either from birth or acquired them (namely cell phones) at a much younger age than we did, and never knew life without computer/DVD/apple products/etc. And someone who was 10/11 during 9-11 would have processed and understood that event a lot better than a toddler would have (we have clear memories of when the U.S. felt like a safer and more secure place and remember what it felt like to lose that feeling). Hell, I VOTED in the 2008 election! This is why it flabbergasts me that all these sources are starting to list the early 90s as the beginning of Generation Z. What universe do the people behind these sources live in? I feel like they are just using 1990 because it's a convenient starting point at the beginning of a decade, which is just lazy and arbitrary, rather than considering cultural experiences of the individuals. I wish I could reach out to them and slap some sense into them. Damn if history is going to remember me as part of the generation that loved Hannah Montana and Justin Bieber and probably wouldn't know how to rewind a VHS tape. MarkMc1990 (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Like (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 02:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Generations are some abstract construct. To build them we make statistics. We can't know WHEN Gen Z+1 will be there. It is already difficult to know the start date of Gen Z. You know for sure when a generation is about 25 years old, because recruiters, advertisers have a lot of statistics and notice that they now have a 18-24 group that is now homogenous and has changed radically in a few years. They have hints a few years before when they look at the data and see that it is less and less homogeneous. By applying clustering methods they have even more hints.

Cultural Generations last on average 20 years, but it depends on world events. Researchers feel that Gen Z starting point is 1990 exactly because as you said at 10 years old you were able to understood the signifiance of 9/11. People who were born in the 80's had the same shock when the berlin wall fell. However, if the same world changing event happen when you are 20 it's a different thing. You have already perhaps a political affiliation. You not only understand that this is a life changing event but you decipher it according with your worldview. When I was a kid and the berlin wall fell, I didn't care about communism demise, or about capitalism, or anything else. I just understood the world would be different starting that very night. And I remember vividly how everybody seemed happy that night and looked at their TV screen in amazement.

Current data seems to corroborate a changeover in 1990 but researchers do not yet have enough data to make a conclusion. What we know for sure is that data in the 18-24 age base is no longer homogeneous on a lot of questions. The next generation is coming. But after that we can't know anything. We will know in 2025 is people born in 2000 are from a different generation of those born in 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.179.123 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the original post. Seriously what the hell is it with grouping early-mid 90's births into Generation Z? These kids remember 9/11, came of age with the same culture and experiences as Genration Y (VHS-DVD transition, Pokemon, 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, Harry Potter, etc). As for the Berlin wall, come on! I was born in 1989 and I don't remember the Berlin Wall at all. Same with other 80's births. Except for people born in the early 80's, no one born in that decade remembers the Berlin Wall falling, and if they do they were too young to really get it's significance. I spoke with a friend born in 1984 and he barely remembers the fall of the Wall at all. Generation Y is not a Cold War generation. We are a cohort not shaped by the Cold War or the events that ended it. Those that were should be rightly regarded as late Generation X'ers. I meet lots of early 80's types who feel they belong in Generation X more than Generation Y due to differing memories and experiences (like walkmans, GI Joe, Berlin Wall, etc). And I can't blame them. They are a different generation from us and should be identified as such. Rather than be the barometer for Generation Y, as this article suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.88.115 (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The trouble for me is that all of this is just speculation at this point. We just don't really know what will define, and most importantly separate the generations for people who are young now. Maybe it will be the widespread use of the internet, maybe it will be 9/11, maybe it will be the economic slump. At this point it's largely hype and speculation to say one way or the other, and really can only reinforce pre-existing biases. I'm almost in favour of deleting pages like this, since they just don't make sense.Peregrine981 (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

When Was Generation X renamed Generation Y and Generation Y re-named Generation Z?

According to this article, Gen Z starts in 1990. As somebody born in 1990, I find it highly insulting that I'm lumped in with a current baby and considered different from someone just a couple years older than me and born in the '80s.

Yes, it's true, if you were born from December 1989 onwards, you would have turned 18 when the economy went to crap. But if that's your argument for starting Z at 1990, why not even inch the 80's born into Gen Z? Someone born in 1991 could have easily worked in 2007, minor teens do indeed work, and someone born in 1986 might not have got a job until 2009 when they got out of college. Thing is by the time you're including people born in 1986 into Gen Z, you've pretty much re-named Generation Y Generation X. Certainly a generation can't be a mere 7 years, so you'd have to now begin Generation Y in the early 70s or even late 60s if 1986 is borderline Z!

I was born in January 1990. I grew up with cassette tapes, both VHS video and audiocassettes for the car and recording. At school my teachers used slide projectors and a real blackboard. No I don't remember vinyl records and I think only the very oldest Gen Ys are likely to, however I am now into records as a hobby and own a player. True, I have used a computer as long as I can remember, but my dad is an electronic engineer, so I probably would have even if I was born in 1984 in my case.

MySpace didn't come out until I was 13, Facebook wasn't popular until I was 18. I only had dial-up until I was 15 and my family upgraded to broadband. Very little is recorded of my childhood except for some baby videos and videos of when I was a preteen, all of my childhood photos were taken on film cameras. I remember when the Simpsons was considered edgy and controversial and when profanity on TV was a new and shocking thing. I am from the United States and the vast majority of people my age are white, especially in Oregon where I live. I love all people but I don't really have very many friends who are different races and ethnicities than me because I'm not surrounded by diversity.

I grew up watching Nicktoons and Disney Channel original movies, not Hannah Montana and iCarly.

I'm sorry but there's just no way a 1990er is the same generation as someone born in this century or even in the very late 90's. My younger brother born in 1999 has a vastly different experience of history than I do. Maybe there are some slight demographic or opinion differences between a 1990er and a 1986er but I think it's relatively small and will be dwarfed by the differences between a 1994er and someone born in 1998. Belmont22 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've tried to argue, mostly at Gen X and Y, these generations should not be seen as divided by strict boundaries. These are cultural generations, not strict demographic cohorts, so it is simply misleading to say that everyone born in Year X until December 31 has attributes a,b, and c, while anyone born after that doesn't. They will tend to blend into each other over a period of years. A lot of factors will influence you at least as much as your birth year, for example geographic location, cultural background, social class, education, birth order, etc... Personally I think that the effect of a generation has been over-exaggerated in recent decades because of the baby boomers. That group was much easier to define, and did have more binding similarities than groups that came after, because it was tied to real historical events and a period of rapid social change. However, once we get into the X,Y,Z generations I personally find most arguments about their common bonds to be much less convincing. Obviously there are differences between someone born in 1970 and someone born in 2000, but I find that most accounts can't really get their stories straight about exactly what the differences are, other than factors such as age or economic differences (or trivialities, like what music they liked as children). Not to say this couldn't change in future depending on events, but for the moment I think it is far from clear that there are truly important differences between people born in, say the last 30 years of the 20th century. (Too early to tell for 21st century). Anyway, all personal opinion, but that's my two cents.Peregrine981 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Social networking - Recent

I'm still uncertain about some of this page's content. I'm not sure if the "recent cultural development" of the "rise of social networking" is a grounded argument for dividing Gen Y and Gen Z between 1989-1994. Social networking has been on the rise for quite a while, since the advent of technology like web rings, online messaging, personal web presences (blogging, sites), forums, (and perhaps most notably) MySpace in 2003 and LiveJournal in 1999. Many 1980's born members would have access to this technology in K - 12. I'm not sure if the immense popularity of Facebook/Twitter/YouTube is enough of a cultural divide since it's not exactly a brand new technology. Certainly one can argue that these platforms make social networking more accessible as it combines many of the above, increases the ease of sharing large media (video) and it's common for multigenerational members of a household to have a Facebook/Twitter account. However, the concept of social networking (online messaging, connective web presence, sharing media and information, coordinating and creating school projects online) is hardly new.

Moreso, I'm unsure if user speculation belongs on the main page. --Courtlea (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I have difficulty understanding how "as of October 2012 half the users of Facebook are 22 years old or younger" is support for a generation gap. This can also read that half of Facebook users are 22 or older. The median age (22) of Facebook users being reported by Poynter does not take into account the users who do not display their age (thus may not be included in calculations for this median) or represent the usage amount by individuals at any given age. The median age appears to fluctuate rather drastically as well - the referenced article states the median age was 26 in 2008 but 19 in 2006. Consequently, I believe that using the median age of one social networking platform is not sufficient support for determining the start/end dates for Gen Y & Gen Z. --Courtlea (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right. That paragraph is pretty much all WP:Original Research/personal speculation. It should be removed ASAP. I would do it, but am in a hurry now. Feel free to do so. Peregrine981 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Early-mid 90s babies are not Generation Y, they are Generation Z

I am in college and I actually seen a change in the way my peers acted in the last 4 years in college and I can see that as early as the high school class of 2009 or 2010. Think about the culture that a kid has now versus a kid that was raised in the late 1990s - it is not much different. By about the late 1990s, kids started to worship these Disney pop stars as much as they do now and Disney started to turn into this live action stuff around 1999, which is definitively Generation Z. Lizzie McGuire is a lot like Hannah Montana in many ways - there is no distinct differences. In the early 1990s, Disney Channel just showed Walt Disney cartoons and I don't remember watching these type of cartoons that much. *NSYNC, Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys - they are pretty much in many ways the Justin Beiber, One Direction, and Miley Cyrus, same package. Radio Disney hasn't changed a bit since it first come out. Disney Channel really haven't "changed" that much since about 1999 - I don't truly remember that much "old school" Disney Channel.

Look at college students that are even 21 or 22 years old - they are more clean cut and conformist which shows a generation gap already. It is the way they dress - the Generation Y clothing such as the tramp stamps and the whale tales along with hip-hop inspired clothing is not popular anymore. Now it is all about country music, Taylor Swift, and Justin Beiber, and the rap has cleaned up. Emo music in 2005 is a lot different than emo music in 2010. Emo music has turned into this conformist Warped Tour stuff like The Maine than this Hawthorne Heights, Taking Back Sunday. Generation Z actually extends throughout most of the 1990s. I am born in 1991 and I relate better (or it is just me) to a person born in 1997 than a person born in 1987.

Most of the stuff we have since about 1991 or so is still around today such as casual clothing, China imported stuff, gangsta' rap, etc. Nothing changed.

There are people born in 1990 that do act Generation Y ish and there are people born in 1990 that act like a person born in 2000, pretty Generation Z ish. It is how you interpreted it and it could be anytime in the 1990s is when Generation Z is born. It is not all about the digital divide - I was using the internet when I was 4 or 5 years old and I was born in 1991. That's pretty native. It is all about the culture and it seems very distinctive, and little kids are very similar in attitude to even people up into college. Not every 1990 born person is nuts about the Occupy Movement - there are some that are rather conservative that age too. There could be a more conservative, moral end of Generation Y as well. Generation Y doesn't have much moral but these 90s born kids - even in the early 90s are pretty "clean cut" and "conservative."

There is something that you should consider - it is the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 along with the internet came out in 1991. A person born in 1988 was still in the Cold War Era and pre internet era, even though they know the Web. Then the acceptance of multiculturalism was even starting to take place when I was as young as 4 or 5 years old. I had helped with a preschool and the preschool now has not changed that much since I was a young child. They are playing the same games and learning the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.254.184 (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. However, I should point out that wikipedia can only accept arguments for "reliable sources"... ie. published items. (WP:SOURCE for more info) So, you will have to find published articles to support your argument if you want to include it in the wikipedia article. (Incidentally I'm a bit confused about what you are saying. Are you saying that gen Z is, or is not like gen y? A lot of your examples seem to suggest there is no real difference, but then you imply that Generation Z is more "clean cut and moral" than Gen Y. Also, you should consider that this is all your own subjective experience, which is perfectly valid, but maybe is not applicable across the whole world, leave alone across your own country or even region. Also, anyone who is gen Z is maximum about 15/16 years old, so it's hard to compare them to older generations.) Anyway, I hope you migh consider editing the article and helping out to make it better. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Peregrine981. The primary problem with your arguments is that they are based on original research/observations. Right now, there's nothing substantial or supportive enough to justify an early 90's start date for Generation Z.

I'm confused as to what you are saying - some of your statements seem to indicate large changes have occurred (Disney programming, fashion, music, rap, emo music) but at the same time you are saying not much has changed since 1991 (casual clothing, rap, imported goods).

While your points are food for thought and base themselves on times changing, some of the changes you mentioned can happen every few years or aren't really drastic. Fashion is ever changing - the whale tail you mentioned was around for about 5 or 6 years before it got old while other trends can last anywhere from a season to a few years. Clean cut, "classic" fashion is ever present - any generation can encompass a number of fashion trends. Disney stars have been worshipped since Hayley Mills in the 60's. The 1989-1995 Mickey Mouse Club was a popular program, launching the careers of former Disney stars like Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. Original Disney programming has been present since 1983 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_Channel_series#Disney_Channel_series ) and Gen Y also grew up with NSYNC, Britney Spears, and the Backstreet Boys. In addition, somebody born in 1988 is not likely to remember life before the collapse of the Soviet Union, being only 2 -3 years old at the time and multicultural awareness in schools has existed before the 1990's (see http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/edchange_history.html for brief timeline on multicultural education history). I'm not sure how these arguments position a person born in 1990 in a different generation than somebody born in the 1980's.

It's fine if you relate better to a person born in 1997 than to one born in 1987 - how you feel is totally fair. However, as Peregrine981 stated, you would need to find valid sources to support your argument to include them in the Wikipedia page :) --Courtlea (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone born in 1990, I feel I have very little in common with people born in 1997 like you claim you do. For example, I didn't have a fancy iPad when I was a child/young teen like many kids born in and after that year do...how could I when they didn't exist until I was about 20 (in fact, I still don't own one nor do I care to own one). My family never even owned a computer until 1999 when I was almost 9. Early '90s babies aren't as "born under technology" as some people would imply. People just want to throw the early '90s in with the later 90s because its convenient (and lazy) to have everyone born in the same decade together. On the other hand, I notice no cultural difference between myself and my friends and relatives born in the late '80s. But, having said that, it's about sources, not our observations. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, in regards to your comment about clothing in 1991 still working today, take a look at some home videos or photos from 1990-91 when we were born. You'll probably notice the fashion still looks quite like it did in the '80s or at least very out of date. High-waist/tight-fitting jeans (a lot acid wash), perms, mullets, flannel, lace, turtlenecks, jean jackets, big glasses, high-top shoes (doc martens). Things that would be laughed at if worn today. As far as culture goes, TMNT, glam metal, Roxette, Depeche Mode, NES, cheesy old school hip hop...decades blend together, which is why it doesn't make sense to label generations according to them. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I was born in 1990 as well. It's too simplistic (and ridiculous) to think that people born in the early 90s are somehow the same generation as somebody who won't graduate high school until the late 2020s! Seriously, we can remember (very clearly, I might add) both a pre-9/11 world and core 2000s culture. Can someone born in 1997 or 2005 say the same? I grew up with Sega, NES, and the N64; not the Wii or PS3. And music during my middle school years was dominated by the likes of Eminem, Avril Lavigne, Missy Elliot, and so forth. They're less relevant today than they were in the past and catered mostly to a generation y audience. Also keep in mind that 80s culture strongly influenced our upbringing. With that said, I think that 1989-1994 all belong to generation y; period. 75.106.229.143 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just stick to the basics

Wikipedia:Five pillars

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view.

Wikipedia is free content.

Wikipedia has a code of conduct.

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

There is nothing new under the sun, and certainly nothing new going on with this crappy article that Wikipedia hasn't seen before. Uncited content needs to be swiftly removed, and cited content should not push a certain POV or be removed without building consensus here on the talk page. We definitely need to have the main alternate phrases in bold in the intro because "Generation Z" has not been universally accepted by media and academia. Let's be adults --even those of us who legally aren't adults yet-- and avoid a lame edit war. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 03:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I for one have been trying my best to root out unsourced material on this page for the past few weeks, and I think we are now at a point where most of it has at least a somewhat reliable source (though some of it is still fairly un-authoritative IMHO). As far as the names in the lead goes the trouble is that there are so many names that the lead will get completely overwhelmed by them (most of them pushed by a single source). Gen Z is by far the most common as far as I can tell. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Generation Z was a name created by the marketing industry for the next generation AFTER Millennials. The true name for the next generation will most likely NOT be "Gen Z". However, some people believe it's a valid term. So we're in a holding pattern until we learn what the consensus name will become. That's the reason for the confusion. It's not POV pushing to not bold the other terms. There is no need to bold "other terms". It serves no purpose. Media67 (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)