Talk:Generation Z/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

C-Gen

a Little soon to talk about Z-Gen, all the same 2013 from my notice, I follow a EIIL workshop where we talk about the C-Gen, as "connected" generation :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascal.kotte (talk • contribs) 05:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Generation Alpha

There's been some discussion whether or not generation Z has ended or not and talk of a new generation being born described as Generation Alpha. Often referred to as the touch screen generation. We are seeing small children interacting with smart hones and tasblets in a way Generation z never did. Notable differences between gen Z is the way entertainment is consumed. Generation alpha would be the first generation to have on demand content available for viewing in a way those born and raised in the oughts didn't experience. future trends with alpha indicate that they will be the first to experience video games in a way those before them never did. With digital distribution of video games becoming extremely popular in tha lest few years. This generation will be more familiar with picking a game from a menu than inserting a disk or other medium Theset of these individuals are no more than 3 or 4 but given 10 years this group may find the idea that one couldn't enjoy a movie or tv show without purchasing home media such as Dvds or blu-rays utterly foreign something gen z many in their 20s at this point on the future wouldn't Of course the cutoff date for this will be debated as other generations are Many may call the cutoff for gen z as early as 2009 while other may point to a date in the near future that has yet to occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongeboy1985 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Peregrine981 (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

---

I propose that Pluralist Generation be merged into Generation Z. This has been discusses several times. It seems to me that not enough evidence has been brought forward suggsting that the Pluralist Generation is really separate from Generation Z. Any info there can be mentioned on Gen Z page. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Peregrine981's proposed merge into Gen Z. Media67 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

There is an article on wikipedia for what is called the Pluralist Generation, which seems to be the exact same thing as Gen Z. I might suggest merging the articles or redirecting Generation Z to that article, as that one has an actual name, seems to cite more defining characteristics, and the birth dates used seem more viable (purely my own opinion, I admit). Also, I'm confused why this article focuses so heavily on "Generation 9/11" which is stated as people born between 1980 and 1991...seems more appropriate for the Gen Y/Millennial article, no? MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Generation Z is not a perfect name, but as has been discussed before, it will likely change at some point in the future when the characteristics of the generation become clearer. For the moment it seems to be the most common name, so I would suggest merging "pluralist generation" into this article (as I originally proposed some months ago). Maybe pluralist generation will emerge as the consensus name, maybe not. For now it is basically a marketing gimmick. I also agree that there are clearly balance issues in this article at the moment, but I think that is an inevitable part of this article for the moment, since there isn't all that much quality, verifiable research about it, and the definition itself is in flux. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Peregrine981's proposed merge into Gen Z.Media67 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Will more information from the Pluralist Generation article be merged into this one? This seems rather sparse. HtownCat (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add more if you like. I added what I thought was most notable. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Beginning birth dates

Why was the edit reverted back to early 2000's? While many people start Gen Z at the early 2000's, I think it's more appropriate to say it's beginning ranges anywhere from the mid 90's to the early 00's, since those are the most common dates and it varies greatly for different people, and last time I checked, there is no official start and end date for Generation Z. 1995, for example, is a very common beginning year for Gen Z, and many people have a different opinion on it. Some start it at 1997, others at 2000, and so on. Same thing with the end date: many people end it at 2009 or 2012, others don't end it yet until some point in the near future (early 2020's at maximum). Just like Gen Y, which many people start it at either the late 70's or the early 80's (most commonly the latter), and end it, well, anywhere from the mid 90's to the early 00's. Although, I guess you could say mid and late 90's babies are the Y/Z cusp, just like how late 70's and early 80's babies are considered to be the X/Y cusp, thus, being part of Generation Y. Your thoughts? 64.237.230.22 (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In our own sources it says 1995 (Horowitz)... Peregrine981 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't agree. The Horowitz article uses Strauss and Howe's "Homelander" dates -- 2004 to the present day. If you use 1995 as "Gen Z's" first birth year then the Millennial generation is what -- from 1982 to 1995 -- a 13 year time span? No, a generation is more than a 13 year time span. Even the dictionary says a generation is 25 to 30 years long. Cutting the Millennials back to 13, 14 or 15 years is not intellectually honest. Media67 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Quoting directly from the Horovitz article [1]: "Whatever you call it, the still-forming generation of young folks whose birth dates roughly begin around 1995, will be the technically savviest ever." So, whatever you think of it, one of our main sources uses 1995 as an approximate start date. Maybe that's predicated on an earlier start date, say 1977 as some sources use. So, it isn't impossible, especially if you take it as a "loose" start. Also, some people argue that cultural generations are getting shorter and shorter as culture moves more quickly. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Ad Age source uses 2005 to identify "post-Millennials". Strauss and Howe use 2005 to the present day for Homelanders in the Horovitz article. Media67 (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC) I

Although the Ad Age article is being used as reference, I think people may be drawing a conclusion from it that may not be there. The Ad Age article states that Nickelodeon "is turning to a new breed of kids it dubs 'post-millenials'" and in the next sentence says "Nickelodeon is looking to serve children born after 2005." From those two sentences some are concluding that "post-millenials" are "children born after 2005." I submit, however, that the Ad Age article may have been saying that while Nickelodeon serves post-millenials the cable channel is looking to serve a segment of that group, namely those born after 2005. Therefore I second the proposal of Peregrine981 that the citation (footnote two) be removed from its present location and used as part of the general discussion of beginning dates as I believe it is supportive but not definitive in its current usage. Bcrafty

And Horovitz himself clearly uses 1995, as demonstrated above. The research on "plurals" says 1997. There is no consensus around 200x, so presenting it as such is untrue. Mid 1990s to present is more accurate wording. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Horovitz's exact wording is Gen Z's birth "dates roughly begin around 1995". "Roughly" and "around" do not equal the "mid-1990s" or the year 1995. "Roughly" and "around" could mean 1994, 1995 or 1996. As you know Strauss and Howe use 2005 (and so does the Ad Age story) so if you want to split the difference then it makes more sense to write it like this -- "Generation Z is a name used (although other terms exist) for the cohort of people born from the latter 1990s or from the early 2000s to the present day who are distinct from the preceding Millennial Generation". Or we can use Strauss and Howe's beginning birth date of 2005 instead. Strauss and Howe are famous for their work regarding generations and that is the focus of their work exclusively. Media67 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I want to thank you for taking the effort to discuss this issue on talk. I appreciate the distinciton you are trying to draw regarding the quality of sources. Hopefully we can come to a satisfactory conclusion. I understand "roughly" to be a standard qualifier used for generational dates, since they cannot really begin or end on a very specific date, but rather emerge over a period of years. And by your logic it could equally plausibly mean 1994, 1993, or 1992. So, I think that "mid" is a more accurate representation of the sources. I can find several apparently credible sources using 1995 on a cursory search of google books, or a simple web search: Simply using the Strauss & Howe definition because they are famous would be a breach of NPOV. You can argue that their books have more authority than a simple newspaper article, that is certainly true, but there are clearly other researchers and authors using a quite different definition that I don't think can be dismissed out of hand, and without some secondary evidence that their conclusions are faulty. At the same time, we are using the Horovitz article as a source for several other facts in the article, so if we then start cherry picking the facts that we like, that is clearly problematic from a logical perspective. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Horovitz's wrote "roughly begins in the mid 1990s" -- the word "begin" would make the first date start in the mid-1990s (not BEFORE) 1995. Anyway, the first birth dates from the sources are 1995 to 2009. The exact mid-point is the year 2000. Media67 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"roughly" 1995 indicates that there's no precise date, therefore it was somewhere +/-1995. Based on that wording there's absolutely no reason it couldn't be before 1993. Yes, it "started" somewhere around 1995, maybe a bit before, maybe a bit after. At any rate, if "mid 1990s" is to have any meaning, surely it must include 1995, so I would propose this wording: "Generation Z is a name used (although other terms exist) for the cohort of people born from the mid 1990s or from the early 2000s to the present day who are distinct from the preceding Millennial Generation." I would also propose to remove the citation and leave it under the definition of the dates further on, where we can cite all of the sources on an equal basis. Otherwise we risk overwhelming the intro with dozens of sources. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This was my point -- that you're being very technical. Only one source says roughly around the mid 1990s (a source that I added to this page btw). Others like Magid say 1997 (or 1998). Others like Ad Age and Strauss and Howe say 2005.

I propose to leave it the way it is currently worded right now. That way it is not biased to the year 2005 or to the year 1995. It's on either side of the year 2000. Go ahead and remove the Ad Age citation (from the introduction). But if your wording is biased towards the year 1995 in the intro then others can use similarly biased wording towards the year 2005 in the intro. That was an excellent idea to create a section called "dates" that describes the controversy there. Media67 (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What about the three other sources that use 1995 that I listed above? There are many, many books that use 1995. Just do a quick google books search. It's not an outlier. 1995 is clearly "mid 1990s", so saying that authors use dates starting as early as the mid 1990s is accurate. I don't think it is being "biased" toward 1995; it's just saying that that is the earliest used date in reliable sources. 2005 is not the latest, since by all accounts the people being born today are part of this generation. It isn't meant to favour one date or the other, just to establish the usual range (as we have done in the other generational articles, fx Gen Y which cites late 1970s as a start date).Peregrine981 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

How it's currently written accomplishes what you're proposing. It's a compromise between 1995 and 2005 on either side of the year 2000. You've already outlined the controversy in the "date" section so it's an accurate representation. It similar to the Millennials page compromise. I don't see what the problem is. But if you insist on using mid-1990s then we have to use 2005 in the intro. as well. But isn't the introduction supposed to "summerize" the bigger picture rather than getting into all the details? That's why it makes more sense to summerize it the way that it's already written.Media67 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The intro should reflect what is in the article. This isn't a contest between those who use 1995 and 2005. Many different people are going to use different dates betweeen those dates, so we are establishing a range of dates here. We can't just average it out and call it a day, that isn't the way that social science works. Taking an "average" and presenting it as a consensus position will hide more than it illuminates. I don't see how saying "mid 1990s" is any more "detailed" than saying "latter 1990s"? It's exactly equivalent in terms of detail. I don't understand your insistence that if we include "mid 1990s" we MUST include the year 2005 for some reason. If I said "1995 is the starting point", I could see the use of saying "some authors believe 2005 is the starting point." In this case we are just saying, the earliest dates commonly used by researchers is the mid 1990s, while others use later starting dates... Perhaps we could reword it to make that more explicit if you would like. Peregrine981 (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The second paragraph states that there is a disagreement. Sorry but a generation isnt a 10 or 12 or 15 year time span. Look it up in the dictionary (seriously). It says a generation is at least a 25 -- or even 30 year time span. Again, if you want to use mid-1990s then you need to use 2005 in the intro. Using mid-1990s cuts the Millennials back to a 13 year definition. Please look at the change that was made to the introduction. It describes everything in one paragraph. Media67 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there is a disagreement is exactly why we have to establish a range of dates in the intro.... By saying "from the mid 1990s" is not saying it is necessarily from those dates only, just that it is one of the dates used.... If we presume a start date to Gen Y of 1977, that gives Gen Y 18 years based on a 1995 end. Not unreasonable. No where does it say a "cultural/social" generation has to be 25-30 years (a family generation is another thing). (let's just take the most common dates: boomers=44-64 (20 years); 1980-95 would only be one year less, and 1977-95 is comfortably more than Gen X.) Anyway, it is, as usual, not for us to determine what is and is not an acceptable span. Any number of factors could shorten or lengthen a generation. We can only repeat what the sources say, and these sources, clearly and unambiguously use 1995. Equals Mid 1990s. I appreciate your constructive rewrite of the opening paragraph, but I consider it to by slightly redundant. How about this:

"Generation Z is one name used for the cohort of people born after the preceding Millennial Generation. There is no agreement on the exact dates of the generation with some sources starting it as early as the mid 1990s and others as late as the mid 2000s. This is the present generation of children who are still being born." Peregrine981 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How about this: :"Generation Z is a name used (although other terms exist) for the cohort of people born after the preceding Millennial Generation. There is no agreement on the exact dates of the generation with some sources starting it as early as the mid or late 1990s or from 2005 to the present day. This is the generation of children who are still being born." Media67 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I can live with that, although I don't really see the point of saying "mid or late 1990s". they start in the mid 1990s. BUT if you want to include, fine, why not :) Also, I prefer the phrasing "Generation Z is one name used" rather than the more cumbersome "is a name used (although other terms exist)", because it conveys basically the same meaning in a simpler way. Also not a deal breaker, but I would prefer it. Anyway, my main point has been addressed so continue as you prefer. Thanks for your collaboration. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

okay, thanks. Using mid to "late" shows that other sources use those dates (and don't necessarily endorse "mid" either). Media67 (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

SHouldn't you then also say "mid to late 1990s or early to mid 2000s?" Peregrine981 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, one note, shouldn't we say "mid 2000s" rather than 2005? It seems rather absurd to say that it is either a) mid-late 1990s, or b) 2005. What about 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004? Don't they count? Peregrine981 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources who use 2005 as the start date would classify 01' to 04' as the "Millennial" years (not Gen Z) hence the disagreement. Changed it to say "mid-2000s".Media67 (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Frustratingly stupid

Anyone else find it annoying that even though Hispanic isn't a race many of these demographers treat it as such? The pluralist generation? 24% Hispanic? I'd bet if we were using real races it would be more like 66% white but oh well. I'm just distressed that all of these supposed "professionals" can't even be bothered to understand the basics of the US census- it makes me wonder what kind of people are the many "professionals" in this society that they can't even understand a simple census! 96.231.17.247 (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to unmerge Pluralist Generation

My reason for requesting that we revert the merge between Pluralist Generation and Generation Z is as follows:

• The Pluralist Generation article had a lot more information than the current Generation Z article and thus gave a better idea of the general traits of the generation
• The Pluralist article explained the generation's general way of thinking in terms of the society in which they are growing up (referring to things like multiculturalism and social media)
• The Pluralist article had a lot more information in general than this one.

I'm not arguing that Pluralist Generation is the correct name for this age group, just that the article had a lot of information that was lost with the merge and there's really no reason that Pluralist Generation and Generation Z can't be different articles. We'll just need to explain where the different names came from. HtownCat (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're more than welcome to insert whatever info you think was useful from its history into this article. I think that is the best, most constructive course of action at this point. If you recall, we discussed whether the pluralist generation was really a separate entity from Gen Z. The result of that discussion was a resounding "maybe," with you promising to find info to substantiate the claim. That was in early October. The onus is now on you to prove that it is truly a separate concept from what is widely understood as "generation z" if we are going to split the articles. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I reject the idea of unmerging Pluralist generation. Pluralist generation DOES NOT reflect the traits of the generation after the Millennials because it implies a lack of majority. Hispanics are not a race, Frank Magid is an idiot. Gen Z he estimates to be "55% Caucasian" which I take to mean 55% non-Hispanic white. The Gen Z therefore is at least 63% white assuming the white Hispanics give birth to at least 1/3 of Hispanic children in America. The term Pluralist generation simply reflects a baby boomer understanding of the world given that prior to the suburbanization that undertook America after WWII the country was highly multicultural with rival ethnic neighborhoods in every large city. The resulting homogeneity came about due to the death of pre-WWII multiculturalism. Therefore no, I reject ever unmerging this article.96.231.17.247 (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2013 (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 Bieber, 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)

Please get your facts straight. The Internet did not "come out in 1991". Early, primitive packet-switched teletypewriter networks were developed and initially deployed in the mid 1960s. The proper name "Internet", short for "internetworking" when used to describe packet-switched wide area data networks, was first applied to these early networks in the early 1970s. The first vestiges of the World Wide Web began appearing around mid-1991, although it was initially proposed by Tim Berners Lee in 1989 March; a reaction to the fall of the ARPANET. Commercialisation and marketing of the World Wide Web into the horrible mess it is today, and its subsequent devolution to a delivery platform for stupid video memes and pictures of cute kitty cats began happening around early 1994. Although the World Wide Web, which is what you mean, is but one application of Internet technology, it is not "the Internet" in and of itself. Extremely common misunderstanding. 97.115.24.53 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting points, but as a 1990er I feel more connected to 80s babies than to babies born after 92/93. By the way, someone born in 1988 isn't going to have any memory of the communist era, and they would have been the center of the late 90s teen pop thing actually.

As for the whole gangster rap thing, I actually think early 90s borns might be the very biggest fans of it, though it has declined probably for people mid 90s born onwards.

And actually a lot of people even a few years younger than me seem pretty disconnected to today's pop culture. My sister is a 94 born and could care less about Gangnam Style.

I respect your point of view but maybe you just want to feel young? Personally as someone born in January 1990, while I'm jealous of people born in the 80s I feel much much closer to them than I do to today's children and teenagers. 24.20.40.61 (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2013 (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 might 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 worshiped 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, SNES, 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 Elliott, 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. I honestly think that 1989-1994 all belong to Generation Y; period. 75.106.229.143 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the post above. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish early-mid 90's babies from Generation Y. They ARE Generation Y. In fact, I would consider people born in 1990 to be the very core of Generation Y, which would run from 1983-2000. Even kids born in the late 90's have undeniably Y characteristics. I think there's too much emphasis on a clear cut 90's childhood when describing Generation Y. The culture of the 2000's (reality tv shows, mac technology, youtube, facebook, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama election, financial crisis, etc) was indispensable for the formative years of Generation Y and there's no guarantee that that culture will be the same around 2020's (when Generation Z comes of age). Hence it should be considered this cohort's defining feature. Any kid who came of age in that culture should be considered Generation Y of some sort or another. If you like, split the generation into segments - early Y (1983-1987) - mid Y (1988-1996) - and late Y (1997-2000). But don't insert arbitrary divisions into a natural cohort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.175.121 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: What makes it so "natural"? What is so clearly cohesive about the time span 1983-2000? Peregrine981 (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, if one were to ask me, I would say early 90's babies are definitely proper Y. They can remember a good amount from the 90's, were teenagers for a good chunk of the 00's, and I'm pretty sure the cultural difference between them and late 80's babies is minimal. I would say those born in the early 1990s are all Gen Y, while those born in the late 1990s lean more towards Z than Y. Of course, there is a cusp. In my opinion, the YZ Cusp is about 1994-2000. Mid 90's babies can remember the last few years of the 90's (memory generally starts at age 3) and turned 13 in the 00's, and late 90's babies have a heavy Y influence, even if they don't remember anything from the 90's and are Z for the most part, and the cultural difference between them and mid 90's babies isn't really all that big (I'm pretty sure a 1997er can relate more to a 1995er than a 2005er, for example). I would say Gen Z proper is about 2001+. But in the end, it's really all a matter of opinion, and there's a sea of all kinds of different combinations regarding the start and end date of Generation Y. I could be right, I could be wrong, and these kind of discussions often lead to broad generalizations of people regarding their birth year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.228.193 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No Generation Z starts in 2000, Generations are always done in 20 year increments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:6AF8 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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?

Introduction paragraph reference to "iGen"

202.166.22.207 wants to include "iGen" in the introduction paragraph but there are not alot of news sources (or academics) who refer to the cohort by that name. I move to remove it and leave it under the terminology section with the reference intact as it has been for some time. "iGen" also has a commercial connotation. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, not enough sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Special section for iGen and Plurals name needed?

202.166.22.207 wants to have special catagories for the names "iGen" and "Plurals". If so, please provide us with your reasons for -- or against below:

"iGen" --

(1) Not needed -- this term was used in the past for Millennials. See http://jezebel.com/millennials-dont-know-shit-about-clothing-care-1646751839 and http://adage.com/article/news/igen-influential-peers-household-buying-decisions/230427/

Jean Twenge:

"Back in 2006, Twenge, says she used the term "iGen" in a brief reference in a book she'd written. At that time, there was no iPhone or iPad. But there was an iPod and, yes, an iMac computer. She remembers getting the idea while driving to visit her mother-in-law, who lives north of San Francisco. Maybe it was because she was driving so close to Silicon Valley. It just popped into her head, she says, that iGen would be a great name for a generation — and for her book. She pleaded with the publisher to change the book's title, but the publisher found the term confusing and stuck with Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled and More Miserable than Ever Before".

The above book (Generation Me) is about the Millennials and younger Gen Xers -- not Gen Z. See the back cover.

(2) Not needed -- the term has a commercial connotation to it.

"Plurals" --

(1) Not needed -- why do we need a special catagory? Just let all the terms compete. 104.34.251.205 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Generation C introduction

I believe perhaps in USA Generation Z is a global adoption, but please have a look into: [2], we do use a lot also the Generation C. I don't want to argue, just add a missing additionnal world, was absolutly not told the previous version. I beg your pardon if not correctly writed, I add a few references into 'further reading'. Best regards --PaKo (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

PaKo, you've got the wrong article. This article defines Generation Z as "...one name used for the cohort of people born after the Millennial Generation." One of your sources describes Generation C as "...a term coined by Nielsen and Booz Allen Consulting in 20101 to describe millennials." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting Google NGram posted by PaKo above but it shows discussion in books about the terms "Gen Z" and "Gen C" back in 1980? I don't think that could be right. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If you dig deeper, you'll see that books were using A, B, C... as variables. Example. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, okay, the book is about physics though.....104.173.225.10 (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional of Centennials to the Generation Z page

Hi, I saw that you deleted my entry to the Generation Z page - this was actually my first contribution so I am not sure what I did wrong... I added the term Centennials as another popular name referring to Gen Z, which seemed to be in line with the rest of the content on the page and I thought it was an important addition. Below are some links to recent articles that reference this. Can you explain what I did or didn't do? Thanks

This has been widely used in the media: below are some links to recent articles that reference this:

Emsparenti (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)emsparenti

References

Emsparenti, I have copied your post to my talk page here, so other interested editors can participate in the discussion. The change you made requires sources that show that Centennials is a more popular alternative name for Generation Z than the other alternates listed in the Terminology section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

New info box added

This info box makes the range of dates very confusing. Why add another layer to what the lede already says. The lede was debated over a long period of time. Please see the talk page. 2606:6000:610A:9000:1D0F:636F:39A:867D (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The year info adds nothing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So, we have two editors who think it does add value, and two who think it doesn't. Such is Wikipedia. Scr★pIron^IV 13:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Beginning birth dates

Below is a discussion about birth dates back in 2013 that is useful: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:35, 14 September 2015‎ (talk • contribs) 2606:6000:610a:9000:89d9:b47b:2ee4:5cbd

(The editor had copypasted the whole of Talk:Generation_Z/Archive_2#Beginning_birth_dates here; I've cut it. Editors can click that link if they wish to read the old discussion.) --McGeddon (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you are THAT IP....

Direct quotes are not required; a reasonable rewording of the source data supports the contribution that you reverted with this diff.[3] But, as I have had to deal with you before, I will bow out of this "discussion" and let you have your little playground before you go running to an admin over it. It's just not worth it. Oh, wait - you already did.[4] Scr★pIron^IV 18:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, direct quotes are required. Wikipedia does not want any Original Research on its site. In fact, they want it removed "immediately". 2606:6000:610A:9000:1489:7F5B:75CB:18D5 (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this why you and I were having to discuss whether to say that Generation Z was "2001+" or "2001 onwards"? Direct quotes are not required, it is fine to WP:PARAPHRASE. --McGeddon (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

alternate names

the fact of there being alternate names is not a parenthetical, it is the only thing the article discusses about the subject (other than besides no agreement on the name, there is no agreement upon who it actually covers) . Per WP:BEGIN the lead should represent what the article covers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. Actually there is some stuff in there about the demographics and traits of the cohort, it's just lost among the coatrack of dates and definitions. I've split that out into separate sections, per the other generational articles, along with material from a few of the many sources written about the cohort. --McGeddon (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Statistics Canada quote

User:2606:6000:610a:9000:6879:44d5:db6d:a53a seems to think that a slightly inelegant quote from Statistics Canada should not be summarised, but gives no reason. Is there any harm in summarising it? --McGeddon (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It may be as you say "slightly inelegant" but we can't add our original research to a direct quote that will twist the meaning of the direct quote. Isn't that the definition of what Wikipedia calls Original Research? And why would you want to do that anyway? Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said to (presumably) you in the "Oh, you are THAT IP...." section above - no, paraphrasing a quote is not considered original research, so long as the paraphrasing is accurate. This is how 99% of Wikipedia is written. --McGeddon (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but paraphrasing isn't needed if a direct quote is more truthful to what the source actually says. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A direct quote is always going to be "more truthful to what the source actually says", but Wikipedia articles aren't long bulleted lists of what different sources said exactly, they're rewritten as prose with an appropriate tone. WP:PARAPHRASE explains, with its own italics: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words". --McGeddon (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you're definitely wrong when you change the intent and meaning of a direct quote (with your own words). Wikipedia wants Original Research removed immediately. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bad paraphrasing is certainly a problem and should be discussed and fixed when it arises. But paraphrasing by itself is not automatically original research. Paraphrasing sources is a fundamental aspect of how Wikipedia is written - do you disagree with this? --McGeddon (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In general, we do not want to be a quote farm and prefer paraphrasing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a case of WP:IDHT - I gave up on trying to reason with this IP. Explain a few more times that we are required to paraphrase and summarize; try to be nice, but it will all come back again with direct appeals to an admin.[5] Some articles just aren't worth the headache. Scr★pIron^IV 21:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my fellow Wikipedians but changing words of a direct quote to suit your own meaning IS the definition of Original Research. Otherwise, anybody could use your argument to change any direct quote on Wikipedia. So tell me what Original Research means to you?

I'm proposing to say exactly what Stats Canada said on their website and NOT what Globe and Mail said that they said. Go direct to the source instead of using the Globe and Mail's incorrect version. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:6879:44D5:DB6D:A53A (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If we actually had two sources contradicting one another, that would be a problem. (Although it wouldn't be original research, because original research is defined by Wikipedia as material "for which no reliable, published sources exist", not "which is sourced but is contradicted by other sources".)

But this doesn't seem to be the case: the 2015 article from the Globe and Mail says "Statistics Canada says Gen Z starts with people born in 1993" and the 2011 article on the Statistics Canada site says "people born since 1993 have sometimes been designated as the new Generation Z or the Internet generation since they were born after the invention of the Internet" at the end of a section listing the generations, and includes a table that ends with "Generation Z (1993 to 2011)". --McGeddon (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why would we use a source that misquotes the original source? We should quote the original source with their exact words from their website otherwise you would be leaving information out that does change it's meaning -- even if slightly. I'm pretty sure that editors have the right to add exact quotes and other editors cannot stop it -- if the quote is highly relevant to the Wikipedia article. Thanks. 2606:6000:610A:9000:40A5:2C2:AE1B:2669 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You have failed to establish that there is any misquoting and as per the multiple policies and guidelines linked above NO WE SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZING DIRECT QUOTATIONS WHEN WE CAN SUITABLY SUMMARIZE AND PARAPHRASE. Please drop your stick. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't see how the Globe and Mail is misquoting the original source. The Globe and Mail says "Statistics Canada says Gen Z starts with people born in 1993", and the original Statistics Canada source says that Generation Z spans the years "(1993 to 2011)". --McGeddon (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The misquote is as follows:

"Statistics Canada defines Generation Z as starting in 1993"

What they actually say on their website:

"people born since 1993 have sometimes been designated as the new Generation Z or the Internet generation since they were born after the invention of the Internet"

I propose we do not misrepresent what StatsCanada said and just use a direct quote.

2606:6000:610A:9000:40A5:2C2:AE1B:2669 (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with this quote from Statistics Canada from the same document: "Generation Z (1993 to 2011)"?[6] —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

On page 6 it says the same thing "people born since 1993 have sometimes been designated as the new Generation Z". So those words should be included on our page. Stats Canada has a confusing explaination of cultural generations with a bunch of overlapping dates. They even catagorize a generation by a five year period of time --- that is really odd. I propose to leave Stats Canada out of the generations article completely. 2606:6000:610A:9000:40A5:2C2:AE1B:2669 (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles mainly consist of paraphrased material. This article has an abnormal ratio of quotes, probably because of an undesired singular focus on terminology. Quotes should be used if they're particularly notable or if they convey subtle meanings which cannot be captured by good paraphrasing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay there is a "subtle meaning" that will be conveyed with a quote here. Stats Canada is not "officially" saying that Gen Z starts in 1993. They're saying that "sometimes" people born since 1993 have been designated as Gen Z. In other words, they are not taking an official position. AND as I said earlier Stats Canada should be left out of the generations articles. They have a very confusing and convoluted explaination of a cultural generation. For example, they claim that there is a generation who were born during a five year period of time -- that is ridiculous. See page 6 of this document [7] We should leave them out. Thank you. 2606:6000:610A:9000:40A5:2C2:AE1B:2669 (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As has been pointed out three times, the same document has a table and a graph that clearly names and defines a "Generation Z (1993 to 2011)". The "sometimes been designated as the new Generation Z or the Internet generation" line, which comes after that table and graph, would appear to be background context for how they selected the names and years of these categories. --McGeddon (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The chart does not supersede what the text says. The text also gives the reader context. And Wikipedia allows what I'm proposing, so why are you trying to stop it? Stats Canada should just be left out. They have little credibility when they are defining a generation with a 5 year span.

The next step should be to go to an admin board to get a broader range of views.2606:6000:610A:9000:BD14:DEDA:EF05:DFC4 (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

admins merely have mops, they have no special say in content decisions. However, if you think the half dozen experienced editors that disagree with you are all on the wrong side of the actual community consensus, then you can bring in more voices via a request for comment -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Unlock the page

McGeddon this is not your personal page to add what you want while it's locked. I've requested that the page is unlocked immediately. 2606:6000:610A:9000:BD14:DEDA:EF05:DFC4 (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected because you were edit warring, and had broken WP:3RR at Millennials. Normally your account alone would have been blocked for a short time, but since you prefer to use a dynamic IP address, the articles had to be semi-protected instead. Most editors are still able to edit it, it has not been made into my "personal page". You're welcome to make edit requests on the talk page, or to register a Wikipedia account. --McGeddon (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, you have been editing against consensus, which is the reason for the page protection. Read above, where your contentions have been refuted by multiple editors. It is perfectly reasonable for editors be allowed to make constructive edits while the page is protected. Scr★pIron^IV 15:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There is an apparent conflict of interest when an editor requests that a page is locked and then continues to edit the page because he/she has privileges.2606:6000:610A:9000:BD14:DEDA:EF05:DFC4 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It may be a conflict, but not a conflict of interest. There are plenty of times when established editors request a page to be protected from disruptive editing so that articles can be improved in peace. Scr★pIron^IV 16:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Improving the article "in peace" sounds like you don't like the freedom other editors have to voice their opinion. Just saying......2606:6000:610A:9000:BD14:DEDA:EF05:DFC4 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You voiced your opinion, other editors listened, and consensus disagreed with your opinion. The issue came when you refused to accept that. Just saying... Scr★pIron^IV 16:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with unlocking the page.2606:6000:610A:9000:BD14:DEDA:EF05:DFC4 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually it does. it quite establishes that you don't understand why the page was locked giving a very good indication that the locking was appropriate and necessary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The page didn't need an extra long lock because we've been talking out the disputed material on the talk page for days. That eliminates the page from any type of action to improve it for a long time.2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it has clearly been improved. It looks like the page protection has been mostly successful. Scr★pIron^IV 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Demographics section

How can this quote be true quote if almost one-half of this generation isn't born yet? Quote: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2015 Generation Z made up 25% of that country's population, making them a larger cohort than the baby boomers or millennials.

References

It sounds like you are starting off with a misconception. Reexamine your paradigm. Scr★pIron^IV 15:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What is your evidence besides your casual opinion not based on anything solid? 2606:6000:610A:9000:C136:4CA8:C25B:6D27 (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Think about it. The Census Bureau has clearly defined the ages of that generation in its evaluation, in order to come up with a precise figure. The US Government clearly does not agree with your internal assessment of the years of that generation. It would be interesting to see the criteria that the government has used to determine the years included in Generation Z. Scr★pIron^IV 16:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay I'll think about it. The Census does not define cultural generations, it counts the population. See ref. number four and click through to the report on Millennials if you're interested. I don't have time to do your research. Thank you in advance.2606:6000:610A:9000:C136:4CA8:C25B:6D27 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

A few sources use the 25% figure, only vaguely mentioning the Census Bureau. I don't think it's an obvious error - if Generation Z started in the "mid 1990s" and ended today, that's the same two-decade length as the other cohorts. But there's presumably a source somewhere between the Census Bureau (who don't seem to define cohorts by name) and the Forbes article, which takes population figures and applies them to generational cohorts. I'll see if I can turn anything up. --McGeddon (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Start Date(s) of Generation Z

Since generation z has a debated beginning point, I would like to discuss why you think it starts when you think it does. For example, I have found sources that state that generation z started 1993 (i.e. Statistics Canada, Aging and Society 7e, news articles)-->links below. I mean if you think about it, they were starting 1st grade in 2000 and in 2nd when 9/11 happened, therefore some might remember the event happening (but might not know the reasons behind it) and some might not. Generally speaking since generation z is the internet generation, these kids were 2 years old when the internet went public. I mean can we honestly consider children of 93 or even 94 not part of generation z. Additionally, I did further readings of generation y and it seems as though generation z is a subset of generation y; like a generation within a generation because they are not grossly different in life experiences.

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-311-x/98-311-x2011003_2-eng.cfm

https://books.google.ca/books?id=jLI8BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=generation+z+1993&source=bl&ots=mNffU6AcRd&sig=cI6-usZWn9LgPlrENqUiM4LjoEA&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=generation%20z%201993&f=false

http://www.imagination.com/who-are-generation-z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoults1 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the previous discussion about start dates (above). And people have written well researched books and academic articles that extensively discuss all the generational birth dates, check out those sources first. 2606:6000:610A:9000:CD39:EE6:43E6:601E (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I read the previous posts and it reiterated what I was thinking and have read before hand. It seems like that starts date(s) are a very subjective. For example, I can't imagine 93-96 children relating too much with late 80's children where as for 90-92 it is possible. All in all, I guess it is too subjective to give an exact start date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoults1 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this entire article is very misleading. It says that they surveyed Gen Z ages 14-23. That is impossible. Anyone over the age of 15 would be a millenial for sure. Since even the most conservative numbers show that millenials are as young as anywhere from 1995-2003. Therefore, none in Gen Z are even past the age of 18.

This page is in direct conflict with the gen y page, and it needs to be addresed.

Millenials are Gen Y, because of the year 2000. And all references on the millenial page date them up until 2003. Therefore, this page needs to address the very misleading information, and they need to get rid of such sentences in the page. Gen Z cannot be the same as gen y except for only a couple years. That doesnt make any sense. Gen Z starts around 2004, so none are any older than 15 at most. VisaBlack (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"mid or late 1990s to the mid 2000s"

How is the range of "mid or late 1990s to the mid 2000s" for a single (start) date any different from saying "mid 1990s to the mid 2000s"? An IP editor pointed to this old talk thread where one editor thinks it clarifies that some start dates are in the late 1990s, and the other editor can't see the point. We're talking about a single starting date - it's like saying "Jeff's birthday is somewhere between mid or late February and mid March". If you're defining a range, you only need to give the extremes of it. If we're trying to explain that there are clusters of start dates around the mid 90s, the late 90s and the mid 2000s, we should say that rather than giving a weirdly redundant "dates range from A to J, and that includes C". --McGeddon (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

More sources actually use late 1990s (than mid). So there is a distinction when we mention it in the lede --- it points that fact out pretty clearly. Back in 2013 (above), other editors discussed the difference and opted to put that information into the lede and it's been there for over two years. There's no new sources that would update anything (unless you can find it). In fact, there are alot of new sources since 2013 that use late 1990s. 2606:6000:610A:9000:54A0:EB05:7D0F:A9BD (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So what's a good way to express that? --McGeddon (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not? It sounds very clear. Also the Magid source after the wording uses 1997. We shouldn't misrepresent what they wrote. 2606:6000:610A:9000:54A0:EB05:7D0F:A9BD (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Like I say, defining a start date as being somewhere in the "mid or late 1990s to the mid 2000s" is no different to saying "mid 1990s to mid 2000s". Saying "mid 1990s or mid 2000s" would be wrong, but the article is saying "to": it's a range. If this sentence is trying to tell the reader something about the late 1990s, it's failing. --McGeddon (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Magid uses 1997 so I moved the sources to back up exactly what you said. Using "or" is okay because the preceding sentence says there is "some disagreement". The next sentence then describes what the disagreement is by using the word "or".2606:6000:610A:9000:54A0:EB05:7D0F:A9BD (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like we've drifted from "mid 1990s to late 1990s to mid 2000s" to "mid 1990s or late 1990s or mid 2000s" since my first comment, we're possibly at cross purposes now. I'll just copyedit what's there. --McGeddon (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

IGen in the lede paragraph

Can anyone tell us why IGen has been chosen to be an alternate name in the lede when the terminology section spells out that there are numerous other terms in contention? 2606:6000:610A:9000:54A0:EB05:7D0F:A9BD (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Those other terms are Homeland Generation (Howe), a run of "other names that were proposed" from USA Today (random members of the public, presumably), post-millennials (Nickelodeon using it as a name, Carmichael using it as a frame of reference), iGen (Carmichael and Twenge) and Digitarians (Puzzo).

In terms of weight given in the article, iGen is the only other term to have had more than one source arguing for its use. --McGeddon (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We'll we're not supposed to commercialize Wikipedia. Naming them after a product does that (somewhat). 2606:6000:610A:9000:54A0:EB05:7D0F:A9BD (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)