Talk:Generation Z

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

,


WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Delete the fashion section[edit]

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?

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

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)

Request to unmerge Pluralist Generation[edit]

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)

Beginning birth dates[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Introduction paragraph reference to "iGen"[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)