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.

New info box added[edit]

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. ScrpIronIV 13:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you are THAT IP....[edit]

Direct quotes are not required; a reasonable rewording of the source data supports the contribution that you reverted with this diff.[1] 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.[2] ScrpIronIV 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)

Beginning birth dates[edit]

Below is a discussion about birth dates back in 2013 that is useful: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:35, 14 September 2015‎ (talkcontribs) 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)

Start Date(s) of Generation Z[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raoults1 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Statistics Canada quote[edit]

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.[3] Some articles just aren't worth the headache. ScrpIronIV 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)"?[4]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 [5] 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)

alternate names[edit]

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)

Unlock the page[edit]

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. ScrpIronIV 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. ScrpIronIV 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... ScrpIronIV 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. ScrpIronIV 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Demographics section[edit]

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.[1]


  1. ^ Dill, Kathryn (6 November 2015). "7 Things Employers Should Know About The Gen Z Workforce". Forbes. Retrieved 12 November 2015. 

It sounds like you are starting off with a misconception. Reexamine your paradigm. ScrpIronIV 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. ScrpIronIV 16:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay I'll think about 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)