Talk:Generation Z/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Clarify

This sentence is incredibly hard to understand: "They will be politically active in their more successful stance, and literary and cultural figures and leaders during the next real cultural revolution period to the as-yet-unnamed generation activists born roughly between 2007 and 2023 or 2024, the children of the future "establishment" in corporate, political, and social America, Generation Y, the children of the baby boomers"

38.118.43.2 The whole article is a series of incoherent run-on sentences. 38.118.43.2

Agreed. Does anyone agree that this page needs to be wikified? Toveling 06:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC) ==

This page needs some major cleaning-up. While I wouldn't delete it (it appears there was a VfD at one point; I'm coming along much later with my observations), it does contain much in the way of speculation, research, and outright opinion. As someone who is an Gen-X, married to a Gen-Y (or right on the boundary), and the father of three Gen-Zers, I was rather surprised by the unencyclopedic characterizations of all three generations--especially in the case of Gen Z, all of whom are still children.

--EngineerScotty 20:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I edited the article. As pointed out above, Echo Boomers are Gen Y associated, not Z, so I've removed links and references. I also blew out large parts of the text referring to future projections for the generation. This is simply theory from the book Generations. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I added text pertaining to the controversy surrounding the naming of a generation that hasn't done much more than learn to use crayons... if they are even born yet. I also removed the POV references to Gen X parenting skills. Unless someone can cite sources for this, it's out. Beyond being POV it's simply a projection; There is no way to quantify Gen X parenting of this generation so early in the process. Some of the wording might be a bit awkward because I was writing it on the fly. If there are any grammar police out there, please hit this with the cleanup stick.--Isotope23 20:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Anyone have a problem if I remove the NPOV tag from this article? I'm leaving up the OR tag because I retained some previous info in my rewrite and I can't vouch that it is not original research.--Isotope23 20:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• I do. Gen Y and Gen Z are nothing but convoluted BS POV. Frankly both articles, but specifically this one should be deleted as POV and OR.Gateman1997 06:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

...

Let's see how will Gen Z turn out to be before we make conclusions.Zero (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen what the public schools are like for young children, I walk by them every day on my way to work. Generation Fat is apt! They don't seem to mind that they are fat, so I don't see how this observation threatens their happiness. Obviously with a more digital world less emphasis is put on things like exercise, or 'in person' interaction. It's not too early to see this is a generation is unique in this distinction, and I believe it will lead to some huge differences in their personal values, and possibly birth rates. Generation Y was seen as cynical and apathetic, Generation Z is too young to show signs of cynical, but I've seen enough to know a new record of apathetic is on the horizon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.1.7 (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tickle Me Elmo?

I don't care if that bit was cited, is it really relevant? This epitomizes the page. It's just a bunch of shit. 69.92.218.233 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted that section, because it was completely irrelevant. --Quadraxis (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Teenagers?

Why in the world are they called teenagers in this article? And then note the first birth date at 2001? Wouldn't the oldest Gen Z be 7? This page is a complete mess. Just get rid of it and wait a decade or 2 before bringing it back. 66.75.126.7 (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The oldest Gen Zs are around 11-12 so I think that's old enough to have their own article. We need an article about Generation Z so we can properly define where Generation Y ends. Gen Z starts around 1996 because kids born in that year don't remember life before the internet, 9/11 etc.. --Candy-Panda (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's so, the generations panel on the right-hand side of the page may need a major rewrite. - Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was born in 1996 and consider myself Gen Y since I can remember 9/11, 2000 Elections ext. I believe that January 1, 1997 is an appropriate begining date for Gen Z. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffy2032 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

YOU WERE FOUR02:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.131.67 (talk)

Australia-Centric

I think the fact that most of the section on what defines generation Z is from Australian sources presents a problem. For example, in Australia it may be the smallest generation they've had, but this is certainly not the case in the US, where generation Z could be considered a relatively large generation. Perhaps if some American sources were added the section would be more credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbird88 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this was just brought up for AfD...

but it's a clear fork of Internet Generation; it is a direct cut and paste, but done such that there are citation numbers without actual citations. Therefore, I believe it should be redirected to the aforementioned article. MSJapan (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On further thought, the article is fundamentally flawed - it's written about a generation that is hardly even born yet. The opening line says "today's newborns or those born after 2008", which means we're calling 3-month-old children and kids who aren't born yet "movie-crazed" and so on. This is wholly ridiculous, so I'm going to be bold and redirect this. MSJapan (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Internet Generation means anyone who grew up with the internet. Generation Z is the generation that comes after Generation Y. There is a clear difference though I will agree that the last version of Generation Z was terrible. It got worse over time to the point that it was outright wrong. It is now a stub.Kevin143 (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, given the lack of info on Gen Z on the internet, this article probably is a candidate for deletion, though the recent vote was keep. My personal belief is that more information on this topic will emerge, as Generation Z comes of age and gains an identity. It seems very likely to me that Generation Z will catch on as the name for that Generation in the same way that Generation Y is winning, so let's leave the article up until more information emerges and info emerges that makes it clear that Generation Z will be called something else. Kevin143 (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No topic

Although the last post ends in a ludicrous mentioning of human transcendence, his point does beg the question why have we begun some sort of generational countdown? What is this tendency in our social psyche toward self-destruction?

There is no more information on Generation Z. It exists as a term that is likely to gain consensus in the long run but right now is not quite defined. But it is popular enough as a casual term in the media now that it seems very likely to catch on. It will make us all at Wikipedia seem dumb to delete or forward this when the popular term for Generation Z hasn't been decided. But it seems likely that Generation Y will win for the previous generation and it just isn't likely that we won't complete the generation trifecta as a society. And it will be really cool if Generations X, Y, and Z happened to be the last generation of humans before transcendence. Unknown, of course, but it would be cool.Kevin143 (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This article has had it's day

Okay, I know this article has been on AfD three times now, but it needs another go on there really. Firstly, it does not cite any sources. It is also a neologism. Plus it really, really isn't notable. It is two lines long, so a rewrite really isn't in order, it makes more sense to delete. Also, the whole point of these Generation things (e.g. Generation X, Baby Boomer Generation etc) is that each Generation was predicted, and then when it reached adulthood, it was shown to have certain characteristics (like Generation Y is meant to be tech savvy due to the internet and games consoles). But we shouldn't make an article based solely on this tiny prediction (WP:CRYSTAL). And it's definition is poor anyway, "Generation Z is the generation that follows Generation Y, beginning very roughly at the end of Generation Y." What the hell is that? No time frame or anything. Yes, I know that the last two AfDs on this failed, but I looked at the article when it was nominated the last time and it has significantly changed since then, and not in any good way. I therefore propose it is deleted. Deamon138 (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Result of this discussion was a Merge of Internet generation, Generation_C , Generation V and Google Generation into Generation Z %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 04:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to propose that the 3 articles Generation_Z, Generation_C, and Internet_Generation be merged. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree they should be merged. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the consensus in the delete discussion for this article I opened seemed to be keep or merge. The three articles you mention are all the same concept, so they should be all in the same place, along with Generation V and the Google Generation which I believe are the same thing also. The new merged article could be called Post Generation Y or something perhaps. Anyway I support this merge, and think those two articles should be added to the three you mentioned already. Deamon138 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that in the previous AfD's on this article that many people often said that a merge would be better which is why I wanted to tag the articles and start a discussion on potentially doing that. I like the idea of Post Generation Y which helps eliminate the issue behind which letter choose out of the 3 (or 5). I disagree though about Google Generation and Generation V as the 3 that I mentioned above refer to a generation defined by birth dates and Generation V and google are a matter of a concept. Although I could see a merge where the other 2 are lightly mentioned in the PGY article, but only if there is question as to if Generation V and the Google Generation are notable enough to stand on it's own or not. I think Generation V and Google Generation fit more in line with terms like MTV Generation which has it's own article separate from Gen X. all the same, if the consensus is that they should all 5 be a single article I don't think that it is entirely unrealistic. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Generation C and Generation V are not serious letter choices. I don't think those articles would pass a deletion review. Generation C was invented by a marketing research firm and isn't used much beyond that marketing research firm. I feel strongly that all of the articles on this generation should be merged into Generation Z. Kevin143 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that neither would make it though AfD, and upon further investigation, I think perhaps Gen C goes closer to the Gen V group than anything. Perhaps it would make more sense to merge Gen V and C and possibly even google to one article and then Internet Generation with Gen Z with a rename to Post Gen Y? I found this about gen c here and here (the second is a blog that sites potential ref's but I don't feel like looking them all up) if not, perhaps an AfD on Gen V and a rewrite of Gen C. either way I am more than willing to help out.

My personal understanding of Internet Generation is that it is different from Gen Y and Gen Z and is kind of an intermediate generation between them. It seems like the equivalent of "MTV Generation." Internet Generation is a legit enough phrase though, but I think Gen C and Gen V are mostly made up and I'm not sure what content in them is significant enough to move over to the Gen Z article. For now I would like there to be two articles in this area: Gen Z and Internet Generation with the appropriate content from Gen C and Gen V and Google generation moved into Gen Z or Internet Generation as appropriate. Kevin143 (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is there a wikiproject for generation-topics? The deeper I get into the middle of this the more I start to think that perhaps these should all be grouped together through a common project because there is definately a huge amount of work to do on these articles! %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 01:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be called what people call it. "Post-Generation Y" is your coinage, whereas "Generation Z" is in relatively common usage, seemingly more commonly used than any other term for the 1990s+ generation.--Father Goose (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a really good point %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 05:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My new suggestion

Is that we merge all 5. I also would like some help if anyone is willing. I think we should give it a couple more days and then if no one seriously objects with good reason we should slowly work to merge all 5 of these articles into Generation Z. I will retag these 3 and tag the other 2 articles %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 04:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. There's not a whole lot of properly sourced content in the other articles, but we'll merge in what we can.--Father Goose (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest anything that doesn't meet wikipedia's standards be it WP:MOS, or WP:Note or just plain old WP:V should not be merged. We might as well leave it behind. if someone would like to rewrite it down the line the diffs will still be available on the redirect pages and they can copy it to their userspace to improve on it and then add it to the Gen Z article %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 20:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's a fine idea, I would encourage you to merge them whenever you have time. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with this idea. Deamon138 (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2008 (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.

Possible wikiproject?

I know that there has been quite a bit of discussion and debate over various things as far as articles about generations go so I thought I would propose a new Wikiproject, if you are interested in joining please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Generations %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 05:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew my proposal, I think (or more hope I guess) that cleaning up the generation articles is a short term task that shouldnt need something as long term as a project, or even a task force. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 20:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised by the lack of Wiki content on Generations. Discussions of Generation Y and Generation Z are becoming more and more common in the media, and I turned to Wikipedia to get an overview of what these two terms are understood to mean. I was rather surprised that there isn't much available. A Wiki project to expand the entire subject would be terrific! 86.154.171.34 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is there are only so many generations. We might could have a better chance if a group of us simply get together with the intention of improving the articles. Once they are improved then it wouldnt nessicarily be important enough to have a wikiproject for it, simply having the articles on some of our watch pages would help from there. If anyone wants I am willing to throw a page together in my userspace so that we can discuss and collaborate to improve these. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Rumble74

I'm not going revert these edits just yet, but they have problems. "The New Silent Generation" has about 1,000 Google hits (and 12 Google News hits), versus about 300,000 and 500 for Generation Z, so it definitely seems that NSG is not the most popular name. (Internet Generation is a close second to Z, though.)

The Washington Post article is exclusively about Generation Y and/or Millennials, not Z, so the line about "amassing debt" should be moved over to Generation Y.--Father Goose (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I reverted it, along with other extemporizing added recently by other users. Having rewritten the article recently based purely on published sources, I don't want it to degenerate into pure speculation and opinion. I don't like to do reverts of well-intentioned edits, but this is the kind of page that can change from an encyclopedia article to an op-ed in a heartbeat. If you can't attribute the statements you add to the article to a reliable source, don't add 'em.--Father Goose (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an article where almost every additional statement requires a citation. Kevin143 (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistancies with sources for birth dates

Strauss and Howe list in their book the beginning birth year as 2001. I agree, and lets face it these guys have never been wrong, it scary. A lot of the links by the way are australian which is POV toward one country in particular without a real global view. Also I appreciate the edits of some of the info I pasted as I began to doubt the relevancy myself. I also think it is a good idea to merge these articles, and be less specific about a generation thats likely not even going to come of age until 20 years from now, under a set of circumstances we can't yet even fathom. Rumble 74 (talk)

If you're talking about Generations (book), that was published in 1991 -- how can we claim that their prediction of a generation beginning 10 years in the future (at the time of publication) is definitive? I have a problem with their "generation" dates in general -- for instance, "Millennials" seems to have been chosen to coincide with the millennium -- the year 2001 -- and not with the social trends which can only be identified after they have occurred (and then, not precisely except for clear demarcations like the end of WWII and the baby boom). If there is POV here, it would be in favoring the predictions made in their book and failing to note that there is no one definitive answer.

Also, if you disregard the Australian sources, that leaves us with nothing but American sources, which is an even less balanced view.--Father Goose (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that dates in all of the generations articles are a swaying yet critical issue. I have brought this up in the talk page of the Gen Y article (which I have noticed you are also a regular contributor to). All I want to ask of my fellow editors is that whenever we edit, add, or redefine dates that we always show verifiable sources for this info. The reason is I have seen too many times where dates go back and forth and back and forth... It is almost as bad as edit warring yet it's between more than just a couple of people. The topics are much more notable than most and get alot of attention, I feel that means that they really should be as solid as possible. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging these 5 into Z

So far I have merged Internet generation into Z, I wanted to keep some of the content since while it isn't exactly the most encyclopedic of all content I think it could be improved in the hopes of improving this article in general. I have also closed the merge discussion. If anyone else is willing to help me out on this please consider adding whatever scraps you can get from the other articles as sub sections of the "Other Names" section, using an H3 header (ie: 3 equals on each side "===") Thanks for your input on the discussion, and if no one else has time I will be around to take care of it eventually it just may take longer to do is all %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now also merged Gen C to this article... I will hold out on google and v, because I am not so sure about those ones and don't really know if any of it is worth keeping. Personally I think neither really has anything worth keeping, which is my problem cause I hate the idea of blanking a page and not moving at least some of the content over. Anyway I will mull it over for a few days and just go for it if I can't make a decision %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 05:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I burned out on the article deletion arguments, but I think all the wikipedia articles with different names that are about this same generation should redirect to one article. But what that one article is called, I don't care. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Clear this up

I know that this needs to have to do with the article, so I'll do my best to fit this into that subject. I see that people are arguing on this page whether it should be deleted until people from this generation can write about it themselves...would I be considered a member of this generation if I was born in September 1995? The Generation Y spans from 1981 (I think) to 1995, and Z spans from 1990 to now, I remember reading from another article. Anyway, someone answer this, and I hope this has to do with the article enough, as it could show the arguers that some Generation Z members are in fact old enough to describe their generation, potentially. Thanks, TheWinstonator (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as the article says, the earliest members of Gen Z were born somewhere between 1990 and 2000+, depending on who you ask. The article's not in danger of being deleted anymore; during earlier discussions, it just wasn't properly sourced. Gen Z-ers being able to write about themselves isn't a factor. In fact, almost all such writing would have no place in the article, being what we call original research -- unless it was printed in a reliable source in the form of legitimate scholarship or journalism.--Father Goose (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for clearing that up. Winston^talk 20:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Generations C and Z are different

I've just discovered the merge of Gen C into Gen Z. In the work Jake Pearce and I have been doing, we feel Generation C is a psychographic, not a demographic.

Some of the key information that was on the Gen C page has been lost in the merge. It would be great if we could retain the Gen C page as it was, and link the Gen Z and C pages. Simon Young | Auckland, New Zealand (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by psychographic? Deamon138 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be right that Generation C being different. and after doing a little more research perhaps Gen C should actually be included in the gen Y article instead. All the same, I feel that honestly Generation C is not notable or widely enough accepted in general to warrant its own article, but that is my opinion. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 04:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What information from the Generation C article do you feel should be restored? Much of the information from that article is still intact here, though heavily rewritten, and we did ditch most of the "who's been commenting on 'Generation C' material" since it didn't actually say what those people had to say about Gen C.--Father Goose (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to isolate all of these "generations" and names for them. Young adults and pre-teens are living within similar social and technological environments, so it's hard to note what the difference is between them at this time. Stick to the sources is all you can do, and let them take the fall if they end up getting it wrong.--Father Goose (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed chart

I’ve removed the Strauss and Howe chart, which belongs only on the Strauss and Howe page. By putting that chart on each generation page, it gives a false impression to readers that that chart represents an official or widely-accepted list of generations, which is certainly not the case. While Strauss and Howe have contributed to our knowledge about generations, their theories are still very controversial, and have become very discredited in some circles. Many generations experts, for example, strongly disagree with the long length of their generational constructs. In any event, it was very misleading to put that chart on other pages than theirs.Wendy 2012 (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Model this article on Generation Y article?

Perhaps it would be best to model this article more on the Generation Y article, for clarity and consistency? I like the way the Generation Y article sets out clearly that defining generations is necessarily inexact. Also, as a non-American, I'm a bit vague about the age referred to by the phrase 'grade school'. Dan Gluckman (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Weaker on interpersonal relationships?

The final sentence of the "Defining Traits" section seems, to me, completely and obviously biased. The sentence makes it feel like the writer doesn't like the idea of a techno-centric society and injected this view, possibly inadvertently, into this article. "Heavy on stimuli and weaker on interpersonal relationships" is not a phrase that can be objectively illustrated, let alone simply thrown in at the end like it's obvious. Besides, a sweeping statement that Gen Z has no interpersonal skills because they're not exposed to interpersonal environments is not necessary. --68.36.56.107 (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

• • Delete. This page is worse than the Millennial generation page was, and so little is known about this generation that it is nearly all speculation. The page Homelander generation is like one sentence long and that is plenty.68.23.74.113 14:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Nominated by Peregrine981 05:48, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. There will always be a band of generations in all times.
• Keep. Some, but very little, use of term in sense given in article, but may need editing because my research finds more prevalent use of other senses. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Highly speculative, on the verge of being original research, just a restatement of someone's speculative opinion, adding nothing to the value of wikipedia.

[note: the above was written by Peregrine981 - RedWordSmith 06:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

• "but are oftentimes unable to give them life structure or to truly parent them in a way that will give them success in life, or to nurture them the way that Generation Y was."
• What a generalizing pile of crap. Definetly not written by someone in Gen X...
• How about "not smothered and robbed of independent thought like those in Gen Y"? Matthew
• Has some clearly biased passaages that border on flamebait:
  • "Because of the shady and loose parenting which many Generation Xers were given..."
  • "..sometimes seem to be "given it all" with none of the love attached that Generation Y usually received, their parents unable to handle the large families they had to make up for their own lost childhoods and personal voids as they, Generation Xers, were often also raised loosely."
  • "...with few controls or guidances given to them by their largely fairly unsuccessful parents"
  • I believe that this article is patronizing and condescending to Gen Z, saccharine praise of Gen Y, and blatant condemnation of Gen X. A little more balance would be of use here in discussing three generations who have yet to really leave their mark on society. Also, the repeated use of 'loose' in describing parenting and 'culturally unobservant' in describing Neil and Strauss, in the context of the biased text, stand out as catch phrases for those who may have an agenda in defining these generations and their relationships or least a bone to pick.

• True, but the "speculative opinion" is that of two highly-respected authors who wrote two best-selling books on the subject in the 1990s (rather surprised no one has actually started an article on The Fourth Turning yet, as has been done for Generations). That said, however, the term "Generation Z" has seen very little actual usage in everyday speech or writing; perhaps someone can jump in and change the article's title? - User:TOttenville8 12:42, 12 Sep 2004 (PDT)
  • Rename to what, though? I say keep until a better term comes along, at which point we simply rename this page. -Sean Curtin 00:34, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • In their later book - The Fourth Turning, which came out six years after Generations - William Strauss and Neil Howe use the term "New Silent Generation" (the page shouldn't be deleted altogether though) - User:TOttenville8 03:07 13 Sep 2004 (PDT)
• Delete. Speculative, obscure term as title. --Improv 20:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: We also have Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y articles, and Baby Boomer mentions Generation Z. I don't know enough about this kind material to judge whether this should be kept but made more NPOV. I suppose it could be sent to the purgatory of cleanup. Jallan 16:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - I personally have heard and read the term on many occasions. Because it is a real term, it therefore deserves to have a page on wikipedia. As the article points out, Generation Z will be a important subject in the near future. -- Crevaner 16:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP, for reasons explained above. -- Old Right 16:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Generations (book) where it is already mentioned appropriately. All the rest of the article is futuristic speculation and not appropriate for an encyclopedia even if sourced to the authors of the book. I found no evidence that the phrase "Generation Z" is in sufficient use outside the book to merit a separate article. If the phrase becomes more widely used, the article can be recreated based on its usage at that time. Rossami 23:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - the Generations series of articles is incomplete without it. perhaps some NPOVing? -Jal 11:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Generations (book), I agree what Rossami said. It is futuristic speculation and inappropriate--Janarius 02:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain, but I'm reminded of "Bastards of Young": "Willingness to blame us/ We've got no war to name us./ We are the sons of no one,/ Bastards of Young." I should point out that all this lamentable lachrymose nonsense is marketing, just marketing. Give 'em a label and sell them a new version of Pepsi. "Be a rebel! Buy our condoms!" Geogre 19:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• K There's an X and a Y, and I've seen use of Z before even reading the article. Thsi one's a keeper. I'm a Y myself, but never mind ... Chris 00:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not support deletion. Many of the terms for the 19th and 18th century generations outlined are not familiar to most people.

Furthermore, the books Italic textGenerationsItalic text and Italic textFourth TurningItalic text are considered masterpieces of sociological research by many, including myself.

(Reference to above) Forgot to format correctly, my apologies. Part of the votes for deletion debate.

• delete This article seems opinionated and not based on facts. exempli graitia ``They *will be* politically active in their more successful stance. If you want to keep it at least write with some logic. Way too much speculation and POV for my taste.--65.31.169.86 04:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP. But do not judge on what the generation will base themselves on, September 11th physically effected both Generation X and Y, so therefore it should be a turning point in our generations, not theirs. I personally think that these topics overlap at some points. Generation Y should officially end in 2001 and Generation Z should begin in 1999.

• Keep - It is a valid concept, and this is not the first time I have seen it, nor the associated material. However, less speculation and more actual identification of events shaping Generation Z would be appreciated. I suppose I'm a late 'gen-Yer,' but there's my two cents on this. --Trafton 02:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't really think the kids today have the same tastes nor have the experience of the Gen Y's (I never thought of myself as Gen X since those were mostly those who grew up in the 70's rather than late 80's), but perhaps they will be the final generation. Singularity is near you know. ---208.253.80.123 01:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• delete No good, full of speculation. Ditch this page. But I do like "generation fat". No idea if it will come to be but I would bet a few bucks on it.

• I vote keep it. I don't know if this will be the final name for the generation in question, but it's the leading candidate, and some of the changes in the way this generation is being raised are shockingly different from previous generations. As time goes by I am certain this page will evolve and develop. In this spirit I wrote a paragraph on the topic, after conducting my own research. What I see as of Jan 14 seems suitably neutral, objective, and referenced. The generation is young and new, but there are volumes that have been written on the differences between Generation Z childhood and any other childhood. My Generation Z cousin watches DVD's in the minivan on road trips to the movies and weighs almost twice what I did at his age, though he's about the same height. Don't tell me there is no information on this generation, the media at large is just calling them 'children' and 'infants' instead of 'Generation Z', but their behavior is renowned. When you buy a book on raising children it is catered to raising a child of Generation Z, and the tools parents are using are unorthodox, and well documented.

Don't delete -- it was mentioned on the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7206686.stm and I needed this page to find out what it was! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.74.60 (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Although the subject is still changing, there is no need to delete the article entirely. Just keep updating it. That's the purpose of Wikipedia, isn't it? Being able to have the most up-to-date information at any given time, even if it may change in the future? This isn't a paper-and-ink textbook so it can be altered as new information is gathered. Sure, there is some speculative material, but I don't see an issue as long as it is labeled as such. --Oh FFS (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Rise of the Technology Class

This is the term currently being adopted by young people. Generation Fat edit out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaproducer (talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Birth Years

I think this is so inaccurate. I was born in 1985 and most people I know born as early at 1981 to 1990 are totally in this category. (talk) 02:24, 07 July 2009 Pacific —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.221.4 (talk)

Ok, this was ridiculous. The source was this article about Generation Z by Annalise Walliker, a journalist (I couldn't find a reliable bio of her quickly). I've added a much more reliable definition of Net Generation by scholar Don Tapscott (source) - from 1977 to 1997. I think we need to find more definitions, and attribute them to more scholars, but I find Tapscott's argument and definition much more convincing that Walliker's. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unclear 2009

Poor writing with absurd verb constructions makes this an unreadable mess. Neologisms are unexplained and uncited. Subjects and objects are unclear.Fifelfoo (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The references are of particularly poor quality, being non-peer reviewed, throw away yellow journalism.Fifelfoo (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious 2009

Dubious: class, ethnic and racial differentiation factors, Indigenous Australians born post 1996 are first world inhabitants; due to class, poverty and remote living factors, I doubt this is a fair generalisation. I expect similarly in other "first world" groupings. The lack of specific citations, ie "According to Fred Blogs, statement" makes the rare citations worthless.Fifelfoo (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious: tech statements Fifelfoo (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious: "have grown up in a world with relatively widespread gender equality" citations for which are ludicrous (USA Today, really, that outstanding sociological journal) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious: "the first generation to see parents and children embrace technology together" automobiles, steam, cotton gin, three field system, wheel, fire. "Technology" eh? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• The citation for this (BBC) also says nothing of the sort... it says that parents "should" embrace technology. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed, clarified, verified Dubious 2009

Wow, agreed with Dubious. cleaned up, helped define how Z is relevant if citations to comparable arguments are documented. Keep this, let's continue to build. It has merit as we see how TWEENS has become the Z generation media term. Agree, this was written by an author with poor writing skills, but will not take long to clean it up. Save it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaproducer (talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How is "tweens" a gen Z term? It has been around since at least the 1990s...Peregrine981 (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Neologism?

Generation Z seems to me to be a neologism. According to WP:NEO, neologisms "are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." continuing... "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people."

There seems to be scant agreement on what Generation Z is, what its name is, and our secondary sources do not really seem to discuss it, except as a sort of amorphous continuation of Generation Y. Our only two really reliable, secondary sources barely discuss the term.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=DWlIY1PxkyYC&lpg=PA16&ots=fLfpQ7dgYd&dq=tapscott%20generation%20z&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Is basically about "the Net Generation", to which Gen Z, which he calls "Generation Next" is a successor/quasi member.

The other source: http://books.google.com/books?id=EM7xXAx9vcQC&lpg=PA14&dq=%22generation%20z%22&lr=&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q=%22generation%20z%22&f=false

specifically says that Gen Z is not defined in a formal sense.

One other source, http://www.smh.com.au/news/parenting/children-of-the-tech-revolution/2008/07/15/1215887601694.html, basically interviews a whole bunch of experts who seem to have absolutely no agreement on what Gen Z is.

The rest of the articles are not particularly credible. Doesn't Gen Z pretty much meet the definition of a neologism perfectly? A recently coined word, that does not appear in any dictionary, that may be used widely within certain communities (ie marketing professionals and journalists) I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise, but Gen Z still seems to be a term of marginal acceptance thus far.Peregrine981 (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous

This article doesn't really teach me anything about what "Generation Z" is, other than they were born after "Generation Y". Inductively, it seems like these articles can be auto-generated by simply incrementing the letter "Z". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.1.50 (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That is because relatively little is actually known about this generation. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Or because the term itself is vacuous and devoid of all meaning. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Usage

Should a small blurb be included about literary appearances of the term 'Generation Z', 'Z'ers' in works of post-modern fiction? I've seen the phrase appear several times in fiction and I think a small reference to it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 226Trident (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Generation Fat is an insult

I wanted to say a lot of hateful things toward this article and its authors, but anyways, I hope Zers grow up to be better than any of could ever be. I also wanted to question the use of calling them Generation Fat when we all know that it is going to cause negative stereotypes and unnecessary problems in the future for them. We could stop this future hardship now by not calling them Generation Fat. We want them to grow up happy right? Are the authors psychic? It's best to wait until those born 1996-98 are old enough to write about themselves rather than people who don't belong to the generation (at least 20-30 years older than them) trying to portray what they don't know.r430nb

How about generation lazy? Many, this generations kids don't work for anyhting.(the older ones in this generation of course) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.138.19 (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Next Generation - Alpha

I note in this article, ([Sunday Telegraph- Australia, 15th Nov 2009]http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26351988-36398,00.html) that the generation born in 2010 will be called Alpha (greek alphabet).

Are there any more credible sources that may wish to verify this theory?

--124.176.10.68 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC) --Phenss (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Experiences Over Numbers

It should be established that Generation Z begins in the mid-1990s and ends around 2010. Some have suggested that the generation's range is 2000-2020 but this hypothesis is based on a mistaken adherence to arbitrary numbers rather than historical sociology. This hypothesis has its origins in the claims made by some scholars (notably Strauss and Howe) in the late 1990s/early 2000s that Generation Y was born between 1982-2000, and thus the generation that followed would be born between 2000-2020. This classification was made mainly because Generation Y was not yet well defined and year 2000 mania led many to use the year to represent epochal benchmarks in ways that events later revealed to be inaccurate. Indeed, it is difficult today to find many similarities between those born in 1982 and those born in 2000.

Rather, it is now more widely agreed upon by historical sociologists that the range of Generation Y is 1982-1995. Although those born in the early 1990s are quite different from those born in the early to mid-1980s, the former has more in common with the latter in terms of shared cultural experiences than they do with those born starting in the mid-1990s. These types of experiences are the main factors historical sociologists use in defining cultural generations. For Generation Y, such experiences include being substantively alive before the Internet and other personal technology became ubiquitous in society (mid to late 1990s), as well as being able to substantively remember the 9/11 terrorist attacks, among others. Another measure of classification is the generation's parents. Baby Boomers are mostly the parents of Generation Y, and Boomers' youngest members mostly stopped having children by the mid-1990s. This being the case, those born after 1995 or so are mostly the children of Generation X. Parents of differing generations raise children differently, and this in and of itself has an effect in defining the generation of their children.

The end point of Generation Z was originally based on the idea that around 2010 the oldest cohort of Generation Y members would begin having children (and Generation X would begin to stop having them), which is likely to be true given the average age of parents having their first child in the West. This apt conclusion has been reinforced by the fact that in the latter part of the last decade there was a significant cultural/economic shift in the West, particularly in the United States, as a result of the Great Recession. This will undoubtedly shape the rearing of children, and thus will likely mean that children born in the coming years will have markedly different experiences than their older peers born in times of mostly unbridled prosperity between the mid-1990s and the late 2000s. (Refer to: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/business/economy/03experience.html)

76.24.188.10 (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

New generations isn't defined when a previous generation is starting to reproduced them. The WWII Generation is at least 25 years long, that means the oldest members and their son could have been in the same generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.125.116 (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Gen Z does NOT begin in 1990, or any time before 1994

I agree firstly becuase my brother was born in 1990 and i was born in 1992. My brother is way more into Myspace and has some of the sleeping vs cell phone problems mentioned here. I think this is becuase my brother was a freshmen in high school when myspace became popular. Also i remember Diseny with out Miley Cyrus, the Back Street Boys, when having a computer wasn't a necessity, and wathing tv on 9/11 in my 3rd grade class. They should wait until this age group is older before labeling them.

I was born in 1990 and I do not identify with this generation at all. The Internet has been around since I was very young, but it was not as big a part of life as it is now. Ipods, cell phones and all the other great things about now did not become mainstream until the Iraq War started, when I began my TEENS.

I remember pagers, VHS tapes, when the Bulls were good, Goosebumps, glow in the dark, floppy disks, shit i remember POGS.

To be categorized as the same generation as babies born now, you should at least be born in 1995. To them 9/11 would be a faint memory and the Backstreet Boys what Tiffany is to me.

what?! i was born in 1995 and i remember the 9/11 clear as day! i remember what the worl was like befor that too. i might have only being young but i do remember what the world was like befor that and i think thats a huge thing, there are kids today who never knew a time that. i also remember when my dad got our first computer , i remeber before DVDs, i remeber when floppy disks were this big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophieeht (talk • contribs) 07:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Damn 1980s births being snobs about Gen Y.

I myself was born in 1989, and I agree with your points (except the snobs bit). However, when you or I think Gen Z started doesn't matter, because we are not reliable sources, and to add our own opinions into this article would be to commit original research. In fact the reliable sources themselves disagree, some say 1990, some say 10 years later etc. This is still an ongoing generation finding its identity (if it does follow the pattern of being a distinct generation) so this article's info is still in its infancy. Only time will tell. Finally, please remember to sign your comments here using four tildes: "~~~~". Thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was born in January 1996 and can clearly remember the Florida recount, 9/11, The Iraq Invasion, Yankee Dynasty. I think somewhere between 1997 and 2000 is a good start to the generation since those born before June 1996 would have been in school on 9/11 and could have interacted with peers about the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffy2032 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's cool dude. Not ALL 1980s births do, it just seems some people born in the 80s (mostly those born before 1988) can't see themselves as having anything in common with those born in 1990 or 1991 so consider them Gen Z like those born in this century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.91.129 (talk • contribs)

Could you blame them? Those born around 1982 to about 1985/1986 can recall life before the end of the Cold War. Someone born in 1990 would be 1 when it ended. - Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.125.116 (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Four tildes and omit the "< nowiki >", just so you know. I'm sort of with you in that I'd set the incept date of Gen Z at 1995, but my choice is as arbitrary as anyone else's, so we go with what the sources say, even if they're wrong also.--Father Goose (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I was born in 1991 and i had only used a computer a few times until about 2000/2001 and not until about 2005 did i use a computer regularly, in my opinion the first of generation y were born in 1996 or 1997. Euan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.216.122 (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We do need to be careful of original research, but I think it's fair to say that people born 1990-95 did not have computers/the Net until they were 5+. Heck, the Web was only invented in 1989. Nearly all of Generation Z have had the Net/PCs their whole lives. That's the difference. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I was born in 1994, and I remember floppy disks (actually I still have some), VHSs, Windows 98, 56k Internet, pre-OSX Macs, Palm Pilots, the Kosovo War, the Y2K bug & 2000 celebrations, etc., etc. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I still have 56k Internet... -- Army1987 ! ! ! 13:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What's all this dispute about? I was born in 1993 and I clearly remember floppy disks and the days of nasty, un-XHTML web pages, although very young (all of this stuff was when I was before or in the very early stages of elementary school); everything kind of faded and modernized away after that. However, I did not start using a computer until I was four years old; even then, I only made a few appearances and didn't abuse it hardcore until I was ten or eleven years old. (I'll be sixteen in April, if you were too lazy for the math.)

Anyway, yes, they should wait a few more years before labeling this generation, but I think it shouldn't start any earlier than 1997 or 1998. Even 1995 or 1996 would be pushing it, as we popped out a few years before the big "2000" and everything. The kids in elementary school today take technology and all that for granted. Whatever, I will stop before this all stems into a NPOV/OR flower, and we all have to wait and see. ★Dasani★ 21:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I was born in 1993 and I remember using Windows 95 on a IBM Thinkpad when I was barely old enough to write, Windows 98 on a custom-build, NT, ME and 2000 from years preschool-3, XP during yr 5 onwards, and have ever since. I was browsing the internet on my 56k when I was 5-7ish, I remember playing Matchbox games on the internet, and printing stuff on a bubblejet. I remember coding my first HTML about three years ago (11), doing graphics editing at 12ish, getting into the Free Sofware movement at 14, doing photoediting as a job a few months before by 15'th birthday, getting a job as an IT Support Officer last November, turning 15, having a gaming LAN party for said birthday, entering year 11 and still with the IT job. I assume this is Gen-Z behavior? _{(Btw, I just installed a CentOS 5.2 box to run Squid last night at work under Xen, so I'm not useless xDD)} 220.235.131.32 (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Generation Y. Gen Z has all the flashy, cleaned-up, standardized XHTML and Web 2.0 goods. 75.4.225.0 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the main problem with this whole article is that it's written by the people it describes (me)(also, I didn't edit it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.176.183 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

i feel the need to comment. i was born in 1983. my first computer was a Tandy 1000rsx (with an 8086 proc. i remember windows 3.1. i remember MS-dos 5.2. i remember when the super Nintendo was the new latest greatest thing. yet, i consider myself a Digital native, but also share traits with Gen Y.

i think what is confusing people in this discussion is that there is no hard cut line between generations, and that personality traits affect how well we mesh with the different generations. also, there is grey area between generations. 216.57.96.1 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the term "Generation Z"

Okay, so I agree it's cute that we went from generation X to Y and now Z, but X and Y were both terms used often in mainstream media, and their respective articles document where and when they started being used. This article should mention when Generation Z started to be called as such —Masterblooregard (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

EPIC

For discussion of the unsourced addition of the EPIC generation, and my removal of it, see Talk:Generation#EPIC nonsense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your generation is also partially determined by your siblings and parents age.

I was born in Jan 1995 but both of my parents are baby boomers (1958 and 1956) and my older sister belongs to generation X (1979, so i was influenced differently as a child from someone born in Dec 1994, but was an only child of parents born in 1972 and 1970. What I am saying is that your generation is also determined by your relatives, so I would consider my self in between generations possibly closer to Y. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokosasm (talk • contribs) 14:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

People shouldn't focus unduly on the inaccuracies of the category - it is fundamentally wrong but gives a useful guideline for the vast majority of individuals. Every single one of us would fail to be neatly defined by any one Generational category, however as a means to delimit the hazy segue from one generation to another, it serves its purpose. Calorus (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete

Hey, how is this article still here if the vote for deletion had a final verdict of 'delete'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.2 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted once in 2006 but subsequently recreated. Usually that is not allowed, but apparently the article was rewritten and properly sourced to address the problems raised in that first AfD. Tarc (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Generation Z

Please stop changing the dates for Generation Z. Only one book has this generation starting from the early 1990s. All other sources, including magazines, newspapers, demographical research and technological magazines all use the mid-1990s, especially 1995 as the starting birth year for this group. The other editor's dates run into Generation Y. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Generations can override other dates especially if neither Generation Y or Generation Z are defined. Additionally, you seem to be mistaken on the number of sources being used to cite the early 1990's date. See this by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, this by the California Teachers Association, or this by essential babies Australia. Finally, note that the removal of sources without any valid reason constitutes vandalism, which may result in your account being blocked from editing.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect interpretation of meaning of "New Silent Generation"

I would like to edit the section of the article where Strauss and Howe is mentioned. Following this mention, there is a misinterpreted assertion about the meaning/origin of the moniker "New Silent Generation", and I would like to fix it.

The Silent Generation got its name for wanting to fit into “the system” without making too many waves (for instance, they kept their heads down rather than protesting the McCarthy hearings)—not for being quiet in social situations! In fact, the Silent are one of the most highly socialized generations alive today (good at following social rules, getting along well with others, more likely to think of themselves as a “people” person).

The last thing I want to do is trample all over someone else's hard work and research, so by all means, please lend your thoughts on this correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliviaKoenig (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Difference between Generation Y (1980-1994) and Z (1995-2009) is Analog vs. Digital

First, I think there is good discussion here about when Generation Y actually ended. We can all agree that looking at the influences that have occurred over the past twenty years that Generation Y is roughly between 1980 and 1994. The difference between kids born before the mid-90's and after is the technology they grew up with as kids.

Generation Y, kids in the 80's and 90's:

VHS/Cassette/CD Players Dial-up Internet (no wireless) Analog cable NES/SNES/SEGA/N64/GameBoy (no internet gaming) Web 1.0

Generation Z kids born in the mid to late 90's:

DVD/Blu-Ray MP3 Player Wireless/High-Speed Internet DS/PS2/XBOX 360 Web 2.0

Also, growing up before 9/11 as opposed to after 9/11 is a major difference.

I think a lot of the people who were born in the mid to late 90's feel left out and want to be included in Generation Y but the differences are clear in technology, what you grew up watching etc.

That's why 1980-1994 is accurate. There is nothing in common with a kid born in 1988/1989 and 1995/1996.

Samtskins (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the widely used start date for Generation Y is the birth year 1982 (the graduating class of 2000). Most researchers and universities use this start date. Otherwise, initial start dates used for Generation Y (and no longer really used) is around 1975 or 1976. A couple of authors used 1980 because they were using the age of 30 as a reference (which doesn't make sense as publishing a book another year could change the birth year for 30-year-olds). Most people born in 1982 graduated in 2000 and are considered the start of Generation Y (they are called the Millennial Class. Many of the research was lifted from the works of Strauss and Howe (including new books on the subject - all referencing these two authors initial and current works). I graduated in 1999 and my class was called the last of our generation making the way for the Millennials/Generation Y. I grew up watching the Challenger tragedy, remember Ronald Reagan as president, the Berlin wall falling down, Cold war ending, etc. I relate less to those who graduated a year after me (even one of my best friends) than to those after me. The class of 2000 has been treated differently by society and media (see Strauss and Howe research, university articles, and media reports on the subject). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Predictions?

The statement that the last section contains predictions should be removed. The author has made no predictions. It is a FACT, and sourced, that others have predicted the name of a future generation, etc. This and the other statments are not the author's predictions.Dham01 (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Dham01

help with seperating Generation Z from Y

I think technology shouldn't be used to seperate the Z generation from the Y generation. Think of other aspects:

For example the death of princess Diana. Generation Y was witness of her early years as a princess, the divorce and her death. Generation Z didn't get to know her. Generation Y grew up with Bush sr. and Clinton (and John Major in the UK). In the Netherlands Generation Y was shocked with the plane crash on the Bijlmermeer (1992). Generation Z with 9/11. Generation Y was familiar with playbackshows and soundmixshows on TV (in Europe, I don't know how it was in the US), Generation Z only know Popstars, XFactor and Idols.

Are there more things that could be used to seperate them?

Sophies choice (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true, I was born in 1989 (the peak of Generation Y) and I only remember Diana's death well. I think people are failing to distinguish between what you experience as a child and as a teenager. X-Factor, Idols, etc are all innovations of Gen Y's teenage years. In the same way MTV was for Gen X'ers during their pre-teen/teenage years. I think X-Factor, Pop Stars and Idols define Generation Y's peak growing up/coming of age years much better than Gen Z. Generation Y wasn't even born when Diana got married. The oldest of them were little children during her divorce and most American Gen Y'ers didn't even hear of her until her death. What's even more ridiculous is that they're cutting off births from 2010 onwards to create "Generation Alpha"! Many Generation X'ers were only 3-5 when 1980 came around (the mid 70's born ones) so I think its only fair that we allow some late Generation Y'ers too. Generation Y should span 1982-2000. Most late 70's-early 80's born kids (graduates of the mid-late 90's) don't even consider themselves of the same generation as those who graduated from 2003 to today. The 97-00 births can represent a cusp of sorts between Y and Z, considering they'll be coming of age during the mid-late 2010's (which I'm guessing will having overlapping aspects of the 2000's and something much newer). As for "Generation Z", well I say the 2000's and early-mid 2010's should be the span of their birth years. These will be the teens and young adults of the 2020's. If there should be such a thing as a "Generation Alpha", that shouldn't start till the 20's. That's when the majority of Generation Y'ers will start having children (though some will also start givign birth during the late 10's too to be sure). —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Afghan Historian

2000 is too far. Way too far. Look at how technology changed from the 90's to the 2000's. At the very least Web 1.0 which ended after 2003 and Web 2.0. Someone born in 2000 probably doesn't even really remember a time before Youtube/Facebook/Wikipedia.

Samtskins (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what a CUSP is for. And technology isn't the only factor. We need to also keep in mind historical events. Remembering the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as the Obama election are surely signs of Gen Y-dom, and younger kids who remember these while possessing differing traits (such as not remembering the pre-Fbook world too well, though some probably do) should be considered cuspers, just like their counterparts in the MTV, Jones and Silent generations. Afghan Historian (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, do you honestly think many Gen Y'ers remember the pre-internet years that well? I barely remember the time before computers. Most Gen Y'ers were elementary school kids when internet and the home computer became standard house appliances, and never really thought of them as "revolutionary" in the same way an X'er or a Boomer would. I basically took google, microsoft and Yahoo for granted as features of the net, rather than as something that was changing society around me. And I was born in 1989! Generation Y should be considered the real "digital native generation" as they came of age along with the net, remembering its development. And this would span those born from 1985 to 1995. Late 90's and early 2000's kids (97-2001) are cuspers in that they are less familiar with the older versions of the internet yet were still reasonably affected by key 2000's events such as the War in Afghanistan and Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Obama's election and the economic downturn. Afghan Historian (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Generation Y starts in 1981 due to the cultural changes happened in the early 80s, and those born wouldn't remember any of it. Anyways, I think using 9/11 as a pivot, here is how I'd break down the Generation Y. 1981-1985 is early Gen Y(those who were 16 or older when 9/11 happened) 1986-1991(those who were 10-15, probably the most defined Gen Y) 1992-1998(Little kids that were ages 9-3 who wouldn't remember much of the attacks) and 1978-1980 and 1999-2001 being cusps years on both sides. I think it makes a lot of sense since most of the biggest supports of Gen Y come from the 86-91 group. - Pauly G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.125.116 (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's good. Here's how I would separate them. 1978-1982 should be the cusp generation between Gen X and Gen Y. These kids came of age in the 90's and were well shaped by a world quite different from the 9/11 one. 1982'ers graduated right before 9/11 so they're kind of like the last group before the tumult so to speak. 1983-1986 would be the early Gen Y'ers, as these kids were teenagers during 9/11 and were the first to feel its full brunt effects upon graduation from the years of 2001 onwards. 1987-1994 are the middle Gen Yers as they were young enough to have it impact their childhood in a significant way. 1995-2001 is the final group of Generation Y (with the 1998-2001 being the cusp generation between Y and Z) as they often remember only the bare events or only really knew the world immediately shaped by 9/11, such as the two wars, Hurricane Katrina, the Bush/Cheney administration and the Obama election. These are the bare minimum events to remember in terms of qualifying as "Generation Y", at least as far as I'm concerned. 2002 onwards is full Generation Z and how that should be broken up is not up to me. Afghan Historian (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Observed Trends needs some Editing...

This section needs some work. It has some grammatical errors (*I'm going to try to clean up some of these errors, however I'll leave the content for adjustment), redundancies and contradictions. Also, I don't think it's appropriate for there to be bragging about specific characteristics of this generation and/or rude comments about past generations. This section is written in a subjective manner with few references. The references that are there are somewhat misquoted. Take the idea of "we" vs "me generation" mentioned in an article reference [16]. "Me" generation doesn't necessarily mean Generation Y. It's often used to refer to Generation X and, in this case, could mean both Generation X and Y. Reference [17] is a blog that doesn't appear to follow the generalizations of Gen X and Y. The blog appears to be like an opinion-column, but neither of these sources appear very reliable. Neither of these articles define the actual time period in which they consider Generation Y or Generation Z.

Generation Y and Z are going to share a lot in common when it comes to technology. Technology is not a good measure for generational differences. Technology completely evolves in five years to a decade. In 2000 home computers and internet were gaining popularity. Now in 2010 the internet is practically everywhere and you can access it on your (smart)phone.

Generation Y is defined between 1982-1995 by a baby boom. Generation Y wasn't born into the digital age, but were coming of age as during the technology boom and can share characteristics such as being introverted, communicating through technology and seeming distracted and impatient. If Gen Z is defined as starting in 1990-2000 or so, then there's an overlap in the generations.

(MaverickTea (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC))

That's where the argument is misinterpreted. Generation Y and Z are two generations that remain officially undefined by the US Census Bureau as they are the most recent. This leaves the issue of the date range to the general opinion of third parties. For instance, note the lead in the Generation Y article, which reads... "As there are no precise dates for when the Millennial generation starts and ends, commentators have used birth dates ranging somewhere from the mid 1970s to the early 2000s." It is due to this that "overlapping" can occur at least for the time being. Now, the sources in this article for Generation Z note that the earliest year usually noted by commentators is in fact 1991, which is perfectly acceptable, as explained above, with the generations being undefined. Per WP:RS and WP:V I'm afraid I'll have to revert back to the year cited by the sources in this article.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait! There are people who's kids were born in 2001 and 2006, and they were born in 1980-84! So why are people generalizing? Their parents, the baby boomers ARE already grandparents! So if possible, can you take out that last disgusting section of belitting people from Gen Y! And yes it ends in 1989, in MY humble opinion.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.211.95 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Other common terms

Hello, I think it is exciting that we are setting up this page just as this generation is coming of an age to show it's own characteristics. I wanted to point out that Strauss and Howe don't actually label this generation "The New Silent Generation" but instead have developed the term "Homeland" generation for those born around 2005-present."Homeland" represents the security and 24/7 care that this generation will receive through childhood. References can be found in the LifeCourse website or in the book Millennials & K-12 Schools by Neil Howe and William Strauss. I made this change in the article and provided citation.Corenabh (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I cut out the following: "It has been said that in 2008, 1/4 of post-secondary full-time education students were enrolled in fully online courses, with an estimated 44% in 2009." This is an indication of an overall technological trend, not a trend stemming from Gen Z. The oldest children of Gen Z are still in high school, so they are not "post-secondary full-time education students" enrolled in fully online courses. They are too young to significantly impact this trend. Cimorene12 (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Gen U

Generation Upurs

Sired by the parents (born up to 2005) of the highest number of parent denied children making up the gang capital of the world generation they will not have wealthy boomer parents but parents, probably one, that owe at least $1.50 for every $1.0 in possessions and obviously much higher taxes and fees. Outnumbered by seniors with health care costs quadrupling, another few hundred billion in government debt and the usual corrupt justice industry, still with a dysfunctional federal government, when asked to put on the yoke,,, upurs...

Gen U is coming

RJSMITH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.17.107 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Gen Z are NOT Millennials

This article lists "Millenials" as one name for Gen Z. Nonsense. It's also misspelled. Gen Y are called Millennials, and have been since the beginning of the naming process. 216.57.67.170 (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

???

Generation Z should be defined: People born after 1998. This is the cutoff year for the Asian financial crisis and the 9/11 attacks.

It doesn't matter what you think is important now. In ten years 9/11 may turn out to be a trivial side-note. It could be something no one noticed that defines the next generation, or something amazing may happen that no one could have dreamed of. I'm fine with giving them a default name, but I'm not fine with defining them on what we think will affect them. Don't count your chickens before the eggs hatch. :D

It has really been known as the "Echo Generation" by the majority of others. To claim that a book decides what each generation is called is ludicrous. Echo generation has many references, including but not limited to:

http://www.echogeneration.com/blog/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/01/60minutes/main646890_page2.shtml
http://www.keyfindings.com/healthcare/article2.htm
http://www.footwork.com/globe11.html

Echo Boomers are generation Y, not Z.

The Remote Code Execution Generation :)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.179.30 (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed the mention of last generation

Just because it's Generation Z doesn't mean it's the last generation of our species... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.236.65 (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gen Z is 2001-2021

No part of the early 90's belong in Gen Z.

The Y-Z cusp is 1995-2000.

Come on Wikipedia, this is common sense. Don't mess this one up like you did Gen Y. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.32.126 (talk • contribs) 14:37, December 24, 2010

There is no set date for Generation Y or Generation Z as noted by the US Census bureau. Anything else is simple personal opinion such as those made above. The dates used to site Gen Y and Gen Z, such as 1991 for Gen Z are cited by reliable sources per WP:RS. Thus, officially unspecified dates will tend to overlap.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Its been said that Gen Alpha are kids that were conceived from 2010 - 2024 YuMaNuMa (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Parents Viewpoints

This article is not objective. References to problems faced by Generation Z are routinely edited out. Obesity is a trait of generation Z, which has the largest childhood obesity of any known generation. Parent's and members of Generation Z are scared to admit the shortcomings of their generation, but quick to point out faults in other generations.

The bulk of this wikipedia article has unsubstantiated information, purely opinions of parents and Y/Z generation members.

Wikipedia again has shown it is incapable of providing real, verifiable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.225.241.126 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary source dealing with your addition to the article? Dayewalker (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No mediatized generation title is objective; it's part of the definition... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.179.30 (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Next Generations name...

Generation OS13?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY4VZr8Ox94

I know this should go somewhere in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendman3 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That propaganda film has no place in Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Pseudohistorical

All the traits assigned to Generation Z are also given to Gen Y. I don't think this generation can really be characterised yet. Also, there is no way a 1990er is the same generation as someone born after the year 2000. Early 90s born definitely are grouped more accurately with the 1980s born. With that said, I said that rarely, gen z is cited as being born as early as 1989, which is true, though uncommon and imo definitely incorrect.

06:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decadeologee (talk • contribs)

Generation X and Generation Y

Please see the discussion pages on the Generation X and Generation Y pages. We have formed a consensus and received approval from administrators regarding our sources. It is generally agreed upon that 1981 is the most common end date for Generation X, with 1982 also being a common end date. Also, Generation Z starts in the mid 1990s, with some sources using early 1990s. Since most sources cite Generation Y ending either in 1994/1995 or late 1990s up to early 2000s, it does not make sense to state that Generation Z starts in the early 1990s. Most sources cite this Generation as starting with birth years somewhere in the mid 1990s, with some starting as early as 1991. The article should reflect both an early and a mid 1990s start date. I will be adding more sources to this article. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am in the midst of organizing the references and adding more sources as soon as I fix some citations. I will try to post these by Friday. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

One word of warning from my side is that we can only define "Generation Z" on its own terms. We should not be using other wikipedia articles to define it, or to try to make wikipedia internally consistant. Otherwise it will be original research. Mostly I don't dispute what CS said. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree while if sources show that most of Gen Z are children of Gen Y and Gen X then that aspect can be incorporated into the article. But its just my opinion that we shouldn't use other Wikipedia articles to define it. I do believe it will be a while before research on the study is going to be plentiful. Right now the talk is all about the millennials or gen y. Educatedlady (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Serious Work needs to be done before this page is acceptable

The latter half of this section smacks of original research and blatant speculation. Gen X'rs are conservative and all about family values, and yet they are also into snorting as much drugs as they can carry and being lazy?

Sounds like it was written by an idiotic soccer mom projecting her own opinions, not someone qualified. I have refrained from simply deleting it entirely, but it needs to be completely rewritten, which I would do myself if my schedule permitted.

This article currently contradicts other information on Wikipedia (specifically the Generation Y page), despite 16 sources on the first sentence alone(?). The second body paragraph contains the useless rattling off of technologies, and prejudices about other generations, which quite frankly don't need to be mentioned on this page at all. As fo April 4, this is possibly the worst article I've ever seen on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.105.167 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is also chronically American in bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.53.11 (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Observed traits and trends

Perhaps "Completely Baseless Stereotyping" is a better title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.88.244 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This article went from a multi-section, multi-sourced page to a two sentence stub. Can anyone explain/suggest what we do?

With no real discussion in the last six months, we've gone from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Z&oldid=456023036

to the two sentence stub we have now. Doesn't this bother anyone?

Previous versions of the article had sourced information that was arguably relevant to the topic at hand, and it seems to have been stripped away bit by bit, or replaced with unsourced speculation that was itself later removed. Any thoughts/suggestions? Do we edit the info back in? Do we straight up revert the article to an earlier version? Input please!

(Related, the birth dates keep changing with every other edit as people fix them to suit whatever subjective notion of Gen Z they want to see this article reflect. The most source supported phrasing we had at one point was an acknowledgement that most scholars put the start date in the mid 90s, while some put it in 1990/1991 itself. Rather than the back and forth edit war between the two start points as being definitive, why don't we just go back to that duel acknowledgement?) 74.76.184.179 (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done a straight up revert. Removal of content should be discussed here first, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Gen Z, Gen Y, and 9-11

I feel this article is exaggerating some information to emphasize cultural differences between Generation Y and Generation Z. Here are some areas I have particular issues with:

While older members of Generation Y have significant childhood memories of the Cold War, members of this generation were born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, younger Generation Y members usually do not have childhood memories of the cold war because they were too young when the Berlin Wall fell.

Even if Gen Y had been shortened to about 9 years, (for these purposes, using the range of 1980-1989, making a '80 birth 10-11 and an '89 birth 1-2 in '91), I'm not sure how even older members of Gen Y could have significant memories of a war ranging from 1947-1991, especially of the Berlin Wall's fall. Even I, as somebody born in 1983, can't remember the Cold War and or the fall of the Berlin Wall at 5, turning 6. Of course, I'm just one person and hardly the standard but, unless older members of Gen Y are limited to 1980-1981, I am unsure they could have significant memories of the Cold War. Even then, they would be ages 7 to 9 when the Berlin Wall fell and ages 9 to 11 when the Soviet Union collapsed. Faint memories to be expected, sure, but I'm very dubious of using "significant" to describe these, if any, recollections older Gen Y members may have.

When describing Gen Z recollections of 9-11, this article states, Generation Z has known the geopolitical world of the nineties (globalization without threat) during their childhood, but even if they had memories from these time, they mostly knew the post 9/11 world. Even if using a 1990 start dates for Gen Z, this article is dubious about these people having memories of a time before September 11, 2001 yet expects those born in the earlier part of the 80's to have "significant" memories of a time before 1991.

On the other hand, Generation Z has known the geopolitical world of the nineties (globalization without threat) during their childhood, but even if they had memories from these time, they mostly knew the post 9/11 world. Meanwhile, Gen Y spent their teens and early adulthood in the pre 9/11 world. As a result, the worldview of these two generations is very different.

Even using the dates 1980-1989 again to describe Gen Y, most of this age range did not spend the entirety of their teens or early adulthood in the 90's to 2001. At most, a 1980 birth would have been aged 20 to 21 on 9/11, having spent their teen years from 1993 to 2000, but just beginning early adulthood in 2001. A 1985 birth would have only been aged 14 to 15 at the time of the attacks. Even a 1983 birth only spent half of their teen years in the 90's (1996 - 2003), and was 17 to 18 when 9/11 occurred.

Again, I feel this article is exaggerating aspects to emphasize any divides between these two generations. As a result, I feel that Gen Y is being made into a micro-generation of limited years by using the early 1990's as a start date. --Courtlea (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtlea (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Some answer :

Many employers do start to report a major shift between what we used to call Gen Y and current people recruited. If this generation is short, maybe it is because major cultural changes have happened in a short timespan. As a result, Gen Y will be pretty short compared to other generations.

Older members of Gen Y were born in early nineties and the wall fell in 1989 and moscow putsch in 1991. Being born in 1979, I can assume you I have very vivid memory of the night the wall fell down and this was a major event. All stupid war movies on TV and I had already watched some of them. Enough of them to understand that something major had happened. Even at school, the following morning it was a major item of discussion among pupils usually not used to such serious matters. We had all understood that this was a major events.

Being a teenager in the nineties was also a very different environement than in the 2000. In Europe, you had this huge illegal "rave parties". We were too young to do the early ones, but such parties were organized illegally until the early 2000. With no threats of war, no more military service in many european country, freedom to travel and no security craze, the ninteties were pretty good times for youth. At the end of the decade, the dotcom boom provided an ideal environement and nobody really feared for his future. If you were born in early eighties, your time in college was really different than what people experience today. Of course, everything changed in 2001.

Btw, years for a generation are only statistical, you can be born in 1979 and be part of Gen Y or born in 1980 and be closer to Gen X people. If you talk 1980 as a watershed, it means that if you take a sample, more than 50% of the people will identify as Gen Y values rathen than Gen X. If it ends in 1990 it is the same. The changeover time is usually 4 years, and the changeover time for Gen X - Gen Y is approximately 1978 - 1982 (people born in this 4 years may be either Xers or Yers and you can see it sometime by noticing that someone will have most of his good friends a few years younger or older than he is).

It is usually assumed that you start remembering of society at the age of 9. This was already used to determine the beginning of Gen X (having no memory of the society before 1968). However, at 9, you are already shaped wether you want it or not by external society. So the ten years between 10 and 20 are usually very important because it shapes the worldview of a generation. Remember you have the right to vote at 18 in most countries and you would have liked to have it at perhaps 16. At 20 you start to act based on the worldview acquired before and try to influence the world. And as long as Gen Y is concerned, their reaction to 911 was one of sarcasm rather than fear. So many are fighting for internet freedom and against security laws because they in fact their values are those of the nineties. It is also why conspiracy theories are so popular in this generation. It is less painful to beleive in the conspiracy theory than to beleive in real terrorist attacks. The second destroys your world view, the first is completely compatible : In the 90's you were told governement sucked. If you beleive conspiracy theories, you know that governement suck even more. This is better for you than to admit you sometime need governement and military to protect you. This is also why you had seen a surge in libertarianism among that generation.

In the workplace, the 2001 recession was relatively mild and few things changed for them. The generation was called Gen "why" for good reason. They did not fear layoffs, so they could embarass a bloated corporate culture by asking questions. Unfortunately, people born in 1990 entered college in 2008 and had trouble to find work. Beleive it or not, they do not act in the workplace the same way as their predecessors. While GenY wanted over all to make something great at work (and did not bother if it miserably failed), Gen Z want to have a job and keep it in order to buy their independence and not live at parent's dwellings. This is a major shift. This is not generally bad. Yers could turn out to be the better or the worse and they were very disruptive in organizations. They were always gambling in order to do the "big thing" : Sometimes it leads to moments of genius (eg Facebook), some other times it leads to very embarassing situations. Gen Z people are more serious and more consistent. They are far less likely to take huge risks.

Anyway, it is a bit to early to choose a start date for Gen Z, precise statistics are NOT yet there. We will know in a few years if it ends in 1990, 1992 or 1995. My guess would be 1992 with a 4 years span around that date. But it's only my guess, so I don't enter it in the encyclopedia. And if you complain in Gen Y being a microgeneration, don't worry. They will still be able to make major contributions to the world due to some overconfidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.179.123 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)