Talk:Gen alpha

"Generational cohort" or "group of people"
IP editor 2606.* is changing "generational cohort" to the vaguer "group of people", claiming that the former term is somehow "original research". But the New York Times and news.com.au sources plainly discuss Generation Alpha in terms of being another generational cohort, comparing it to X and Z. (The NYT calls it a "cohort", and news.com.au says "We've all heard of Gen X, Gen Y, even Gen Z - but in January we go to a whole new alphabet and welcome to the world the next instalment: Generation Alpha.")

Is it accurate to describe the group as a generational cohort? --McGeddon (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * With no response I've gone and restored this, although it's not clear that the A2K source is talking about generation cohorts (it's not in English) so I've drawn a distinction.
 * I did cut the A2K source entirely for being WP:PRIMARY and so strikingly at odds with the secondary sources which define Generation Alpha as a post-2010 cohort, but 2606.* added it back with no edit summary before using its 2000-onwards dates as an argument for deleting this article. --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Where does the source define a generational cohort? At this point you are just adding your own words and interpretation. 2606:6000:610A:9000:54CB:27A9:2263:527F (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * news.com.au is talking of the generational cohorts "Gen X, Gen Y, even Gen Z" and introduces alpha as "the next instalment". I don't see how this can be read as anything other than "another one of those things like Generation Z; a generational cohort". --McGeddon (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * After further reviewing the source, it doesn't say anything like that.2606:6000:610A:9000:54CB:27A9:2263:527F (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As I say at the top of the thread, the news.com.au article says "We've all heard of Gen X, Gen Y, even Gen Z - but in January we go to a whole new alphabet and welcome to the world the next instalment: Generation Alpha." - this is the article's opening paragraph. --McGeddon (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * But the word "cohort" is a scientific word. We are just using it here with weak sources who are not experts in sociology.  In fact, I'm not sure it evens qualifies as journalism either. 2606:6000:610A:9000:54CB:27A9:2263:527F (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Levit source
It doesn't mention Alpha so we shouldn't include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610A:9000:B8E5:EA11:1C26:8BB3 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The Generation Z and all other cohort articles are written to refer to other names and definitions of the same cohort because the subject is clear; we don't have separate, redundant articles about "iGen" and the "post-Millennials". I don't see any problematic synthesis in combining "here's a suggested name for the post-Z generation" with "there are many competing names for the post-Z generation" and "I don't think the post-Z generation will have a name" here. --McGeddon (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A note on the new page
For those who are curious where the new page comes from originally, it started out as Draft: Generation Alpha. The discussion for redirecting it to this page can be found here. Nerd271 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)