User talk:Examining/Archive 1

Cusper
There's a discussion going on about the recent additions to the article, you might want to join here: Talk:Cusper. Some1 (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey Examining, thank you so much for helping with the cusper editing war dispute and for putting up the 1992-1998 date range and source on the actual page for me. I see that the other user who was deleting the ranges with 1992 in them has finally commented on the cusper talk page, and honestly it looks like he/she is adamant about gatekeeping/removing any source that includes 1992. I will keep an eye out to see if she tries removing the approved source Managing Millennials again in the near future.

I also went ahead and I listened to Scarpy and asked the Reliable sources/Noticeboard their thoughts on Tyndale House as a publisher in order to see if I can use the Sticking Points book source. No word yet from them, so I will hold off on adding the source if y'all think that is best. I hope it gets approved. I don't want to crowd the cusper page, but I would like to add some more solid sources and ranges for people to refer to so they don't only rely on subjective opinions in forums. 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to thank me. Thank YOU. Really. And I'm not certain if it goes against any rules but I followed a post from Reddit to this page. That was actually why I joined in the discussion and began editing the article myself. It seems as though this user is adamant on 1992 not being part of it unless 1991 can be. It seems like it's the same user because the edits were happening around the exact same time as the edit wars from a few days ago. I watched it happen live. https://www.reddit.com/r/generationology/comments/ln200q/is_there_any_way_we_can_stop_wikipedias_cusper/

I'll be keeping an eye out here as well. Thanks again for all your diligent research. Examining (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think it's against any rules to mention that? But honestly, I don't know all the rules of Wikipedia, but I am trying my best to make edits on here the right way. As I mentioned in the cusper talk page, I have been interested in generational theory lately. With the extra downtime during Covid, I came across the original Urban Dictionary 1992-1998 Zillennial range, which got me into generational theory. So I have visited and read commentary from the generationology sub on reddit. I see that the majority on the sub decided on their preferred Zillennial cusp range based upon what feels right to them more so than based on any academic sources/research. Not saying people can't have their opinions/interpretations, but that doesn't mean they should erase valid sources out there that don't fit their preferences. So Examining - whomever you are on generationology whose name I may have come across in the past - thank you for the support and not blindly supporting the 1994-1999 Reddit narrative. My goal is to find a variety of sources/perspectives out there so people can use the wikipedia page as a jumping off place to find a variety of legitimate research out there to refer to 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears that ImoutoCompAlex instead of deleting the 1992-1998 range, she has updated the page to include a new range stating "Genzennials of 1991-2001 as stated by journalism graduates from the University of Westminster. If Wikipedia is truly against gatekeeping then you won't play favorites by isolating, gatekeeping and labeling 1991 borns as "old' and "non-cuspers" but including 1992 in the cuspers club. This is why hard cutiffs are a problem when talking about microgenerations."

While I have no problem with Alex finding a valid source that includes 1991, I do believe a self-published blog range doesn't make the cut. I agreed to leave out the Ketchum & WGSN sources since they were self-published by their respective marketing institutions. So while I don't want to go upset her since she seems to be taking this very personally from how she spoke to me in the cusper talk page, I don't think this blog is considered an academic source. If these marketing institutions don't make the cut, I am not sure why a blog of recent college grads would 2600:1700:C710:21E0:5EB:4FD0:212:A3B8 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems as though this user's privileges may be revoked soon. It looks like they've been warned already because edit warring is strictly forbidden. I've chosen to ignore it. There's nothing we can do about it. I have no problem with them finding a source that includes 1991 either because again Millennial/Gen Z cusp is still a very new thing and a range of dates is shown for every cusper group (as should be the case for this one). However I'm still questioning the WGSN source and why it's considered invalid. WGSN and its parent company Ascential seem to specialize in business to business marketing and trend forecasting. I don't understand how the Vice article is valid when it uses the term "zillennial" that is largely not found amongst generational theorists and experts and does not cite a source for the dates. I think I'll inquire further. Examining (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for inquiring further, I would be happy to have the WGSN source added in as a supplementary source for the 1992-1998 range used in the Managing Millennials book. I also think it's odd that Vice article is included when they turned down the WGSN source. Also, I made a username - per user Some1's request - for wikipedia so that it would be less confusing for my signature Centennial357 (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and have found 3 good sources for the cusper page, so now the Millennial/Z section is up to 4 solid sources to refer to including: 1992-1998, 1993-1998, 1995-2000, and 1996-2001. Trying to find a variety. Will see what else I can find in my research. Happy to be adding to and diversifying the page! It’s just a shame that we can’t refer to the self published ranges as supplemental sources to the academic ones, to show the cusps in action in marketing and such. I understand not having them as the only/primary source, but how could hurt as a secondary. Let me know if you make any headway on the WGSN vs Vice source situation Centennial357 (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for spamming you. Just wanted to share the news that ImOutoCompAlex has finally been blocked from Wikipedia, thank the lord, after the things she said in the talk page as well as in the reasons sections of her edits. It blows my mind that someone who behaved this way is also a moderator for the Millennial and Zillennial subreddits... Anyways, you didn’t learn anything new about using the WGSN source did you? Centennial357 (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey there! No apologies necessary. I knew that the user would get blocked eventually. They were trolling. I really am grateful for all of your research on this topic. I did ask about the WGSN source and haven't gotten a reply yet. Hopefully soon. Examining (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure if this helps or not, but it appears WGSN did a case study that led them to their 1992-1998 range: https://www.wgsn.com/insight/p/article/88103?lang=en

I’m not sure if that is sufficient for the Wikipedia admin’s standards, but I thought I’d share just in case it helped Centennial357 (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I just saw the notice board, you did show them the case study link originally. We are in the same wavelength haha. Too bad no one has commented on it yet Centennial357 (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they never replied on the Noticeboard, so I went ahead and on the cusper talk page to make another appeal for the WGSN case study as a source. I asked both Scarpy and Some1 about it. Some1 said he was okay with it and wouldn’t take it down, so I put the WGSN citation back in. Scarpy hasn’t commented on it yet. Centennial357 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I see you did. And yes it looks like we are on the same page LOL. I'm not sure why they haven't responded. It's been nearly 5 days and they've responded to posts after mine. Not sure if I excluded something that should be. I just can't figure out what's wrong with using that as a source and how it's "self-published" but I'm glad to see Some1 had no issue with it. Examining (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

If Vice can stay up there, then I don’t understand how an institution like WGSN can’t be used, especially since they did a case study on their cusper range. So it’s not as if they don’t have data/research to base their claims off of. Don’t get me wrong, I understand why Urban Dictionary and Buzzfeed aren’t the top sources to be citing since there is no research behind it. But for these marketing firms that have done their own research, I don’t see why not to cite them. Even Some1 seemed cool with it initially as long as it’s acknowledged that it’s a range used by a specific institution.

I’m going trying to try to locate a case study for the 1992-2000 Ketchum Y/Z cusper range to see if I can make an appeal on that one. It looks like several places online referred to/or reported the Ketchum cusper range back in 2017 so it’s not as if it didn’t get some attention.

Oh and last thing, another book I came across that you may find interesting: https://books.google.com/books?id=3HLKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT18&lpg=PT18&dq=bush+millennials+(1992-1999)&source=bl&ots=p25N5muZwJ&sig=ACfU3U0H_lh9njkigtyRZtM8CGQyPc2lvw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivj8u-1PLuAhWBGM0KHRh8DjIQ6AEwFnoECC8QAg#v=onepage&q=bush%20millennials%20(1992-1999)&f=true

On page 4 of chapter 1, the author describes each generation having two waves and says second wave millennials/“Z” spans 1992-1999. Now, people refer to Gen Jones as both second wave boomers and as cuspers, so I’m wondering if there is an argument to be made that second waves are a similar concept to cusps. But I’m not sure if Scarpy and Some1 would roll with that logic or not. Plus, they’d probably have me run the publisher by the noticeboard like they had me do for the 1996-2001 source. Centennial357 (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)