Talk:Generation Z

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-02-07. The result of the discussion was delete.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 13, 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.


Contents

[edit] This article should be maintained as a stub

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)


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)


    • 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit]  ???

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.


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] ...

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)