Talk:New Silent Generation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New Silent Generation redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Speedy

This page is a recreation with a different name of the recently deleted Generation Z page. This generation was by consensus to be left unnamed as they have no identity yet.Gateman1997 08:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Silent Generation is not the same as Generation Z

This page is not a recreation of the so-called "Generation Z" page. It is not an attempt to name a generation, but rather to offer information on Neil Howe and William Strauss' concept of the New Silent Generation.

One reason cited for deleting this page is that "the generation has no name yet". It is important to remember that no generation has an official name... There is a huge Generation Y page, yet there is total disagreement as to whether or not this should be the name for that cohort. Rather, it is one of several possible names used.

Similarly, New Silent Generation is one possible name for the generation currently being born, however it is important in that it is part of a theory already written and published of generational succession.

To delete it would just be a spiteful act by those who don't wish for any page referring to the currently being born generation to be on wikipedia.

It seems like this will be a stub article for a very long time. --Mr. Vernon 16:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Identical.

This page is clearly not identical to the content that had been on the Generation Z page. It is totally new content about the same group of people, with relation to a popular demographic theory. This is not at all a candidate for speedy deletion.

This page is neccessary in order to keep things organised within the List of Generations - I think the content justifies that it is not the same as Generation Z's article. Piecraft 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generation M

I believe 'Generation M' is more appropriate for the post-Y generation. It is a generation that is yet to define itself; however, being born in the new millennium, the 'M' seems appropriate. Basically, this is an invitation for a debate over such a description. Clem J 05:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this would just be original research. While I have heard the term sometimes with 'M' referring either to media or multitasking (or to a series within the X-Men franchise), this has never been in a scientific context. Plus, the generation referred to wouldn't be the generation of those born after 2001 (or whatever should be its beginning...). There currently isn't much to say about this (proposed) generation, and I doubt there will be until in maybe ten years. Don Cuan 17:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeland Generation

I had heard it proposed elsewhere that this generation be called the Homeland Generation. Given that the Silent Generation, whose nickname is now nearly undisputed, was named for their silence-for the way that their silence as children manifested itself in adulthood-it's appropriate that today's children, growing up in a world with a perceived lack of safety, imparted largely by the Department of Homeland Security itself, should be named after that institution. When all is written, I wouldn't be surprised if this generation identifies and is identified with the effects of that 'Homeland' mentality the same way many members of the Silent generation identify with 'Silent' as a meaningful descriptor. Rbedford 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generation C

I've seen the use of Generation C as well. Wouter Lievens 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Generation

People talk of the YouTube Generation - now I'm no sociologist but is this actually a new generation after the New Silent Generation or is it just some media term to describe the 'youth of today'? If so, then there should be some mention of it here or elsewhere in Wikipedia.MathiasFox 22:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically the internet generation.J'onn J'onzz 21:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent research

This article is basically independent research worded to appear as if it is accepted as general consensus in society. The term itself is bound strictly to one author and has not been widely published. It should have a speedy deletion. 64.122.208.184 20:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, i like this page. .it clearly states its a "work" in progress, and reflect the most upto dat theory of the "dudes" most of this generational stuff is based on. It makes sense.. for now. 6-10 more years till the new awakening the new 60s.. cant wait... hang on.. does that make it 2012?? the mythical mayan end of time????... hmmm 58.179.204.70 10:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC) opsy howd i get signed outCilstr 10:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC) or would the awakening not happen til the new silents are in mid life.. another 30 years... Cilstr 10:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American stub ?

It seems odd for me to see all these terms being qualified as American-related. Generation X, Y, and Z (new silent generation) are also known and used in other countries. Anthere (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1991??

Where in the Generations book does it state 1991 as the start off date for this generation? If I'm not mistaken, the authors used 2001 as the start date. 1991 is a core Millennial year. If you're going to mention the book then at least use the correct birth years the authors used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.169.176 (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]