 | This article was nominated for merging with Generation Z on 4 january 2011. The result of the discussion was merge. |
 | The contents of the Pluralist Generation page were merged into Generation Z on January 11 2013 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Original research?
I get the feeling this is simply a Wiki user's pro-multicultural propaganda. What do you guys think? We already have a Generation Z article. Belmont22 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I looked at the links - I guess the term is fairly well established - BUT - i think we should merge this article and Generation Z into one. Belmont22 (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Based on the links I looked at it is clear that Generation Z and this page are talking about the same thing, so should be merged. I have no opinion on which name is more suitable. Probably the name is still in flux, just as Gen Y/Millennials isn't quite settled yet. I also noticed that there is a fair amount of what could be considered Original research in the article. As with all generation articles it is also hard to sort out the "fluff" pop sociology from anything serious.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- My reason for creating an article specifically for Pluralist Generation (with references to Generation Z as well) is that the references on Plurals talk a lot about the name in terms of a "pluralistic society" and traits of the generation that refer directly to the name. So while the two names refer to people of the same age group, the reasoning behind the name is different and I thought it deserved its own article. Agree with Peregrine that this stuff can tend to be pop sociology, but it's still widely written about in media so I don't see the harm in including a generation article with a name that is still in flux. Perhaps we should wait and see if a fairly "official" name arises for this generation and then either update the article or merge?HtownCat (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Based on the links I looked at it is clear that Generation Z and this page are talking about the same thing, so should be merged. I have no opinion on which name is more suitable. Probably the name is still in flux, just as Gen Y/Millennials isn't quite settled yet. I also noticed that there is a fair amount of what could be considered Original research in the article. As with all generation articles it is also hard to sort out the "fluff" pop sociology from anything serious.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that wikipedia policy suggests we should try to merge them unless you can clearly demonstrate that the term "Plurals" is significantly different from Gen Z. However, I'm open to being convinced, so maybe for the moment we should just let sleeping dogs lie. Perhaps if you could do some more research to clearly show how this concept is a different one, then it can be a perfectly good article. However, it has to be a clearly notable concept, and clearly defined as different from Z, or we are going to wind up with several articles talking about the same thing, which will lead to lots of confusion and duplication of effort.
- A note of caution, I would be careful especially in the later parts of the article, where you seem to have used articles that do not specifically refer to the "Pluralist Generation" as such, but rather to Z, or simply to current trends. That unfortunately is probably Original Research. I can understand the temptation to use them, but unfortunately it just can't be done on Wikipedia. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Another note - this is very United States, or at best, Western biased. The whole concept of the Pluralist Generation is that they live in a tolerant and diverse society with no 'norm' as far as race or sexuality but would that be the case for someone born in this time span who lives in say South Korea? not really. Belmont22 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Having had a moment to go through the sources used, I am now more inclined to simply merge with Z, unless HtownCat can come up with a compelling reason to keep this separate. It seems that this the "pluralist generation" is a concept developed by Frank N. Magid Associates. Almost all of the articles on this topic are either unreliable, written by an employee, or simply repeating Magid press releases. Until it catches on more broadly, we should merge it into Z, and see what happens. Some of the info from those reports could be valuable for the Z article. However, I'm not sure how reliable a report produced by for-profit consultants like this is considered to be. Also, a good portion of the article is indeed, and clearly in violation of WP:OR on a page with this name, but would not be on Z. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Forgive my late response on this and also my unintentional OR violation. I didn't know that I couldn't use articles that talk about iGeneration/Generation Z, etc. and don't explicitly mention Pluralist Generation. I thought that since they are all terms for the same age group that the information would be appropriate.
- Still, I don't think we should merge the articles. As the tag added to this article states, perhaps the best thing to do is make it more obvious that this is an alternative name for Generation Z perpetuated by Frank N. Magid Associates. I think if we frame the article correctly, then it will be an interesting and informative addition to Wikipedia.
- I'm a little confused about the NPOV tag. I thought this article was pretty neutral, but perhaps you can point out a way to make it more neutral. However, I agree with the western point of view tag. Thanks for your help.HtownCat (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Having had a moment to go through the sources used, I am now more inclined to simply merge with Z, unless HtownCat can come up with a compelling reason to keep this separate. It seems that this the "pluralist generation" is a concept developed by Frank N. Magid Associates. Almost all of the articles on this topic are either unreliable, written by an employee, or simply repeating Magid press releases. Until it catches on more broadly, we should merge it into Z, and see what happens. Some of the info from those reports could be valuable for the Z article. However, I'm not sure how reliable a report produced by for-profit consultants like this is considered to be. Also, a good portion of the article is indeed, and clearly in violation of WP:OR on a page with this name, but would not be on Z. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- As far as the OR goes, we can't have it both ways: either Generation Z and Pluralist generation are different and we can't use the terms interchangeably, or they're the same and the articles should be merged. I'm willing to see if the articles can stand on their own. If for example, we say specifically that it is a term developed for marketing purposes by Frank N. Magid, and applies only to USA, then I could see it being a valid argument, whereas Z is more global. But I'm not 100% sold on the idea yet. I think that we would need a few more sources to make that really clear. I don't understand the NPOV tag either; wansn't me who put it in. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, this article should be merged with the Generation Z article. Media67 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- The western bias is appropriate given that Millennials, Generation X, Baby Boomers, etc. are all considered Generations of Western Society. If you scroll down past that, you'll see there are different systems used in China, Hong Kong, South Korea, and India, for example. MarkMc1990 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)