:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
The result of the move request was: '''No consensus.''' OK, I agree it's complicated, but the primarytopic rationale made no sense since the target had a disambiguator, and the source evidence was poorly presented by both sides, and the article is currently written about the generation, not the slang term per se. Yes, the association of snowflake with a generation has a POV, but that's the topic of the article, not a POV of the editors. Possibly a separate article on the term snowflake makes sense, and maybe some day there will be a consensus on how to merge them, but for now there's no consensus to make this article into that. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 04:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
----
[[:Generation Snowflake]] → {{no redirect|Snowflake (slang)}} – Per [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]], it is simply common sense to call an article about a slang term by the name of the slang term, not by a particular usage of the slang term. That's why [[bugger]] has an article but [[bugger off]] and [[bugger all]] only have redirects. Calling the article "Generation Snowflake" instead of "Snowflake" is also inherently POV. "Generation Snowflake" is not the prime or even the usual use of the term "snowflake" in its pejorative sense, it's a meme that was pushed by Claire Fox and compliant British journalists in 2016, and is actually on the decline now. [[User:MaxBrowne|MaxBrowne]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne|talk]]) 23:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
[[:Generation Snowflake]] → {{no redirect|Snowflake (slang)}} – Per [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]], it is simply common sense to call an article about a slang term by the name of the slang term, not by a particular usage of the slang term. That's why [[bugger]] has an article but [[bugger off]] and [[bugger all]] only have redirects. Calling the article "Generation Snowflake" instead of "Snowflake" is also inherently POV. "Generation Snowflake" is not the prime or even the usual use of the term "snowflake" in its pejorative sense, it's a meme that was pushed by Claire Fox and compliant British journalists in 2016, and is actually on the decline now. [[User:MaxBrowne|MaxBrowne]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne|talk]]) 23:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Line 665:
Line 670:
::::::Ok, but the article is about Generation Snowflake; the (just) 'snowflake' bit comes in as background to that term. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 17:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::Ok, but the article is about Generation Snowflake; the (just) 'snowflake' bit comes in as background to that term. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 17:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Given that the uses of ''snowflake'' under discussion here have entered the language (British English, US English, ''et al.''), mostly in polemic but also in other literature and journalism, my feeling is that, as often, this may be a more contentious problem among dwellers in that robust promoter of [[Free Speech Movement|"free speech"]], the USA, in the self-belief of [[The Star-Spangled Banner#Lyrics|"land of the free"]], from campus to [[Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72|election campaign trail]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qexigator/Books/Fellow_Americans] than it is elsewhere. It may, then, be only fair to let the question of article title be settled by allowing some more weight to be given to opinion and comment tending to reflect (npov) USA experience. [[User:Qexigator|Qexigator]] ([[User talk:Qexigator|talk]]) 09:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Given that the uses of ''snowflake'' under discussion here have entered the language (British English, US English, ''et al.''), mostly in polemic but also in other literature and journalism, my feeling is that, as often, this may be a more contentious problem among dwellers in that robust promoter of [[Free Speech Movement|"free speech"]], the USA, in the self-belief of [[The Star-Spangled Banner#Lyrics|"land of the free"]], from campus to [[Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72|election campaign trail]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qexigator/Books/Fellow_Americans] than it is elsewhere. It may, then, be only fair to let the question of article title be settled by allowing some more weight to be given to opinion and comment tending to reflect (npov) USA experience. [[User:Qexigator|Qexigator]] ([[User talk:Qexigator|talk]]) 09:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.
POV
I just googled this phrase in the news and over 7,000 time the exact phrase is referenced. After reading the page I found it to be a very accurate description of a symptom my high school student was experiencing. Definitely, keep this page. (PS I apologize if I did something wrong here, I have never posted to Wikipedia talk section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.104.116 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not seem neutral. It seems composed largely of POV quotes from various media outlets describing a large demographic group of people as "hysterical" etc. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view page: NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The final paragraph of this article clearly gives a different perspective from the others, thereby providing balance that, to date, is proportional. EddieHugh (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page is describing the term and its usage, as it has appeared in the Telegraph, Guardian, GQ, Vice, and others. In my opinion, fleshing out the article and perhaps adding a Criticism section would work well. I don't think it's non-neutral as it is. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in those 6 alt-right, far-right rags does not merit removal of the POV tag, or even the existence of this fascist article, Ghost/Meme. I'm petitioning the National Association of Student Councils to DE-PLATFORM WIKIPEDIA until this oppressive article which exploits the Workers of the world, and all articles containing more than 16 words which are disparaging or discouraging to Millennials, Politically Correct People, Center-Left Bolsheviks, Red Anarchists, and other Marxists whose parents earn >$60,000 per year, or similarly oppressed groups are deleted. You AGEIST, SEXIST COCKWIELDING OPPRESSOR.
DE-PLATFORM_WIKIPEDIA
Hey hey, ho ho, Wikipedia's got to go!
Expose the Wiki-fascists. Just say no to far-right problematic RACIST sources who refuse to recognize intersectionality of feminism, BLM'ism, transsexual/body fat acceptance, and righteousness aka SOCIAList JUSTICE. 97.98.86.66 (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool story, bro. You're an obvious troll who pretends to be radical left but does a bad job at it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to restart the convo on whether this is NPOV. My grip is the sources used here are not very high on my list of credible? Any one else think this page should be removed? This term does belong in the urban dictionary, however I don't think the discussion can possibly be NPOV since it is basically a "kids these days" type of remark. 2601:282:502:4B63:79DC:17F8:332E:9986 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already discussed: see below. It has sources that meet the relevant criteria, so is not for deleting. It balances the views expressed in sources, thus meeting NPOV. EddieHugh (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. No great surprise that the snowflakes are whining about the article. Odd that NO ONE is whining about any of the other "Generation" articles... Not even the "Me Generation" article. One quick review of the arguments in favor of deleting the Generation Snowflake article are all the proof needed to verify the accuracy of the supposedly "negative" portions of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fcc8:a10d:e00:3977:a1b8:c4fc:f3e (talk • contribs) 22:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generation Snowflake
Personally, I find the term to be widely used and descriptive. I think it should remain as Generation Snowflake. However, I am somewhat opposed to the singular "snowflake" as a term once used as a derogatory name aimed toward White/Caucasian people.72.160.37.49 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should add that to the article as it is relevant if you have sourcing regarding the historic usage of the term "snowflake." MHP Huck (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Affordable Care Act
I restored the recently deleted text regarding the Affordable Care Act[1]. I disagree with the rationale for deletion given in edit summary that the ref doesn't focus on generation snowflake because it's mentioned in article and "Snowflake Generation" is even mentioned in title. Also, I disagree with the argument that this text should be deleted because Michelle Malkin is a "polemicist like Coulter" because I think who uses this term and in what context is relevant and encyclopedic. I restored this text with clarification that Malkin is a "conservative political commentator", rather than the previous text of just "political commentator". --DynaGirl (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This speaks to the problems of this article in that it is mostly citing sources which have known political views on the right. I think you should remove the portion on the ACA, for NPOV, you need to add the explanation of why the provision regarding keeping insurance till 26 was in there, since the typical explanation is persuasive and would deflates her theory of weakness. That is, to leave it as it is written makes is quite biased since the obvious counter point is that the system has changed overtime, including a massive tripling of costs and a mandate to get insurance. Both of those items create monetary differences between the generations as to how their early 20s is financed and that portion of the AVA was a means of mitigating those effects. It has little to do with "character" and everything to do with the monetary flows demanded in the current system. MHP Huck (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article text clarifies this is the argument of a conservative political commentator. I don't read this as Wikipedia agreeing with Michelle Malkin's arguments, but rather giving an example of how snowflake is being used and by whom.--DynaGirl (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the u-26 provision applies whether or not the person is actually living with their parents, they could even be married, and maybe it makes sense since most people of that age are either studying or working shitty minimum wage jobs or both. There's also the tone of the article, which is highly polemical and clearly designed to whip up her fans and troll her opponents. ("Twenty. Freaking. Six."). Also the fact that it is very US-specific and does not represent a worldwide view of the topic, and it's just one pundit trying to draw this tenuous relationship between this aspect of a piece of legislation designed to help young people get on to a health insurance plan and the allegedly over-sensitive millennial "snowflakes". Not a good source at all. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this is an article about a pejorative term. I don't know that we can avoid sources with a judgmental tone. She's clearly not a neutral source, but she's not presented as one, she's presented as a conservative political commentator. With respect to world view. In the following section you objected to a source and content specific to the UK as not being global.(sorry, had you confused with another editor) Seems this source from US acts to balances that somewhat. There's also sources from Australia and Ireland. Seems the article is fairly well globalized, especially considering how short it is.--DynaGirl (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the article has been published under different headlines in other sources, so it was a sub-editors decision to include the current buzzword "snowflake" in the headline. So you've just got the one single reference to "precious snowflakes", and in the context it's basically just used as the current insult de jour directed at young people. The "source from Australia" is actually a reproduction of The Times (London) article. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, this is the original publication of the article. The original headline referred to the "safety pin generation", and made only passing reference to "precious snowflakes". It was a subeditor at the Winchester Chronicle in Canada who decided for whatever reason to give it a new headline with "Generation Snowflake" in it. Unless the article is moved to something like Snowflake (pejorative) to reflect the more general use of "snowflake", this article is not suitable for citing in an article called "Generation Snowflake". MaxBrowne (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne, I don’t really get why you're removing this again. I notice you brought your concern regarding this text to WP:NPOVN and did not get support for removing it there. An uninvolved editor commented regarding the Michelle Malkim text: “If the term merits an article at all, the article has to discuss how people use it.” [2] I’m not sure I understand your rationale for removing it this time. Malkin using a slightly different title for an article published two days apart doesn’t seem significant (and both articles were published in the US so I don’t get your “subeditors in Canada” thing.) To be specific, In the Town Hall version of this article Malkin uses the title "Safety Pin Generation" and in the Winchester Star version Malkin uses the title "Snowflake Generation", but this is the same slur coming from Malkin both times. With “safety pin generation” she is referring to a form of protest against Donald Trump where people wear safety pins to show that they are a “safe space” (ie that they condemn Trump's divisive/derogatory rhetoric regarding Muslims, Mexicans, women etc and to show that marginalized groups can feel safe around them). Donald Trump protests as well as safe spaces are explicitly discussed in this Wikipedia article as things people are referring to when they say "generation snowflake". Also, I’m not sure why this matters because the version of the article referenced uses the title “snowflake generation” and the snowflake slur is in the body of the article.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DynaGirl. The current consensus favours the inclusion of the material. Keri (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DynaGirl: OK I got the Canada part wrong. The Winchester Star is a low circulation newspaper and while the article has been syndicated to a number of newspapers, this small local paper was the only one to use the heading "Symbols of a Snowflake Generation", which is strong evidence that the headline was written by a subeditor, not by Malkin. There is a passing reference to "precious snowflakes" but not to "generation snowflake". Do you want to expand the scope of the article to include other uses of "snowflake"? MaxBrowne (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne, I see no evidence either of the two titles was written by a sub-editor, and most notably both titles contain the word “generation” [3], [4]. As explained above "Snowflake Generation" and "Safety Pin Generation" are basically the same slur. This is not expanding the scope of the article to include other uses of "snowflake". This Malkim essay specifically uses “snowflake” as a slur against young adults with Malkim repeatedly arguing they are less resilient than older people. I can get that you think Malkim is obnoxious, but I don’t get how you think this is off-topic. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to "get" a lot of things that I write. Twenty or so publications publish an article under one headline. One publication, a small local newspaper, publishes the article under a different headline. This is overwhelming evidence that the second headline was written by a sub-editor, not the original author. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dissecting the GQ article
I refer to this article which is cited several times, and even used as a justification for wikilinking to a lame (and critically panned) sitcom in the "see also" section.
Let's start with the author - who is Eleanor Halls? Let's see... High school 2007-2011 which makes her about 23. Recent Oxford grad with B.A. in modern languages, specifically French. Staff writer at British GQ since March 2016. Writes about a bit of everything. No credentials as a sociologist, psychologist or anything like that - this is basically a fluffy opinion piece by a recent graduate. Not that I expect serious journalism from a men's fashion and lifestyle magazine.
"Millennials are a generation defined by the words like “check your privilege”, “feminist”, “consent”, “safe space”, “gender norms” and “trigger warnings”." - really? Then she links to a tumblr page which is now blank but which formerly contained a scruffy riot grrl style zine which she probably came across when she was at Oxford. Not a good start.
She goes on to the Rhodes Must Fall business. This was a continuation of a movement which began in South Africa (a Rhodes statue was removed from the University of Cape Town) and was initiated primarily by Black and ethnic minority Oxford students who found the university environment alienating. So it's more of a colonialism/racism /cultural senstivity issue than a "generation snowflake" thing. University administration met with them and discussed the issue, the main reason it stayed was because wealthy donors threatened to cut the university off for even meeting with the students. So much for free speech - but anyway it should be obvious that the issue is way more complex than a bunch of over-sensitive millennials getting unduly offended. After misrepresenting the nature of the dispute, she tops it off in the next paragraph with a ridiculous slippery slope argument.
Then we get the "trigger warnings for law students" drivel... that one appears to originate from the Daily Mail. What actually happened is that a supervisor suggested that lecturers "bear in mind" the use of trigger warnings...it's not an actual Oxford University policy. It probably just means saying something like "this lecture is not going to be pleasant, but we're going to be covering sexual offences today."
This is followed by an incoherent rant about and another reference to the obscure feminist blog Cuntry Living (you can still find it on the wayback machine). Next example she gives is a Bristol University student named Benjie Beer who published a short story on his blog with a rape them, written from a first person perspective. Note that it was the university which asked him to remove it, not the student body. Among the students, some supported him, some didn't. As you'd expect. So again not a good example.
Then there's the Manchester Police and the "Allahu Akbar" stuff. Let's have a look at her link.... bbc, good source. So what does it say? Well, the person who objected to it was one Dr Erinma Bell. Googling her, it turns out she's not just a peace activist, she's a respected community leader in Manchester. If she wants to have a word with the local police about something, they're going to listen to her. She seems to be in her 40s and is certainly not part of "generation snowflake".
She finishes it off with that sitcom which the millenials are allegedly offended by. Actually they probably just think it's lame. (Stephen Fry, you can do better than that. Seriously.)
Conclusion? The GQ article is trash. The writer has no particular expertise on the topic and the examples she gives are poor ones. She was probably given a brief to "write something about millennials and snowflakes, you've got until Friday" and this was what she came up with. And this isn't the only poor source cited by the article either. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxBrowne: I'm not sure I understand your objection. In edit summary you indicated you were removing The Great Indoors (TV series) from See Also section because it's "contrary to WP:EL policy" [5]. The relevant policy is actually WP:ALSO and WP:NAVLIST because the page in question is an internal link not an external link. If I understand correctly, you now also oppose listing it in See also section because the author of the GQ article which links show to term is young (apparently she's a Millennial) who lacks PhD in sociology or psychology. I don't get how that's relevant (except perhaps being somewhat impressed that she managed to snag a job writing for GQ by age 23). I haven't seen the show The Great Indoors but the GQ source says it's related to generation snowflake. I actually previously removed it from See Also myself, because I thought it was placed there based on original research but Keri pointed out the connection to the term was referenced. According to WP:NAVLISTwhen deciding what articles and lists of articles to append to any given entry, it is useful to try to put yourself inside the mind of readers: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Seems reasonable readers who just read an article about a term which Collins defines as "the young adults of the 2010s, who are perceived as more prone to taking offense and less resilient than previous generations" might be interested in The Great Indoors (TV series) given what I can gather about the show from its trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMij2R-XL9E. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point (the entire point) is that the article is not a serious piece of journalism, it's a fluff piece, which on closer examination turns out to be very poorly researched. As such it should not be treated as a WP:RS, and is not sufficient justification to include a wikilink to a bloody sitcom in the "see also" section. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne, this is an article about an informal term. It's referenced by newspapers and magazines. GQ is a reliable source. There was an AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Generation_Snowflake and it was decided that this article meets WP:GNG. The article is here to stay and at this point, editors have been working to make it more encyclopedic. The referenced See Also link to The Great Indoors (TV series) seems to add encyclopedic value to this article about this informal term. I honestly don't get the objection. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The GQ article is absolute garbage for reasons I don't need to repeat. I have been advised at the RS noticeboard that it is a "reliable source"... for Eleanor Halls' opinion, however poorly researched and uninformed it may be. I have also been advised that the appropriate policy is WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE, rather than WP:RS. So I'll ask the question suggested at that board, namely - who is Eleanor Halls and why is her opinion important? And wikilinking to a crappy sitcom in the "See also" section? Not only does it add no encylcopedic value, it's absurd. Would you expect the Bus article to include On the Buses in its "See also" section? Would you expect the Maid article to include We Got it Made, the Department store article to include Are You Being Served?, the Witchcraft article to include Bewitched, the Ghost article to include Jennifer Slept Here? Or how about including Mind Your Language in the See aslo section for the English as a second language article? MaxBrowne (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxBrowne: You can start a discussion on this talk page regarding the neutrality of including this tv show in the See Also list (or even post the NPOV noticeboard if unsatisfied with consensus here) but I still don't get it. Regarding those other shows, if they were referenced by reliable sources as related to the topic, I probably wouldn't object, but I'm not a big tv watcher, so not familiar with most of those shows. Not sure how reasonable it would be to think any of those would be referenced as on topic. With respect to your question regarding who is Eleanor Halls, she's a journalist writing for a reliable source who linked a tv show to this topic. Out of curiosity, I watched the first 2 episodes of The Great Indoors online. I still don't get what you find so lame or horrible or terrible about this particular show. The 1st episode was kind of boring (if you've seen the trailer, you've seen all the jokes) but the 2nd episode was actually kind of funny. This seems like a normal enough show as far as sitcoms go. There doesn't seem to be anything controversial about Halls linking the show to this term and it doesn't seem like you'd need a degree in psychology or sociology to see the link. Also, I've done a bit of research on the show and multiple reliable sources discuss the generation gap element of this particular sitcom. I honestly don't see what the big problem is with having it listed in See Also. --DynaGirl (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot the second part of the question, why is her opinion important? She isn't even a "journalist". MaxBrowne (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She writes for GQ. I don't really understand your question. How important does someone writing for a reliable source have to be to link a tv show about a multigenerational workforce to this subject? If you watch the show, the link to the term is apparent. Also, I think it was Keri who previously pointed out, See Also lists don't typically require reliable source references, but this one actually has one. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't get it? Any high school student who came up with this garbage would get an F. It has zero academic or intellectual value. It should not be cited anywhere. At all. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The link as an ALSO is perfectly acceptable and pertinent according to the Manual of Style. MaxBrowne just doesn't like the term or the article, or that he has been previously blocked for edit warring on the page. This is clearly an example of slow edit warring in an attempt to circumvent 3RR. Keri (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More clutching at straws as MaxBrowne continues his contentious editing, battleground behaviour and edit warring at the article. I'm starting to wonder if a WP:ABAN isn't a little further down this road. Keri (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Keri: Cut the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith now. Last warning. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne , please stop deleting the GQ reference from the article. There is no talk page consensus to delete this reference, and you also failed to get support on WP:RSN to delete this reference from the article [6]. Repeatedly deleting it absent consensus is disruptive. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs to be slimmed right down
Quoting what I said on RSN: pretty much every source in the article except for Collins is an opinion piece. To properly reflect NPOV the article should be slimmed right down, not filled with "random journalist says .....", "random article in student mag says....", "random pundit says....", "random person with an opinion says...". And I'll add here that many of the opinion pieces are poorly informed ones that add no encyclopedic value. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the current consensus. And there hasn't been much interest at the various noticeboards. But you're free to discuss your proposed changes here to persuade others. Keri (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oh come on....
Insisting on two links to the exact same article is just ridiculous. I still don't think it belongs in the article but if you're going to include it at least have the intellectual honesty to link to the original, not the one with the altered headline. I am picking up WP:OWNership issues here. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems wp:own would apply to the editor who is edit warring to remove a reference from the article (and this isn’t the first time you’ve done this). MaxBrowne, I never removed your addition of the Town Hall reference. I objected to your repeated removal of the Winchester Star ref. I think it’s completely fine to reference both, but if for some strange reason you absolutely insist on using just one, it makes more sense to use the one that was originally in the article (the Winchester Star version) because this one has “Snowflake Generation” in its title, making it more on topic for this particular article. Your repeated removal of reliable source references seems disruptive, and it seems concerning given your assertion that article should be “slimmed right down” (which so far has not gained support on any of the noticeboards you have posted to). When you keep removing various references, it honestly comes across as if you are trying to weaken the sourcing, prior to gutting this article of massive amounts of content. Please stop. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want to duplicate a reference, and why do you want to give preference to a version of the article other than the original publication? MaxBrowne (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC) It seems to me you want the Winchester Chronicle link because the altered headline, which was almost certainly written by a sub-editor from a small local newspaper, not by the original author, makes it seem more on-topic. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another common form of citation overkill is to cite multiple reprintings of the same content in different publications — such as several different newspapers reprinting the same wire service article, or a newspaper or magazine article getting picked up by a news aggregator — as if they constituted distinct citations. Such duplicated citations may be piled up as multiple references for the same fact or they may be split up as distinct footnotes for different pieces of content, so watching out for this type of overkill may sometimes require special attention.
This type of overkill should be resolved by merging all of the citations into a single one and stripping unhelpful repetitions — when possible, the retained citation should be the originator of the content rather than a reprinter or aggregator, but if this is not possible (e.g. some wire service articles) then retain the most reliable and widely-distributed available reprinter (for example, if the same article has been linked to both The New York Times and The Palookaville Herald, then The New York Times should be retained as the citation link.)
Clearly you feel protective of your edits, and you seem to be allowing your personal antipathy to cloud your judgement. If the Malkin article is to be used at all, then only the original should be cited. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne, two does not fall under the definition of "multiple" and these are not "unhelpful repetitions" as one version uses Michelle Malkin: Symbols of a Snowflake Generation as title and other uses The Slacker Mandate and the Safety Pin Generation as title. This provides readers with info that reliable source uses "Safety Pin Generation" as synonym for "Snowflake Generation" and that the wearing of safety pins to protest Trump is considered by reliable source to be a symbol of generation snowflake, but if you feel strongly that article should contain only one, it makes more sense to retain the one which was originally in the article (the one with "Snowflake Generation" in its title) as this is more on topic for the article.--DynaGirl (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not make more sense to use the one that is supposedly more on topic, it makes sense to use the original source. Using an article with an altered headline to make it appear more on topic than it actually is in preference to the original article is intellectually dishonest. I know I'm abrasive but I'm right about this. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC) One other thing I want to say - Keri "agreeing" with you about this or that is not "consensus", it's just two editors who have decided they don't like me ganging up. Actual "consensus" requires wider involvement by the wikipedia community. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne, you have recently brought concerns regarding this article to WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, and also WP:ANI. Keri recently brought the article to WP:AN3 regarding your previous edit warring and there was also a recent AfD. Considering this article has been brought to the attention of the wider wikipedia community repeatedly, it seems reasonable to assume there are multiple eyes on it at this point.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not, you and Keri still seem able to protect "your" version of the article in the name of "consensus" with no independent oversight. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should consider there is oversight on the article and others simply don't agree with you here. Also, your repeated use of quotation marks and innuendo to repeat an accusation which you had the good sense to strike below is noted. This accusation is both false and uncivil. Please stop. --DynaGirl (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems that way to me. Just about any edit I make gets reverted because of "concensus", consensus meaning you and Keri. I see no oversight here. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, DynaGirl, MaxBrowne needs to stop his disruptive editing. Especially, considering the walls of text above from MaxBrowne about sources – even going so far as to carry out background research on the journalists – when he thinks it's fine to have a link to The Daily Mash and has previously linked user-generated sources. Keri (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Want to put your money where your mouth is and take that blatantly false and serious allegation to a notice board..? Keri (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keri - you have come off as biased, given what seems to me the obvious lack of NPOV on the article. I don't think this neologism is worthy of Wikipedia, given that it is an agist insult which isn't used widely. Makes me want to stop donating. I would happily report you if I understood the process. MHP Huck (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated it for deletion, and it survived that process with flying colours. Stop donating for all I care - I don't get any of your money. If you want to report me, tell me what you'd like to report me for and I'll guide you through the process. Keri (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging
{Moving a thread here from user talk:Ɱ)
Hi, thanks for for your recent work at the a.m. article. I note that you added several maintenance tags, but did not elaborate the specific issue that is actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. When using the {{disputed}} tag, for example, you should add a new section named "Disputed" to the article's talk page, describing the problems with the disputed statements. I'm intrigued also by your use of the {{Globalize/US}} tag, as the article uses many sources from outside the USA. Finally, the {{Unreliable sources}} tag is rather vague. Using {{Verify credibility}} instead against the sources you dispute would be much more helpful. Keri (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keri, such detail is often not necessary. It should be clear the sources are from US and UK papers, so they don't provide a world view. The disputes span your arguments with those other two editors that I'm not going to join in to. The unreliable sources tag should also be evident; these sources all complain about the issue or complain about people's usages. Very few offer statistics, and when they do, they're not linked to research. Academic papers on the subject, with formal research methodology (or articles reporting on these papers) need to be used here. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 21:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, such detail would be helpful as clearly at least one editor here has asked :) As the term is an English-language neologism, I fail to see why a "world view" is considered necessary. As an informal term and neologism, there are no "academic papers on the subject, with formal research methodology" and I would be grateful for a pointer to the policy that necessitates such sources. Keri (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are norms on Wikipedia, I am honestly surprised. Wikipedia articles are always encouraged to talk about the subject as it pertains to people across the globe, and to use sources from a wide variety of localities. It prevents systemic bias. As for the academic papers, you're likely wrong; sometimes it takes more digging or paywall access, but there's probably plenty of usable material. As for a policy, see the second bullet here and also WP:RS/MC. This article heavily relates to psychological issues that need to be backed up by more than speculation and brash claims in newspapers and tabloids. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 22:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer is rather superficial, and somewhat misleading: while "Wikipedia articles are always encouraged to talk about the subject as it pertains to people across the globe" this is an English-language neologism. As for WP:NEWSORG and WP:RS/MC the term is not biomedical or medical in use, not a psychological condition or disorder, and not presented as such in the article. Demanding academic sources for "biomedical assertions" is a red herring and completely irrelevant. Keri (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say more than I did; you're wrong. It's awful to talk about the psychological issues of a generation and only quote mass media. I'll bring this to the attention of WP:MED. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 22:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do that. Your POV is showing, by the way. Keri (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no point of view, honestly. I'm working to create a better encyclopedia, as I always have. My tone and language on the mainspace is always very dry. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 22:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new term, which originated in 'western' English-speaking countries and not in an academic field. Tagging for sources from other countries and academia is OTT. It's like criticising an article on theoretical physics for not having sources related to experimental evidence: hopefully they'll come, but for now we use what's available. EddieHugh (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree @EddieHugh:. Demanding academic sources "with formal research methodology" and sources from medical journals is completely unreasonable. Keri (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the term isn't used in academia, there are studies on various psychological issues of people within Generation Y and Z that would be far better than the assumptions of these mass media journalists that people of these generations are easily damaged, by differing opinions, lack of internet access, and lack of safe spaces. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 22:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And even if you may consider the Daily Telegraph to be reputable, we shouldn't cite the assumption of that journalist that "students have always been instrumental in turning the tide of public opinion". Where's the evidence? Baseless assumptions by writers with no authority in that field are useless. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 23:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ, this isn't an article on Generation Y or Generation Z. This is an article about an informal and derogatory term. Also, the quote "students have always been instrumental in turning the tide of public opinion" was included in a paragraph arguing political protesting shouldn't be characterized as whining. This seems to add to NPOV in that it argues against the negative connotations of the term. This is in quotes as the authors opinion, but I don't think it is controversial to say that older generations also protested when they were university students and influenced public opinion. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And still: the article is about a neologism, not an assessment of psychological issues. Keri (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you have a section on characteristics of this term for a set of psychological problems. Characteristics of a disease require medical sources, why don't characteristics of a (supposed) mental issue require medical sources now? ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 23:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong; they're not "characteristics... of psychological problems", they're the characteristics which writers have applied to the neologism. This isn't a differential diagnosis, its a discussion of a neologism. Keri (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Okay, that's alright, but in order to round out the article, there really should be evidence behind most of the statements about this anecdotal phenomenon. A separate section on characteristics of the problem would be warranted. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 23:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Eddie says above, I'm sure they will come eventually. As a new term, only recently entering mainstream discourse, it is unreasonable to expect them today. Or tomorrow. You should by all means feel free to add such section and/or sources. Keri (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt Right
I've made a change to the lede given the terms association with the alt-right. Given that the term is primarily used by this group, this seems appropriate. I have more sourcing if need be. MHP Huck (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems undue weight to put the alt-right in the lead. None of the sources referencing the article are alt-right sources. The one reference that mentions the alt-right does not mention generation or discuss this term in relation to young adults [7]. It's actually not clear if this reference should be used in the article at all, let alone used in the lead section. We would need much better sourcing than this to put alt-right in the lead.--DynaGirl (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your characterization. However you will find that many sources refer to alt-right figures employing the term. I added another source. I think that reference in the LA times is a very good reference since it puts the neologism in context with other related neologisms. Most quotes of people using the term are also alt-right figures. The term is entwined with that political movement and, therefore, it would do a disservice to Wikipedia to ignore the connection which is well documented. MHP Huck (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times is obviously a reliable source, but that LA Times article doesn't mention generation or young adults. Both sources makes it sound like the alt-right (or far-right) has adapted this term which Collins Dictionary defines as: "the young adults of the 2010s, who are perceived as more prone to taking offense and less resilient than previous generations" to mean something different. The alt-right apparently uses snowflake to mean liberals of any age who oppose Trump or Brexit. This may warrant mention in body of article as an adaptation of the term, but I don't think it belongs in the lead, and since the alt-right isn't actually using the term "snowflake generation", or directing this at young adults specifically, your recent additions to the lead seem inaccurate. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am missing something but I don't think "generation snowflake" is used in a way which is supposed to apply to the generation as a whole, it merely applies to subset of the younger generation. It isn't, for instance, a term like "baby boomer." I don't think the Collin's dictionary reference is particularly strong and there are other alternative definitions on the web. The main connection here isn't the term "generation" but the term "snowflake." Indeed, many of the sources confirm that the main interest of this article is "snowflakes" not the younger demographic. If it were actually aimed at a generation, it would naturally be merged with Gen X or Millennials. The fact that the term is primarily used by a political group is critical to understanding the existence and purpose of the term, and it deserves mention in the lede. MHP Huck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my research I found multiple uses of the term "snowflake" and later "generation snowflake" on the blogs Rate Your Students and its successor College Misery, where professors anonymously rant and complain about their students. The earliest usage I found there was from 2007. Before the trolls got hold of the word it was mostly used in a fairly apolitical sense to describe students with a narcissistic streak and an unwarranted sense of entitlement. The definition given on College Misery is "Overly entitled student. Over-inflated sense of self-esteem and self-worth comes from being told that they are precious and unique, just like each snowflake." Similar sentiments can be found in the older definitions on urban dictionary. So in its original usage (close to the Fight Club usage) it did not have the sense of wimpyness, quickness to take offence, extreme PC-ness etc. I think this narrative was primarily driven by Claire Fox, who one way or another turns out to be behind just about every citation given from the UK and Ireland. I guess from there the alt-right picked up on the term. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MHP Huck & MaxBrowne, this Wikipedia article is specifically about the neologism "Generation Snowflake" (or "Snowflake Generation") which is defined as: "the young adults of the 2010s, who are perceived as more prone to taking offense and less resilient than previous generations" This article isn't going to be merged to Millennials (or any where else) because it survived that recent AfD. I think you might be missing the distinction between the terms "Special Snowflake" and "Generation Snowflake". The neologism "Generation Snowflake" survived an AfD, while "Special Snowflake" apparently did not survive AfD [8] The alt-right appears to be using Special Snowflake (shortened to just snowflake), not Generation Snowflake. They're related, they'd warrant a wikilink or See Also, but the Special Snowflake article was deleted. --DynaGirl (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the college misery blog there are examples of "Generation Snowflake" and "Snowflake Generation" dating back to 2011, and using the term in its original sense of "entitled young person". Clearly "snowflake" was the original term (fight club etc), and "special snowflake (syndrome)", "precious snowflake" and "generation snowflake" were later developments. The distinction between "special snowflake syndrome" and "generation snowflake" is artificial. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Whether or not an article survives Afd is largely the luck of the draw, it depends who gets involved in the discussion and what "consensus" emerges from that particular pool of people. The pool of people involved in the "Special Snowflake" discussion was different and came to a different conclusion. IMO the arguments for keeping "Special Snowflake" were actually stronger than those for "Generation Snowflake", and the sources given in the article and Afd discussion were stronger too. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are relying on one definition which was a late addition to the article. While I don't think that definition should be removed, I don't think it is appropriate to make this article about an age group, rather it is about a subgroup of Gen Z and the tail end of the Millennials. I am not going to rehash old discussions, DynaGirl, since if it applied to the entire generation there wouldn't be much problem in merging it as a characteristic of the entire generation. Arguing otherwise is contradictory and would defeat the purpose of a separate article. The term is notable because of its use among the alt-right and it use as distinctly separate from generation specific terms since it doesn't actually apply to an entire group and nor is it used in a fashion which does. The distinctions you are making are irrational in context of other decisions made and would reopen a debate which has been settled. MHP Huck (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the AfD, it appears we could edit the page Special snowflake to recreate it. It wasn't actually deleted, it was blanked because it was poorly written. The AfD, even provides some useful links for sourcing.[9]--DynaGirl (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a redirect to Special snowflake to improve the usefulness of this page, given that the two are the same concept. MHP Huck (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MHP Huck , it's disruptive to repeatedly redirect a page, when being able to access the edit history on that page, is part of a current discussion. It appears editors could actually edit that page to recreate it, if I understand the AfD correctly. Can you please self revert so other editors can link to that page and wait for consensus to redirect? --DynaGirl (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly I am not quite sure what you are asking.. I am confused as to why the redirect is disruptive. Could you rephrase your last q? MHP Huck (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the lede is getting reverted by a number of people despite there being plenty of sources to indicate such a lede is appropriate for this neologism. MHP Huck (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three sources are given, currently numbered 1, 2 and 23. 1 and 23 are the same, so there are actually two sources. LAT (#1) doesn't use the term "generation snowflake" and #2 (Guardian) doesn't use the term "alt-right", so there are currently no sources provided that support the inclusion of your sentence, even in the article body. Also realise that "alt-right" is a US term applied to the US and there's already a tag for worldwide view, so putting an exclusively US piece of info in the lead doesn't help. EddieHugh (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and read the sources, Eddie. Also, one source is from the UK. Given that the entire article is anglophone, I don't understand your complaint about a "worldwide view." I am doing my best to make this NPOV and the term mostly exists because a subset of the population is using it, not because it is some scientific diagnosis as some other comments above indicate. MHP Huck (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading them isn't going to change their content: they don't support the assertion that's in the lead. With a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS and some general WP:OR they do, but that's not good enough. The worldwide view is not my tag; it was added by another editor. EddieHugh (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll come back when I have time and show you quotes. MHP Huck (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that there is an immense amount of WP:SYNTHESIS in the body of the article. In all honestly, this article is still a huge mess and has a clear POV. MHP Huck (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MHP Huck, you observe that you are "getting reverted by a number of people". But when that occurs, per WP:BRD, you are not suppose to just edit war the contested content back in. I've read both sources, and I tend to agree with EddieHugh, this appears to be synthesis. You suggest above that this synthesis is somehow ok, because the article already has an "immense amount of synthesis", but It doesn't work that way. Can you please point out where else in article you see an issue with synthesis, so it can be addressed. Vague, non-specific complaints aren't actionable.--DynaGirl (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DynaGirl, please stop. If you want to remove that, then remove the massive use of synthesis in the article. You just don't like the fact that I am pointing out that the term was popularized by a specific political group. Wikipedia is about a useful encyclopedia, not about your opinion. And I am only saying that if the quotes I used as synthesis, then so is a huge portion of the article. Unfortunately I am very busy this week but can attend to this later. MHP Huck (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use by the alt-right and Donald Trump supporters is quite recent. The Rate Your Students and College Misery blogs show that in its original sense of "narcissistic entitled young person" it was in use on campuses for some time before it was used in mainstream media outlets. Claire Fox is the main person pushing the term (especially the "generation" version of it), she isn't really part of the alt-right (very different background) but she became a bit of a right wing celebrity and was interviewed on a breitbart podcast. From there presumably the usage spread to other breitbart/alt-right types who broadened it to include anyone who doesn't like Donald Trump. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with your anthropological history - but I would say the notability is entirely due to recent developments. If it only remained in that old definition, that would be one thing. It has since morphed into a term which is used to denigrate the young and it is mostly used by a new political movement. I also agree with your commentary on Claire Fox, but I feel as if you are ignoring the vast number of quotes from alt-right figures in the sources, excluding Claire Fox who appears to have been an early user of the term. MHP Huck (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's confusion between "snowflake" and "generation snowflake" here. This article is (obviously, given the title) about generation snowflake, not about snowflake. Your speculation on etymology is just speculation, not justification for continuing the obfuscation. So far, no sources have been offered that show the alt-right using "generation snowflake". Maybe there are some, maybe the alt-right will use "generation snowflake" in the future, maybe its meaning or use will change. For now, however, we use what the sources have. EddieHugh (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is not a snowflake and someone in the snowflake generation the same? Obviously there isn't a whole generation of snowflakes, it is metaphorical. Otherwise it would be merged. And my speculation is far more substantiated than that, as the sources themselves attest. Now, we can debate other aspects, e.g., how notable the fact that the users of the term are largely alt-right, or that the alt-right are the main popularizers of the term, but more broadly it is obviously a term they use and they are the biggest users of the term. MHP Huck (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not the same. Generation snowflake refers to people at a particular stage in life, as stated in the opening sentence. EddieHugh (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Article "ownership"
I wanted to point out the notice that editor Keri is acting as if he has WP:OWNERSHIP of this article and is trying to use his knowledge of policy, rather than reasoning and sourcing, to suppress sourcing he does not like. Please, discuss. MHP Huck (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"knowledge of policy" ... That's because "policy" overrides your "opinion". Keri (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There does indeed seem to be a coterie of editors who are determined to defend a biased version of the article. The WP:NPOVN thread didn't get much traction so the next step is probably WP:RFC. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's called "consensus" - unless it doesn't suit your POV. Keri (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FORUMSHOPPING didn't work for you. I doubt RfC will either. But that's where we'll go. Keri (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MHP Huck, Please review the previous 2 talk page sections. As EddieHugh pointed out above, this is wp:synthesis. Your sources don't actually support the content you keep edit warring into the lead and this is clearly against talk page consensus. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are also guilty of WP:OWNERSHIP. This isn't your article and it is not your encyclopedia. Fortunately, I am working on a lede which uses even more sourcing. At some point you will have to admit it that it is not synthesis. Because it is not. Besides, you are biased since you didn't modify the other aspect of the article. I will point out here that Keri only reported people who disagree with him, not people who agree with him. Keri appears biased. You also have a POV and you simply don't want the alt-right aspect of this term to be disclosed to the public to make it seem as if it were used by a much broader group than it is. Period. MHP Huck (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MHP Huck, I asked you above to please specify where else you saw an issue with synthesis in the article, so it could be addressed, but as far as I can see you haven't done so yet. What other aspect of the article are you talking about? --DynaGirl (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to have to start putting this to RfC. MHP Huck and MaxBrowne are clearly here with axes to grind - from PRODding the article right through to edit warring, disruptive editing, personal attacks, assuming bad faith, forum shopping, etc., etc. Most of what we're seeing here is now just WP:BAITING. Deep breath, rise above it. We're here to build an encyclopaedia. Keri (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have an axe to grind? You are the ones removing well sourced sentences. Have I removed sentences? No. Also, Keri, you have more than demonstrated over the last few weeks your POV by implementing policy in what appears to be bad faith to support your conclusions. MHP Huck (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting tired of your constant personal attacks. Either put up or shut up. The appropriate venue is WP:ANI. Start a new section, explain what you think I've done wrong, and ask the administrators to block me. Keri (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike some of the actual actions you've taken, I have no interest in trying to block you. I just want you to apply the rules fairly to everyone. Sorry to disappoint. MHP Huck (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors acting as a team is not "consensus"
The discussion re the GQ article at RSN concluded that the article is only citable as a source for the author's own opinion, raising the question "why is the author's opinion relevant?", making this an issue of NPOV and more specifically one of WP:UNDUE weight. When raised at the NPOVN as suggested, two of the comments I got were "Yeah, even after I read the talk page thread on this, I don't understand why such a crappy opinion piece is considered a good source of information, and why it's even included as an external link." and "To note that this had been also discussed at RN/S. There, while it is not an RS problem (GQ is reliable), there is definitely a good question of what this writer's expertise is to the topic to justify their opinion's inclusion." Currently two editors acting in concert are stubbornly insisting that this is a valid source to include in the article despite its demonstrable poor quality and non-notability of the author, and are claiming "consensus" on this basis. If there is any consensus at all from the two noticeboard discussions, it's that the GQ article is crap. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A brief perusal of the page history will reveal, I think you'll find, more than 2 editors in opposition to your POV. And if it 2 is considered "too few" for you, then that will be you and MHP Huck... Keri (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See, you think the goal of Wikipedia is to win ("more than 2 editors in opposition to your POV"). No, Keri, it is to creating an encyclopedia. I used sourcing from the LA Times and the Guardian, some of the better sources here. Yet you remove them because you have a POV and are not trying to achieve NPOV here. The assertions of synthesis are ridiculous, especially if you read the latter sections of the article that have so many issues I haven't even tried to improve them. They don't align with their sources which I reported above weeks ago. MHP Huck (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you think, I'm not your "enemy". How would you like to word the RfC regarding your complaints about sources? Keri (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion at RSN was that it was being used appropriately for the authors opinion and that given this term is a neologism dating to 2015 there are no real experts in the field. MaxBrowne, your quoted support from NPOVN above apparently came from an editor who was confused by your misleading edit summary. He's referring to an external link. You implied you were removing an external link in a misleading edit summary, but you were really removing an internal See Also link. [10] I can sort of understand his viewpoint given this apparent confusion. I would also tend to agree that adding an external link to The Great Indoors (TV series) would be inappropriate, but since this never happened, it's a moot point. --DynaGirl (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also remind you that accusing others (4 of us, in fact) of conspiring to tag team against you is a blatant personal attack. Keri (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please. Let's recall that you said yourself that "sweeping rudeness" is not a personal attack on 20:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC) ;) MHP Huck (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment re "put up or shut up". Keri (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - GQ is a reliable source and it is appropriate for this article about a neologism. If it were referenced on Millennials, I would think it was undue weight, because that's a topic sourced by academics and various researchers, but that sort of sourcing isn't available or reasonable to expect on an article about a neologism. There was question whether this article should be on Wikipedia at all, but it survived an AfD [11], based on such popular press sourcing, as that's basically the only sourcing there is. All we can really do with this article at this point is neutrally describe how it is used and how sources define it. --DynaGirl (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No - The GQ is a men's style magazine. Other publications which mention the term are more credible. I am not sure the AfD process was the most objective thing I have ever seen. MHP Huck (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GQ is a reliable source for matching your shoes with your Armani suit. It is also a reliable source for what some non-notable writer fresh out of university thinks about something she knows nothing about. But that doesn't mean such an article is suitable for citing in wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. GQ is a magazine focusing on culture, published in 22 countries. The neologism "Generation Snowflake" refers to a cultural phenomenon, well within the magazine's remit. The term is relatively new, and it's use in GQ adequately reflects and demonstrates how neologisms enter mainstream use and discourse. Keri (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong question. This has already come up at RSN before. The GQ piece is reliable for the opinion of the writer. There is no dissent on that. If the GQ piece should be cited in he article is a question of NPOV (WP:UNDUE) not reliability - why is the writer's opinion relevant/notable? Does it add anything to the article? Is the author a noted/experienced journalist? The question should be 'Should this writers opinion be included in the article?' Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"a reliable - and suitable - source..." Keri (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Others more informed than I am have stated that it is reliable. Is it suitable? Maybe, but another question is "is it necessary?" It supports 2 lead sentences, each of which has multiple other sources. It also supports 1 other sentence, which also has a second source. Unless it's adding something extra or is better than those sources, it isn't necessary. EddieHugh (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong question per Only in death. The answer to the "right" question, "Should this writer's opinion be included in the article?" is no. The writer is not a noted or experienced journalist, and in fact does not even have any formal qualifications as a journalist; neither does the writer have any qualifications in psychology, mental health, sociology, political science or any other field that might be considered relevant (her degree is in French); the article is poorly researched and essentially parrots Claire Fox, but less articulately. The citation is also redundant and gives the impression that WP:OVERCITE and WP:BOMBARD tactics are being used to shore up a weakly sourced article. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's alright. "What makes this person's opinion worth reporting?" is a fair question, but it was published by a reliable source, which I think goes some way toward answering that question. Just the same, if better sources come along, they could replace it. A lifestyle magazine is alright, but it's not exactly the pinnacle of sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question, the topic of this "article" needs to be clarified. In actual content, this "article" mostly re-spews a meme, presents no data, and is sourced to trashy pop culture sources like this one, where we read quotations from bullshitters* who flick a few anecdotes out there and spin a narrative around them. There are, on the other hand, aspects of this article that pretend to be sociology. It is in the Category:Cultural generations category, it makes claims about what the generation is actually like, and there are even hand-waving motions toward "explaining" why a generation would be like this. But again there are no serious sources on which to base any content about reality. So it is a muddle-headed mess. So decide what this "article" will actually be. Is it just documenting a meme, or is it trying to make a statement about reality? If it is the former, it is not clear what use this source would have other than a PRIMARY source giving an example of the meme in action; it says nothing about the meme per se, but is entirely within the meme-spewing machinery. Most of the sources should be secondary, commenting on the meme itself, and not simply more examples of it like this is. And if that will be the focus, you would need to remove the pretenses of doing sociology about the generation. If this page in Wikipedia is actually going to try to say something about the generation -- if it is going to be sociology -- this source and content based on it could be briefly mentioned (very, very little WEIGHT) in a "society and culture" section but only as a PRIMARY source giving an example of the meme - most of the WEIGHT would be content based on serious, secondary sociological sources (written by people who use actual sociological methods to gather data and analyze it and published by people who publish sociology). Our mission is to summarize accepted knowledge. There is accepted knowledge about the meme that could be the focus of the article; there is accepted knowledge about the generation that could be the focus of this article. Those are different things, derived from different sources. This "article" as it stands is deeply confused. (*"bullshit" is speech intended to persuade, without regard for truth. See On Bullshit). See also WP:TIGER: "Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about them the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection, with all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." This article is a live tiger - a propagation of the meme; it is not a stuffed tiger. Jytdog (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You write "decide what this 'article' will actually be", but that is not our decision. The article has a bit of several things, because that's what the sources give us. If "Generation Snowflake" becomes a term often used in sociology, then this article will become more about sociology; if the term comes to be used only in popular culture or similar, then the article will move to reflect that. The term and the article are infants, which you're asking to be fully rounded adults. Give them time! EddieHugh (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. It is a fundamental error to mistake primary sources for secondary sources. This source and almost all the rest are examples of the meme in action. We don't build WP articles on primary sources. Again, is this article about the meme, or about the generation? Jytdog (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the current article, this ref from the Guardian is about the meme, as is the top 10 Collins words, as is this ref from the LA Times. Those are the only secondary sources about the meme, "Generation Snowflake". Almost all this article should be sourced from them, if this article is going to be about the meme. (See Death panels as an example of a well-developed article that is about a political meme; see I Can Has Cheezburger? for an article about a light-hearted meme; see Pepe the Frog for an alt-right meme). if the article is about the generation, then this article shouldn't exist, as Millennials already does. This article cannot become a WP:POV Fork of that article. It should possibly be merged into that article, but this is moving beyond the scope of the RfC. As I noted above, this source can be used, but only as PRIMARY, as an example of the meme in action. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We build articles on what is available. "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" (from WP:ANALYSIS). If most of what is available is primary, then criticising the article for using primary sources is unwarranted; time is needed for more secondary sources to appear. Again, the answer to your question is: possibly one, possibly the other, possibly both... we don't know; we have to wait. While we wait, (re)consider whether the Collins source is primary or secondary. (Edit conflict: I see you've already reconsidered that.) EddieHugh (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't "fill in gaps" with primary sources, especially not like this. IF there are few secondary sources, then we have a stub article. Most of this article deploys the meme, and is not about the meme. There is a huge difference between a stuffed tiger and a live one. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No The GC piece is not a reliable secondary source. Rather it is a primary source, and an example of the meme. It is fluff being used as if it were a sociological treatise. But its author has no sociological credentials, and a fashion magazine may be a good source for information about shoes, but not for labeling and demeaning a portion of a generation of people. The GQ piece does not belong in the article. Edison (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt-right in lead -RfC
Closing per, perhaps humorously, WP:SNOW. It's been open 3 weeks with only one participant in favor. Though the reasons are varied, consensus is clear that this should not be added. It has been a week and a half since another editor made a snow close and since then there have been no additional comments so another week will be unlikely to change this obvious consensus. Closing so that editors on the FRS are not notified of an RfC that has essentially achieved consensus.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the sentence: "The LA Times and The Guardian considers the term to be associated with and used by the alt-right" be included in the lead of the article Generation Snowflake? This sentence is referenced by these two sources: [12], [13].--DynaGirl (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No - The sources provided do not support this sentence. This is wp:synthesis and WP:OR. The LA Times source does not use the term “Generation Snowflake”, The Guardian does not use the term “alt-right”. Generation Snowflake is an age specific pejorative defined by Collins Dictionary as: "the young adults of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations". Apparently, the alt-right uses “snowflake” (with no mention of generation) to describe liberals of any age who oppose Donald Trump. This adaptation of the term is currently mentioned in the body of the article, but it seems undue weight in the lead. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I don't really think I need to defend this anymore. They are relevant to understanding the context of the notoriety of the term. Plus those sources are strong. Thanks everyone. MHP Huck (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No - How many reasons do you need? Firstly, the Guardian source simply does not say anything like that, and it isn't the Guardian, it's one columnist discussing the use of the term 'snowflake' who neither mentions 'generation' nor 'alt right', so how could she conclude thus? Citing some instances of a similar term being used by right-wingers isn't the same as coming to that conclusion. LA Times says 'snowflake' is one of alt-right's favourite terms, that is different from present text, even if one ignores the missing 'generation'. Secondly The lead is meant to be a summary of points expanded in the article, this is not as far as I can see the case here. Thirdly, WP:Weight, if these remarks really are the most important things to say about the term, the article should probably burn in hell as a piece of irredeemable trivia. These sources probably could be used for text within the article, but present text is lazy and a piece of synth trying to grab 'pole position'. btw "In 2016 some law professors at the University of Oxford began using trigger warnings, with the purpose of alerting students of potentially distressing subject matter". … … I suspect what is meant is "alerting students TO potentially distressing subject matter", unless these people are studying 'Potentially Distressing Subject Matter' as a subject. Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if these remarks really are the most important things to say about the term, the article should probably burn in hell as a piece of irredeemable trivia. Now there's, a good idea! MaxBrowne (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. There are many reasons, the simplest being that neither source supports the sentence. EddieHugh (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well meh, again we have a muddle. The notion is correct and should be in the lead; it is indeed a mistake to attribute statements in articles to the publisher (this is often done to make the thing seem more authoratative). The key thing is that these statements don't need to be attributed, as two of the very few secondary sources we have about the meme describe it that way, so it can be stated in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution. The argument that the term is not in these refs is silly. The LA Times says "Short for "special snowflake," a pejorative for an entitled person." Which is exactly the point of "Generation Snowflake". The Guardian article is even more clear: "The term has undergone a curious journey to become the most combustible insult of 2016. It emerged a few years ago on American campuses as a means of criticising the hypersensitivity of a younger generation, where it was tangled up in the debate over safe spaces and no platforming." The content could be more accurate about the evolution of the term; that is very valid encyclopedic content about the meme. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, I think we agree in essentials, I especially agree on your last point about the history of the meme. However, I think you would agree that a word or term being widely used by a group is not quite the same as the term being associated with them. The words 'soldier' 'volunteer' and 'brother' have in recent-ish times been variously used for 1) perpetrators of ISIS inspired terror acts 2) IRA active members 3) black militants, but it would give a false impression to imply that any of these terms are mainly used in that way. That's a subtle difference, but one worth making IMO, 'widely used by' is not synonymous with 'associated with'.
I also think the article title and content needs to alter (Snowflake (term)?) before these sources can be used, they are talking about (what appears to be a related term) 'snowflake/special snowflake' rather than 'generation snowflake'. I had never heard this insult before yesterday and gave up reading these kind of commentators when I was on the receiving edge of this kind of insult, which was more years ago than I care to remember. Pincrete (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying. And in any case this RfC is hopeless so Dynagirl should kill it. Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) Article title and content should change to 'Snowflake' or 'Special snowflake', of which 'generation snowflake' is one usage 2) These sources are good for recent use of the term, but not for current proposed text, which is synthy IMO 3) You are right that the article should focus on "evolution of the term", which would include 2016 use by Farage and some US 'alt-right'-ers, though their use doesn't seem to be 'age-targetted', thus contradicting the current article title and definition.Pincrete (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle with moving the article to Snowflake (pejorative) or similar and letting Special snowflake, Special snowflake syndrome etc redirect to it. There have been far too many arguments along the lines of "but that article just says 'snowflakes', it doesn't say 'generation snowflake!'", disingenuously pretending that these terms are unrelated. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with MaxBrowne in that I'm not, in principle, opposed to a move of the article to eg "Snowflake (pejorative)" or "Snowflake (meme)" or similar. My opinion of the article has always been that the concept is notable enough to exist as a stand alone article, whether I liked what it said or not. Keri (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An article on Special snowflake did not survive a recent AfD [14]. The term "Generation Snowflake" did survive a recent AfD [15]. The result of the AfD for Special Snowflake was a soft redirect to Wiktionary entry for special snowflake syndrome. It has since been redirected here, which i'm not sure is appropriate (but the Generation Snowflake article does contain a link to the Wiktionary entry for special snowflake syndrome, so perhaps it's appropriate). I suggested earlier possibly recreating an article on the topic of special snowflake, as the AfD left that possibility open, but there wasn't much interest, and looking into the sourcing, it didn't seem promising. I think a large part of the notability of Snowflake Generation, and why it survived the AfD, is that this term was one of Collins Dictionary 2016 words of the year, and got a lot of media coverage. Special Snowflake doesn't seem to have that sort of souring or notability --DynaGirl (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No As Pincrete points out, " 'widely used by' is not synonymous with 'associated with'". The insertion of this phrase was made, like fruit of the poisonous tree, to imply that all users and uses of this neologism = alt.right. Intellectually dishonest. Keri (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No Alt-right is a contentious term which several news organizations (e.g. AP) have advised against using without explaining what it means. Some consider it a code word for white nationalists or the far right, and its use in the lead is not helpful towards achieving NPOV. If the word "alt-right" is to appear in the article it should only be by attribution. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No As others' comments above + There is no need to give this kind of POV detail such prominence, and give the article a tendentious slant skewed by current tendencies in political discussion in USA. Qexigator (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. The bot sent me. Agree with Qexigator. Well said. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I eventually ended up agreeing that the term "alt-right" doesn't belong in the lead, because I don't like the term "alt-right". It's basically a euphemism for fascist. So we've got people agreeing that the term "alt-right" shouldn't be used in the lead coming from different perspectives. Would need a compelling case to include it. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The re-opening appears to be purely procedural. I think we can agree that consensus had been achieved and while perhaps procedurally incorrect, the previous closure was correct in its conclusion. Keri (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFC - Appropriate links for "see also" section
Should a link to a television sitcom be included in this article's "see also" section? MaxBrowne (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NO. This is WP:INPOPULARCULTURE-style trivia which adds no encyclopedic value and is only tangentially related to the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The show The Great Indoors (TV series) focuses on an intergenerational workforce and this show portrays Millennials as more easily offended and more sensitive than older generations. It's clearly on topic, and if that isn't enough, it's supported by this GQ [16] reference (which the filer of this RfC has brought up for discussion at both RSN and NPOVN [[17]],[[18]], with neither of these discussions supporting removal of the See Also link). The GQ reference is also currently topic of discussion of another RfC currently active on this page. --DynaGirl (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*No. The article already has plenty examples of primary sources in which the meme is deployed. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC) (it is a "see also", reasoning not valid Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Yes - if it is a television sitcom revolving around generational differences which "mildly mocks millennials" and "satirizes political correctness", using situations such as young employees being allowed to write their own work performance reviews to make sure they aren't upset by critical questions or comments. (Doyle, John (1 December 2016) "The Great Indoors is great satire of our strange time." Toronto: Globe & Mail) A sitcom which has, on the other side of the coin, been criticised for depicting young adults as "entitled, sensitive and self-absorbed". (Butler, Bethonie (19 December 2016) "'Search Party' might be the best show you never knew existed." The Washington Post) This is a sitcom which may as well have been pitched to CBS with a sheet of A4 containing only the words "Generation Snowflake=lulz". It is very relevant as an ALSO and shows how the concept is moving into mainstream discourse. Keri (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use this TV episode to show anything. That is the definition of WP:OR. if there are secondary sources discussing the use of the meme in the show and that its use is somehow important, those refs might be useful. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't used as a source. It is used a SEEALSO that helpfully points a reader to an associated article. In this instance, an article about TV show whose foundation block (or foundation turd, if one considers it a heap of shit) is the "Generation Snowflake" concept. Keri (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for including it to "show" anything, is invalid. See also" is simply to link to related articles. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. For reasons given by MaxBrowne and Jytdog. Additionally what substantial understanding of the term is added by knowing that similar ideas have been taken up by a TV comedy series (even if it were not WP:OR?)? This is 'In popular culture' stuff, which personally I think rarely adds much to articles.Pincrete (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to both your and Jytdog's opinions, (eg "if there are secondary sources discussing the use of the meme in the show and that its use is somehow important, those refs might be useful"), Halls' article referred to above explicitly states: "And now, point proven, millennials are extremely offended about the new Great Indoors show that shows millennials being offended." Keri (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmmmmmmm? You are throwing around words as if they are synonyms. 'Snowflake', (non age-related insult suggesting 'weakling' referred to in Gdn and LA Times), does not equal 'generation snowflake'. 'Generation snowflake' (age-related insult) does not quite equal 'millennials', even though they are among the people to whom the age related insult is most commonly applied. I don't think any of these RfC's is going to get very far until the limits of the article subject and title are resolved. I don't OBJECT to this 'see also' addition, I just think it adds little especially as it is US-specific. Pincrete (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
it is a related topic, is fine as a "see also". We can have lots of See alsos, like to Pepe the frog and Political correctness and Me generation; all kinds of things are "related" in many ways. See also is a broad bucket. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them
The opening wording, Generation Snowflake... is a term referring to the young adults of the 2010s, who are perceived as more prone to taking offense and less resilient than previous generations, could be taken as meaning that all of those described are perceived in that way. But by no means all of them are, and therefore the entire article is vitiated by a false premise, whatever the POV of sources cited or of those editing here may be. The wording stems from 03:55, 23 November 2016.[19]Qexigator (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+ Would those who support retaining this as a standalone article please propose a rewording? Qexigator (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qexigator There is a quote from Tom Bennett in the body of article saying this stereotype doesn't apply to all young people. There are also the comments from Mark Kingwell defending young adults. We could perhaps use these references in the lead to add text such as "sources discussing Generation Snowflake do not apply this characterization to all young adults." (Add- there was a recent AfD regarding whether or not this should be retained as a stand alone article, and the result was keep, so the article appears here to stay at this point.)--DynaGirl (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DynaGirl: Perhaps you can see, on reflection, that is not quite apt. More to the point, and simpler, would be to insert "by some commentators" thus: " ...who are perceived by some commentators as more prone to taking offense...." (Yes, I had noted the AfD, hence my invitation to those supporting.) Qexigator (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't someone's quote or summary. This is the Collins Dictionary definition of Generation Snowflake. I think when citing that definition, we have no choice but to stick to that definition. We can add disagreement following it, but changing or tweaking Collin's definition seems inappropriate. I think there is understandable confusion at this point, because recent edit warring of the lead removed the Collins dictionary clarification and the citation from this statement. Unfortunately, the lead is kind of a mess right now. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is something of a myth that dictionaries are authoritative with respect to definitions. They attempt to give a concise definition but don't capture the nuance or history of the term or reflect the contexts in which it is actually used, especially when it comes to slang. For example, my Oxford dictionary defines "nerd" as "a foolish, feeble or uninteresting person". That's certainly not how I would understand the word if someone were to tease me for watching a Star Trek movie. [20]MaxBrowne (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DynaGirl: My comment and proposed rewording is directed to the opening sentence of the lead, not to what may be more apt in the expanded content of the article. The opening sentence is not intended to be a dictionary definition, let alone one selected definition, shorn of etymology or other explanatory matter which a good dictionary will give to support the definition, and which would be out of place in the lead. Qexigator (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before the edit warring to insert the alt-right material into the lead, the lead clarified that the opening sentence was sourced to Collins Dictionary and that Collins Dictionary defined Generation Snowflake this way. Now that's not clear. This will hopefully be resolved once restriction is lifted, again making this clear. Add- I propose the rewording of the lead to something along the lines of "Collins Dictionary defines the term as the young adults of the 2010s who are perceived as more prone to taking offense and less resilient than previous generations. Sources covering the term do not apply this stereotype to all young adults" --DynaGirl (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let your dictionary definition, along with others, be in the main body, but, as before said, that is not the way to start the lead, which should be a concise summary of the article and, as such, should normally be free from citations. Qexigator (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Qexigatorand, I certainly haven't taken the definition literally. I think adding "some commentators" is a good NPOV add. Also agree with MaxBrowne that definitions are only superficially concise. I understand DynaGirls point, since it is a definition, but it is clear that the article is about the broad phenomenon of offence taking by the young. You will note however that there are many times when people have used the term such as, "there are snowflakes of any age." MHP Huck (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A major part of the notability of this term is related to the fact that it was one of Collins Dictionary 2016 words of the year. Per due weight, this definition belongs in the lead. Perhaps over time, other definitions will become more prominent, but for now, this should go in lead. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its notability does not depend on Collins. If anything vice versa. Repeat, not in lead, please. Qexigator (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think would be better in the lead? I think defining the term is one of the first basic steps of introducing the topic to the readers --DynaGirl (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead should be something short and simple like "Generation Snowflake is a pathetic internet meme being pushed in major British newspapers by a nasty old ex-communist turned right-wing agitator named Claire Fox to insult young people and plug her ridiculous book." OK, you might want to rework that slightly for NPOV, but that's all that needs to be in the lead section. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, well, that seems to well sum up your consistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance on the article. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You realize this is a misuse of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT link, right? That link refers to vague appeals to emotion, and I don't do that. I am very specific when I give my reasons why the GQ article is garbage, why a sitcom is trivial and not worth mentioning let alone linking to, why duplicate links to the same article should not be used, why cite bombing is dishonest... you resist all this with WP:IDHT behaviour because... well... you just don't like me. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne, I actually don't have any personal problem with you. Even though you did accuse me of being a tag teaming meat puppet of User:Keri in above sections (which was uncivil and blatantly false). I do disagree with your removal of the The Great Indoors (TV series) from See Also section and on removing certain reliable source references from the article, but it's not personal. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is abundant evidence of you two working in tandem to maintain your preferred (biased) version of the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne, 2 editors independently finding your editing on the article disruptive and disagreeing with you regarding removing The Great Indoors (TV series) and the GQ references from article, is not tag teaming or meat puppetry, and repeating this blatantly false allegation is uncivil. Maybe consider that you also failed to get support for these things at RSN or NPOVN (and so far on RfCs), and realize content disputes are not some vast personal plot against you. This isn't personal. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what positive encyclopedic value as added by including this trivial material? https://xkcd.com/446/MaxBrowne (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless discussion here takes a serious turn toward focusing this article on the meme per se, and basing this article on secondary sources about the meme, when protection expires I will nominate this for deletion as a WP:POV Fork of Millenials, as that is what is has become since the prior AfD. As it stands now this article violates the POV Fork guideline; that guideline, in turn fleshes out parts of the WP:NPOV policy. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a pejorative neologism, not the actual demographic cohort of people. Also, I don't think having it as a fork of the Millennials page would be appropriate because the dates don't even fit the entirety of the Millennials cohort. Older Millennials were not actually young adults in the 2010, but in 30s and no longer young university students. This neologism only applies to younger Millennials, and perhaps older members of Generation Z, but I think the popular press opinion piece sourcing of this neologism would be inappropriate on either of those pages. The demographic cohort articles are sourced by serious sociological or academic sources, not opinion pieces which cover this neologism. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with DynaGirl that this isn't about Millennials. It is about - as Jytdog identifies - a meme (a cultural idea and a cultural phenomenon), and as such deserves a stand alone article. Just like the execrable – and largely now forgotten – Annoying Orange. But this isn't an internet meme or internet phenomena; unlike lesser memes, this one has actually made the evolutionary leap to mainstream discourse: qv The Great Indoors and its use by many reliable, mainstream media organs. Keri (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you seem to understand the problem. The article as it stands now is a POV Fork. Most of this article as it stands now, makes actual claims about the generation and even tries to explain why it is "snow-flakey". Most of the article is not about the meme, but rather is propagating the meme. That is a POV fork. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your line of argument. One of the problems with the article as it stands is that it has been constantly sniped at, derided and edit warred over by people who simply DONTLIKE the concept, and rather than allowing thoughtful and careful development it has been unnecessarily forced to develop in a certain way. I don't agree that it is a POV fork however: you yourself have recognised above that this is a cultural meme. Requesting FPP was a very good thing for the page, and these discusions are productive; when it is unlocked, there is nothing to stop us collaboratively working towards writing "about the meme". Keri (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, the article does need work. I've tried to attribute all of the assertions as opinions of specific authors, journalists and pundits. It was worse before. I think all Wikipedia articles about memes propagate the memes. I get what you're saying because I also didn't think this article belonged on Wikipedia when it first appeared and I also suggested merging this to Political Correctness or Millennials, suggesting a merge without even mentioning the pejorative "Generation Snowflake", just talking about safe spaces, trigger warnings etc, but then the term gained more sourcing and appeared to meet GNG. Then it was cited as one of Collins Dictionary's 2016 words of the year, Then it survived an AfD. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is pretty severely POV and perhaps not notable enough, which is why I suggested it as AfD. Of course, you'd have thought the whole world was using the term after people howled. It was a keep in a landslide. MHP Huck (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I suggested it as AfD... It was a keep in a landslide." There's a message there. Keri (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean now that we have more editors on the page the result would be the same however, Keri. It seemed like a mob the last time around. MHP Huck (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Snowflake" (slang)[21] has entered the language,[22][23][24][25] and characterising it as "meme" is neither here nor there, except, perhaps, if citing a reliable source that does so. I simply do not accept that the article is a POV fork. If the present version is here and there POV, then let it be purged of that fault. In some contexts "snowflake" is intended pejoratively, but, like many other words, it can also be used jocosely or ironically, like some synonyms or antonyms, and words such as libertarian or correct or conservative or labelling or identity or propaganda.[26]Qexigator (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You all can pursue an WP:IDHT approach all you want. This particular article, the way it is written, is not about the word or the meme, but about the generation to which the word/meme refers. It is a POV Fork and will be deleted on that basis. You all can prevent that by understanding the problem and working on revising this article so it is about the word or the meme..... or not. I won't comment further. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a POV Fork and will be deleted on that basis." We'll see. :) Keri (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog: Given NPOV and that the topic is "Generation Snowflake", please explain, briefly, what you mean here by "meme", and why you are of the opinion that it is the decisive criterion. What really is the problem? Qexigator (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, I think it's slightly more accurate to describe the term as a neologism. This neologism was one of Collins Dictionary 2016 words of the year, with Collins defining the term: "the young adults of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations"[27]. The term is defined to refer to today's young adults, and that's how sources use it. Also, If there was an article about just the tail end of Millennials, or the cusp between Millennials and Gen Z, maybe your suggested fork would be on topic, but there is no such article that I'm aware of. As it stands, this term currently appears to be defined to apply to younger Millennials and perhaps older members of Generation Z, so on top of other objections, I don't think this article should be forked to the article on the demographic cohort of Millennials. --DynaGirl (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you call it a meme or a neologism. And you are not reading what I am writing. I am not suggesting a fork. Here i will write it with spaces: This ... article ... is ... a ... WP:POV fork. There. Did you catch that? The problem is what this article is about. It is not about the word or meme. It is about the generation that the term refers to. That is what makes this is a POV fork. The article would look completely different if it were about the meme/neologism. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you are not reading what I'm writing. I'm asking how can it be a POV fork of the demographic cohort of Millennials when this neologism apparently only applies to younger Millennials and not to older Millennials. --DynaGirl (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of that generation and its subgroups belongs in that article, and only (!) when content there gets too unwieldly can it be it be split out. You have just acknowledged that this is a WP:Content fork and it is very obviously a WP:POV fork, and a blatant, badly-sourced one at that. Please know that under the WP:DELETION policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion), POV Forks are a classic example of a deletable article.Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could Jytdog's comment be almost as unpersuasive as MaxBrowne's. Why such animus on this topic? Where are the snowflakes ("...often a traditional seasonal image or motif used around the Christmas period, especially in Europe, the United States and Canada)[28] ? Qexigator (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why the animus? Because it's an article about an insulting term, and most of the "sources" used in the article are polemical examples of the insult being used rather than being about the insult. I think this is what Jytdog has been trying to explain? MaxBrowne (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Max.'s surmise is right, then again my point is made: if an article is about a topic which some members of the public (at least) feel is insulting, editing needs to be especially wary of POV and personal, private opinions, either way. Cool as a cucumber, fresh as a daisy, beautiful as a field of melting snowflakes may be the theme underlying many a WP. Good humour, too: "get over it" has been in common use for well over a decade. Qexigator (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you denying that it's insulting? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Max.'s question as put is beside the point of the discussion, it could itself be felt or "perceived" to be "insulting", if so defined, or possibly outré, as if one addressed another as "dear fellow": some persons can be over-sensitive for themselves or for or in the name of others. Qexigator (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to be following this discussion too thoroughly, but Jytdog has all the right ideas here, including to possibly take it to AfD again. I agree with above editors on the page ownership and NPOV present here. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 21:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Jytdog made multiple comments strenuously opposing something in an RfC above, and refuting comments from the contrary position, only to later admit that he hadn't fully read the RfC; given that you have previously argued that this is an article about psychology requiring sources from "academic papers on the subject, with formal research methodology"; given that you admit above that you're not following these discussions "too thoroughly", I remain unconvinced that either of you are approaching the topic from a neutral point of view. An article under full page protection, with multiple RfCs, and you cry "ownership"? Sigh. Keri (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You and a few others seem too heavily invested in this. Also, you don't need to read every comment in order to still maintain an opinion; that was even a small part of my message directly above. Why would we not have an NPOV? Clearly you don't know either of us too well here; I'd say Jytdog is by far one of the most rational and unbiased, and I usually like to think that about my writing as well. It also looked like earlier you were trying to place me as some sort of disgruntled member of an older generation or something? I can assure you I am not; as well my birth year makes me indefinably between two generations, thus I don't associate with either. Regardless I mostly have objected to poor content and citations that wouldn't be accepted on any more-visible article. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 22:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi) 02:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removing Millennials from lead
When protection expires, does anyone object to removing the sentence: "The term has also been used to refer to Millennials" from the lead? This was added prior to the Collins Dictionary definition, to provide some sort of clarity to the vague phrase "young people", which was previously used in the opening sentence. This seemed necessary because who young people are changes over time, and when the sources mention a generation, they do mention Millennials. But now that we have the Collins Dictionary source defining the term as "the young adults of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations", mentioning Millennials in lead seems unnecessary. It also seems to be providing some readers with the impression the terms are synonymous. This might be especially problematic because older Millennials do not even fall into the category of "the young adults of the 2010s". I think the issue here is the term Millennials is still used by many in the press to mean the very young, but the Millennial cohort is actually defined as starting with birth years in early 80s (with some sources even starting in the late 70s). None of the references currently in the article have applied the pejorative neologism "Generation Snowflake" to people in their late 20s or 30s (the age the older Millennials are). It seems primarily applied to late teens and early to mid 20s--DynaGirl (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, I do not see that "snowflake generation" is necessarily and always pejorative or used scornfully, any more than "greybeards",[29] or"wrinklies",[30] or "pensioners" or "oldie"[31]: these are also used affectionately, or self-deprecatingly. Next, as above stated, a definition lifted from Collins or any other dictionary may be mentioned in the main body, but is not apt for the lead. Also, I could agree that "Millennials" have no place in the lead, but maybe could be mentioned in the body as distinct from SG. In any case, let us remember that, depending on context, all such descriptive words and phrases are used loosely and often sloppily, and have no formally precise "definition" such as is normal in an exact science, or in legal documents. Factually, the attribute denoted by "snowflake" is not confined to members of one generation, and members of a younger generation may speak or write of an older one in that way, polemically, unkindly or in jest. But some of the comments on this page are consistent with describing the present version of the article as "flakey", and in need of further improvement. Qexigator (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any insult can be used "affectionately", friends might very well "affectionately" address each other as "dickhead", "faggot", "motherfucker" etc but that does not change the fact that these are insults. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne's comment rather makes my point. Almost any innocent words used in literary or demotic or slang contexts can be used aggressively, disrespectfuly, insultingly or otherwise objectionably, including "snowflake" and "generation": for some a descriptor such as "beat generation" would be neutral, but the same words could be used to demean or extol; likewise "alternative (this or that)", "conformist/non-conformist" or "traditional" or "rock and roll" or, in many different contexts, "classical/romantic", or "sweet" and "sour", to name a few; even pedantry or vulgarism can be applied effectively (especially by skilled writers or speakers), and perfectionism can be what some circumstances require. Qexigator (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point being that even if a few people use it jokingly, ironically, "affectionately", whatever, "snowflake" is still an insult. Some people here seem to want to deny this and resist attempts to include this basic information in the lead sentence. Even the softer "Generate Snowflake is a pejorative term.... " gets reverted by the coterie who are trying to maintain a non-NPOV version of the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this is half a move in the correct direction but mostly doubling down in the wrong direction. The more people here try to make this article say something about a group of millenials, the more it becomes a POV fork of Millenials. if you want to keep this article, as has to be about the meme/neologism itself, not about what the terms refers to. c'mon this is basic semiotics; this article needs to about the sign, not the signified. Jytdog (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Supposing we make this page exclusively about the "meme", does that mean it would include earlier uses of the term "snowflake" such as Fight Club and the Rate Your Students blog, or only the more recent combination of "snowflake" with "generation", a narrative mostly being pushed by Claire Fox? MaxBrowne (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any RS to support the use here of "meme"? It seems to be straying off topic and muddying the discussion, like unduly mentioning Claire Fox aforesaid. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning Claire Fox is not "undue" since she is ultimately behind almost every mention of the term in UK media. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Isaac Newton could be said to be "ultimately" behind NASA, but, while Fox has had some prominence in extending use of the words in question, what is there to support your proposition that she is ultimately behind almost every mention of the term in UK media? If so, why not add that to her biography? Qexigator (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try this: [32]. How many of those hits do not mention Claire Fox? MaxBrowne (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Max., such irony! Once again, this makes the point. The link goes from February 2016[33] (doesn't mention Fox) to December, from multiple media sources. No wonder Collins picked GS as one of its WOTY. How's this for common use in Halesowen, Oct 2016?[34]? or "Generation snowflake is not failing us: we’re failing them"[35]Qexigator (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne an article about the meme/neologism would naturally include history of the term. The question of what to call this is legit. The LA Times article mentions "code words and slang"; the Guardian calls it an "insult", a term, and notes it related to the meme from Fight Club; Collins defines it as "informal, derogatory" (in other words, slang and an insult). btw see our article Slacker which is also a term that was applied to the similarly-aged generation back in the 1990s. You can see yet again what I am talking about as that article is not a POV Fork but rather is about the term. (btw - pretty much every generation of older teens/young adults gets some phrase hooked on them) Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, noted. As you know, I am not a party to the supposed coterie, nor to any of the previous editing. In deference to MaxBrowne's following remark, I have moved the rest of my comment to the next section.Qexigator (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit off topic for this thread. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne is apparently attempting to use that redirect discussion as an opportunity to move this page. Whether or not moving this page ever becomes appropriate or becomes under consideration, I think that would need to occur under a discussion to move the Generation Snowflake page and not sneaked in under a redirect discussion for a different page which has been deleted because is failed AfD (while this topic survived AfD) . MaxBrowne, I hear that you don't like the topic Generation Snowflake at all [36] and it appears you are not alone (as there are other discussions regarding how to get rid of the article on Generation Snowflake on this current talk page), but please wait until page protections ends to list a move on this page if that is your desire. I tend to agree it would be nice to have an article on the broad snowflake phenomena, but I looked into the sourcing and it doesn't seem to be there yet. So far "Generation Snowflake", has received a lot of coverage. "Special Snowflake" (the prior topic) doesn't seem to have much written about it, and plain "Snowflake", which is apparently only recently being used since Trump won, as a way to insult Clinton supporters is new enough that it doesn't have much either. --DynaGirl (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the assumption of bad faith. ("sneaked?"). Plain "snowflake" goes back to at least 1996 actually (Fight Club). MaxBrowne (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But as far as I can see, people were not writing about that use in Fight Club much or discussing that use in language, in a manner that clearly meets GNG. I do not disagree that an article on the general snowflake phenomena in the English language, which explains the evolution of the terms, would be great, but it would be largely original research at this point, because we don't have the solid sourcing that ties them all together at this point. Generation Snowflake was the first of the various snowflake topics to break out and clearly meet GNG. It got significant press and was a Collins Dictionary 2016 word of the year. The earlier topic, "Special Snowflake" was only covered to the extent to warrant a wiktionary entry. Now, that appears to be evolving into just "snowflake" which has a somewhat different meaning (it refers to a liberal of any age who opposes Trump) but this evolution is very recent, and appears to have taken place only since Trump won the presidential election in November.--DynaGirl (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, how about: summarise "Generation Snowflake" in the lead & state that there are similar terms in use. Then in the body, use the sources for "Generation Snowflake" in one section, and, in a "Similar terms" section, put info for "special snowflake", "snowflake" and others. Then we'll get a clearer idea of the direction the article is taking when more sources appear and are added. EddieHugh (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DynaGirl, you may be right (= correct in your suppositions and remarks) but it is interesting to see how a "snowflake" topic can produce such heat, and evolve and propagate such a curious tangle of misconceptions and sloganeering, which was, perhaps, Fox's main point, and given her personal development as described in her biographical article, she may be something of an expert in such matters. I do not see it as any part of Wikipedia editing to have a down on her, or anyone else: POTUS-elect Trump, failed candidate Clinton, the author of Collins WOTY, whole generations or groups etc. Qexigator (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vogue in first sentence: proposal
It seems obvious enough to all here that the current version is flakey and needs improvement. For the first sentence, may we have NPOV comment on:
Generation Snowflake, or Snowflake Generation, is a term <+>vogue phrase</+> referring to the <+>for characterising indiscriminately</+> young adults of the 2010s, who are perceived as more prone to taking offense and less resilient than previous generations.
Would appreciate comments on "Generation Snowflake is a pathetic internet meme being pushed in major British newspapers by a nasty old ex-communist turned right-wing agitator named Claire Fox to insult young people and plug her ridiculous book". Maybe between us we can come up with something acceptable to the wider wikipedia community. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a comment: It completely undermines whatever slight credibility you may have had here at this discussion and exposes your WP:POV railroading for exactly what it is. Keri (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have zero sense of irony and your comment here are a complete waste of pixels. Just go away and stop replying to me. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Qexigator for making a constructive suggestion. Including "vogue" doesn't add anything, unless the aim is to hint at controversy and how recent it is, in which case stating those things directly would be better. Slightly different: "The term GS, or SG, characterises young adults of the 2010s as being more prone to taking offence and less resilient than previous generations." Then add something about it being controversial, recent and there being other, similar terms. EddieHugh (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EddieHugh's comment understood, and proposed wording looks the best so far. Qexigator (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also support EddieHugh's suggestion. We could maybe clarify in the second part that sources do not apply this characterization to all young adults, as the references from Tom Bennett and Mark Kingwell seem to support this. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to call them "generation snowflake" then you are applying this generalization to all young adults. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're not going to call them "generation snowflake", reliable sources are; we aren't applying this generalization to anyone: we are reporting how it is used by RS. There are other RS which state this term is specific to Generation Z, and not Milennials. We don't pamper to whims to workshop "something acceptable to the wider wikipedia community", we report what RS say. Keri (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok now we've got 9 cites after the first sentence...
... and this is actually not a good look. Could we please sort out which cites are reliable and relevant and cut the rest? MaxBrowne (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Let those who added them awhile back please remove them from the lead, and revise the abc.. citation mode for what is properly retained in the body. Qexigator (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Lede is terrible
How in the world could anyone think the new lede is an improvement? The term is used in a very specific context by a specific group. The term doesn't even appear to exist beyond the bounds of the political group to which it is associated. To cut the lede down so much doesn't adequately introduce the term so that Wikipedia readers realize they are dealing with a term which is used politically, since, after all, it isn't just derogatory, it is highly political. MHP Huck (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should add this is especially true given how pathetic the rest fo the article is in terms of POV and sourcing. The only part of the article which was mildly adequate was the lede - now it is totally meaningless. Further, if we leave the lede as it is begs the question why this is a separate article at all - it should just be in the wiktionary. MHP Huck (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better now actually, an article's lead shouldn't be too long or cluttered with excessive citations. It's basically a summary of Collins' definition which though not entirely accurate is at least a reliable and reasonably neutral source. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But its lack of accuracy is the problem itself. I don't see how we can ignore the political nature of the term. Besides, "young adults of the 2010s" is stupidly general and the sentence is clearly written as if it applies to everyone whom is a "young adult." I will make changes in due course if others refuse to improve the lede. MHP Huck (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is short and sweet and accurately reflects the cited source. Which makes it a pretty good lead. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The new lede created unilaterally and against talk page consensus by MaxBrowne does seem pretty terrible. The collaborative lead created above in section "Vogue in first sentence: proposal" via suggestions from EddieHugh and Qexigator and supported by other editors was actually pretty good. MaxBrowne can you please restore this consensus version of the lead which Qexigator had added to the article in accordance with talk page consensus: [37]? Cleaning up references is fine, but in edit summary you said you were just cleaning up references, but you actually deleted significant text. Text which had been in the lead for a long time, and which I've never seen anyone object to: [38]. --DynaGirl (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The new lede created unilaterally and against talk page consensus by MaxBrowne - this accusation is offensive. The new lead was created by Qexigator, I made a few copyedits and removed the citation clutter. The current version is not hugely different to Qexigator's, just more concise. Removing the stuff about parenting methods was actually unintentional (I deleted all refs after the opening sentence to get rid of the clutter and didn't realise I was also removing text) but looking at it now I think it's actually an improvement - this text introduced POV stuff to the lead and it would be better to include that in the body of the article. Don't ask me to undo my own work. Nobody is stopping you from editing the article, but it would be much better if you would edit it using your own words rather than just restoring old stuff. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is stopping you from editing the article, but it would be much better if you would edit it using your own words rather than just restoring old stuff.. MaxBrowne, this quote ignores that the old stuff had talk page consensus (and it wasn't "old stuff", Qexigator's consensus version was only in there very briefly after page protection expired) but honestly, I need a break from this ridiculously disruptive article. The moment page protection is lifted, the same sort of ignore consensus editing resumes immediately. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm getting fed up too. Fed up with being called "disruptive" any time I edit the article. Fed up with offensive bad faith accusations. Ever consider the possibility that I'm actually trying to improve the article? Or that maybe my edits actually are improvements? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne, the page in general has been disruptive this isn't referring to just you (which I think is obvious given page has recently been locked down). I think things would go a lot smoother here if there was more respect for talk page consensus. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is worse, it is more POV than it was before and that is the main problem MaxBrowne. Also, as it is is just ridiculous and I think this article need so be removed from Wikipedia if this is the direction we are going. MHP Huck (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What POV do you think is being advanced by the lead, and what do you think is required to counterbalance it? MaxBrowne (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That lede was POV because it made it sound like the term is being widely used and applied to all young people of the 2010. Neither of those things are accurate according to sources. MHP Huck (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Less resilient
What does this even mean? Seriously, in specifics, what does this mean? Who says this? Where are all the details about whom this group is reacting too? To leave out the context here is just leaves the article more POV than I have yet seen it. Who is deleting this stuff? If this is how the article is going to shape up, it is time for another AfD. MHP Huck (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Improved Lede
I've changed it to and added citations: "Generation Snowflake, or Snowflake Generation, is a term associated with the alt-right which used to characterize young adults of the 2010s who are perceived as being prone to taking offence.[1][2] The term is derogatory.[3]" MHP Huck (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something tells me this is not going to be accepted as a NPOV description. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And which part is not NPOV, specifically? MHP Huck (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, editors are not required to have a NPOV, you can have any damn opinion you want. But articles are. The unattainable ideal is that it should not be possible to even tell what a writer's personal opinion is from their main space edits. I don't think your edit passes that test. To begin with "alt-right" is a poorly defined and controversial label. Some consider it a code word for White Nationalists, and there is debate among the editorial staff at some newspapers whether they should continue to use it (rather than "far right"). Try substituting "Generation Snowflake is a term associated with the far right" and the lack of neutrality is obvious. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I am just working with sources, just like the rest of the piece. I think alt-right is probably the more accurate and neutral term of the group which is associated with it. Far-right is something different, since it could imply a variety of things which are different than the group using this term. MHP Huck (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MHP Huck: you don't have talk page consensus to reinsert the alt-right content into the lead. This is clear from multiple talk page sections above and also RfC. This seems like WP:IDHT editing and I think you should self-revert here. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What? Are you kidding my DynaGirl? I feel like every time I try and improve things, here you are. How about you be constructive and try and find some sources which support whatever your issue is. Also, I don't see consensus above yet substantial changes were made, so I don't even understand what in the world you are going on about. MHP Huck (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term "alt-right" is in itself controversial, e.g. [39] & [40]. Contentious labels like this have no place in the lead. If the term is to appear in the article at all, it should be quoted or attributed to a writer/article rather than used in wikipedia's voice. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently DynaGirl needs to learn how to read. I am not going to deal with you any more. Both you and Keri are total headaches. It may be a contenious label but they are nevertheless the group which has made this term popular. If you ask people whom only read the WSJ or Fox if they have heard the term - they have not. You have to go to alt-right sources and then the term is everywhere. They are the group whom have made it notable - that is a neutral comment buddy. MHP Huck (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The latest edit is not an improvement. "Snowflake" is not "controversial" or "polemical" any more than "bedwetter" or "crybaby" is, it's just an insult. The parenting stuff doesn't belong in the lead either, unless there are better sources than opinion pieces by Claire Fox. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about Keri, he revealed his bias in a fairly extreme fashion in numerous occasions. The change was terrible and made it dramatically more POV. MHP Huck (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop and take a long, hard look at yourself. An examination of the history of this article will show that I have added almost nothing to this article's text, but have been instead forced to intervene on multiple occasions because of WP:POV railroading by you and others and edit warring by you and others. You are a net deficit to this project, tying up other people's time and efforts, and contributing practically nothing of benefit. Preventing you from projecting your bias into the article is not revealing my bias. I'm a left-wing activist who mostly edits in articles regarding social justice, race and organised labour. And I'm sick to fucking death of your personal attacks, just because you don't like being fucking wrong. Keri (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody has a bias, the trick is not to introduce it into the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My bias is towards the truth. I haven't been contradicted with sourcing or facts. All that has happened is people have deleted it. Just because they delete it rather than bring up facts doesn't make it controversial. MHP Huck (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please ban Keri
Talk Pages are not forums for general discussion
Please. I am not going to help anymore. If someone doesn't ban Keri I will stop all donations to wikipedia. This is ridiculous. I am not going to comment anymore, nor make anymore additions. I don't want to participate in this garbage, nonsense process. I think wikipedia is dead. MHP Huck (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the moral support. But it's such a specious complaint that I wouldn't give it any thought; I'm not. Keri (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try again
Qexigator's change to the lead is not an improvement. "Snowflake" is not "controversial" or "polemical" any more than "bedwetter" or "crybaby" is, it's just an insult. The parenting stuff doesn't belong in the lead either, unless there are better sources than opinion pieces by Claire Fox, i.e. actual peer-reviewed studies. One might quibble with Collins' definition (it doesn't say anything about "specialness", entitlement etc) but I don't think using it as the main basis for the lead introduces any particular bias to the article. Here's another definition from the FT:
snowflake (Noun) A derogatory term for someone deemed too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own, particularly in universities and other forums once known for robust debate
We may surmise that Collins is doing the job of a dictionary compiler, neither more (which an article such as this in Wikipedia should) nor less, such as journalistic opinion published in FT or anywhere else, which tends to be skewed to entertain or retain or expand a particular readership. The article topic is "Generation Snowflake", and sources and comment above show that it is used in controversy and polemically, irrespective of the way in which "snowflake" is used. It is not derogatory (but in some circumstances may be tactless or de trop) to remark on personal characteristics such as hot-temper, coldness, sentimentality, but these can be used, fairly or not, to make a point polemically or in public or private controversy. Subject to further comment from others, the current version of the lead[41] looks acceptable, but would be better without cites, which should normally be confined (stylistically) to the main body of the article. Qexigator (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the part about parenting methods and self-esteem in the lede. It seems to help summarize the body of the article, which is the point of the lede. I'd suggest editing it to say "parenting methods and educational methods" though, as that would be a better summary. I also think we should keep the part about the term usually being derogatory. Qexigator, I hear what you're saying with respect to it not necessarily being derogatory, but Collins describes it as such and many of the sources appear to take on a derogatory tone presently. I think something like derogatory or pejorative belongs in the lead. --DynaGirl (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To say again in another way: if one thing is certain, Collins is not conclusive about how the lead of this article should be composed, and to word the lead as if it were is not acceptable. The Collins point is in the "Background" section, where it belongs. Please let us know what part of the article text supports including "educational methods" in the lead. Qexigator (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the use of derogatory by Collins is supported by the way the term is used in multiple other sources in article. I've skimmed the sources in past trying to clean up the article and attribute opinions to source cited. With respect to educational methods, this text supports its inclusion In the UK, Tom Bennett was recruited by the government to address behaviour in schools.[18] He commented that Generation Snowflake children at school can be over-protected, leading to problems when they progress to university and are confronted with "the harsher realities of life".[18] Bennett argues being sheltered from conflict as children can lead to university students who react with intolerance towards people and things that they believe may offend someone or toward people who have differing political opinions, leading to a phenomenon called "no-platforming", where speakers on controversial topics such as abortion or atheism are prohibited from speaking on a university campus.[18]--DynaGirl (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DG, but please note my comment: Collins is not conclusive about how the lead of this article should be composed, and to word the lead is if it were is not acceptable. Qexigator (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Qexigator, I'm not trying to say that Collins Dictionary is the conclusive source, but Collins calls it derogatory and so does Financial Times, and sources such as the Michelle Malkim piece have a derogatory tone. The term could evolve over time, but derogatory seems to be supported by the current sources, although I'd also support "pejorative".--DynaGirl (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for DG to keep on about this. My point as stated above is about the content and composition of the lead. Qexigator (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from the Lego Movie
The recently added quote from the Lego Movie appears to be unreferenced. I'm not sure if the quote "No one ever told me I was special. I never got a trophy just for showing up! I'm not some special little snowflake" is actually in that movie or not, but I think this should be deleted. In addition to being unreferenced, this isn't even an article on special snowflake (that article was deleted) and unless there's a source tying it to generation snowflake this seems off-topic. It also doesn't seem to add much to the article.--DynaGirl (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is verifiable (e.g. by watching the movie, which is presumably a valid primary source), and trying to make some artificial distinction between "special snowflake" and "generation snowflake" is bullshit. A far more valid reason to delete is that it's pop culture trivia, as are the sitcom references. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Last Man Standing "Precious Snowflake" episode is referenced. It used to have 3 different references, but it appears you reduced it to one. [42]. That epidosde seems on-topic because it's apparently about politically correct speech restrictions on a university campus. PC issues at universities is how this term is used typically. I presently don't see anything in article about trophies being related to generation snowflake, I guess this could fall under self esteem, but at present that Lego movie quote about trophies is unreferenced original research. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you what these sitcoms remind me of, the Quincypunk rock episode, i.e. ridiculous stereotypes about youth culture written by out of touch old people who have no idea what they're talking about. This is embarrassing stuff with no encyclopedic value. MaxBrowne (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much the whole article. This isn't the first "crap" to meet GNG and I'm sure it won't be the last. I don't really get why it bothers you so much. I mean, I don't think this article has high encyclopedic value, but it has some value. It will be interesting to see how history ultimately portrays these young adults. It will also be interesting to see what the next crop of young adults are criticized for. I'm guessing it will be for not being PC enough. --DynaGirl (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Usage, including "Popular culture"
Comments at[43] include Get rid of all tabloid and tabloid-style opinion pieces, all anecdotal/spin pieces, all polemic pieces, all trivial pop culture stuff. But on the whole the content of the present version should be retained as examples of Usage, including "Popular culture" (if duly cited). It is such usage that is assessed by dictionary compilers for publishers such as Collins. Some further copyedits may be needed: trimming, rearranging. Qexigator (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This content is what makes the article a POV fork - the content is not about usage of the term but rather makes claims about the generation, and the sources are not appropriate for supporting sociological content. This is the WP:COATRACK. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RFC - opinion pieces as sources
The consensus is that the question posed is too vague to elicit meaningful comments. The RfC is closed without prejudice for reopening with a more focused question. DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does the article Generation Snowflake rely excessively on opinion pieces for sourcing, and if so does their use impact negatively on WP:NPOV by giving WP:UNDUE weight to particular points of view? MaxBrowne (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This seems to be a vague question. Perhaps you could ask your RfC question with respect to a specific source (or specific sources) instead. MaxBrowne, is this related to your suggestion at the latest AfD to "gut" the article of content? Given this is an article about a term used to express an opinion about the young adults of the 2010s, eliminating anything that could possibly be called an opinion piece would probably turn the article into a Wiktionary entry (which would seem problematic considering the article appears about to survive it's second AfD in 2 months, based on current sourcing). That being said, there may be specific articles or opinion pieces that are undue weight or negatively impact NPOV, but trying to veto anything that could possibly be called an opinion piece doesn't seem like proper use of RfC. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop misrepresenting me. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please attribute your question to a particular source. A neologism which has been coined way too recently but succeeded at two AFD's has to primarily depend on opinion pieces.Isn't the article having way too many RFC's.Perhaps sometimes a judicious use of WP:IAR is the way out.Light❯❯❯ Saber 08:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It's too unfocused a question (three questions). Undue weight is about balancing viewpoints based on their prominence in reliable sources, not merely including viewpoints. Your questions, as asked, therefore can't be answered, as the premise on which they stand is false. EddieHugh (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – As established by RfC above, this is a neologism. You don't need a degree in lexicology to realise that neologisms are coined and subsequently gain currency through repeated use in op eds and pop culture sources. Keri (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The quwstion is vague and possibly disingenuous, however I will use the opportunity to say what I feel is wrong here. The article probably should be 'gutted' of primary sources USING the term, rather than content discussing evolution and use of the term. As I and others point out above, the article is unclear at present as to whether it is about the term (which some call the 'meme') or whether it is about the generation/people who are the target of the term. The sources I have seen are fairly clear, the term is ordinarily pejorative/dismissive. The somewhat ludicrous result of not being clear about this distinction is that we have text explaining why younger adults might be more inclined to seek psychiatric help. Whingeing Pom, stuck-up Pom, Pommie bastard, stinking Pom are all variant insults for English people, if WP had articles about these insults, would we bother to include notable academics arguing that in fact the English are not disproportionately illegitimate, are noted for their stoicism in adversity, are actually reserved rather than unfriendly and are ordinarily fragrant! Of course not! Because we understand that an insult is not necessarily true and are only interested in having explained who the target of the insult is, what is implied by it and how the insult came into being and evolved. If the article is about a term, much of it should go IMO. Pincrete (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I think much of the arguments over the article are related to fact that it's really not clear the direction it will ultimately take as notability and coverage expands. Currently it's unclear, if we will ultimately be dealing with an article like Slacker (about a term) or an article like Me Generation or Strawberry generation (a characterization of a group of people). Currently, the sourcing which enabled it to meet GNG appears to support the later (a characterization of a group of people). There was a lot of coverage of "generation snowflake/snowflake generation" in the press this year and "snowflake generation" was a Collins Dictionary 2016 word of the year. However, the very recent adoption of the far-right's usage of "snowflake" (without generation) as a slur for any liberals irrespective of age, could shift things, but that usage is so recent, it doesn't have much reliable source coverage yet. It only appeared since Trump won election in November. The history of the word seems pretty interesting, It appears to have originated with the self-esteem movement sometime after the late 1960s. "You're a beautiful and unique snowflake" was apparently a statement to boost self esteem, like a non-religious form of "You are special because God don't make no junk". Then Fight Club mocks this self-esteem stuff with Tyler Durden's line "you are not special. you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake...we are all part of the same compost heap" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgrbqv2jebI. Apparently, some time after Fight Club, the term eventually became more mocking instead of inspirational, leading to derogatory terms like "Special Snowflake" and "Special Snowflake Syndrome". Wikipedia previously had an article on Special Snowflake but it was recently deleted [44] and redirected to Special Snowflake Syndrome Wiktionary entry. The first of the snowflake terms to break out and clearly meet GNG was "Generation Snowflake", and that is the article we're dealing with now, and I think we need to focus on that. It would be nice to have an article about the evolution of the various terms, but it's just original research at this point. I can't find any sources tying all it together, I've just been able to piece it together via original research. Anyway, because at this point, we are dealing with an article about a term which characterizes a group of people, there are sources opining about why the people are the way this term describes them. I don't know if this should be completely eliminated, but it seems like it could use some trimming, cleaning up and very clear attribution, with editors being careful to not state anything as factual, but rather as opinions of people using the term.--DynaGirl (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with most of your conclusions and the articles you link to are clearly about terms not people, if they were about people, they would need to satisfy COMMONNAME, as would this article and I don't think anyone claims that the common name for present day young adults is 'snowflake generation'. It is clearly am ordinarily pejorative term used to criticise some young adults, as were the articles you linked to, (as opposed to a term like 'baby boomer', which is a neutral common name). That usage might change, but it wouldn't change the history of use, simply add to it. I've read all this talk page and looked at some article history (I haven't read the AfD discussion, but AfD is often a lottery and I don't think you should be constrained by what else has been deleted). The only secondary sources discuss the term(s), and without that focus, the article is merely a few random people making generalised criticism of the young, and pathologising them, with a few others saying "that's not quite fair". IMO an article about the term(s) would be useful, this one doesn't seem to know what it is or why it is here. Pincrete (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might have been unclear above. I don't think "generation snowflake" is a name for a group of people, rather it's a term to characterize a group of people. I don't think it's synonymous with Millennials (or Generation Z) and think it definitely shouldn't be treated as such. I do think it's similar to Me Generation and Strawberry generation and Oregon Trail Generation, although the later of those 3 isn't pejorative. I think the pejorative nature of this term makes things more difficult. Also, I think the distinction between primary and secondary sources here is not always clear. If a source gives some sort of definition or history of the term "generation snowflake", before opining on the group, is that a secondary source?--DynaGirl (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DynaGirl, apologies if I misunderstood. I would still argue that the article would be better if it focused more on the term(s) and if it resolved the various manifestations of 'snowflake', (including the generational use) as a term. Some of the examples (eg the Oxford Univ memo) seem very trivial. I also watchlist the PC article, (which is not an especially good article for various reasons), but one of the 'rules' we have applied there is to exclude examples of use EXCEPT when they are very significant (first published use, first use by Bush Sen. etc.).Pincrete (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, I think we largely agree. There do seem to be some trivial mentions of use of the term in current article. I think the only relevant part of the Oxford University section is that multiple commentators connect trigger warnings to "snowflake generation". I think the usage section needs to do a better job of succinctly explaining that the term is often used to criticize trigger warnings, safe spaces and push for political correctness in the university setting. It appears that current Oxford University section is longer than it needs to be and has an issue with wp:coatrack. Some of the text appears to be referenced to sources that do not mention generation snowflake, so it should probably be trimmed.--DynaGirl (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question is not vague. In my opinion the article does rely too heavily on opinion pieces. I do believe that at least in the UK this term is something of a meme being pushed by people involved in the LM Network and facilitated by the Daily Telegraph and its sister publication the Spectator. Even Tom Bennett - turns out the "free speech" conference referred to in the article by Javier Espinosa was organized by Spiked. He was using the term before Claire Fox turned it into a meme with her book but the LM connection is clear. We should not be buying into the LM narrative with this "he said she said, on the other hand he said, she said, and there was a sitcom about it" approach. The article should be simplified. Not saying nothing currently under the "Usage" heading should be used, but this would be an improvement over what we have now. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow: a conspiracy theory! The Daily Telegraph has been infiltrated by communists (have you told the Barclay brothers?) determined to spread their propaganda. Or maybe they're capitalists in disguise. Very 1950s. And they're everywhere! The Guardian, the Financial Times, the TES, Collins dictionary, the Independent, even GQ magazine. Now I understand your eagerness to cull most of the sources. Meanwhile, everyone has said that you need to narrow your question. EddieHugh (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Writing it off as a "conspiracy theory" is just a cheap rhetorical tactic to dismiss something without addressing it. It's clear that the term is being pushed by people with an agenda. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me. This article appears to be a variation on "kids today" which is as old as time. Why do you think it's a communist agenda? --DynaGirl (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with "communist", and any time I try to explain something to you I just get deliberate obtuseness. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You linked to Living Marxism Network above and earlier on talk page made reference to Claire Fox's "Revolutionary Communist Party mates". If not communism, what are you referring to? Libertarianism? It seems unsurprising if libertarians with free speech platform would criticize and insult stuff they see as anti-free speech. If you are talking about something else, you'll need to clarify. But please try to do so without all the rudeness/lack of civility. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After repeated displays of WP:IDHT on your part re what is or isn't appropriate material for a wikipedia article I really don't have the patience. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Largely agree with above comments, other than MaxBrowne's which seem to show the obtuseness ascribed to another: Question too vague/unfocused and possibly disingenuous... recent neologism,,, balancing viewpoints... at this point, about a term which characterizes a group of people,.. the pejorative nature of this term makes things more difficult.,, distinction between primary and secondary sources here is not always clear... Qexigator (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just shaking my head at the idea of WP having an article on a pejorative term for an entire generation rooted in the demonstrably false, cyclical and inevitable disapproval of older folks. I mean, seriously. We should redirect this article to a two-sentence sub(sub)section of Millenials and leave this kind of crap to the urban dictionary. DA WIKIPEDIAS IZ SERIUZ BIZNEZ!!!!1!!1oneoneone MjolnirPantsTell me all about it. 14:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm one of those older folks. Because I know someone's going to accuse me of being a millenial. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it. 14:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
older folks? How woebegone! Given that Shakers ("a millenarian ... sect founded in 18th century") and Ageism ("stereotyping and discriminating against individuals or groups on the basis of their age.., coined in1969"]] have standalone articles, why not be up-to-date with this newcomer, which has lasted long enough above the annual snowline to be noted lexicographically, as it is being used in the polemical discourse of this decade, like it or not? Qexigator (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I knew someone would ignore the postscript I posted. It's just too convenient not to. Shakers is an article title because of WP:COMMONNAME (which is also why the generation referred to by this article is located at Millenials). Ageism is the origin of the term, and not a comparable term at all. That's like suggesting that because we have an article on Racism, we need an article on Porch Monkey (note how that bluelink is actually a redirect; as this should be). As far as notability goes, I can find articles about a lot of different terms, pejorative, complimentary and otherwise. But there's been nothing to bring this term into the sort of widespread use that a similar term like "MTV generation" gets. I literally only recognized this term because I've seen this particular article before, and I've written dissertations on Millenials in the past few years. I haven't read through the discussion above because my 'fucks' are already earmarked for other expenditures, and I don't much care if anyone even reads what I wrote here. So the OP might be guilty of all the things a quick skimming shows they've been accused of here. But the OP has a point: the fact that we can find opinion pieces about it doesn't mean it merits its own article. I can find a lot of opinion pieces on the performance of Tommy Lee in his sex tape, but we don't have an article on Tommy Lee's sexual abilities. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it. 15:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tommy Lee's sexual abilities? Sex tape? False equivalence. This article meets WP:GNG. It's sailed through 2 IDONTLIKEIT AfDs. Get over it. Keri (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article still is horrific in terms of POV
Not sure how the article could get any worse but here it is. The breakdown of the body suggests there is far more agreement of categories than actually exist at all in the sources. That is bullshit. The whole presentation here is ridiculously POV. The lede is absolute garbage. The article is as if it applies to the entire basket of Millennials which really makes the case that this is a POV fork. It literally reads in the lede: "is a term used to characterise young adults of the 2010s." If this term applies to all young people, this needs to be merged. Otherwise someone needs to NPOV this article. As it stands it is absolute pathetic garbage. MHP Huck (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork? Merge? Pathetic garbage? See the AfDs, then drop the stick. Keri (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh POV-keri here, eh? You are part of the problem. MHP Huck (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that this article is well on its way to being deleted on the next AfD, which, given the terrible POV here, will most certainly happen. MHP Huck (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"sandbox version"
The 2nd AfD[45] includes some discussion (31 Dec-2 Jan) about a "sandbox version"[46]. It was offered by MaxBrowne, not as a final version but an improvement on the current article. The sandbox retains the current lead/lede/opening paragraph, and, with some minor changes, the "Background" section. It leaves out the "Usage" section altogether, but expecting that the content of this section should be reviewed, so as to be more focused and probably trimmed. One comment mentioned that the sandbox suggestion contains plenty of sources that look like the opinion pieces that were thought to be the target of the "gut" concept, and invited MaxBrowne to give a rationale that clearly delineates what he thinks would qualify a source for inclusion or exclusion.
While use of expressions such as "snowflake (generation)" usually bespeak the user's POV (perhaps indulgent, exasperated, amused, self-regarding etc), discussion on this page shows that most editors find the present content of the article acceptable in respect of NPOV. But for future guidance can any editor help by distilling from earlier discussion above a de facto rationale for sources? Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+ For instance, would it be acceptable to include the following from today's London Times?
University bosses regularly cave in to “snowflake” student demands for “no-platforming”, “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” against “micro-aggressions” (such as teaching Plato). [Matt Ridley, "Universities are being nationalised by stealth", The Times, 9 January 2017.[47]]
You think the article needs more "bloody students, political correctness gone mad" op-ed pieces? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is highly typical of the rhetoric employed by LM group and others pushing the "generation snowflake" meme. Trigger warnings and safe spaces are somehow a threat to free speech, "they want to ban Plato" (nobody ever said this by the way), "they no platform anyone they disagree with". The motivation becomes clear when you read the Institute of Ideas' manifesto from the 2010 election. Clearly the IoI and the related Spiked are promoting an extremist pro-corporate agenda where all checks and balances are removed so that things like public safety and health and any sense of social contract or responsibility on the part of business are completely removed. This is the agenda that these people are promoting... and yes Matt Ridley is part of that group, he's a shareholder in Spiked. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK MB, if that is fair comment about Ridley quote, if there is citable source, it could be included in the article, but I do not see his name in the "Spiked" link. Qexigator (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Page 2 of shareholders. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Qexigator: Including this seems reasonable to me. London Times is a reliable source and the content seems on topic. Criticizing safe spaces, trigger warnings, and microagrresions seem to be significant usage of the term. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+ Another instance of journalistic, polemical, use of "snowflake" from the London Times (today's), but extended to characterise adults indiscriminately as being unduly prone to taking offence, not specifically "young adults of the 2010s":
Johnson ruffles feathers with WW2 jibe at French president:...Michael Gove, who resigned as Mr Johnson’s campaign manager to stage his own Tory leadership bid last year, also rushed to his defence, tweeting: “People ‘offended’ by the foreign secretary’s comments are humourless, deliberately obtuse, snowflakes — it’s a witty metaphor.[48]Qexigator (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+ Another instance of journalistic, polemical, use of "snowflake" from the London Times (today's), but extended to chide adults indiscriminately for being unduly prone to taking offence, not specifically "young adults of the 2010s":
Johnson ruffles feathers with WW2 jibe at French president:...Michael Gove, who resigned as Mr Johnson’s campaign manager to stage his own Tory leadership bid last year, also rushed to his defence, tweeting: “People ‘offended’ by the foreign secretary’s comments are humourless, deliberately obtuse, snowflakes — it’s a witty metaphor.[49]Qexigator (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What we've got here is basically a hack MP tweeting a new insult he learned from Donald Trump supporters. Not notable. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No improvement, at all
Just a reminder that the POV on this page is totally beyond the pale and still needs to be addressed. The lede is ridiculously overbroad. Is ANYONE going to address these issues? MHP Huck (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the Keep/delete discussion, it was 8 keeps and 5 deletes, up dramatically from the first round. I would expect the next nomination for deletion to succeed given the state of the entry. MHP Huck (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{sofixit}} Complaining about the POV once every couple of weeks does nothing to solve the issues you think exist. How about proposing some changes yourself instead of complaining that the existing work is bad? The WordsmithTalk to me 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have in the past. They were all reverted. The only edit I've made which has been kept has been preverted into a POV statement from a NPOV version. See the problem? I even got banned for 24 hours for edit warring with DynaGirl - Keri reported me a few times, but one time was actually legitimate. So, that is why I am not longer helping out, I am sick of the bullying going on here. MHP Huck (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MHP Huck, you were actually edit warring with multiple users and ignoring RfC [50]. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Safe Spaces
I notice the text regarding safe spaces has been recently deleted and the references removed by MaxBrowne. It seems something about safe spaces needs to be restored as criticism over safe spaces is highly related to the moniker generation snowflake and the criticism that young adults "don't cope with views that challenge their own".--DynaGirl (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: the objection appears to have been to the representation of a survey, not to the mentioning of safe spaces. Find a good source or two that discusses them and add them to the article. EddieHugh (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Generation snowflake is derived from snowflake"
Well duh, like "helicopter parent is derived from helicopter". It's tautological, it states the obvious and it's incredibly awkward and clunky. Just horrible English. It is much better just to say "snowflake has been used to describe..." etc etc in order to give a historical context to the use of the term. Then in the next paragraph move on to the combination of the word "snowflake" with "generation". Besides the whole article should probably be moved to Snowflake (pejorative) or similar anyway. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, move to Snowflake (pejorative) (or similar) is the way to go. Qexigator (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EddieHughes reversion because It seems the sources were used to split up Special Snowflake and Generation Snowflake in a way not supported by the sources cited. The sources we currently have in article really haven't clearly split up the origin of special snowflake vs generation snowflake and sort of talk about them together and I think we need to be careful not to add original research to the article. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course you agree... MaxBrowne (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess I have an annoying habit of trying to follow Wikipedia policies such as no original research. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Starting "snowflake..." doesn't help to give historical context to the term "generation snowflake". It may seem that it does to you, MaxBrowne, in part because you know the rest of the article already and have read about GS. The article should not be written for such a reader, however – it should be written for someone who knows little or nothing about the subject matter. This requires a flow from title to lead to opening of body. "Generation Snowflake...", "Generation Snowflake...", then suddenly "The term 'snowflake'..." just confuses. Rewording for clunkiness is easy, e.g.: '"Generation Snowflake" may be derived from the term "snowflake".[3] This has been used to...'.
On the title: that's another reason to cut the non-generational 'snowflake' bits (they can be put in Wikitionary if they need somewhere to go) and keep just the proposed explanation of etymology and then the generational bits. EddieHugh (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Generation Snowflake" may be derived from the term "snowflake". Yeah, no kidding. "Liberal wimp" may be derived from the term "wimp" too. Or at least it's been suggested that it may be. And I guess "Fascist thug" may be derived from the term "thug". It is a tautology, it is stating the obvious. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Generation X" may be derived from... Doesn't always work, does it?
How about '"Generation Snowflake" may be derived from the use of "snowflake"[3] in [or 'when'?] referring to...'? EddieHugh (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about dispensing with your made-up "rule" that the first sentence of the body must contain the exact expression "generation snowflake"? MaxBrowne (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
corrections
This is my 1st wiki post, so hopefully I am posting everything correctly.
"According to Fox, members of Generation Snowflake "...; they are more likely than previous generations of students to report that they have mental health problems"
- Incorrect. Based on psychology there is no basis for the above statement. It is however a common misconception. - "The idea that Millennials (those born in the 1980s and early 1990s) are more likely to struggle with anxiety and depression, she concludes, is just a rumor with little basis in fact. “Researchers weren't very good at collecting data on mental illness back in the '60s and '70s, when the baby boomers were in their late teens and 20s,” she says.
Furthermore, I vote for a removal of the post altogether. Based on urban dictionay, snowflake is "A word republicans use against liberals when they can not come up with a valid argument to support their statement. "
So, based on urban dictionary, this post is a violation of wikipedia rules were content is meant to be neutral and non discriminating. In this case, the discrimination is based on political view.
You posted things correctly. The contents of your post, however, are incorrect. The article you link to is about why the part you've boxed is wrong – just read beyond the first paragraph to find "These studies conclude that anxiety and depression are markedly higher than they were in earlier eras." We need to use reliable sources here, and urbandictionary isn't one. EddieHugh (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EddieHugh - Just to be clear, I am not American, nor do I live in USA. English is my 5th language so I am not fluent by any means.
You will probably discredit all the below sources as well, but I will post them anyways. Especially since the wikipedia page uses Fox as a source, so why not other news websites. Especially since Fox has been heavily leaning conservative rather then neutral - that is if neutral in news even exists anymore. Since news are written by human beings who have their own opinions, separation of your own voice in writing can be rather challenging.
The word Snowflake is being used as an insult by some, not all, conservatives. The word snowflake is used towards liberals and anyone who opposes the alt-right movement point of view. Since Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia rules, suppose to be neutral source of information, I find the post inappropriate and discriminating.
"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination."
Do not discriminate against current or prospective users on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics."
"‘Poor little snowflake’ – the defining insult of 2016" & "Between the immediate aftermath of Brexit and the US presidential election, one insult began to seem inescapable, mostly lobbed from the right to the left: “snowflake.”"
"But as 2016 dawned, snowflake made its way to the mainstream and, in the process, evolved into something more vicious. The insult expanded to encompass not just the young but liberals of all ages; it became the epithet of choice for right-wingers to fling at anyone who could be accused of being too easily offended, too in need of “safe spaces,” too fragile.""
"Used in demeaning manner against those who did not support Donald Trump - "the Washington Post’s precious little snowflakes are now interviewing their fellow precious little snowflakes about their own precious feelings.""
"A plethora of verbally abusive language was hurled at Hillary Clinton and her supporters during the 2016 election. Somehow "snowflake" has continued to rank high on the list of insults being lobbed at those of us who voted for her"
"Fox" in the article refers to a person, Claire Fox, not Fox News. You can look at the list of references at the bottom to check this. EddieHugh (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Undiscussed Page Move
I notice MaxBrowne moved the page Generation Snowflake to Snowflake (slang). Shouldn't we have a page move discussion? I think that might be a reasonable step here, considering how contentious this article has been. While I tend to agree that an article on the broad topic of snowflake as slang would be interesting, and even preferable if sourcing supported it, I'm really worried there isn't sourcing to support it yet, and that it's going to end up being based on Original Research and synthesis. This has already been an issue in the background section of the article concerning the origin of the term Generation Snowflake.
This occurred previously with the addition of text saying the term originated from Fight Club, which involved addition of user generated sources and original research to say it came from Fight Club. Shortly after this a reliable source reported saying it might come from Fight Club, but then the user who added it without a reliable source, said that the reliable source probably got it from his additions to the article, and I think that might actually be what occurred. [51]. Now Chuck Palinuak has gone ahead and taken credit for coining "snowflake" with a vague statement of "I coined snowflake and I stand by it", which kind of reads to me like "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" [52]. If you've read interviews with Palinuak, he's a funny and sarcastic guy. I mean, it's easily verifiable people used the phrase special snowflake before Fight Club. I was able to find reference to it in NewsLibrary.com archives from 1984 in an article titled No snowflakes alike? Prove it! from the Lifestyle Section of The San Diego Union.
Even in the current background section, we seem to be misrepresenting things and I'm worried that's only going to get worse with change of title and focus which seems to require original research. The chronology is Special Snowflake, Generation Snowflake (first topic to meet GNG) and very recently plain snowflake. I'm worried that with the change in title and change in focus, the article will largely be based on original research and synthesis at this point and that Wikipedia is going to be leading the reliable sources instead of the other way around.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me bring down my point above: While use of expressions such as "snowflake (generation)" usually bespeak the user's POV (exasperated, etc), can any editor help by distilling from earlier discussion above a de facto rationale for sources? For instance, would it be acceptable to include the following from London Times: University bosses regularly cave in to “snowflake” student demands for “no-platforming”, “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” against “micro-aggressions” (such as teaching Plato).Matt Ridley, "Universities are being nationalised by stealth", The Times, 9 January 2017.[53] + Another instance of journalistic, polemical, use of "snowflake" from the London Times, but extended to characterise adults indiscriminately as being unduly prone to taking offence, not specifically "young adults of the 2010s": Johnson ruffles feathers with WW2 jibe at French president:...Michael Gove, who resigned as Mr Johnson’s campaign manager to stage his own Tory leadership bid last year, also rushed to his defence, tweeting: “People ‘offended’ by the foreign secretary’s comments are humourless, deliberately obtuse, snowflakes — it’s a witty metaphor.[54]Qexigator (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it back. There was no discussion, no consensus for change and it was obviously controversial. "Ignore all rules" doesn't mean ignore everyone else. EddieHugh (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DynaGirl, thanks for digging back in time. I also found older (than Fox) uses, for Generation Snowflake, but they can't really be added here. This article probably is the main source of info online for Generation Snowflake (it was getting over 2,000 views a day consistently; with the unilateral page move the count can't be checked now), which was a lot more than Snowflake (the actual, icy, ones!). People publishing things based in part on what's here is, therefore, a potential problem. EddieHugh (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 31 January 2017
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. OK, I agree it's complicated, but the primarytopic rationale made no sense since the target had a disambiguator, and the source evidence was poorly presented by both sides, and the article is currently written about the generation, not the slang term per se. Yes, the association of snowflake with a generation has a POV, but that's the topic of the article, not a POV of the editors. Possibly a separate article on the term snowflake makes sense, and maybe some day there will be a consensus on how to merge them, but for now there's no consensus to make this article into that. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generation Snowflake → Snowflake (slang) – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it is simply common sense to call an article about a slang term by the name of the slang term, not by a particular usage of the slang term. That's why bugger has an article but bugger off and bugger all only have redirects. Calling the article "Generation Snowflake" instead of "Snowflake" is also inherently POV. "Generation Snowflake" is not the prime or even the usual use of the term "snowflake" in its pejorative sense, it's a meme that was pushed by Claire Fox and compliant British journalists in 2016, and is actually on the decline now. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (changing vote- please see below) The sourcing does not support the nominator's claim that "Generation Snowflake" isn't primary usage of term (as currently described in reliable sources, which is admittedly different than how it may be used in social media comments, urban dictionary etc) The references in the article do refer specifically to "Generation Snowflake". I do think an article on the general topic of snowflake slang, and how the various terms evolved in the language would be great, once the sourcing supports it, and if it didn't rely on original research and synthesis. I could be persuaded to change my vote if someone could provide me with references which tie together the various terms: which are "Special Snowflake", "Generations Snowflake", and now plain "snowflake" (which is very recent usage, apparently only used since Trump won in November to insult liberals of any age, but primarily aimed at young people). Currently, we mostly have sources that discuss "generation snowflake". We have a source which links "generation snowflake" to "special snowflake" and we have a few sources which link "generation snowflake" to plain "snowflake", but I'm not aware of any sources which explain the evolution of these various usages, which would allow us to have an article on the topic snowflake (slang) without relying on original research and synthesis. Add- please also see my previous comments in above section regarding problems with background section and concerns regarding this article leading the reliable sources, based on original research, instead of following the reliable sources [55] --DynaGirl (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense, the term "snowflake" on its own was the original usage. Wikipedia is not here to promote memes. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest usage we currently have in article is from Fight Club, which was a usage of 'special snowflake', with the line "you are not special, you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake." Do you have any sources to support claim that snowflake on it's own was used to describe people (without the qualifier of "special" or "generation") prior to Trump winning in November, because I'm not aware of any sources that support that, and I'm pretty sure I've read all the sources currently in article.--DynaGirl (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't, the word "special" wasn't even in the same sentence. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems kind of nit-picky to focus on exact position of "special" in the Fight Club quote (especially considering "unique" is synonym of "special"). Seems if Tyler Durden had just said "you are not a snowflake" and left it at that, it would not have made any sense because "snowflake" with no qualifier wasn't used to describe people back in the 1990s.--DynaGirl (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote from oppose to Support because I found these recently published sources regarding snowflake slang [56], [57], [58]. I think these new sources along with this source which was already in article [59] are probably sufficient to begin an article on the broad topic of snowflake slang. Also, could administrators and others reviewing this move request please keep an eye on this page, because there has been a history of addition of original research to article, and I fear that this may increase with an article name change because the snowflake terms are often used in social media comments and self-published or user generated sources. --DynaGirl (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Again, this is not supported by sources, just by a set of assumptions held by the nominator. Further evidence: Generation Snowflake averages 4,500 views a day, Snowflake [the article on flakes of snow...] gets 1,100, Snowflake (disambiguation) gets 50, Snowflakes (disambiguation) gets 20, as does Special snowflake, see table and chart, so searches and readers appear not to support the PrimaryTopic claim either. (It's unfortunate that we're dealing again with an attempt to dispose of this article: we nearly got through a whole month without another attempt...) EddieHugh (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Sources do indeed make the connection between "snowflake" as a pejorative and its combination with the word "generation". The combination of "snowflake" with "generation" is likely ephemeral and is not the primary usage of the term. And "It has been suggested that generation snowflake is derived from snowflake" is still appallingly bad, tautological English. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim relates to PrimaryTopic, not original use, which isn't a justification for changing a title, but you have presented no evidence relating to PrimaryTopic. You were asked about alternative wording of the sentence you criticised, but chose to cite Ignore all rules and then unilaterally move the page. EddieHugh (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you expect "bugger off" to be the main article, and "bugger" to redirect to it? MaxBrowne (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What an interesting choice of example. If each subject warranted a separate article, I'd expect to see an article for each. If only one article were warranted, I'd expect to see the primary topic as the main article; this decision would be based on the evidence, not on which came first. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY has: "we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic:" "Historical age (Kennewick, Washington is primary for Kennewick over the much older Kennewick Man) ... If a topic was the original (Boston is about Boston, Massachusetts, not the English city that first bore that name)". EddieHugh (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I've never heard the term "Generation Snowflake" and it seems like someone's cute way of misusing a new insulting meme by applying it to an entire generation. Wikipedia should not go along with this application and codify it, so the move is both reasonable and encyclopedic. Randy Kryn 14:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not read about it to reach an informed opinion, instead of leaping to a judgement? EddieHugh (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did read about it, and have ran across the 'Snowflake' meme on other sites and see that it is prominent, but for Wikipedia to label an entire generation with this term would do a disservice to both the encyclopedia and its readers. Randy Kryn 21:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Wikipedia isn't labelling anything; it's reporting what the sources say. Just as, for example, Genocide denial isn't denying genocides: having an article on a topic isn't an endorsement. EddieHugh (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IGNORE and WP:COMMONSENSE. The sources use the term as a mocking insult, not as a real long-term name of an entire generation. Editors can pick and choose sources, and once some are found can then claim that, yes, see, that is the name of the generation. The generation that has come of age in the 2010s will certainly not be known their entire lives by this meme moniker. This is a bending of Wikipedia's sourcing policy, using writers who reflect this meme and entice others to label a generation with an insult. Should Wikipedia follow this and label a generation? To counter this the closer should use WP:IGNORE and WP:COMMONSENSE, the ignore all rules clause which allows us to better the encyclopedia by ignoring this type of mocking source-pile-on. Randy Kryn 01:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support and not just because I'm the requester.Comment Wikipedia policy is firmly on my side. The title "Generation Snowflake" is inherently non-neutral and tends to endorse the contentious claim that millennials are too politically correct, oversensitive etc. From WP:POVNAMING - "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias" and "Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." This is a textbook case - the non-neutral title has encouraged people to cite-bomb with sneering op-ed pieces about how ridiculous those bloody students are for "banning Plato", "it's political correctness gone mad I tell you" etc etc. WP:POVNAME also states "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: (1) Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later." WP:RECOGNIZABLE also supports the use of "Snowflake" rather than "Generation Snowflake" as the article title. Randy Kryn is not the first editor to say he hadn't heard the term "Generation Snowflake" before finding this article, he had however heard the term "snowflake". So, the core policies WP:NPOV and WP:NAME strongly support a change of article name. For me the only question is whether it should be "Snowflake (slang)" or "Snowflake (pejorative)". I'm actually leaning towards the latter. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line (WP:RM#CM). EddieHugh (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
POV bias was discussed and rejected in the second attempt at deletion. The article, reflecting the available sources, states that it is contentious; this is how to deal with contentious things, not by deleting them or changing their title. POVNAME also recommends avoiding "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious": the proposed move is to "Snowflake (slang)", which is a colloquialism where a far more encyclopedic alternative (Generation Snowflake) is obvious. "I haven't heard of it" is the weakest of arguments; Wikipedia has over 5.3 million articles... how many will any one person have heard of? EddieHugh (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne, thank you for your well thought out and articulated summary of relevant policy. This attempt to codify a short-term perjorative slur of an entire generation fails on those policies alone. Randy Kryn 12:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Generation Snowflake" isn't commonly heard or understood. "Snowflake", however, is and is by far the commoner usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So start a separate article on "snowflake"... you could use the small amount of the current article that isn't sourced and about Generation Snowflake. Do you have any evidence for your assertion, in particular to counter the Wikipedia page view data given above that flatly contradicts it? EddieHugh (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get into the core of this. Look at the references and sources on the page. They are mostly from November and December of 2016 and January of 2017, although some pop up in May or June. So, because of these few warm newly baked sources you are ready to label an entire generation. Okay, what do we have in terms of generations on Wikipedia. There is the Lost Generation, the Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, the Millenials, and Generation Snowflake. Which of these doesn't fit? Here are further descriptions at List of generations, and notice that nobody has added this page to that list. Now maybe if we give it another year or three, and this definition is all over the place, everyone has commonly accepted it, and all the members of that generation have learned to bow their heads in shame, then I'd say that the page 'Snowflake (insult)' (or wherever it finally lands at) should be looked at again in an RM. Up until then, let's give it another, say, few months, before we label an entire generation with this mocking meme which accelerated a bit in November of 2016. And yes, 'Snowflake' is now very much the common name for the meme, and it should be quickly moved to some form of that title. Randy Kryn 19:58, 3 February 2017 (URC)
You again conflate summarising the sources with an endorsement of them. "We" are not labelling anyone, the Wikipedia article summarises the sources available, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. On sources: yes, it's new, so the sources are recent... the alternative is to pretend that they don't exist; again: what's in the article reflects what's available. On other articles: plenty on 'Generation ...' aren't included in List of generations (Boomerang Generation, Sandwich Generation...); that's not a reason to remove or rename them. EddieHugh (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm pointing out is that the Wikipedia article title about the term 'Snowflake' should just use that term, which is the common name, and not the descriptor 'Generation'. Randy Kryn 13:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the article is about Generation Snowflake; the (just) 'snowflake' bit comes in as background to that term. EddieHugh (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given that the uses of snowflake under discussion here have entered the language (British English, US English, et al.), mostly in polemic but also in other literature and journalism, my feeling is that, as often, this may be a more contentious problem among dwellers in that robust promoter of "free speech", the USA, in the self-belief of "land of the free", from campus to election campaign trail,[60] than it is elsewhere. It may, then, be only fair to let the question of article title be settled by allowing some more weight to be given to opinion and comment tending to reflect (npov) USA experience. Qexigator (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Snowflake/Holocaust connection?
I have heard it said recently that the alt-right likes to use "snowflake" to describe their opponents because it recalls the period during the Holocaust when the ashes from the concentration camp ovens fell like snowflakes over neighbouring areas. Snopes deems this a myth, but judging from chat in alt-right forums, it seems to have been gleefully adopted as a truth. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Despite attempts by fringe sites like Daily Caller to discredit it, Snopes is considered one of the more reliable sources on the net. Some of their research, like their investigation into the rumour that Clark Gable committed vehicular manslaughter and had it hushed up, is very impressive indeed. Could possibly mention the holocaust non-connection with reference to the snopes article. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think non-connections warrant mention in the article. Seems like this never got past the level of Twitter based rumor before Snopes shut it down. I can't find any mention of this rumored connection in any reliable media sources.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was a rumor that started on either Twitter or Tumblr with no basis in reality. It has since become a minor meme in some circles, but it doesn't belong in the article. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]