Talk:Generation Snowflake/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

• 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)

• 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 [1] reference (which the filer of this RfC has brought up for discussion at both RSN and NPOVN [[2]],[[3]], 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)

*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))

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Redirect for discussion

Just drawing everyone's attention to this Rfd. I think it's very pertinent to the discussion of what this article should actually be about. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 23#Special snowflake MaxBrowne (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

That's a bit off topic for this thread. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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 [4] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[5] Qexigator (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

+ Would those who support retaining this as a standalone article please propose a rewording? Qexigator (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. [6] MaxBrowne (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Its notability does not depend on Collins. If anything vice versa. Repeat, not in lead, please. Qexigator (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

LOL, well, that seems to well sum up your consistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance on the article. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And what positive encyclopedic value as added by including this trivial material? https://xkcd.com/446/ MaxBrowne (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Quote: "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." Yes, and that's ultimately why people here object to your POV editing, edit warring and tendentious Because I don't like it!! attitude here and on the article. Keri (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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.

Qexigator (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

EddieHugh's comment understood, and proposed wording looks the best so far. Qexigator (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

First, I do not see that "snowflake generation" is necessarily and always pejorative or used scornfully, any more than "greybeards",[7] or"wrinklies",[8] or "pensioners" or "oldie"[9]: 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Try this: [10]. How many of those hits do not mention Claire Fox? MaxBrowne (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Max., such irony! Once again, this makes the point. The link goes from February 2016[11] (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?[12]? or "Generation snowflake is not failing us: we’re failing them"[13] Qexigator (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

Note

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"Snowflake" (slang)[14] has entered the language,[15] [16][17][18] 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.[19] Qexigator (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

"It is a POV Fork and will be deleted on that basis." We'll see. :) Keri (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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" [20]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)[21] ? Qexigator (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Are you denying that it's insulting? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

The other 9 CWOTY 2016 were: Brexit, Hygge, mic drop, Trumpism, throw shade, sharenting, dude food, Uberization, JOMO (joy of missing out). It seems that to be selected, one must be a neologism rather than an (internet-)meme. For NPOV, can Claire Fox (mentioned above) v. George Monbiot be left out of this discussion?. Qexigator (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"more-visible"? The page has had the same number of hits in the last few days as Aspirin. I'm not trying to place anyone in any generation. But comments such as "It's awful to talk about the psychological issues of a generation..." are not a million miles away from "a pathetic internet meme being pushed in major British newspapers by a nasty old ex-communist turned right-wing agitator to insult young people" and other examples of NPOV being foisted here. Keri (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [22]? 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: [23]. --DynaGirl (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Something tells me this is not going to be accepted as a NPOV description. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

And which part is not NPOV, specifically? MHP Huck (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@MHP Huck: If you really don't understand, review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generation_Snowflake#Alt_right_2.0 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generation_Snowflake#Alt-right_in_lead_-RfC. After page protection expired, Qexigator removed the alt-right text from the lead and you don't have consensus to restore it. --DynaGirl (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The term "alt-right" is in itself controversial, e.g. [24] & [25]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Everybody has a bias, the trick is not to introduce it into the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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) Oppose. Qexigator (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC) 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)

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

. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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[26] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Last Man Standing "Precious Snowflake" episode is referenced. It used to have 3 different references, but it appears you reduced it to one. [27]. 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)

I'll tell you what these sitcoms remind me of, the Quincy punk 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)

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)

Usage, including "Popular culture"

Comments at[28] 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)

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)

RFC - Source #1: GQ Magazine

Is the GQ magazine article "MILLENNIALS. STOP BEING OFFENDED BY, LIKE, LITERALLY EVERYTHING Millennials: You are fast becoming Generation Snowflake - a collective that quivers at the slightest breeze and dissolves at the slightest upset. Sort yourselves out". a reliable - and suitable - source for this article about the neologism, "Generation Snowflake"? Keri (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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 [29], 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

Note: This discussion has been listed at the reliable sources noticeboard.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

  "a reliable - and suitable - source..." Keri (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

1. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Alt-right in lead -RfC

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: [30], [31].--DynaGirl (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• No. There are many reasons, the simplest being that neither source supports the sentence. EddieHugh (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

An article on Special snowflake did not survive a recent AfD [32]. The term "Generation Snowflake" did survive a recent AfD [33]. 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• No. The bot sent me. Agree with Qexigator. Well said. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note - RFC reopened:I have reopened the RFC after discussing with the closer. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

POV fork? Merge? Pathetic garbage? See the AfDs, then drop the stick. Keri (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh POV-keri here, eh? You are part of the problem. MHP Huck (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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)