Talk:Generation Snowflake/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Standalone page

Seems as though it may be more appropriate for this content to be addressed within Millennials. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, does it really merit a standalone page? RachC (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've cut the mention of millennials, as that was an initial attempt at summarising but it's not mentioned in those sources. Millennials is ill-defined and so is Generation Snowflake, but members of the latter are not necessarily part of the former, so merging wouldn't be appropriate. EddieHugh (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The Millennial Generation is mentioned in the references. It's mostly referenced by opinion pieces like this one called "I Feel Sorry For the Poor Ickle Millennials" [1]. That being said, I'm really not sure this stuff belongs on Wikipedia at all. This content seems very point of view and and doesn't seem very encyclopedic at this point. --DynaGirl (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've added more info from another source. It's principally about children at school, which will push it beyond the Millennials tag. POV is about how a topic is presented; if we find more sources that provide an alternative perspective, then we can add them. For now, the balance of views is representative of the sources. EddieHugh (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not think the sources here are enough to demonstrate that the term 'generation snowflake' is used very widely. Two sources are the same author, and two others are the same publication. I don't think it warrants it's own page. It appears as a pejorative term that's only used by a small group. There won't be as much of a counter POV since the term doesn't seem to be in a wide lexicon.

An example would be the term 'Peter Pan generation'. That term has 12 sources, and it's only a section of the Millennial Generation page. The term has been shown to be used by a broader group.

Most current college students would fall under the Millennial generation. The generational definitions are not extremely strict. If not on the Millennial page, then possibly in another page. Virtue signalling as it's a similar concept, or maybe political correctness.KLoverde (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

"Kathleen Shaputis labeled Millennials as the boomerang generation or Peter Pan generation": that's another label for the same thing. I've just checked all of the online links (that's 12 of the 13 that I count) in that section. 1 is a deadlink. 11/11 of the live links do not contain the term "peter pan", so, in fact, it has one source (assuming that the term is in the book). EddieHugh (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What's needed for notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." There are lots of articles in tabloids that I haven't included as I think it's best not to use them, where possible (although I note that the Millennials article includes The Sun and Buzzfeed among its references). This article has a book, newspaper articles, a magazine article and an article in (probably) the leading educational publication in the UK. EddieHugh (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I restored "Millennials" to the text of the article instead of the recent change to "young people" because Millennials is actually supported by multiple refs. A quick google source on "Generation Snowflake" revealed this source as well, from GQ: http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/millennials-created-generation-snowflake. Reading over this source, which has more encyclopedic content and looking over some of the other sources currently in article it seems maybe this content could be successfully merged into Millennials article in an encyclopedic way, but without the POV quotes and instead focusing on the push for safe spaces & trigger warnings at universities and desire for trigger warnings at law schools regarding teaching sensitive topics related to law such as rape and murder, etc. This sort of stuff seems encyclopedic and relevant to the main article but I'm not even sure the POV term "generation snowflake" belongs in the Millennial article, just the concepts of safe spaces, trigger warnings and resulting debate over them.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Altering the basic definition to only Millennials and then suggesting a merge into Millennials is naughty. I've made the opening a more accurate reflection of the sources overall. I rejected the GQ piece because it looks questionable as a source. And again, POV is about how a topic is presented, not an article's inclusion of sourced opinions. EddieHugh (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like projection. Reviewing history shows you are the one who originally changed "Millennials" to "young people" after the suggestion from another user that this article be merged to the Millennials page per WP:PAGEDECIDE. GQ is a reliable source. It seems all of the refs are basically opinion pieces expressing negative POV toward this demographic, which is why I added the POV tag. --DynaGirl (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

As stated above, including millennials & generation z was my original attempt at summarising the age group, but it wasn't actually an accurate reflection of the sources. Read WP:NPOV: if most sources express one view and some express another, then the article should reflect both views, with appropriate balance. Describing sourced opinion as POV is not what the tag is for (that an opinion is a POV is obvious): including opinions ≠ problem with WP:NPOV EddieHugh (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Generation Z was removed because the current sources don't mention Generation Z. They do mention Millennials. I agree with RachC and KLoverde that this doesn't seem to warrant a stand alone page. It seems the relevant topics of safe spaces and trigger warnings could be better addressed on the Millennials page or the Political Correctness page. --DynaGirl (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC - Neologism or mental disorder

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.

---

Regarding article content, per WP:RFC: Is this an article about a neologism – "a relatively new or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language" – or an article about a recognised mental disorder/mental illness/psychiatric disorder? Keri (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• It has nothing to do with a mental disorder, although if there is psychiatric evidence otherwise that would be very interesting to see and include. No sources have thus far asserted that, as far as I understand. MHP Huck (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• A neologism. It is a cultural term not a recognised medical or psychological condition and as such does not require "academic papers on the subject, with formal research methodology", as references. Keri (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• A neologism used by a few print and online sources. It has nothing to do with psychiatry. Dimadick (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• A neologism, as per the three users above. To deem Generation Snowflake-ness a mental disorder, the article must have a citation from an expert source (such as NHS). Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 22:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• yet another bizarre RfC. Most of the article makes claims characterizing a generation, which is a sociology topic. That content is all invalid, as the sources are not reliable for describing sociology and the article as it stands is a badly sourced POV Fork. It might be possible to create a stub article article about the meme using the very few secondary sources about the meme that are used in the article now. There may be more. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You call it bizarre. But if people hadn't edit warred because they considered this an article about the "psychological issues of a generation" it wouldn't be necessary. Keri (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not a mental disorder, unless very high-quality sources can be found saying that it is. I haven't seen any such sources —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'd agree with the sentiment that this is rather a bizarre RfC. Reading through the article, the only real reference to mental health concerns is the suggestion from the Claire Fox Spectator source that students confronted with views that do not match their own are reporting mental health issues more often. This source does not say that their alleged snowflakey-ness is a mental health disorder of its own. Indeed, Fox's article mentions increasing rates of anxiety and depression as a marker of the sort of sensitivity which she alleges, rather than any new specific mental health issue. (An analogue here might be, say, lack of time management skills. This isn't a mental disorder, but if one finds oneself in a busy, high pressure job, not having those skills may lead to an increased prevalence of anxiety or other mental disorders. Hence why practical therapeutic interventions like cognitive behavioural therapy seeks to try and teach patients new or better coping strategies.) I don't see how any reasonable reading of either this article or the Spectator source leads one to the conclusion that the supposed "snowflakes" are suffering from a new mental disorder. Indeed, for that to be arguable on Wikipedia, there would need to be references to medical-grade reliable sources in psychiatry, psychology and mental healthcare related publications, rather than a collection of outraged thinkpieces from op-ed hacks about how trigger warnings in academic textbooks are leading to the decline of Western civilisation etc. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with the above sentiment that neologism is a cultural term and not a recognized psychological condition Grammarphile (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• It's an article about a neologism. As currently framed, the article is not about generation snowflake, whatever that may mean, including metnal disorder. It is about the term. (But I really can't see why anyone would want comments on this question). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:43, 29 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.

RFC - Global view

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.

---

The article is concerned with an English language neologism – "a relatively new or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language." As such, should the article be required at this time to present a global view of the term, given that it is relatively new and not in mainstream use? Keri (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• I don't personally think so as it is an anglophone word, but perhaps other languages have similar concepts. MHP Huck (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• No. The article is about an English-language neologism, relating to a cultural phenomenon observed in the UK and the USA. As a relatively new or isolated term in the UK and USA it is unreasonable to demand a global perspective, in much the same way that we do not demand a global perspective of the phrase Protestant Wind. Keri (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• For the tag to be worthwhile, there needs to be evidence that sources from other countries exist. I've tried a quick search with South Africa, Nigeria and India Google and found just blogs and repeats of other sources. I could have missed something, so I'd welcome others to try. It would be good for all articles to have international coverage, but it's probably too soon for this one. EddieHugh (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think "global view" is a particular concern with this article. It's not a widely used term except among certain groups in the UK and US so no problem with removing that tag. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Proposal - close this RFC, consensus being to remove the {{globalize}} template from the head of the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• No; my view reflects those of Keri and MaxBrowne. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 14:12, 22 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.

Keep this page, work on expanding it

I have just recently started hearing about the term "Snowflake Generation" and I am trying to learn more. It appears that it is quite a new term and is taking some time to be used more frequently in mainstream media. Therefore I think this article is very important and should not be deleted, especially while in it's infancy stages.41.9.135.219 (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

POV edit by MaxBrowne

Edits such as these [2] are starting to appear more POV. Do they accurately reflect the sources? Discuss. Keri (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The whole article is POV and cites almost exclusively right wing sources, most of them highly polemical in nature. I really don't see how anyone can object to it being described as a "pejorative" because it is never used in any other way. I cited one "liberal" (God I hate that term) source associating it with the alt-right which is clearly relevant and I get reverted for being POV? I'm just trying to balance things a bit. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You are POV pushing. Stating "It is commonly associated with the alt-right, a conservative movement associated with websites such as Breitbart News" is a coatrack argument. Does the article use any alt-right sources as references? Does the article use Breitbart as a reference? Are any of the sources used considered alt-right? As the answer to all 3 questions is a resounding "No" your edit is clearly not NPOV. I also suggest you abide by BRD and self-revert. Keri (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit was made to WP:EW after being informed that no violation had occured and no action would be taken (not sure why they don't just mark discussions as closed on that board). The edit in question was definitely not disruptive or "pointy", the neutrality of the article is disputed because I'm disputing it. It is not only the lead section that potentially has a NPOV problem. It all adds up to a clear cut failure to assume good faith on your part. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Look up: you are ignoring the discussions that have already taken place on this page (and also at the AFD). Keri (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

So, which part of the article is using alt-right, Breitbart, or right-wing sources? Keri (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

At this point I must disengage with you. Your repeated failure to assume good faith and intimidatory approach (threatening an "inevitable" EW noticeboard report after a single revert, templating a regular without even waiting for a reply on the article talk page, reporting to EW, continuing to harangue admins after the decision has been made, objecting to a general NPOV tag etc etc) leads me to believe that nothing useful will be achieved by a continued one to one discussion. I will come back when things have settled down. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess that's one way of saying, "There is actually no substance to my complaint, I'm happy to just waste time." Fine. I'll leave it for someone else to revert your nonsense. Keri (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: Considering there are no references at all in the article from Breitbart News, putting Breitbart in the lead does seems strange. I moved that text out of the lead and into body of article because it seems undue weight to put this in the lead. That source does mention Breitbart, but it does not report that they've written anything about Generation Snowflake, so I tweaked text to reflect what the source says which is the alt-right has used "snowflake" as a pejorative to describe those protesting Donald Trump.--DynaGirl (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Gen Z versus Millennials

Not sure if it matters, but it seems like the term is directed at Gen Z, although admittedly sources used here mostly mention "Millennials." I attribute this to the fact that most commentators are not making a distinction between the two groups yet. If you take Gen Z to start in early 1990s, it seems pretty clear that this term refers to Gen Z. MHP Huck (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

One of the earliest references that I've seen using "snowflake" in this context is from Bret Easton Ellis writing in Vanity Fair in 2014 here. He specifically aims at Gen Y, and says

I have been living with someone from the Millennial generation for the last four years (he's now 27) and sometimes I'm charmed and sometimes I'm exasperated by how him and his friends—as well as the Millennials I've met and interacted with both in person and in social media—deal with the world, and I've tweeted about my amusement and frustration under the banner "Generation Wuss" for a few years now. My huge generalities touch on their over-sensitivity, their insistence that they are right despite the overwhelming proof that suggests they are not, their lack of placing things within context, the overreacting, the passive-aggressive positivity, and, of course, all of this exacerbated by the meds they've been fed since childhood by over-protective "helicopter" parents mapping their every move.

Of course, that isn't conclusive, but as I say, it is one of the earliest uses I can find. "Generation Wuss" seems to have been popular for a few years before this, too, again making it seem more likely associated with Gen Y than Gen Z. Open for discussion, however. Keri (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree, there does seem to be some overlap in the sources between Y and Z. Keri (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually Gen Z starts in the mid 90s. But your point is still correct, there are few people born before 1994 still in college.--2601:980:8000:F92:C93C:9121:DB0D:33F7 (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think an issue here is the start date of Gen Z is not well defined because it's such a young demographic cohort. Some notable researchers/demographers do start Gen Z as early as mid 90's, but there's also a big range of start dates, and a prominent demographer, Neil Howe, puts Gen Z starting as late as 2005. Over time, the start date of Gen Z will probably be more widely agreed upon, and maybe Generation Snowflake will be attributed to that cohort as well. --DynaGirl (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Changes to lede

MaxBrowne continues to change the lede, and other editors continue to reject the change. Can we attempt to find some consensus on how the term is characterised? Is it always used as a derogative, or a pejorative, or is it derisory, or mocking? Keri (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE says it's derogatory. The source cited (Collins) says it's derogatory. Not "may be derogatory", is derogatory. It has recently become a favourite with online trolls, go to a site like say Billboard and any pop star under 30 who doesn't like Trump gets called a "snowflake" somewhere in the comments section. Does anyone seriously argue that it is not derogatory? Seems some people with an agenda want to de-emphasize its inherently insulting nature and pass it off as part of legitimate political discourse. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The comments section of a magazine site is not of much relevance here. And maybe they mean it to be descriptive, not derogatory. Have you read WP:COMMONSENSE? "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense." EddieHugh (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Never mind the random example of its use by online trolls, I'm sure I can find plenty more. The main point is, reliable sources say it's derogatory. Why are you disputing this? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of arguing over "is derogatory" vs "may be derogatory" I tweaked text to specify which source described it as derogatory. Collins clearly describes it as derogatory.--DynaGirl (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for a single example of it being used in a non-derogatory way. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Try sources 15 (Bennett) and 18 (Brazier). EddieHugh (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Why snowflake?

The article argues that today's young generation is overly sentimental, hysterial and unruly. Okay. But why are they called "snowflakes"? Snowflakes are just made of frozen water, they don't have any feelings. What a strange metaphor! Can anyone explain the reasoning behind the snowflake metaphor? 79.196.236.112 (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a pejorative name to imply they are so fragile they might melt away into a soggy mess. It was apparently originally adopted from "special snowflake syndrome" with the implication fragility arose from being told they were "special and unique snowflakes" and protected as such as children. The pejorative nature is one of the reasons I've argued it would be more encyclopedic to just discuss the concepts involved (safe spaces, trigger warnings etc) on the appropriate pages. There is currently a subsection for political correctness on the Millennials page which mentions safe spaces and trigger warnings, without the pejoratives--DynaGirl (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A small but important distinction: the article doesn't argue one way or another, it presents information from the sources. EddieHugh (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

But by default, when the title is a pejorative term, you tend to get articles which describe the topic in an overtly negative manner, and given this pejorative label isn't even in wide use, there's a lack of sources debating it.--DynaGirl (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of talk about "snowflakes" and their incessant whining in various media lately...that is why I came here to look up how the term originated. I think the page is useful and should stand. Sounds to me like "DynaGirl" is a Millenial (and potentially, a "snowflake") and just takes personal exception to the term. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be described on Wikipedia. IJS...WarFighter (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't enhance your argument, WarFighter. If you have an issue with what DynaGirl or another editor is saying, confine your comments to that. Don't dismiss other editors as overly emotional just because you don't like what they're saying. You sound more like a special snowflake than she does. 72.200.151.15 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a certain irony when people demand that even the article on "special snowflakes" must itself be a "safe space". Snowflake is a widely used pejorative that warrants its own page for the complexities involved; its influence and spread in higher education especially needing coverage, given the way that emotivism is becoming a factor in a realm (academia) which previously was more about logic, reason, and facts. LeapUK (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe the term originated in embryonic form in the movie The Fight Club, which includes the quote "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else." MaxBrowne (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for this, just guesswork. User-generated content is not a RS. While there may be a link, without RS it is simply OR on our part without sources. Keri (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I found a reliable source for this (The Guardian), and added it to the article [3].--DynaGirl (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Would be good to find a RS for the other aspect - that of fragility - too. Keri (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This talk page is proof in the pudding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.6.78 (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to laugh at this because they probably sourced their info from some version or other of this article in the first place. It can't be asserted as a fact, and I've never done that... my wording has been "according to the site knowyourmeme.com " or "a possible origin is".... but nevertheless it is a credible explanation of the origin of the expression. There was an ex-military guy posting as an IP who said they were using it in the early 80s? no reason to doubt him but obviously doesn't meet RS standards. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The self-esteem movement dates back to the late 60s. It seems pretty clear "you're a special and unique snowflake" wasn't unknown terminology when it was used in Fight Club, although it does seem reasonable that memes from Fight Club popularized this as a joke or a slur rather than a boost-your-self-esteem type of statement. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

keep

I think the irony is lost on those who object here. The arguments made here is this term is only used by a few people namely the "alt right", a newly coined term by those who fall in the "snowflake" category. If the "alt right" has enough people to be granted a subdivision along with a Wikipedia page, then the size argument is void. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imright (talk • contribs) 21:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, having it's own page provides for a term that will eventually be used more widely (whether you like it or not). When "boomers" was first used, it took a while for the term to used and understood to identify a group (granted, it wasn't defamatory) by some new media's descriptive grammatical short cut to identify a group. However, when the term "pinko" was first used, it took a while for that term to be used and understood to identify a group (but this term is considered defamatory) and again a news media's descriptive grammatical short cut to identify a group. You'll need to go through thousands of terms derived by someone/body's grammatical shortcuts and take that page away. Let it have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.119.1 (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Two sources here which are comparatively sympathetic: "Brian Boyd: The petulant adult-children of Generation Snowflake have a point"; "'If you're a young, white straight man today you're in trouble'". In The Independent, "Libertarian students are fighting back against ‘oppressive’ campus politics with snacks and beverages". Keri (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, interesting editorial in Spiked: "The 'Yale snowflakes': who made these monsters?" Keri (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Grauniad this week: Rebecca Nicholson (28 November 2016). "'Poor little snowflake' – the defining insult of 2016". The Guardian.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Narrow sourcing, no NPOV

The article seems to be getting worse as regards NPOV. Most the sourcing, particularly in the last section, is still fairly political and leaning in only one direction. Another issue I see is that there is groping in terms of the narrative. E.g., the "UK Higher Education Policy" is used as an illustration of beliefs of this group, but this is very narrow as it just relates to the UK. The tone of the article also is strongly of the opinion that the complaints made by this demo are not legitimate which, at least offhandedly, seems over broad. MHP Huck (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you be specific regarding which recently added sources (or sources in general) you are concerned about? Also, is there specific text you are concerned about? This seems to be a vague complaint and I'm having trouble following it. As far as I can see, the article has improved over time with respect to NPOV. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I'm not sure what downward slide you are referring to. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like straight out astroturfing on the part of Claire Fox and her Institute of Ideas and her old Revolutionary Communist Party mates at spiked.com. The ideology may have changed (it's not so uncommon for the radical/revolutionary left to do a 180) but the methods are similar - gain entry to an institution and drive the narrative. Currently the article only describes her as an "author" and says nothing about her background or ideological agenda - a clear NPOV violation. She is clearly feeding this stuff to UK papers like the Telegraph, the Spectator and the Sun, which definitely are right wing sources, and they're lapping it up. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I added the clarifier "libertarian writer", as this is how Fox is described in the About the Author section of her book mentioning Generation Snowflake: [4]. Getting specific about Fox's past in other contexts, I think would require a RS that links her previous ties to communism to her views on Generation Snowflake. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The "snowflake" students of her anecdotal experience were most likely reacting to her being an all round nasty piece of work as much as what she was saying. She has the kind of personality that gets under people's skins and now she's pushing the narrative that "the young are oversensitive" because they reacted negatively to her. The simple description "libertarian" doesn't really convey her nastiness. A high proportion of the "snowflake" articles from the UK and Ireland reference her, ther Institute of Ideas or the related website spiked.com. As it stands, the article is hugely biased towards the narrative being pushed by Fox and co. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

But the "snowflake" students were not reacting to Claire Fox. The Yale University students were reacting to Nicholas Christakis and Erika Christakis. Fox is discussing a much publicized dispute between university students and a liberal professor and his wife (also a professor) regarding the appropriateness of Yale University intervening regarding student's Halloween costumes: [5] There was also a much viewed viral video which was part of this student/faculty dispute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0 --DynaGirl (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Clutching at straws. Keri (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

What is meant by "narrow sourcing", exactly? The article has only 770 words, and yet manages to use 18 sources. The sources are not right-wing, not alt-right, not blogs. What exactly is your specific complaint, that is actionable within Wikipedia's content policies? Keri (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

Affordable Care Act

I restored the recently deleted text regarding the Affordable Care Act [6]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.” [7] 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)

I agree with DynaGirl. The current consensus favours the inclusion of the material. Keri (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@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)

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” [8], [9]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You do that. Your POV is showing, by the way. Keri (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And still: the article is about a neologism, not an assessment of psychological issues. Keri (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

(←) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [10]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [11] 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)

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)

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)

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.[12]--DynaGirl (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Addressed on talk:Special snowflake--DynaGirl (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This is a clear case of citation overkill. Quoting from that essay,

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Of course you agree MaxBrowne (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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" [13]. 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:NAVLIST when 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Keri: Cut the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith now. Last warning. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. Keri (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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 [14]. Repeatedly deleting it absent consensus is disruptive. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

"knowledge of policy" ... That's because "policy" overrides your "opinion". Keri (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

That's called "consensus" - unless it doesn't suit your POV. Keri (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. Wikipedia:Truth Keri (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [15] 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)

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)

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)

See my comment re "put up or shut up". Keri (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Spare me. MHP Huck (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Alt right 2.0

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'll come back when I have time and show you quotes. MHP Huck (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)