Talk:Generation Snowflake/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This page is terrible

If you actually opened up an encyclopedia a trash article like this would not be in it. This article should clearly be deleted. Generation Snowflake is not a thing, people use it as insult when it doesn't even make sense.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@AllSportsfan16: There have been many discussions about the quality of the article already, including 3 deletion discussions (see the links at the top of this page). If you believe the article can be improved, you are welcome to edit and improve it with references. Do you have any proposals for how this page could be improved?  Seagull123  Φ  15:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This page has to be deleted, you don't wanna open yourself to lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Man1000 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia response to this was to act like a bunch of snowflakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Man1000 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems valid to me

Sorry if I am not doing this correctly, I am new to this. It seems to me that the entry is valid and fair. "Generation Snowflake, or Snowflake Generation, is a term used to characterize people who became adults in the 2010s as being more prone to taking offence and less resilient than previous generations, or as being too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own. The term is considered derogatory."

I am hearing people use the term exactly that way. Most of the objections seems to be political and from people with a political ax to grind. The Urban dictionary definition ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Snowflake ) has obviously been taken over politically. Wikipedia should be a place where facts can be presented. The Wiki entry says, "The term is considered derogatory." Totally true and fair.

One objection is from sociology saying there is no sociological evidence of increased sensitivity. Fine. That can be argued. But it does not change the fact that the term is being used that way. Some objections say the Wiki entry should be categorized differently. Perhaps. But the objections that say it should be removed ??? Should Wiki say that Donald Trump is not the president? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnLobell (talk • contribs) 12:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC) I see other articles on similar subjects like "alt right" are kept on Wikipedia. Why not Keep the "snowflake" article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.54.170 (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@JohnLobell: Thanks for contributing! Is there something that you think should be changed in the article?  Seagull123  Φ  15:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC - article title and NPOV

There is no consensus for a move or a change in article scope. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does the article title "Generation Snowflake" reflect a neutral point of view, or does it tend to promote a stereotype about young people? Would a change to "Snowflake (slang)" or "Snowflake (pejorative)" better reflect a NPOV? Should the article be rescoped to include related uses of "snowflake"? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• The title is fine in terms of NPOV. However, we can (and maybe should) broaden the scope of the article, in which case the suggested titles would be more appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• I support a broader article scope, given that it is a broad concept that touches on many issues with many different slang terms associated with it. There are uses of the term that are not based on a generational use of the term either. So Generation Snowflake / Snowflake Generation should be a large section within "Snowflake (slang)" or "Snowflake (pejorative)". Staeiou (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. All four of these questions have been discussed and answered before. Some of the comments during these and other discussions have been a long way from cordial and have been, at times, abusive. This month – April – is the 6th in a row that the article has been nominated for/as something or another... deletion (3x), move, NPOV, etc. Now, other editors have outlasted me: I'm not going to repeat the same points; I've been ground down to the point of it not being worth going through everything, including the personal attacks, yet again... do what you want, but remember that this should not be how the whole Wikipedia project operates. EddieHugh (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
• Move article. The article should be moved to Snowflake (slang).. First, the term “snowflake” is more commonly used. I did understand that the term most commonly refers to millennials and that could be stated in the article. But a very important secondary reason the article should be renamed is the current name of the article sound unencyclopedic. I think it is because it goes out of its way to attack millennials even though the term “snowflake” is more commonly used.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2017 (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.

Commentary from Neil Howe

I disagree with the recent deletion of 2,000 bytes of text and the deletion of 2 out of the 3 sources from historian/demographer Neil Howe, which were made with a one word edit summary of “superflous”. Neil Howe is a big deal in terms of generational research. He developed Strauss–Howe generational theory. He’s also written 14 books on generations/generational theory. Seems he is one of the best, if not the best source in the article. The material does not seem to be undue weight. It’s a summary of a 3 part series. All 3 parts were multiple pages so a summary of 15 pages from a notable demographer/historian. There’s been substantial criticism that this article is too heavily referenced by fluff pieces like GQ, and now that we have more serious commentary and analysis, I don’t get outright deleting it. I’m not saying the content couldn’t use further editing and cleaning up, but it doesn’t seem like it should be deleted. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this on the talk page according to WP:BRD. But note that the policy is not WP:BRRevert. The amount of material given to Howe on this page is WP:Undue. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC).

I disagree. As mentioned above Howe is prominent demographer, author, historian and commentator on generational issues. He's written a lengthly 3 part series on "generation snowflake" and dedicating a couple of paragraphs of text to this does not seem undue. I copy edited and tried to clean up the section, perhaps it could still use more work, but it doesn't seem undue. --DynaGirl (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Still do not get it??

If "snowflakes" are referring to ppl born in the 2010s like this says, does that mean they are referring to anyone 7 and under?? Jenilyn.Alnajjar (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't say those born in 2010s. It says the young adults of the 2010s, so I would assume this isn't about 7 year olds.--DynaGirl (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Tom Bennett and no-platforming

Re the revert by User:ScrapIronIV. OK, it's a quote, but it's also nonsense. I'm pretty sure no speaker has ever been "no-platformed" for being an atheist, or for not being an atheist, or for discussing atheism. Atheism is definitely one of those things you "discuss robustly" at university. Current phrasing doesn't make it clear that this is Tom Bennett's opinion, probably just talking off the cuff, rather than a serious claim that atheism can get you "no-platformed". MaxBrowne (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This nonsense has been going on for centuries

Not only were are Millennials ridiculed for being "special", but so was Generation X, the Baby Boomers, and every generation preceding them. You can find quotes going back at least as far as Socrates complaining about the younger generations being lazy, ill-mannered, and pampered. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No, this is different. It's not one of the standard complaints that the old make about the young, it identifies a set of characteristics that seems to be new: the "special snowflake syndrome", an excessive sense of entitlement, being easily offended, and being "too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own, particularly in universities and other forums once known for robust debate". It's documented adequately for Wikipedia standards and it seems to be real. Sayitclearly (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is not properly supported by it's sources

The article needs to find a source that uses the phrase "Generation Snowflake", with the words in that order, and also uses it with upper case G and S. Or else it needs to be modified. Also the article defines it in a 21st century way, and yet the article and sources indicate that uses from the previous century and millennium. Zugzwanggambit (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A quick glance at references shows many use phrase "Generation Snowflake" not only in body of article but in title. The phrase and article is sufficiently referenced. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

etymology

Why the term snowflake was chosen? here's the explanation :

A snowflake is delicate and ephemeral. A snowflake cannot tolerate some range of conditions. Under pressure it turns to ice. With a little heat it melts away. When recycled in the clouds it become a virulent hail. When exposed to sunlight it disappears. A snowflake is mostly air and has very little substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.137.111.87 (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. The earliest point I've heard the term "snowflake" was to refer to people who consider themselves special or different from everyone else. The origin of this is that it's believed that no two snowflakes in nature are identical in structure.--Skiesareforflying (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Fight Club

We need to stick to the reliable sources regarding Fight Club. Per cited sources: [1] "A much-memed line from Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club expresses a very early version of the sentiment in 1996" and [2] "Whether the name comes from “Fight Club” character Tyler Durden’s contention that “you are not a beautiful or unique snowflake” is a matter of some debate". Merrian-Webster, in an article titled No, 'Snowflake' as a Slang Term Did Not Begin with 'Fight Club' states: "Palahniuk was hardly the first person to use the metaphor. It's the stuff of self-help books and inspirational posters and elementary school assurances. The imagery before negation is lovely; we are each unique snowflakes, each worth treasuring because each is uniquely beautiful. Palahniuk's denial of the individual's snowflake status struck a chord." [3]. DynaGirl (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to claim that the usage in this sense did not originate with Fight Club, appeal to authority ("Merriam Webster says") is not going to cut it. It's just an unsourced, somewhat fluffy article published on their website, not a scholarly piece. Without examples, the claim that the usage predates Fight Club is untenable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t about my (or your) personal opinion. It’s about sticking to the reliable sources. The sources cited to do say it originated with Fight Club. See above quotes. They say an early version of the meme is from Fight Club and there’s been debate about it. The Merrian-Webster source says it did not originate with Fight Club. We should simply accurately reflect what these sources say in article text.DynaGirl (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You overrate that source as an authority on the topic. It is not an academic piece, it's an entertainment piece, and it does not establish as a fact whether or not the usage originated with FC. Quoting it extensively is WP:UNDUE... and since when was "lovely" an encyclopedic word? In general I find your assessment of quality of sources is very poor; the GQ article is abysmal and should not be cited anywhere. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Use & Criticism

I split the section "usage" and made a new one for "criticism". The text obviously needs further cleanup, as by just mentioning a couple authors it gives the impression they are some sort of authority on the subject. In any case it should be relatively easy to come up with a list of famous/influential pundits and writers who have either unironically used or criticized the term in the past and summarize their perspectives. Kilgore T (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

These changes [4] weren't minor. Please see WP:MINOR. Also, these section header changes don't accurately reflect text. For example, Claire Fox is not the political right. She's libertarian. The commentary from Neil Howe, who is known for Strauss–Howe generational theory isn't criticism so much as it's discussion of generational differences. DynaGirl (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Libertarianism" in modern Anglosaxon countries is considered a phenomenon of the political right (see Right-libertarianism). The terms "snowflake" and "generation snowflake" are used almost exclusively by the right (from alt-right to center) as a way of smearing young(er) activists and dismissing the voices of left leaning millenials as the tantrums of emotionally incompetent crybabies. In reality, the term is quite contested, as there is little evidence to support the idea that it points to a real thing other than the usual intergenerational bashing . Kilgore T (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The article already mentions and links to the alt-right's use of snowflake, but we can't put individuals and publications who sources do not describe as politically right under a "political right" sub-header. Please see Libertarian wikipage. There is left-libertarianism. Seems Claire Fox would more accurately fall under Left-libertarianism which includes Libertarian Marxism given her history with Revolutionary Communist Party. You also included Bryony Gordon and GQ under political right, when the references do not describe them that way. Neil Howe co-creator of Strauss–Howe generational theory isn't simple criticism either. If you read his commentary he's agreeing with the basic tenets of "specialism" and "risk-aversion" but arguing it's not a negative thing but a positive thing or simply a difference and he's also saying that the differences in all younger generations threaten all older generations. This content is already incorporated in the current sections, as it should be. Please see WP:CRITICISM which says In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided and they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article. DynaGirl (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Claire Fox is very much a member of the political right. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't mean to start an ideological war, but this is what libertarian leftism means to anyone around the world. The fact that someone used to hold leftist views yet dropped them in exchange for a cushy position or a more promising career under statist capitalism is a well known phenomenon which hardly makes them libertarian leftists. In any case, the original reason for my changes is that the article reads practically as an endorsement of the idea of millennials being emotionally incompetent rather than the politically and ideologically-charged term that it usually represents. Again, I don't mean to discuss political affiliations, but a quick google search of the term will hardly produce any center- or left- leaning think pieces, but right and far-right opinion articles which, for the most, would not adhere to Wikipedia's sourcing standards. I don't think an article that does not accurately present or reflect this fact in the writing is professional enough to belong to any encyclopedia. Kilgore T (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The article already mentions the alt-right. We should edit based on reliable sources. Sources don't describe Claire Fox as political right, they describe her as Marxist [5] or Libertarian Marxist https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/i-find-that-offensive-claire-fox-blasts-snowflake-generation/news-story/18373dff45bcaff644c159a627ff0acb] and apparently she describes herself as part of the political left [6]. DynaGirl (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely Marxist or left wing about any of the positions she expresses. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

References