Talk:Generation Snowflake/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"sandbox version"

The 2nd AfD[1] includes some discussion (31 Dec-2 Jan) about a "sandbox version"[2]. It was offered by MaxBrowne, not as a final version but an improvement on the current article. The sandbox retains the current lead/lede/opening paragraph, and, with some minor changes, the "Background" section. It leaves out the "Usage" section altogether, but expecting that the content of this section should be reviewed, so as to be more focused and probably trimmed. One comment mentioned that the sandbox suggestion contains plenty of sources that look like the opinion pieces that were thought to be the target of the "gut" concept, and invited MaxBrowne to give a rationale that clearly delineates what he thinks would qualify a source for inclusion or exclusion.

While use of expressions such as "snowflake (generation)" usually bespeak the user's POV (perhaps indulgent, exasperated, amused, self-regarding etc), discussion on this page shows that most editors find the present content of the article acceptable in respect of NPOV. But for future guidance can any editor help by distilling from earlier discussion above a de facto rationale for sources? Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

+ For instance, would it be acceptable to include the following from today's London Times?

University bosses regularly cave in to “snowflake” student demands for “no-platforming”, “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” against “micro-aggressions” (such as teaching Plato). [Matt Ridley, "Universities are being nationalised by stealth", The Times, 9 January 2017.[3]]

Qexigator (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You think the article needs more "bloody students, political correctness gone mad" op-ed pieces? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This is highly typical of the rhetoric employed by LM group and others pushing the "generation snowflake" meme. Trigger warnings and safe spaces are somehow a threat to free speech, "they want to ban Plato" (nobody ever said this by the way), "they no platform anyone they disagree with". The motivation becomes clear when you read the Institute of Ideas' manifesto from the 2010 election. Clearly the IoI and the related Spiked are promoting an extremist pro-corporate agenda where all checks and balances are removed so that things like public safety and health and any sense of social contract or responsibility on the part of business are completely removed. This is the agenda that these people are promoting... and yes Matt Ridley is part of that group, he's a shareholder in Spiked. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

OK MB, if that is fair comment about Ridley quote, if there is citable source, it could be included in the article, but I do not see his name in the "Spiked" link. Qexigator (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Page 2 of shareholders. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, now seen. Qexigator (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Qexigator: Including this seems reasonable to me. London Times is a reliable source and the content seems on topic. Criticizing safe spaces, trigger warnings, and microagrresions seem to be significant usage of the term. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

+ Another instance of journalistic, polemical, use of "snowflake" from the London Times (today's), but extended to characterise adults indiscriminately as being unduly prone to taking offence, not specifically "young adults of the 2010s":

Johnson ruffles feathers with WW2 jibe at French president:...Michael Gove, who resigned as Mr Johnson’s campaign manager to stage his own Tory leadership bid last year, also rushed to his defence, tweeting: “People ‘offended’ by the foreign secretary’s comments are humourless, deliberately obtuse, snowflakes — it’s a witty metaphor.[4] Qexigator (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

+ Another instance of journalistic, polemical, use of "snowflake" from the London Times (today's), but extended to chide adults indiscriminately for being unduly prone to taking offence, not specifically "young adults of the 2010s":

Johnson ruffles feathers with WW2 jibe at French president:...Michael Gove, who resigned as Mr Johnson’s campaign manager to stage his own Tory leadership bid last year, also rushed to his defence, tweeting: “People ‘offended’ by the foreign secretary’s comments are humourless, deliberately obtuse, snowflakes — it’s a witty metaphor.[5] Qexigator (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

What we've got here is basically a hack MP tweeting a new insult he learned from Donald Trump supporters. Not notable. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Safe Spaces

I notice the text regarding safe spaces has been recently deleted and the references removed by MaxBrowne. It seems something about safe spaces needs to be restored as criticism over safe spaces is highly related to the moniker generation snowflake and the criticism that young adults "don't cope with views that challenge their own".--DynaGirl (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes: the objection appears to have been to the representation of a survey, not to the mentioning of safe spaces. Find a good source or two that discusses them and add them to the article. EddieHugh (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Generation snowflake is derived from snowflake"

Well duh, like "helicopter parent is derived from helicopter". It's tautological, it states the obvious and it's incredibly awkward and clunky. Just horrible English. It is much better just to say "snowflake has been used to describe..." etc etc in order to give a historical context to the use of the term. Then in the next paragraph move on to the combination of the word "snowflake" with "generation". Besides the whole article should probably be moved to Snowflake (pejorative) or similar anyway. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Could be, move to Snowflake (pejorative) (or similar) is the way to go. Qexigator (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with EddieHughes reversion because It seems the sources were used to split up Special Snowflake and Generation Snowflake in a way not supported by the sources cited. The sources we currently have in article really haven't clearly split up the origin of special snowflake vs generation snowflake and sort of talk about them together and I think we need to be careful not to add original research to the article. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course you agree... MaxBrowne (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I have an annoying habit of trying to follow Wikipedia policies such as no original research. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Starting "snowflake..." doesn't help to give historical context to the term "generation snowflake". It may seem that it does to you, MaxBrowne, in part because you know the rest of the article already and have read about GS. The article should not be written for such a reader, however – it should be written for someone who knows little or nothing about the subject matter. This requires a flow from title to lead to opening of body. "Generation Snowflake...", "Generation Snowflake...", then suddenly "The term 'snowflake'..." just confuses. Rewording for clunkiness is easy, e.g.: '"Generation Snowflake" may be derived from the term "snowflake".[3] This has been used to...'.

On the title: that's another reason to cut the non-generational 'snowflake' bits (they can be put in Wikitionary if they need somewhere to go) and keep just the proposed explanation of etymology and then the generational bits. EddieHugh (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Generation Snowflake" may be derived from the term "snowflake". Yeah, no kidding. "Liberal wimp" may be derived from the term "wimp" too. Or at least it's been suggested that it may be. And I guess "Fascist thug" may be derived from the term "thug". It is a tautology, it is stating the obvious. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Generation X" may be derived from... Doesn't always work, does it?

How about '"Generation Snowflake" may be derived from the use of "snowflake"[3] in [or 'when'?] referring to...'? EddieHugh (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Or how about dispensing with your made-up "rule" that the first sentence of the body must contain the exact expression "generation snowflake"? MaxBrowne (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC - opinion pieces as sources

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

---

Does the article Generation Snowflake rely excessively on opinion pieces for sourcing, and if so does their use impact negatively on WP:NPOV by giving WP:UNDUE weight to particular points of view? MaxBrowne (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - This seems to be a vague question. Perhaps you could ask your RfC question with respect to a specific source (or specific sources) instead. MaxBrowne, is this related to your suggestion at the latest AfD to "gut" the article of content? Given this is an article about a term used to express an opinion about the young adults of the 2010s, eliminating anything that could possibly be called an opinion piece would probably turn the article into a Wiktionary entry (which would seem problematic considering the article appears about to survive it's second AfD in 2 months, based on current sourcing). That being said, there may be specific articles or opinion pieces that are undue weight or negatively impact NPOV, but trying to veto anything that could possibly be called an opinion piece doesn't seem like proper use of RfC. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting me. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Please attribute your question to a particular source. A neologism which has been coined way too recently but succeeded at two AFD's has to primarily depend on opinion pieces.Isn't the article having way too many RFC's.Perhaps sometimes a judicious use of WP:IAR is the way out.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 08:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – It's too unfocused a question (three questions). Undue weight is about balancing viewpoints based on their prominence in reliable sources, not merely including viewpoints. Your questions, as asked, therefore can't be answered, as the premise on which they stand is false. EddieHugh (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – As established by RfC above, this is a neologism. You don't need a degree in lexicology to realise that neologisms are coined and subsequently gain currency through repeated use in op eds and pop culture sources. Keri (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The quwstion is vague and possibly disingenuous, however I will use the opportunity to say what I feel is wrong here. The article probably should be 'gutted' of primary sources USING the term, rather than content discussing evolution and use of the term. As I and others point out above, the article is unclear at present as to whether it is about the term (which some call the 'meme') or whether it is about the generation/people who are the target of the term. The sources I have seen are fairly clear, the term is ordinarily pejorative/dismissive. The somewhat ludicrous result of not being clear about this distinction is that we have text explaining why younger adults might be more inclined to seek psychiatric help. Whingeing Pom, stuck-up Pom, Pommie bastard, stinking Pom are all variant insults for English people, if WP had articles about these insults, would we bother to include notable academics arguing that in fact the English are not disproportionately illegitimate, are noted for their stoicism in adversity, are actually reserved rather than unfriendly and are ordinarily fragrant! Of course not! Because we understand that an insult is not necessarily true and are only interested in having explained who the target of the insult is, what is implied by it and how the insult came into being and evolved. If the article is about a term, much of it should go IMO. Pincrete (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I think much of the arguments over the article are related to fact that it's really not clear the direction it will ultimately take as notability and coverage expands. Currently it's unclear, if we will ultimately be dealing with an article like Slacker (about a term) or an article like Me Generation or Strawberry generation (a characterization of a group of people). Currently, the sourcing which enabled it to meet GNG appears to support the later (a characterization of a group of people). There was a lot of coverage of "generation snowflake/snowflake generation" in the press this year and "snowflake generation" was a Collins Dictionary 2016 word of the year. However, the very recent adoption of the far-right's usage of "snowflake" (without generation) as a slur for any liberals irrespective of age, could shift things, but that usage is so recent, it doesn't have much reliable source coverage yet. It only appeared since Trump won election in November. The history of the word seems pretty interesting, It appears to have originated with the self-esteem movement sometime after the late 1960s. "You're a beautiful and unique snowflake" was apparently a statement to boost self esteem, like a non-religious form of "You are special because God don't make no junk". Then Fight Club mocks this self-esteem stuff with Tyler Durden's line "you are not special. you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake...we are all part of the same compost heap" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgrbqv2jebI. Apparently, some time after Fight Club, the term eventually became more mocking instead of inspirational, leading to derogatory terms like "Special Snowflake" and "Special Snowflake Syndrome". Wikipedia previously had an article on Special Snowflake but it was recently deleted [6] and redirected to Special Snowflake Syndrome Wiktionary entry. The first of the snowflake terms to break out and clearly meet GNG was "Generation Snowflake", and that is the article we're dealing with now, and I think we need to focus on that. It would be nice to have an article about the evolution of the various terms, but it's just original research at this point. I can't find any sources tying all it together, I've just been able to piece it together via original research. Anyway, because at this point, we are dealing with an article about a term which characterizes a group of people, there are sources opining about why the people are the way this term describes them. I don't know if this should be completely eliminated, but it seems like it could use some trimming, cleaning up and very clear attribution, with editors being careful to not state anything as factual, but rather as opinions of people using the term.--DynaGirl (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with most of your conclusions and the articles you link to are clearly about terms not people, if they were about people, they would need to satisfy COMMONNAME, as would this article and I don't think anyone claims that the common name for present day young adults is 'snowflake generation'. It is clearly am ordinarily pejorative term used to criticise some young adults, as were the articles you linked to, (as opposed to a term like 'baby boomer', which is a neutral common name). That usage might change, but it wouldn't change the history of use, simply add to it. I've read all this talk page and looked at some article history (I haven't read the AfD discussion, but AfD is often a lottery and I don't think you should be constrained by what else has been deleted). The only secondary sources discuss the term(s), and without that focus, the article is merely a few random people making generalised criticism of the young, and pathologising them, with a few others saying "that's not quite fair". IMO an article about the term(s) would be useful, this one doesn't seem to know what it is or why it is here. Pincrete (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I might have been unclear above. I don't think "generation snowflake" is a name for a group of people, rather it's a term to characterize a group of people. I don't think it's synonymous with Millennials (or Generation Z) and think it definitely shouldn't be treated as such. I do think it's similar to Me Generation and Strawberry generation and Oregon Trail Generation, although the later of those 3 isn't pejorative. I think the pejorative nature of this term makes things more difficult. Also, I think the distinction between primary and secondary sources here is not always clear. If a source gives some sort of definition or history of the term "generation snowflake", before opining on the group, is that a secondary source?--DynaGirl (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

DynaGirl, apologies if I misunderstood. I would still argue that the article would be better if it focused more on the term(s) and if it resolved the various manifestations of 'snowflake', (including the generational use) as a term. Some of the examples (eg the Oxford Univ memo) seem very trivial. I also watchlist the PC article, (which is not an especially good article for various reasons), but one of the 'rules' we have applied there is to exclude examples of use EXCEPT when they are very significant (first published use, first use by Bush Sen. etc.).Pincrete (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, I think we largely agree. There do seem to be some trivial mentions of use of the term in current article. I think the only relevant part of the Oxford University section is that multiple commentators connect trigger warnings to "snowflake generation". I think the usage section needs to do a better job of succinctly explaining that the term is often used to criticize trigger warnings, safe spaces and push for political correctness in the university setting. It appears that current Oxford University section is longer than it needs to be and has an issue with wp:coatrack. Some of the text appears to be referenced to sources that do not mention generation snowflake, so it should probably be trimmed.--DynaGirl (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The question is not vague. In my opinion the article does rely too heavily on opinion pieces. I do believe that at least in the UK this term is something of a meme being pushed by people involved in the LM Network and facilitated by the Daily Telegraph and its sister publication the Spectator. Even Tom Bennett - turns out the "free speech" conference referred to in the article by Javier Espinosa was organized by Spiked. He was using the term before Claire Fox turned it into a meme with her book but the LM connection is clear. We should not be buying into the LM narrative with this "he said she said, on the other hand he said, she said, and there was a sitcom about it" approach. The article should be simplified. Not saying nothing currently under the "Usage" heading should be used, but this would be an improvement over what we have now. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow: a conspiracy theory! The Daily Telegraph has been infiltrated by communists (have you told the Barclay brothers?) determined to spread their propaganda. Or maybe they're capitalists in disguise. Very 1950s. And they're everywhere! The Guardian, the Financial Times, the TES, Collins dictionary, the Independent, even GQ magazine. Now I understand your eagerness to cull most of the sources. Meanwhile, everyone has said that you need to narrow your question. EddieHugh (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Writing it off as a "conspiracy theory" is just a cheap rhetorical tactic to dismiss something without addressing it. It's clear that the term is being pushed by people with an agenda. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear to me. This article appears to be a variation on "kids today" which is as old as time. Why do you think it's a communist agenda? --DynaGirl (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with "communist", and any time I try to explain something to you I just get deliberate obtuseness. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You linked to Living Marxism Network above and earlier on talk page made reference to Claire Fox's "Revolutionary Communist Party mates". If not communism, what are you referring to? Libertarianism? It seems unsurprising if libertarians with free speech platform would criticize and insult stuff they see as anti-free speech. If you are talking about something else, you'll need to clarify. But please try to do so without all the rudeness/lack of civility. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

After repeated displays of WP:IDHT on your part re what is or isn't appropriate material for a wikipedia article I really don't have the patience. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Largely agree with above comments, other than MaxBrowne's which seem to show the obtuseness ascribed to another: Question too vague/unfocused and possibly disingenuous... recent neologism,,, balancing viewpoints... at this point, about a term which characterizes a group of people,.. the pejorative nature of this term makes things more difficult.,, distinction between primary and secondary sources here is not always clear... Qexigator (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm just shaking my head at the idea of WP having an article on a pejorative term for an entire generation rooted in the demonstrably false, cyclical and inevitable disapproval of older folks. I mean, seriously. We should redirect this article to a two-sentence sub(sub)section of Millenials and leave this kind of crap to the urban dictionary. DA WIKIPEDIAS IZ SERIUZ BIZNEZ!!!!1!!1oneoneone MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I'm one of those older folks. Because I know someone's going to accuse me of being a millenial. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

older folks? How woebegone! Given that Shakers ("a millenarian ... sect founded in 18th century") and Ageism ("stereotyping and discriminating against individuals or groups on the basis of their age.., coined in1969"]] have standalone articles, why not be up-to-date with this newcomer, which has lasted long enough above the annual snowline to be noted lexicographically, as it is being used in the polemical discourse of this decade, like it or not? Qexigator (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I knew someone would ignore the postscript I posted. It's just too convenient not to. Shakers is an article title because of WP:COMMONNAME (which is also why the generation referred to by this article is located at Millenials). Ageism is the origin of the term, and not a comparable term at all. That's like suggesting that because we have an article on Racism, we need an article on Porch Monkey (note how that bluelink is actually a redirect; as this should be). As far as notability goes, I can find articles about a lot of different terms, pejorative, complimentary and otherwise. But there's been nothing to bring this term into the sort of widespread use that a similar term like "MTV generation" gets. I literally only recognized this term because I've seen this particular article before, and I've written dissertations on Millenials in the past few years. I haven't read through the discussion above because my 'fucks' are already earmarked for other expenditures, and I don't much care if anyone even reads what I wrote here. So the OP might be guilty of all the things a quick skimming shows they've been accused of here. But the OP has a point: the fact that we can find opinion pieces about it doesn't mean it merits its own article. I can find a lot of opinion pieces on the performance of Tommy Lee in his sex tape, but we don't have an article on Tommy Lee's sexual abilities. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Lee's sexual abilities? Sex tape? False equivalence. This article meets WP:GNG. It's sailed through 2 IDONTLIKEIT AfDs. Get over it. Keri (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow. WP:ABF much? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 19 January 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.

Undiscussed Page Move

I notice MaxBrowne moved the page Generation Snowflake to Snowflake (slang). Shouldn't we have a page move discussion? I think that might be a reasonable step here, considering how contentious this article has been. While I tend to agree that an article on the broad topic of snowflake as slang would be interesting, and even preferable if sourcing supported it, I'm really worried there isn't sourcing to support it yet, and that it's going to end up being based on Original Research and synthesis. This has already been an issue in the background section of the article concerning the origin of the term Generation Snowflake.

This occurred previously with the addition of text saying the term originated from Fight Club, which involved addition of user generated sources and original research to say it came from Fight Club. Shortly after this a reliable source reported saying it might come from Fight Club, but then the user who added it without a reliable source, said that the reliable source probably got it from his additions to the article, and I think that might actually be what occurred. [7]. Now Chuck Palinuak has gone ahead and taken credit for coining "snowflake" with a vague statement of "I coined snowflake and I stand by it", which kind of reads to me like "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" [8]. If you've read interviews with Palinuak, he's a funny and sarcastic guy. I mean, it's easily verifiable people used the phrase special snowflake before Fight Club. I was able to find reference to it in NewsLibrary.com archives from 1984 in an article titled No snowflakes alike? Prove it! from the Lifestyle Section of The San Diego Union.

Even in the current background section, we seem to be misrepresenting things and I'm worried that's only going to get worse with change of title and focus which seems to require original research. The chronology is Special Snowflake, Generation Snowflake (first topic to meet GNG) and very recently plain snowflake. I'm worried that with the change in title and change in focus, the article will largely be based on original research and synthesis at this point and that Wikipedia is going to be leading the reliable sources instead of the other way around.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So, let me bring down my point above: While use of expressions such as "snowflake (generation)" usually bespeak the user's POV (exasperated, etc), can any editor help by distilling from earlier discussion above a de facto rationale for sources? For instance, would it be acceptable to include the following from London Times: University bosses regularly cave in to “snowflake” student demands for “no-platforming”, “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” against “micro-aggressions” (such as teaching Plato).Matt Ridley, "Universities are being nationalised by stealth", The Times, 9 January 2017.[9] + Another instance of journalistic, polemical, use of "snowflake" from the London Times, but extended to characterise adults indiscriminately as being unduly prone to taking offence, not specifically "young adults of the 2010s": Johnson ruffles feathers with WW2 jibe at French president:...Michael Gove, who resigned as Mr Johnson’s campaign manager to stage his own Tory leadership bid last year, also rushed to his defence, tweeting: “People ‘offended’ by the foreign secretary’s comments are humourless, deliberately obtuse, snowflakes — it’s a witty metaphor.[10] Qexigator (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it back. There was no discussion, no consensus for change and it was obviously controversial. "Ignore all rules" doesn't mean ignore everyone else. EddieHugh (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

DynaGirl, thanks for digging back in time. I also found older (than Fox) uses, for Generation Snowflake, but they can't really be added here. This article probably is the main source of info online for Generation Snowflake (it was getting over 2,000 views a day consistently; with the unilateral page move the count can't be checked now), which was a lot more than Snowflake (the actual, icy, ones!). People publishing things based in part on what's here is, therefore, a potential problem. EddieHugh (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. OK, I agree it's complicated, but the primarytopic rationale made no sense since the target had a disambiguator, and the source evidence was poorly presented by both sides, and the article is currently written about the generation, not the slang term per se. Yes, the association of snowflake with a generation has a POV, but that's the topic of the article, not a POV of the editors. Possibly a separate article on the term snowflake makes sense, and maybe some day there will be a consensus on how to merge them, but for now there's no consensus to make this article into that. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Generation Snowflake → Snowflake (slang) – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it is simply common sense to call an article about a slang term by the name of the slang term, not by a particular usage of the slang term. That's why bugger has an article but bugger off and bugger all only have redirects. Calling the article "Generation Snowflake" instead of "Snowflake" is also inherently POV. "Generation Snowflake" is not the prime or even the usual use of the term "snowflake" in its pejorative sense, it's a meme that was pushed by Claire Fox and compliant British journalists in 2016, and is actually on the decline now. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (changing vote- please see below) The sourcing does not support the nominator's claim that "Generation Snowflake" isn't primary usage of term (as currently described in reliable sources, which is admittedly different than how it may be used in social media comments, urban dictionary etc) The references in the article do refer specifically to "Generation Snowflake". I do think an article on the general topic of snowflake slang, and how the various terms evolved in the language would be great, once the sourcing supports it, and if it didn't rely on original research and synthesis. I could be persuaded to change my vote if someone could provide me with references which tie together the various terms: which are "Special Snowflake", "Generations Snowflake", and now plain "snowflake" (which is very recent usage, apparently only used since Trump won in November to insult liberals of any age, but primarily aimed at young people). Currently, we mostly have sources that discuss "generation snowflake". We have a source which links "generation snowflake" to "special snowflake" and we have a few sources which link "generation snowflake" to plain "snowflake", but I'm not aware of any sources which explain the evolution of these various usages, which would allow us to have an article on the topic snowflake (slang) without relying on original research and synthesis. Add- please also see my previous comments in above section regarding problems with background section and concerns regarding this article leading the reliable sources, based on original research, instead of following the reliable sources [11] --DynaGirl (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense, the term "snowflake" on its own was the original usage. Wikipedia is not here to promote memes. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The earliest usage we currently have in article is from Fight Club, which was a usage of 'special snowflake', with the line "you are not special, you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake." Do you have any sources to support claim that snowflake on it's own was used to describe people (without the qualifier of "special" or "generation") prior to Trump winning in November, because I'm not aware of any sources that support that, and I'm pretty sure I've read all the sources currently in article.--DynaGirl (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No it wasn't, the word "special" wasn't even in the same sentence. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems kind of nit-picky to focus on exact position of "special" in the Fight Club quote (especially considering "unique" is synonym of "special"). Seems if Tyler Durden had just said "you are not a snowflake" and left it at that, it would not have made any sense because "snowflake" with no qualifier wasn't used to describe people back in the 1990s.--DynaGirl (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote from oppose to Support because I found these recently published sources regarding snowflake slang [12], [13], [14]. I think these new sources along with this source which was already in article [15] are probably sufficient to begin an article on the broad topic of snowflake slang. Also, could administrators and others reviewing this move request please keep an eye on this page, because there has been a history of addition of original research to article, and I fear that this may increase with an article name change because the snowflake terms are often used in social media comments and self-published or user generated sources. --DynaGirl (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose not demonstrated in sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again, this is not supported by sources, just by a set of assumptions held by the nominator. Further evidence: Generation Snowflake averages 4,500 views a day, Snowflake [the article on flakes of snow...] gets 1,100, Snowflake (disambiguation) gets 50, Snowflakes (disambiguation) gets 20, as does Special snowflake, see table and chart, so searches and readers appear not to support the PrimaryTopic claim either. (It's unfortunate that we're dealing again with an attempt to dispose of this article: we nearly got through a whole month without another attempt...) EddieHugh (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Note: Sources do indeed make the connection between "snowflake" as a pejorative and its combination with the word "generation". The combination of "snowflake" with "generation" is likely ephemeral and is not the primary usage of the term. And "It has been suggested that generation snowflake is derived from snowflake" is still appallingly bad, tautological English. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Early example, from 2007, of "snowflake" used in its "fight club" sense without other adjectives, on the Rate Your Students blog. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your claim relates to PrimaryTopic, not original use, which isn't a justification for changing a title, but you have presented no evidence relating to PrimaryTopic. You were asked about alternative wording of the sentence you criticised, but chose to cite Ignore all rules and then unilaterally move the page. EddieHugh (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you expect "bugger off" to be the main article, and "bugger" to redirect to it? MaxBrowne (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What an interesting choice of example. If each subject warranted a separate article, I'd expect to see an article for each. If only one article were warranted, I'd expect to see the primary topic as the main article; this decision would be based on the evidence, not on which came first. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY has: "we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic:" "Historical age (Kennewick, Washington is primary for Kennewick over the much older Kennewick Man) ... If a topic was the original (Boston is about Boston, Massachusetts, not the English city that first bore that name)". EddieHugh (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support, I've never heard the term "Generation Snowflake" and it seems like someone's cute way of misusing a new insulting meme by applying it to an entire generation. Wikipedia should not go along with this application and codify it, so the move is both reasonable and encyclopedic. Randy Kryn 14:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not read about it to reach an informed opinion, instead of leaping to a judgement? EddieHugh (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I did read about it, and have ran across the 'Snowflake' meme on other sites and see that it is prominent, but for Wikipedia to label an entire generation with this term would do a disservice to both the encyclopedia and its readers. Randy Kryn 21:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Wikipedia isn't labelling anything; it's reporting what the sources say. Just as, for example, Genocide denial isn't denying genocides: having an article on a topic isn't an endorsement. EddieHugh (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• WP:IGNORE and WP:COMMONSENSE. The sources use the term as a mocking insult, not as a real long-term name of an entire generation. Editors can pick and choose sources, and once some are found can then claim that, yes, see, that is the name of the generation. The generation that has come of age in the 2010s will certainly not be known their entire lives by this meme moniker. This is a bending of Wikipedia's sourcing policy, using writers who reflect this meme and entice others to label a generation with an insult. Should Wikipedia follow this and label a generation? To counter this the closer should use WP:IGNORE and WP:COMMONSENSE, the ignore all rules clause which allows us to better the encyclopedia by ignoring this type of mocking source-pile-on. Randy Kryn 01:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support and not just because I'm the requester.Comment Wikipedia policy is firmly on my side. The title "Generation Snowflake" is inherently non-neutral and tends to endorse the contentious claim that millennials are too politically correct, oversensitive etc. From WP:POVNAMING - "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias" and "Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." This is a textbook case - the non-neutral title has encouraged people to cite-bomb with sneering op-ed pieces about how ridiculous those bloody students are for "banning Plato", "it's political correctness gone mad I tell you" etc etc. WP:POVNAME also states "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: (1) Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later." WP:RECOGNIZABLE also supports the use of "Snowflake" rather than "Generation Snowflake" as the article title. Randy Kryn is not the first editor to say he hadn't heard the term "Generation Snowflake" before finding this article, he had however heard the term "snowflake". So, the core policies WP:NPOV and WP:NAME strongly support a change of article name. For me the only question is whether it should be "Snowflake (slang)" or "Snowflake (pejorative)". I'm actually leaning towards the latter. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line (WP:RM#CM). EddieHugh (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

POV bias was discussed and rejected in the second attempt at deletion. The article, reflecting the available sources, states that it is contentious; this is how to deal with contentious things, not by deleting them or changing their title. POVNAME also recommends avoiding "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious": the proposed move is to "Snowflake (slang)", which is a colloquialism where a far more encyclopedic alternative (Generation Snowflake) is obvious. "I haven't heard of it" is the weakest of arguments; Wikipedia has over 5.3 million articles... how many will any one person have heard of? EddieHugh (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

MaxBrowne, thank you for your well thought out and articulated summary of relevant policy. This attempt to codify a short-term perjorative slur of an entire generation fails on those policies alone. Randy Kryn 12:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. "Generation Snowflake" isn't commonly heard or understood. "Snowflake", however, is and is by far the commoner usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

So start a separate article on "snowflake"... you could use the small amount of the current article that isn't sourced and about Generation Snowflake. Do you have any evidence for your assertion, in particular to counter the Wikipedia page view data given above that flatly contradicts it? EddieHugh (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's get into the core of this. Look at the references and sources on the page. They are mostly from November and December of 2016 and January of 2017, although some pop up in May or June. So, because of these few warm newly baked sources you are ready to label an entire generation. Okay, what do we have in terms of generations on Wikipedia. There is the Lost Generation, the Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, the Millenials, and Generation Snowflake. Which of these doesn't fit? Here are further descriptions at List of generations, and notice that nobody has added this page to that list. Now maybe if we give it another year or three, and this definition is all over the place, everyone has commonly accepted it, and all the members of that generation have learned to bow their heads in shame, then I'd say that the page 'Snowflake (insult)' (or wherever it finally lands at) should be looked at again in an RM. Up until then, let's give it another, say, few months, before we label an entire generation with this mocking meme which accelerated a bit in November of 2016. And yes, 'Snowflake' is now very much the common name for the meme, and it should be quickly moved to some form of that title. Randy Kryn 19:58, 3 February 2017 (URC)

You again conflate summarising the sources with an endorsement of them. "We" are not labelling anyone, the Wikipedia article summarises the sources available, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. On sources: yes, it's new, so the sources are recent... the alternative is to pretend that they don't exist; again: what's in the article reflects what's available. On other articles: plenty on 'Generation ...' aren't included in List of generations (Boomerang Generation, Sandwich Generation...); that's not a reason to remove or rename them. EddieHugh (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What I'm pointing out is that the Wikipedia article title about the term 'Snowflake' should just use that term, which is the common name, and not the descriptor 'Generation'. Randy Kryn 13:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but the article is about Generation Snowflake; the (just) 'snowflake' bit comes in as background to that term. EddieHugh (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Given that the uses of snowflake under discussion here have entered the language (British English, US English, et al.), mostly in polemic but also in other literature and journalism, my feeling is that, as often, this may be a more contentious problem among dwellers in that robust promoter of "free speech", the USA, in the self-belief of "land of the free", from campus to election campaign trail,[16] than it is elsewhere. It may, then, be only fair to let the question of article title be settled by allowing some more weight to be given to opinion and comment tending to reflect (npov) USA experience. Qexigator (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Snowflake/Holocaust connection?

I have heard it said recently that the alt-right likes to use "snowflake" to describe their opponents because it recalls the period during the Holocaust when the ashes from the concentration camp ovens fell like snowflakes over neighbouring areas. Snopes deems this a myth, but judging from chat in alt-right forums, it seems to have been gleefully adopted as a truth. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Despite attempts by fringe sites like Daily Caller to discredit it, Snopes is considered one of the more reliable sources on the net. Some of their research, like their investigation into the rumour that Clark Gable committed vehicular manslaughter and had it hushed up, is very impressive indeed. Could possibly mention the holocaust non-connection with reference to the snopes article. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think non-connections warrant mention in the article. Seems like this never got past the level of Twitter based rumor before Snopes shut it down. I can't find any mention of this rumored connection in any reliable media sources.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Add it in. This isn't any more ridiculous than the other items in the body, DynaGirl. The single most important part of this term is that it is used only by alt-righters. 2601:282:502:4B63:F818:D382:1541:93B9 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

This was a rumor that started on either Twitter or Tumblr with no basis in reality. It has since become a minor meme in some circles, but it doesn't belong in the article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You could say that about half the article. Add it in. 2601:282:502:4B63:F818:D382:1541:93B9 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The term 'snowflake' is not only used by alt-righters. I heard it used recently, in its usual disparaging sense, by liberal British expats in Hong Kong to describe liberals in the US allegedly seeking counselling for the trauma they have suffered as a result of Donald Trump's election. (We Brits tend to find American recourse to psychiatry amusing.) I also read an article in the London Review of Books last week where a Clinton supporter played with the idea of assassinating Donald Trump, and suggested that, in exceptional circumstances, political assassination in the United States was justified. The anguish displayed by opponents of the term on this Wikipedia talk page suggests to me that they recognize the truth behind the stereotype.

djwilms

No improvement, at all

Just a reminder that the POV on this page is totally beyond the pale and still needs to be addressed. The lede is ridiculously overbroad. Is ANYONE going to address these issues? MHP Huck (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the Keep/delete discussion, it was 8 keeps and 5 deletes, up dramatically from the first round. I would expect the next nomination for deletion to succeed given the state of the entry. MHP Huck (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Complaining about the POV once every couple of weeks does nothing to solve the issues you think exist. How about proposing some changes yourself instead of complaining that the existing work is bad? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I have in the past. They were all reverted. The only edit I've made which has been kept has been preverted into a POV statement from a NPOV version. See the problem? I even got banned for 24 hours for edit warring with DynaGirl - Keri reported me a few times, but one time was actually legitimate. So, that is why I am not longer helping out, I am sick of the bullying going on here. MHP Huck (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

MHP Huck, you were actually edit warring with multiple users and ignoring RfC [17]. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've only edit warred with you. 2601:282:502:4B63:F818:D382:1541:93B9 (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

corrections

This is my 1st wiki post, so hopefully I am posting everything correctly.

"According to Fox, members of Generation Snowflake "...; they are more likely than previous generations of students to report that they have mental health problems"

- Incorrect. Based on psychology there is no basis for the above statement. It is however a common misconception. - "The idea that Millennials (those born in the 1980s and early 1990s) are more likely to struggle with anxiety and depression, she concludes, is just a rumor with little basis in fact. “Researchers weren't very good at collecting data on mental illness back in the '60s and '70s, when the baby boomers were in their late teens and 20s,” she says.

link with several linked sources - https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-changing-culture/201510/are-mental-health-issues-the-rise

Furthermore, I vote for a removal of the post altogether. Based on urban dictionay, snowflake is "A word republicans use against liberals when they can not come up with a valid argument to support their statement. " So, based on urban dictionary, this post is a violation of wikipedia rules were content is meant to be neutral and non discriminating. In this case, the discrimination is based on political view.

link - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?page=3&term=Snowflake

Ladyk15 (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You posted things correctly. The contents of your post, however, are incorrect. The article you link to is about why the part you've boxed is wrong – just read beyond the first paragraph to find "These studies conclude that anxiety and depression are markedly higher than they were in earlier eras." We need to use reliable sources here, and urbandictionary isn't one. EddieHugh (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@EddieHugh - Just to be clear, I am not American, nor do I live in USA. English is my 5th language so I am not fluent by any means.

You will probably discredit all the below sources as well, but I will post them anyways. Especially since the wikipedia page uses Fox as a source, so why not other news websites. Especially since Fox has been heavily leaning conservative rather then neutral - that is if neutral in news even exists anymore. Since news are written by human beings who have their own opinions, separation of your own voice in writing can be rather challenging.

The word Snowflake is being used as an insult by some, not all, conservatives. The word snowflake is used towards liberals and anyone who opposes the alt-right movement point of view. Since Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia rules, suppose to be neutral source of information, I find the post inappropriate and discriminating.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/discrimination

"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Legal

"Non discrimination

  Do not discriminate against current or prospective users on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics."

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/discrimination-because-of-race-religion-or-belief/discrimination-because-of-religion-or-belief/

http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/workplace-discrimination/type-of-discrimination/political-belief-or-activity

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/28/snowflake-insult-disdain-young-people

"‘Poor little snowflake’ – the defining insult of 2016" & "Between the immediate aftermath of Brexit and the US presidential election, one insult began to seem inescapable, mostly lobbed from the right to the left: “snowflake.”"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-alt-right-terminology-20161115-story.html

"Most people protesting Trump are "snowflakes," according to the alt-right, as are anti-Trump celebrities and most liberals."

https://thinkprogress.org/all-the-special-snowflakes-aaf1a922f37b#.go5y5l24c

"But as 2016 dawned, snowflake made its way to the mainstream and, in the process, evolved into something more vicious. The insult expanded to encompass not just the young but liberals of all ages; it became the epithet of choice for right-wingers to fling at anyone who could be accused of being too easily offended, too in need of “safe spaces,” too fragile.""

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/02/23/washington-post-taunts-trump-supporters-whines-about-insults/

"Used in demeaning manner against those who did not support Donald Trump - "the Washington Post’s precious little snowflakes are now interviewing their fellow precious little snowflakes about their own precious feelings.""

http://www.popsugar.com/news/What-Does-Snowflake-Mean-43058848

"A plethora of verbally abusive language was hurled at Hillary Clinton and her supporters during the 2016 election. Somehow "snowflake" has continued to rank high on the list of insults being lobbed at those of us who voted for her"

Ladyk15 (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"Fox" in the article refers to a person, Claire Fox, not Fox News. You can look at the list of references at the bottom to check this. EddieHugh (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

They are right of course but they don't realize that this page is monitored by the alt-right so it cannot get modified. 2601:282:502:4B63:F818:D382:1541:93B9 (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

"snowflake" was used re: university students 10 years ago

The term "snowflake" was in very common use over ten years ago on university lecturer site Rate Your Students, to refer to generally weak-spirited, gutless, incompetent and over-protected helicopter-children who were unable to cope at an adult first-year university level. So the term goes back a *lot* father than 2016. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

E.g., 2007: http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.ca/2007/11/snowflake-essays_7755.html AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I've only heard and read it over the last six months where the term spiked. This is good evidence of longer use than some of us thought, although it helps to prove that 'snowflake' is the common name and long term primary if there's only one article on the topic. Randy Kryn 00:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, there's a strong argument that "snowflake" should be the primary, and "generation snowflake" is if anything a snowclone built upon it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Be careful not to mix up "original" and "primary topic", for Wikipedia purposes. If we followed the original, everything would redirect to snowflake... or snow or perhaps flake... EddieHugh (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

undiscussed deletion of approximately half of article

I notice MaxBrowne recently deleted approximately half the article with vague edit summary of "since usages like "special snowflake" without "generation" have been ruled out of scope" [18]. This seems to be inaccurate. Where's the talk page discussion that makes the background of the term "out of scope"? Where is the discussion that makes related usages of term "out of scope". Also, the entire 'see also' section was inexplicably deleted. What's going on here? --DynaGirl (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Also per recent redirect discussion the term "Special Snowflake" redirects to this article [19]. In light of this redirect, removing all mention of "special snowflake" from this article seems problematic. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You want to have your cake and eat it too, retaining a horribly POV title when you haven't even sorted out what the article is supposed to be about. If it's about "generation snowflake", the offensive labeling of an entire age group by Claire Fox and the American alt-right, then make it about "generation snowflake" and leave out the "snowflake" w/o "generation" stuff cause that's been ruled out of scope. If the scope of the article is to include other uses of snowflake, then move the page. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

MaxBrowne, what are you talking about? I ended up supporting your suggested title change suggestion [20], but the result of the page move discussion was no consensus to move. That link you provided above is a link to you opposing that result (but the result was upheld). It is NOT a link where background terminology such as "special snowflake" was ruled "out of scope". There was no such ruling in the review or in the initial close. "Special snowflake" redirects to this page per recent redirect discussion result. It has not been ruled out of scope and I can't imagine it will be because it's related background terminology. Also, much of what you deleted was explicitly related to generational issues, including the entire "see also" section. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The comments] by SMcCandlish indicated that a move to Snowflake (pejorative) would constitute a "rescoping" of the article. Do you agree with this? Because if it is correct, it follows that references to other uses of "snowflake" are off topic. If this is not correct, then a major objection to the move has been shot down, and per WP:POVNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE the article should be moved. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

MazBrowne, "rescoping the article" would involve rewriting the existing article, while your edits involved the deleting of longstanding text, such as the ties of the term "generation snowflake" to the Fight Club movie. --DynaGirl (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The comments by SMcCandlish are just that: comments on a Move review, not a consensus-approved directive about the content and structure of the article. Major changes to the article are subject to consensus here on this page. Keri (t · c) 11:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

That's correct, but see also WP:COMMONSENSE. People (not just me) obviously have scope and title concerns, and they don't magically go away just because someone hand-waves with "that was just a comment". The fact of the matter is that "special snowflake" has been around for a long time, was popularized broadly by the film version of Fight Club in 1999 (Palahniuk's claim to have invented it has already been debunked), and has nothing to do intrinsically with the socio-political term Generation Snowflake. The latter is a derived usage from the former, not vice versa, and represents as meaning shift.

Probably the vast majority of people who used "special snowflake" and similar constructions before ca. mid-2016 have never even encountered the "Generation Snowflake" variant, though it seems familiar to the 4Chan and Fox News types who have latched onto "snowflake" recently. The broader usage has nothing to do with intergenerational bickering, or with leftism, but with personal predilections and criticism thereof. It's a reference to an inflated sense of personal "specialness", and to the extent it has a political component, it's a criticism of individualism (i.e., it's the opposite of a criticism of leftism, which is collectivist by nature). That the term has been co-opted to become a right-wing criticism of hypersensitivity by leftists is interesting, and we should cover the progression of that meaning shift. It's clear how it happened: it's a populist (i.e., also collectivist) criticism of the one aspect of leftism that isn't collectivist, the nebulous idea that everyone has a right to something like "freedom from being offended".

All that said, it is clear that some very recent usage of "snowflake" with and without the word "Generation" consists of references to a newer meme (connected to but not originated by Trump supporters), that left-of-center political opinions and activities are "whining" and are motivated by an inflated sense of both self-importance and oversensitivity. The problem is that it's patent original research to make our own determination which case is a Trumpish one and which is a general-usage, Fight Club-ish one (in either of the earlier senses, generational or individual), except perhaps when the case in point post-dates the emergence of the Trumpism, and is unmistakably an right-wing statement against liberal/progressive/leftist positioning.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"they don't magically go away just because someone hand-waves with "that was just a comment"." No. But your comments at a Move Review remain "comments at a Move Review" and are not a substitute for discussion here, nor do they give editors unconditional authority nor full discretionary power to make major changes to the article without seeking prior consensus. Which is how they were being (mis)represented. Keri (t · c) 21:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-scoping the article

This article would make much more sense as Snowflake (pejorative), covering the varied meanings (see my longer post above, or longer versions of the article itself) and the history of the expressions that use it, including Palahniuk's "special snowflake", use as a personal criticism of individualism, pseudo-psychological usage in the form "snowflake syndrome", use as an intergenerational socio-political critique of hypersensitivity (this is where the "generation" part comes in, much later in the story), and most recently as a right-wing dismissal of the leftist concerns. Just "Generation Snowflake" by itself is not an encyclopedic topic, per WP:NOT#DICDEF and WP:DICDEF; it's just one particular formulation of a much broader usage.

PS: We also have a duty, as an encyclopedia, to correct Palahniuk's false claim to have coined the term; its use even in politics in particular pre-dates him. Start with Google and you'll find material about this in seconds Merriam-Webster blog; short piece in Esquire about it. See also ThinkProgress article with addl. sources, including showing shift in meaning. See also any literary/film analysis of Palahniuk's work, and you find RS for the usage of the term in his book and the film based on it having little to do with current politico-slang usage; his sudden popping up to claims credit for the current usage (which is about leftist oversensitivity about group concerns like racist language or refusal to recognize transgenderism as legitimate, not Fight Club's critique of the modern tendency to overestimate one's personal importance in the scheme of things) is just public-relations opportunism.

PPS: There's another, non-political pejorative "snowflake", an insult directed at people with albinism, that is also well attested. This can be covered very briefly; send people to Albinism in popular culture as the general topic for "albino bias".

PPPS: There are also sources (I think one of the three I just mentioned is among them) claiming that the usage has progressed well beyond slang, so it shouldn't be at Snowflake (slang) as proposed in the earlier RM.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, which source are you referring to? The Merrian-Webster dictionary source you linked describes it as slang and also uses "slang" in the title [21].--DynaGirl (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This one, quoting a slang expert saying it's not longer slang.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thanks. That source describes it as slang at the beginning but then describes the recent politicalized insult version against liberals as beyond slang. Maybe I'm confused. Is the suggestion to have three separate articles for 'special snowflake', 'generation snowflake' and plain snowflake (the politicized insult). If a separate article was dedicated to just the politicized insult, pejorative might be appropriate, but for an encompassing article about snowflake slang in language, I don't think it's an appropriate title, because all the usages aren't pejorative. Also, I have no objection to using that source, but I don't think it's a neutral source like the Merrian-Webster dictionary, ThinkProgress is a progressive advocacy organization. -DynaGirl (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No, just Snowflake (pejorative) – or perhaps Snowflake (slang) if we're sure that one of the uses is not pejorative (which I don't think is correct, even for the 1970s meaning). If it were at Snowflake (slang) it still would be okay if the #Generation_Snowflake section also included the claim that this particular variant is transitioning from slang to mainstream usage. I think a linguist would still classify it as slang. So, my earlier slang-related objection should be considered void, as to whether the term can be used in the disambiguation. What I am arguing for is one article, with a scope that is not confined to only how Trumpists have been using the term over the last year. Focusing on that particular usage exclusively, without also covering the broader history of the term, including the Fight Club author's claim to have invented it, and debunking of that claim, does not serve our readers. I'm not sure it would serve any purpose other than a political bickering one (either right-wingers wanting to WP:OWN the article and make it all about how Millennial liberals really are acting like special snowflakes, or left-wingers wanting to own it to play victim for being mislabeled). Just have a general article, and avoid that b.s.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense as Snowflake (slang) (or something else neutral, perhaps Snowflake (neologism), which was suggested and supported during recent AfD [22]). I honestly don't think Snowflake (pejorative) is a very good title because the varied meanings are not all strictly pejorative, and the term appears to be evolving quickly in the language. I support the above suggested re-scoping as long as it is interpreted to mean expanding the article to include and explain the evolution of 'special snowflake' to 'generation snowflake' and now very recently to plain snowflake, instead of interpreted to mean deleting all mentions of 'generation snowflake' because some people really don't like that term (I get that it's offensive, but it's well sourced, and offensive isn't a policy based reason to delete it from wikipedia). It appears that since plain snowflake has been adopted by the right to insult liberals, it's already beginning to be recast, less as a negative and more as a positive or powerful term with reference to lots of snowflakes causing a blizzard [23]. Also, recently, liberals have been using snowflake to describe the right, sometimes even using it to describe Trump specifically, calling him "Snowflake in Chief" [24]. I think re-scoping the article would be good as long as it's based on solid sourcing and not on someone's original research reading old "rate your students" blogs, and not based on tumblr, twitter etc. --DynaGirl (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Which usage isn't pejorative? And it's not a neologism; the word has existed since Middle English.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the pre-Palahniuk references as part of the same continuum in the evolution of the term. There are references to its use in 1860s Missouri over the slavery issue, and to African Americans using it as a slang term for white people, but these usages are unrelated. Indeed, the Merriam-Webster article (an excellent source) says "That use very likely has its genesis in Chuck Palahniuk's 1996 cult-favorite book Fight Club....". So I don't consider his claim "debunked".
I don't believe it would constitute "original research" to refer to its use in the Rate Your Students and College Misery blogs. These are not reliable sources for, say, a scandal at some university, but they are reliable sources for the fact that the term has been used in the "entitled" sense since at least 2007. In fact, it would be pretty much impossible to document the evolution of the use of the term without reference to blogs and social media, which is where it primarily took hold.
I agree that Snowflake (pejorative) is the appropriate title. Yes there have been attempts to "reclaim" it, as happened with "queer", but these have been half-hearted analogies about avalanches etc. Just because the group that it is aimed at attempts to "reclaim" an insult doesn't mean it's not an insult. What was that Homer Simpson quote, "That's another thing I resent, you people using the word 'queer' all the time. That's our word for making fun of you!" MaxBrowne (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Combing through old "rate your students" blogs looking for usages of "snowflake" and interpreting them would be original research. This kind of thing does not belong in the article. Basing the article on original research is a major concern with respect to re-scooping. This would also apply to going through Facebook and twitter comments for usages of the term. This article needs to be based on reliable sources. We can reference reliable sources which document the history in blogs and social media comments, but researching social media and blogs ourselves would be original research.--DynaGirl (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We've just finished a move discussion, which was rejected and then that rejection was confirmed. Nothing has changed. Some of the above would make an interesting addition to the wiktionary entry, but we're not constructing a dictionary here. Could we just leave things as they are until the direction(s) the generational term takes becomes clearer. Alternatively, set up a separate article on Snowflake (pejorative), if you really believe that "snowflake" merits an encyclopedia entry, and leave Snowflake Generation material in this article. EddieHugh (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem of course is that very little of the content of the article pertains to "Generation Snowflake" but to broader use of the term, and attempts to remove this extraneous material are resisted. We can't have it both ways. Either:

1. This article has a proper narrow scope, and people keep inserting off-topic material about other uses of "snowflake"; or
2. This article's scope and title are inappropriately narrow and that's the part that has to change.

Take your pick. Not you, individually; I mean the members of the editing community who care, collectively. I would suggest this should be an RfC to get broad input.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

+1, Exactly what I said earlier. The second of these options is clearly preferable as the current structure makes the article essentially an attack piece. Resistance to the name change comes primarily from those who want to maintain this blatant NPOV violation. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We've just finished that discussion (twice).  SMcCandlish wrote at [the move review], "there was clearly not a consensus to rescope the article". That was less than 2 weeks ago. Nothing has changed: most of the article is about Generation Snowflake (the first para isn't because that's etymological background; most of the second section is also, except the Broader usage sub-section). Suggesting more comments when we've just had lots (and see the 2 rejected deletion proposals) and you endorsed the conclusion of the last one... well... As I said, set up a separate article on Snowflake (pejorative) or similar if you want the dictionary-type stuff. EddieHugh (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue of a blatantly biased article is not going to to away just because there was a "no consensus" close over the last move proposal. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This is why I've proposed the re-scoping. While it is true that WP:MR did not come to a consensus to rescope (nor a consensus against the idea), that's essentially irrelevant. The only purpose of MR is to determine if the closer erred in reviewing the then-current discussion, and it has no scope beyond that question. It certainly does not constrain further discussion of the issue about which consensus had not been reached yet, and much of the point of it is to actually ensure that such discussion continues and is not stymied by bad closures.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Special/unique snowflake as used in Fight Club and previous to the film wasn't really pejorative. In Fight Club it wasn't exactly a compliment, but I think pejorative is a stretch, and the sources describe 'special snowflake' as much milder than the recent politicized insult. Also, there appears to be some reappropriation of the term already among the targets [25], because clearly not everyone sees being politically engaged as a bad thing and many people do not view caring about social justice issues as a bad thing either. Also, in terms of the generational context of the term, I think it's really premature to label it as "pejorative" and simply a negative description of these young adults, as if it's going to remain that way. Considering it's already seeing some reappropriation, and If you simply look to older generation, "Slacker" was often used as a pejorative for Generation X (and that term didn't require disambiguation, but I think it's clear that Slacker (pejorative) would be a biased title) as the connotations, even as applied to previous crop of young adults ended up being nuanced, not strictly negative, and at times embraced by some of the targets. Now recent research credits grown up generation x slackers as achieving "work life balance". These stereotypes and characterizations can be viewed as negative or positive depending on how you look at it and are not static. Considering there is nothing inherently negative about being politically active and caring about social justice, pigeonholing this term after a few months as strictly pejorative seems not the way to go. It doesn't seem to be allowing the term to evolve naturally, and it's ignoring the earlier usages of the term which were not pejorative. --DynaGirl (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh fuck off. It has never been used as anything but an insult. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Beautiful and unique snowflake has it's origins in the self-esteem movement. It wasn't a pejorative. Even the use in Fight Club isn't a pejorative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgrbqv2jebI The "maggots" that Tyler Durden is referring to are told they are NOT beautiful and unique snowflakes. Not being a beautiful and unique snowflake was the negative in that context. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

DynaGirl is correct. As I've stated before, some may take it to be descriptive, not insulting. EddieHugh (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the term was ever used by the self-esteem movement prior to Palahniuk's mocking/ironic use. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence if you look beyond rate your students blogs etc and actually check the reliable sources. I was able to find multiple sources searching newslibrary.com, one going back to 1984. As this is older usage, most of these articles aren't linked online anymore, but I was able to find this one from 2017 using the self-esteem version of "every snowflake is unique" [26], where elementary students are told they are unique like snowflakes and celebrating that as part of "Snowflake Day".--DynaGirl (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there was an unironic use of the snowflake analogy in 2017, but that doesn't disprove my point. Which specific earlier usages did you have in mind? Was it ever common? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I was also a bit surprised at the 2017 non-ironinic usage of unique/speical snowflake analogy with school children; however, prior to Fight Club this unironic positive use, referring to the uniqueness and specialness of snowflakes was common. The earliest news mention I've found so far is from January 11, 1984 in an article titled No Snowflakes Alike, Prove It from The San Diego Union which refers to the analogy of every snowflake being unique as "age old folk wisdom".--DynaGirl (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh the irony. Keri (t · c) 22:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: "Beautiful and unique snowflake has it's origins in the self-esteem movement." If you can source this, that would be a good point, and perhaps an argument against Snowflake (pejorative) and in favor of Snowflake (slang).

"Special/unique snowflake as used in Fight Club ... wasn't really pejorative" is clearly incorrect. The entire point of the film hinges on it being pejorative. Remember that the Durden character is attempting to build an anonymized guerrilla army of sorts to bring down modern, Western, individualist society and return us to a state of "natural", tribal group identity and subsistence as creatures, "laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway", instead of continuing as cerebral but selfish individuals. The tension of the film is the interplay between this fantasy and the narrator's own highly first-person, self-centered, materialistic perspective, who laments that the furniture he lost "was my life", and his job is to help insurance corporations rip people off and endanger the public.

This all is another obvious reason that Palahniuk's claim to have something to do with current Trumpish usage is just a bogus public-relations attention grab, as the meaning is not related at all. The Republican use of this term is a criticism of lack of the right-wing version of collectivist, conformist values (family, Christian, patriotic, pro-capitalist) and against left-wingers' few anti-collectivist traits, including perceived bucking of authority, whining about the less fortunate (i.e., those who in Republican dogma are not productive), and their focus on "issue posing" instead of doing real work and taking real action. Durden was essentially a mega-ultra-left anarchist – a caricature – while the FC narrator is clearly a selfish, play-by-the-rules capitalist and conformist. The usage is therefore completely inverted. Those using the term today against their neighbors are those whom Durden was targeting with it to begin with. (This analysis is obviously original research on my part and can't be used in the article, but few modern films have been subjected to as much analysis in academic film journals as Fight Club, so sourcing what these character and their views/statements represent should be easy for anyone with access to a good arts-journal search service.)
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Palahniuk's use is clearly sarcastic, and therefore pejorative. I'm still a bit confused by your statement that his claim to have invented the "unique/special" usage has been 'debunked". The claimed earlier examples are along the lines of "every snowflake is unique", which is not the same thing as actually using it as slang, or as a label for a person. Then and now, self-help books were a profitable industry, so why hasn't anyone found a pre-1996 self-help book which uses the term this way? Maybe there isn't one? MaxBrowne (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Not being a special and unique snowflake was the pejorative in Fight Club. Tyler Durden said "you are not special, you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake". It's clear and referenced that the metaphor of special and unique like a snowflake started as out positive. As mentioned before, the earliest reference I've found on NewsLibrary.com archives is from 1984 in an article titled No snowflakes alike? Prove it! from the Lifestyle Section of The San Diego Union. With respect to sources linked online, this recent article refers to the earlier positive usage of unique like a snowflake [27] and this recent source from 2017 shows that unique like a snowflake is still actually being used as a self-esteem building exercise with school children. [28]. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The San Diego Union article from 1984 is about literal snowflakes. It is not an example of the metaphor being applied to people, let alone an example of its alleged earlier use by the self-help movement. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It describes the metaphor of each snowflake being unique as age old folk wisdom. It's a valid source in context with the multiple other sources linked and described above. Here's another one [29]. --DynaGirl (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No it is not a valid source for this article. It is a scientific article about snowflakes. Snowflakes as in flakes of snow. It has no metaphorical meaning, and is therefore entirely irrelevant to this article. These other links you give me are all quite recent. You have still provided zero evidence for your claim that the modern usage was invented by "the self-help movement", whatever that is, or any instance of it being used pre-fight club. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

MaxBrowne, I've linked multiple on topic reliable sources while it seems you've only contributed original research from old rate your students blogs. The fact that sources which discuss the usages of unique/special snowflake also discuss the science of each snowflake being unique (and that their uniqueness is debated) does not disqualify a source. Also, even among the very recent usage of snowflake as a politicized insult, the sources referencing this discuss the reclaiming of the term as a positive, like this one [30] which states: Many folks, such as actor George Takei, have extended the metaphor to emphasize the power of snowflakes: “The thing about ‘snowflakes’ is this: They are beautiful and unique, but in large numbers become an unstoppable avalanche that will bury you".. so snowflake (pejorative) doesn't seem appropriate title on many levels. If the article is to be moved, and I tend to agree it should be moved, it should be moved to snowflake (slang). --DynaGirl (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Do I need to repeat it? The usage in the 1984 article is not metaphorical, it is 100% literal. It is not an instance of the term being applied to people, and is therefore irrelevant to this article. Your claim that the usage predates the Fight Club and was invented by the self-help movement remains unsupported. And by the way the Original Research policy explicitly does *not* apply to talk page discussions. 04:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• This discussion further shows that the name of the page should be "Snowflake (slang)" or something other than 'Generation Snowflake', which is not the common name of the topics being discussed here. Editor SMcCandlish's comments above do a fine job of analyzing and summarizing the thought process of changing the name of the page and accurately and historically balancing the core term. Randy Kryn 13:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The opposition to the move came primarily from one person, someone who clearly is not coming from a NPOV and has a vested interest in retaining the biased title. I do believe the "no consensus" close was incorrect. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s fair to blame those who voted against the move request considering you didn’t provide reliable sources to support the move. Either way, the result offered a path forward. Create a new article on snowflake (slang) and then seek consensus to merge this article into that one. SMcCandlish even edited the snowflake slang redirect page to include a template to encourage editors to be bold and create such an article, which has been started.--DynaGirl (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Snowflake (slang)

I don’t understand the continued RfC’s and AfDs considering previous page move result already spelled out path forward. Create a new article on Snowflake (slang) and then start discussion to merge this article into that one. The snowflake (slang) redirect page was edited by  SMcCandlish a while ago to add template message encouraging editors to be bold and to do just that. I created this article. Please see Snowflake (slang). Hopefully there will be less the WP:I just don't like it type disruption over there, but considering we’re still dealing with mostly pejorative usages, I’m not so sure.--DynaGirl (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)