Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:40, 24 November 2016

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 November 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

POV

I just googled this phrase in the news and over 7,000 time the exact phrase is referenced. After reading the page I found it to be a very accurate description of a symptom my high school student was experiencing. Definitely, keep this page. (PS I apologize if I did something wrong here, I have never posted to Misplaced Pages talk section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.104.116 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This article does not seem neutral. It seems composed largely of POV quotes from various media outlets describing a large demographic group of people as "hysterical" etc. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

From the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view page: NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The final paragraph of this article clearly gives a different perspective from the others, thereby providing balance that, to date, is proportional. EddieHugh (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The page is describing the term and its usage, as it has appeared in the Telegraph, Guardian, GQ, Vice, and others. In my opinion, fleshing out the article and perhaps adding a Criticism section would work well. I don't think it's non-neutral as it is. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Coverage in those 6 alt-right, far-right rags does not merit removal of the POV tag, or even the existence of this fascist article, Ghost/Meme. I'm petitioning the National Association of Student Councils to DE-PLATFORM WIKIPEDIA until this oppressive article which exploits the Workers of the world, and all articles containing more than 16 words which are disparaging or discouraging to Millennials, Politically Correct People, Center-Left Bolsheviks, Red Anarchists, and other Marxists whose parents earn >$60,000 per year, or similarly oppressed groups are deleted. You AGEIST, SEXIST COCKWIELDING OPPRESSOR.

1. DE-PLATFORM_WIKIPEDIA

Hey hey, ho ho, Misplaced Pages's got to go!

Expose the Wiki-fascists. Just say no to far-right problematic RACIST sources who refuse to recognize intersectionality of feminism, BLM'ism, transsexual/body fat acceptance, and righteousness aka SOCIAList JUSTICE. 97.98.86.66 (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. You're an obvious troll who pretends to be radical left but does a bad job at it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to restart the convo on whether this is NPOV. My grip is the sources used here are not very high on my list of credible? Any one else think this page should be removed? This term does belong in the urban dictionary, however I don't think the discussion can possibly be NPOV since it is basically a "kids these days" type of remark. 2601:282:502:4B63:79DC:17F8:332E:9986 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Already discussed: see below. It has sources that meet the relevant criteria, so is not for deleting. It balances the views expressed in sources, thus meeting NPOV. EddieHugh (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Standalone page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why snowflake?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep this page, work on expanding it

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

Generation Snowflake

Personally, I find the term to be widely used and descriptive. I think it should remain as Generation Snowflake. However, I am somewhat opposed to the singular "snowflake" as a term once used as a derogatory name aimed toward White/Caucasian people.72.160.37.49 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

keep

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

POV edit by MaxBrowne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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