Talk:Snowflake children

neologism
Question: If a neologism is used and endorsed by the President, is it still a neologism? -- H·G (words/works) 17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer: One person's usage of a neologism doesn't change the status, no matter who the person is. What makes a word stop being "new" in the sense of a neologism? Time and spreading general usage. Prominent public usage will tend to get it into the vernacular and the dictionaries a lot faster though, so the President using it makes it much more likely that the phrase will become general. --studerby 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"children that were frozen as embryos"
Rewrote this phrase for 2 reasons: In other words, a lot more frozen embroyos become children than are encompassed by the term "snowflake children" as we currently use it. The embroyos wouldn't be frozen in the first place unless they were intended for possible use; freezing them and keeping them frozen isn't free.
 * freezing of embroyos is common in the in-vitro process; more eggs are harvested than are expected to be used, some are fertilized, and a few are implanted and the rest frozen for possible later use in case
 * 1) the implantaion fails
 * 2) another child is desired
 * The phrasing borders on conflating "child" and "embroyo", which is a point of dispute between pro-life and pro-choice factions.

I tried for a circumlocution that dodged both problems; please feel free to try a better phrasing.--studerby 18:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is obviously analogous to "Adults who were abused as children". It refers to 2 different stages/entities/whatever. Would you deny that no child has ever been an embryo? Novjunulo (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
Use and acceptance of this term is highly controversial for some people; attempts to reflect that controversy within the article have been systematically reverted, presenting the term as if there was no controversy, which in effect is supporting one point of view. All points of view need to be neutrally reflected, or else the WP:NPOV policy is being violated. We need to find a way to find a compromise on this, or get some external intervention. I'm going to add some addiotional sourcing, an NPOV tag, and revert. studerby 20:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. There are some sharply partisan editors who insist on imposing their rightwing POV on everyone else and refuse to acknowledge that the concept of "Snowflake Children" is not a universally accepted or acknowledged term. StudierMalMarburg 20:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please review the rules concerning what are acceptable sources. You will see that the Daily KOS ("Daily Kos is not a standard blog, but an interactive site powered by the collaborative media application Scoop, which allows all registered members to maintain blogs within the site") blog does not meet the basic requirements of Wikipedia.  Also, the Daily Show ("the Daily Show is considered by its creators to be a "fake news program")needs to be presented as a parody, not a hard news source and there should NOT be, in any way, a sentence that states, "News footage of the event didn't reveal any minority families present." That type of comment is inherently POV because it the comment of a Wikipedian. See Reliable sources.--Getaway 21:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with Daily Kos. No one even mentioned it or cares that you deleted the link to it, so your appeal to Wikipedia authority is meaningless.  This is about deleting any and all references to the terminology "snowflake children" as being part of a partisan campaign of the religious right.  There are no other groups out there using or accepting this terminology.  Hence, it is not a universally accepted term, and any reader coming to this article has the right to know that. StudierMalMarburg 21:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not responded to what I wrote. Do you have a source to back up your OPINION?  What is that source?  Where do I find that source?  I don't really care about your OPINION.  I care about the opinions of reliable sources.  So, once again, where is the source to back up your opinion and is that source a reputable one? So far all that you have offered is Daily Kos and a parody from John Stewart's Daily Show.  Not much to work with there.  So, once again, I encourage you to provide a reliable source to back up your OPINION, if not then your personal opinion's will stay out of the article.--Getaway 21:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, the burden to provide support for your POV edit falls on your shoulders, not mine. Just attacking my arguments without provide solid, concrete citations for your OPINION will not work to get your edit through the Wikipedia rules.--Getaway 22:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise, the burden of proof for your own biased POV falls on your shoulders, not mine or studerby's. This is an article about the Christian Right, and to be honest to all readers, that has to be admitted. StudierMalMarburg 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Now go play somewhere else.--Getaway 15:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

satire of the term
The satire of the term is a relevant part of the controversy. The satire was actually performed; the reference to the Daily Show is not to tuth or falsity of fact, but to the existence of the satire, which is incontrovertible. Thus whether or not the Daily Show is a reliable source or not is immaterial, since it's not being used as a factual source, but as a nationally broadcast (and therefore notable) exemplar of the controversy. studerby 20:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you have a potential point, but it was NOT presented that way. There a comment added on the end which was clearly not NPOV.  At the end the presentation stated:  "News footage of the event didn't reveal any minority families present." This sentence is clearly not NPOV.  Who is looking at the "news footage."  A wikipedian?  If yes, then it is original research."  Who is the voice of this comment?  A Wikipedian.  Not acceptable.  Put it in if you want to BUT you must present it for what it is:  a satire by a fake news organization.  It was presented as a legitimate argument from a legitimate source.  Do you have a legitimite source making these arguments other than a blog like Kos?? Or a fake news organization like the Daily Show???  If this was a real debate then we would be able to pull out comments from the Democratic politicians, Republican politician, Planned Parenthood, Right-to-Life, but these arguments aren't there.  All you have is a parody, which was presented as hard news, and one opinion from a Daily KOS nutjob.  Not much to go on.  Wikipedia does not allow the use of blogs because then you or I could just blog some horse hockey and then cite this horse hockey as legitimate horse hockey.  Seriously, all you have is a some crazed Daily KOS blogger and a John Stewart parody, that really isn't much is it??  How do I know that the guy who keeps pushing this POV is not the nutjob that is blogging for Daily KOS???  I don't.  I just going to assume that these folks are one and the same, unless someone can prove to me otherwise.  A blogger's opinion is not going in this article or the Sam Brownback article either.--Getaway 20:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please review the rules concerning what are acceptable sources. You will see that the Daily KOS ("Daily Kos is not a standard blog, but an interactive site powered by the collaborative media application Scoop, which allows all registered members to maintain blogs within the site") blog does not meet the basic requirements of Wikipedia.  Also, the Daily Show ("the Daily Show is considered by its creators to be a "fake news program")needs to be presented as a parody, not a hard news source and there should NOT be, in any way, a sentence that states, "News footage of the event didn't reveal any minority families present." That type of comment is inherently POV because it the comment of a Wikipedian. See Reliable sources.--Getaway 21:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Daily Show is not being used as a reference to support a fact, it is being used as an examplar of the controversy. It is not arguable that the satire did not occur; it did. The reference citation is used for the purpose of supporting that the satire occured and no other purpose, and for that purpose it is reliable. studerby 15:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's simply peachy and wonderful. Now, why don't you discuss that with the person that removed it. I did not remove it.--Getaway 15:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Assertion
Who are these mysterious "some people"? Until these people are clearly identified, this article is dubious and not neutral. StudierMalMarburg 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear from the references in the article that President Bush, for one, refers to these children as "snowflake." Also, Sen. Sam Brownback, on whose page you have been editing, also refers to these children as 'snowflake."  There are hundreds and hundreds of others that do also.  It is not up to you, a single Wikipedian, to decide that simply because you don't like the term that the term should not be used or referred to.--Getaway 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of liking or disliking the term. It's a matter of honesty.  Once again, who are these mysterious "hundreds and hundreds" of people?  If you can't identify them, then you are imposing your non NPOV on readers.StudierMalMarburg 16:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If a statement or nickname is used by some people, it should be appropriately attributed to those that say it in the interest of NPOV. "People call X, 'Y'" is inappropriate in any case. However, it is correct to say "According to observer Z, 'Y' is a commonly used term for X". The distinction is important but subtle. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Kuzaar: Nice for you to make an attempt to discuss the article.  It is good that you have decided to correct your attempts at drive-by POV tags.  That was clearly inappropriate behavior.  However, there has not been any attempt to explain why the term needs to be removed from Wikipedia.  It is not up to a couple of Wikipedians to censor information that they simply don't like.--Getaway 01:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It was not a drive-by POV tag, nor has there been an effort to remove it or censor it from Wikipedia. WP:NPOV requires controversial statements to be attributed to reliable sources in order to be asserted, which is why I have intervened at this article and the Sam Brownback article. As I said above, which you have not addressed, it is POV to say "Some people call X 'Y'". It is NPOV to say "According to (reliable source) Z, the term 'Y' is often used to refer to X". The issue in question should be either rephrased or remain tagged. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As per my action on Sam Brownback's article, we might consider formatting the assertion to how it is there, just saying "According to the Religious Freedom Coalition, some people call children fertilized in-vitro 'Snowflake Children'". I may change the article to reflect this later today. --Kuzaar-T-C- 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly Dubious Assertion and Truly Dubious Assertion by Marburg
This is my comment. Do not alter it. The problem with talk pages is that the first editor to make a title for a discussion controls the terms of the debate. Kuzaar and Marburg stated that what I wrote was a "dubious assertion" but yet they never made a coherent argument that it really was a "dubious assertion." However, the title remains that it is a "dubious assertion." I have made the point, clear and convincing, that the term "snowflake children" should remain in the article and it should not be described in the non-NPOV way of a term only of the so-called "Christian Right," a "dubious assertion" of Marburg. Once again, the term is NOT only used by the so-called "Christian Right" that is the incorrect commenatary and opinion of Marburg. It is used by non-Christian (orthodox Jews, for example) and people who are not, in any way, so-called "right-wing," (Catholic priests, for example). So, once again, if Marburg attempts to impose his view of the world on the article I will remove it.--Getaway 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you, per the rules at WP:TALK, the rule to "Never edit other users' comments" (emphasis not mine). The only exception to this rule is in the case of a personal attack, which you are on the verge of making in this section's heading. Please be aware of Wikipedia's civility and no personal attacks rules in the future. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No. You are wrong. I have not, in any way, engaged in a personal attack. I only flipped the same exact wording that was sent my way. Now, if it is a personal attack, which it isn't, but I will play along, then when my work was described as dubious assertion then that means that whoever wrote that phrase violating Wikipedian policy by using that phrase. However, we know that the phrase is part of Wikipedian and therefore it cannot be used as a personal attack, so your warning does not hold any water. I have remained civil, even in the face of today's use of a commentary by Margaret Carlson to describe the term snowflake children. Margaret Carlson's article is a political commenatary and Wikipedia specifically points out that Wikipedia should not use of the so-called facts in a political commenatary as a the source for facts. So I don't need your warning about civility. Once again, the attempts to characterize the word as a word of the so-called right-wing, eliminates the Catholic priests from the universe of people that use the term, an attempt to minimize and limit the influence of the term.--Getaway 14:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal attack, and I did not say that it was. It is, however, exceedingly uncivil to say that his questioning the reliability of the source you provided as dubious. Additionally, reliable sources (ones that you have provided) have described the word as "the new rallying cry for the Right", so I don't see how it's attempting to minimize or limit influence, merely to characterize the source of the term honestly. Additionally, the article provided earlier to source the term "snowflake children" itself was from a political commentary website. Remember that all of these sources are acceptable so long as they are properly sourced and attributed. The key distinction is that it must be the source's voice that says it and not the narrative voice. Wikipedia's job is to portray the controversy, never to take part in it. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, regarding the Margaret Carlson article- Bloomberg is a reliable, reviewed and acceptable source per WP:RS's guidelines. WP:RS is there to keep delusional people with a website from being used as a source, not legitimate reporters for major news carriers from doing their job. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is not just one website.  The White House uses the term, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.  Also, Carlson is acting in her role as a commentator in that particular article.  It is not straight news as she does for Newsweek (I should have said Time).  Her Bloomberg work is clearly commentary.  It does not work for the left-wing source to be quoted as fact on whether the term is only a term of the so-called right-wing.--Getaway 14:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * At the top of Carlson's work it specifically states: "who was a columnist and deputy Washington bureau chief for Time magazine, is a columnist for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are her own."  There is a disclaimer because it is commentary.--Getaway 14:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But it does work for a characterization of the source to be given, appropriately attributed, to a writer doing an opinion piece for a mainstream reporting organization such as Bloomberg. As I've said on the debate on the Sam Brownback talk page, political commentary sources are not only acceptable but necessary for explaining the debate over a political subject. For example, a quote criticizing Planned Parenthood would be appropriate in the "criticism" section of that article, as long as it was attributed to a correct, reliable source. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification
Might I ask for more clarification on what the said controvosy is at the end of the second section? As an IVF'd kid from a time when SC research and this didn't exist, this article has captured my interest. Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

New Sections to add to this article?
If this section were its own independent article, I would add a few new sections to it: (1) Legal regulations of snowflake children (to say not only how snowflake children are treated legally in the US, but whether or not there are different regulations regarding snowflake children in other countries), (2) Risks (the dangers of having a snowflake child, the efficacy of the procedure, and if there might be psychological consequences to telling a snowflake child who his/her biological parents are), and (3) Procedure (how embryos are frozen in order to make snowflake children and what couples need to do in order to implant one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne.west29 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)