Talk:Greta Thunberg

OPEC sentence

I moved this here from the lead

That impact has been so significant that the movement she inspired is now perceived by OPEC as the “greatest threat” to the fossil fuel industry.

A. The sentence is WP:PUFFERY (...."soooOOOOOOO significant".....)
B. The sentence is false. This is the opinion of the head of OPEC expressed in comments to one news outlet. That's very different from an organization position statement.
C. The original report at AFP appears to have disappeared and its hard to zero in, based on RSs, exactly whom the guy was talking about. Was it just the school movement, or climate activism in general. We know how GT responded, but I can't find the original source to see what the guy actually said. Can you?
D. Even if we can't justify specifically putting this on GT's bio page (for these or other reasons) it can certainly go at Fossil fuel divestment or Public opinion on climate change and places like that.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the simple facts need to be included because they are both actual and significant. How does this wording sound:

The activity of Thunberg and other climate activists has been named by Mohammed Barkindo, the secretary general of OPEC as OPEC's "greatest threat". In response, Thunberg stated this was the climate movement's "biggest compliment yet".

Based on what source? We know what GT said about what he said, but we don't really know what he said because the original RS appears to have been taken down. If that news outlet (AFP) is a printed paper, maybe someone can find the print copy and we can use that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

PS The lack of clarity on this point is highlighted at the start of this article at Grist. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

If you give up on the sensationalist "greatest threat" phrase, its easy to rewrite the sentence to reference his criticism of GT and the students in more general terms because the RSs have abundant more general criticism. I especially like how the kids of OPEC ministers are seeing their student peers in the streets and asking their parents troubling questions. There's no doubt this official was talking of GT and her colleagues in that part of his reported remarks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this counts, but I found this link. However, it seems to be referring to the AFP as a source.

https://news.yahoo.com/climate-campaigners-greatest-threat-oil-sector-opec-153115584.html

There are also a number of other links, of which the most significant are probably The Guardian, CNBC, Grist and QZ. The others are obviously pro-climate eco sites of various kinds.

Cadar (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That's RS for Yahoo News' interpretation of his remarks but this isn't an article about Yahoo News and what they think. Alas, its good, but it's not good enough for declaring, in WikiVoice, that the "greatest threat" phrase was specifcally calling out GT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This may be helpful. Climate campaigners 'greatest threat' to oil sector, says Opec It appears to be the original source from AFP. Notagainst (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Notagainst and my apologies to Cadar about the yahoo news link you posted. I had to study the MalayMail piece to figure out why that's AFP and finally found the abbreviation at the end of the text.... and it looked just like the Yahoo News story Cadar linked yesterday. Sure enough, it says "AFP" there too, at the start of the text. So thank you both for helping clear up the question about what was the original source. Alas, in my view this text does not provide adequate WP:Verifiability that he was talking of GT so specifically that this should be on her biography page. It's adequate, I think, for inclusion on the School climate strike page though NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC) (fixed redlinks today... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC))

refs for this section

References

What we say about Greta's diagnoses

The consensus in this RfC is to include only information Greta Thunberg's diagnoses that only she and her family have put out.

Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

---

• Deutsche Welle asserts: "Greta was finally diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, her younger sister Beata turned out to have an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)".
• The New Yorker asserts: "both Greta and her younger sister, Beata, have been diagnosed with autism, A.D.H.D., and other conditions."

Wikisaurus choosed to believe in Deutsche Welle. But I suppose that others reliable sources support The New Yorker's version:

1. The Guardian asserts that Greta has obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) and selective mutism;
2. Greta said: "I was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrom, OCD and selective mutism".

What other editors think about it? Раммон (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

For starters I changed the section heading because the former was phrased (accidentally) in an unfortunately limiting way and we need an expansive discussion to get a real answer. And my real answer is that even as more sources show up, I see little reason to depart from the consensus we achieved in March when we talk about it earlier. The result of that discussion was to rely on this BLP subject's own personal public words about her medical status. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

In here I found this: "Greta is not alone in her mental suffering, according to the book. Her sister Beata, who was 12 when the book was written, lives with ADHD, Asperger’s syndrome, and OCD." That is media use Thunberg's book as a source of information about Greta's health. So we should do the same - read and cite the book. Раммон (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Quillette looks like a collection of non-RS opinion pieces, similar to Forbes so that's not a great source. If you can find some Terms and Conditions that would help us evaluated its editorial control and so assess its RS value we can revisit. Otherwise, you're waving your hands in a vague way at a book you apparently haven't read. What do you expect anyone to say? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Seeing how we're talking about the medical condition of somebody who is not only a living person, but also a minor, I don't see how any option other than "only use information that was demonstrably put out by her or her family" could even come close to being OK. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Precisely what we agreed the last time this came up. See my earlier comment in this thread for the link to that discussion in the archives. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep to her own/ family assessment of her condition as there are obviously contradictions in reliable sources, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• We shouldn't encourage any sort of content which hints at an authoritative 'diagnosis' other than that which she or her family has offered into the public domain. If it were felt necessary to comment on the various 'conditions' with which she has 'diagnosed' via the media, it should be made crystal clear that these are opinions, not facts and each 'opinion' quoted verbatim, with unambiguous citation. For example, The Guardian content is opinion, not fact and, were it to be retained, should be clearly marked as such. Fortnum (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2019 (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.

Insults section

I just removed this section as at least one of the sources (Pravy prostor) used was weak (to put it charitably) and in my POV any BLP article requires high quality sources for any controversial content (which plainly worded inclusion of that insult certainly is). Your opinion? Pavlor (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please oh please oh please never talk about edits via pronoun. Instead always include a DIFF. That way others can instantly know what you're talking about without guessing... and risking misunderstanding. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Re the German stickers, even with high quality sources I personally think that's juvenile tripe and should be ignored. We already have a section saying people are doing backlash. Are we going to list every insult from around the world? Similarly, are we going to list every supportive statement from around the world? (Answer to both - 'Hell no'. Speaking of hell, are those fires fossil fuel powered?) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that section was inappropriate and you were correct to remove it. It is not a case only of needing high-quality sources. It is a case of needing relevance to the biography, which is a matter largely for editorial discretion. We apply that discretion to, as NewsAndEventsGuy correctly says, avoid indiscriminate listings of insults and supportive statements. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with NewsAndEventsGuy and Mkativerata. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This RFC is malformed. I have no idea what the RFC is about. An RFC is supposed to be worded in a neutral manner. "Should we do X?" You are already starting the RFC with your opinion, which is not a good thing. My suggestion is to close or delete this RFC and start again. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I did not start any formal RfC (that was fellow editor Раммон [1], who also inserted disputed content in the article). I only removed possible BLP violation and asked other for their opinion. Pavlor (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the RFC template based on your comment that this wasn't intended as an RFC; I agree that slapping an RFC template on an existing discussion is a really bad way to start one, and it seems hard to picture this producing any sort of usable consensus in its current form. If someone feels an RFC is necessary, feel free to start a proper one and ping anyone who commented here or whatever. --Aquillion (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Structure problem

The section on media and political response is poorly concieved. After the basics of who and what, the rest of everything is all about media and political response. IMO, it would be better to just have a criticism section and not worry about sneaking in rebuttals under that section heading. Let the rest of the other sections be the rebuttal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This section is almost entirely about the media response rather than political response. I have deleted the political aspect from the heading. Notagainst (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Greatest Threat

Mohammed Barkindo called "unscientific attacks" the greatest threat to fossil fuels, not greta thunberg. The author then speculates that is was in relation to Greta. It in misleading at best and inaccurate at worst and should be removed

https://www.malaymail.com/news/money/2019/07/03/climate-campaigners-greatest-threat-to-oil-sector-says-opec/1768003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.87.138 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I only agree to the extent we still hadn't done a good job with this. I have made changes to the article which hopefully resolve the merry go roundNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"CLAIM" within the article

Could the editors of the article please pay some attention to WP:CLAIM?--TMCk (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not join us per WP:SOFIXIT ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

See Symptomatic treatment.--TMCk (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI about page protection

FYI, I have requested that pending-changes protection be increased to full semi-protection. Here is the request thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, guess I learned something. The request was denied, with three knowledgeable admins in agreement that the current protection level is exactly right. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I should point out that this situation can change. The article has PC protection for a year, based on its current level of activity and vandalism. But if the article suddenly becomes much more heavily edited, or is subject to a swarm of vandalism, it is possible to add semi-protection on top of the PC protection for a few days - and after the semi-protection expires, the PC remains. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Refs

Let's keep the refs in the article and not put them all in a refs section. It makes editing a nightmare. Doing this requires consensus, please seek that consensus before and not after acting. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure... embedding citations throughout an article makes the editing window a nightmare, and with references grouped in a single section is vastly easier to organize, polish, and perfect their formatting. So we have differing opinions. @RichardWeiss: do you plan to join us as a page editor here? Seems to me that when personal opinion and preference are consistent with our P&G, then we need a good way to decide consensus. The best way to do that is by applying a commonsense spirit of the principle espoused at WP:ARBCC#Purpose of Wikipedia, which I respectfully suggest means the opinion of folks doing the work should be given primary consideration. Forgive me if I have overlooked your contribs here, but I don't recall seeing you at this page previously. It would be wonderful to have your help, don't get me wrong! But I'm trying to work hard on all the refs, en masse, prior to nominating for a good article review. Can you lend a hand with that? How would you suggest we organize the workload? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks vs informed comment

In the section under Media Comment, a while ago I created a couple of subheadings: Personal attacks and Informed comment. Other editors have changes these to Criticism and Comments. These new headings no longer accurately represent the nature of criticisms directed at GT. There are two main kinds of criticism: a) personal attacks on her characteristics such as her looks, her voice or her mental health issues, and whether she is fit to lead such a crusade; b) comment or criticisms about her message and the likely effectiveness of her activism. I think it is important to highlight in the subheadings that many of the criticisms are actually personal attacks. In order to distinguish comment or criticism about her message, I think the heading Informed comment conveys the content more clearly - although there may be other options.

WP:BLP suggests that the more odious details of some of the personal attacks should not be included in the article. I quote: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Notagainst (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an awesome way to start a discussion, and I look forward to reading enough cites and digesting this part of the article well enough to comment constructively. Just wanted here to commend your process. Thank you! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently all criticism is now referred as ad hominem attacks. Is this the new norm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.81.243 (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

See section 5.2.3 "Criticism of Thunberg's campaign" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You mean the praise masked as criticism? Don't be silly2001:14BA:1300:0:0:1:4D51:AC9E (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Date of Birth citation needed

In the introduction, Gretas date of birth has a [citation needed] tag, but then in the "Life" section, by her birthday, a citation is given (it's currently Ref 9). Can't the same cite apply? 218.214.220.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It does not need a cite in the lede if it is reliably sourced in the article.Charles (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. In the bigger picture, this is a BLP and of a minor besides. We take privacy seriously, and have a policy that guides us when it is appropriate to reveal personal info like full names and DOBs. See WP:DOB. The source that Charles mentions was in French, and since "widely reported" is a criteria to include the DOB I did a google search for news hits Thunberg "born on (Month Day), 2003)" Of course when I did the search I included in the month and day. I got no hits at all. But when I changed the search to Thunberg "born in 2003)" there were several hundred. Moreover, one of this was from Thunberg's own publisher, under "About the Author". It's reasonable to think the publisher is revealing personal info as authorized by the subject herself, and that only gives her birth year. So we should do the same. As Charles says, lead links aren't mandatory, but sometimes they are wise. See WP:LEADLINK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

There was a citation in place, but you appear to have removed it. There is nothing wrong whatsoever in using a French source as a citation in an English wiki article, though hopefully others can be found. Esowteric+Talk 12:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

(A) True, in clarifying the acceptable use of non-English RSs, WP:NONENG says in part English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided...

(B) Moreover, anyone who wants to use the full DOB needs to show the full DOB is "widely reported", per BLP policy in section WP:DOB. A solitary French-language RS falls very far below that threshold.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right that the full DOB has not been widespread coverage in the larger, mainstream reliable sources (its omission is notable).

Here are a few lesser sources:

Tired Earth

Daily Fail

Daily Kos

Arctic Portal

Mitsubishi

Voice of Fashion

Medium

Symapico

I'll go with whatever you decide. Esowteric+Talk 13:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate your research and consensus building! Many of those sources are blogs and opinion pages of dubious RS quality. Personally, I'd give priority consideration to WP:PRIMARY sources. As a bonus, it's a small and well-defined pool of sources to research and debate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Visit other languages in Wikipedia to see her full name and birthdate. Some people do not like this information in the article. Even in the discussion sll infos were deleted. --Netpilots (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I added DOB and it was reverted and I was directed here. I added it because of arguments in the press as to whether she was a "child", so I deemed it important. I note both Finnish (GA) and Swedish pages give the same date. On Instagram and Twitter she gives her age as 16. In an interview in the New Yorker, on October 2 2018, she gave her age as 15. That narrows it down somewhat. In an interview on CNN in December 2018, she said she was 15, but on January 26, it was 16. In Rolling Stone in March 2019, she said she was 16. In the Financial Times on February 22 2019, she said she was 16, also NYT February 18.--Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 14:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

There are 8 linked articles a little way up this thread that give the date. However policy seems to be against providing the full date. Also see above for the reasoning behind that. Esowteric+Talk 15:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As I read it, the discussion was about reliability, not the reason why. I seemed to me important to get her age right in discussions. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 15:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As shown above in this section, see NewsAndEventsGuy's reply to me. Specifically: "(B) Moreover, anyone who wants to use the full DOB needs to show the full DOB is "widely reported", per BLP policy in section WP:DOB. A solitary French-language RS falls very far below that threshold." Esowteric+Talk 15:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reading the prior comments! I looked at the 8 sources mentioned... they are of mostly low-quality in terms of RS... most are personal essay and blog things. To elaborate AGAIN Our BLP policy puts emphasis on protecting personal information including full name and DOB. When GT shares this then that's an indication she's ok with it. But she has her own publisher giving her birth monty and year only. So, per BLP policy in section WP:DOB we should do the same NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have read numerous interviews in high quality media (see selection above), all of which show that between the end of December 2018, and mid January 2019, she changed her age from 15 to 16. She also said she had asked her parents not to give her any Christmas or Birthday presents, which puts her birthday close to Christmas. I therefore propose that we state her date of birth as January 20003 and template it. This will solve the age issue, and provide a fact check for media reporting on politicians, such as the one who called her a mentally unstable child today. I think that is a reasonable compromise. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 16:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually we need reliable sources and then we can mention it regardless of what we think Greta thinks, without reliable sources we should simply not mention it. Doing detective work is utterly unacceptable apart from detective work looking for reliable sources. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not detective work, to check that sources are consistent. As mentioned above, her publisher provides month and year. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 16:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I could add GQ and a branch of the United Nations Association. But one can be too pure, since it is on many projects of Wikipedia. Should they all be purged? --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 16:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

GT released her birth month and year via her publisher. But she did not release the day of the month. We should call it good with this edit and let others be careless with privacy of personal information. We don't have to help spread it when GT is not. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't implying it was @Michael Goodyear:, checking consistency of actual sources is perfectly legitimate and goes along with seeking new ones if required. It is the original research suggestion I was commenting on. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Your primary source isn't great @NewsAndEventsGuy: but is acceptable as there are no notability issues. Giving the month without the date is surely fine if that is what the sources say. BLP does not however mean we do what GT wants, that seems irrelevant, what is relevant is sources that are reliable, and ideally we could do with a 3rd-party reliable source, given it is a BLP article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Being her publisher there is a principal-agent legal relationship with terms spelled out in their contract that we are not privvy to. But its law 101 that acts of authorized agent are the same as those done by the principal. I've never said that we do what GT wants. I've said WP:DOB holds private info private unless one of two things happens. Either (A) it must be WIDELY repeat W-I-D-E-L-Y reported in solid RSs or (B) the subject share it. Since A is really really really R-E-A-L-L-Y thin, we should rely on her agents disclosure on her behalf. And if there is a better primary source from GT herself, even better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No offence taken, my comment was a general one that "reliable" sources implies making some effort to check reliability. I added a second reliable source. I think we are getting there! --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 18:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize and awards

Please see https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/questions-and-answers-about-the-nomination-process-for-a-nobel-peace-prize/?fbclid=IwAR0sg7R3jT8R-Mvg7Jp2tQ4zT5DV5NOW9OZtH99ZG4za3-SNtdjsBk4bafo for information about the Nobel Peace Prize nomination process. Specifically:

Who can nominate? Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize requires no invitation. Eligible nominators are university rectors or chancellors, professors of political and social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations and institutions that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

What is the benefit of allowing so many nominators? The Nobel Peace Prize is international and the broad eligibility of nominators ensures that a great variety of candidates from all corners of the world is brought forward to the Committee’s attention every year.

Is there a list of all of the nominees for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize? Contrary to common belief, there is no public list of the current year’s nominees. The complete list of eligible nominees of any year’s prizes is not disclosed for another 50 years – a restriction as governed by the Nobel statutes.

What does it mean to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize? Any person or organization can be nominated by anyone eligible to nominate. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has no say in submissions that arrives according to the criteria, strictly in who is actually awarded the prize in October. To simply be nominated is therefore not an endorsement or extended honour to imply affiliation with the Nobel Peace Prize or its related institutions.

Therefore I would suggest either that we do not mention her Nobel Peace Prize nomination, or if we do we put it into context that the nomination process is extremely broad, and the committee has no vetting process over nomination, and clearly sets out that being nominated is in no way an endorsement or honour in itself.

Also with the Time magazine cover. Hitler was on the cover of Time magazine. We should also not phrase this like an honour, just that it means she has become notable in public debate/influence.

Jopal22 (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! Those are both excellent NPOV observations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. A valuable contribution. Given that the nomination received so much coverage, maybe we should still mention it but point out the relevance of it all? Maybe something along these lines: "Her March 2019 Nobel Peace Price nomination received disproportionate media attention, as the nomination process tries to encourage a great variety of candidates and despite popular belief, most nominations never become public knowledge." Open to your thoughts. Schwede66 02:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

If she was nominated for a Nobel peace prize, that's a fact and should be cited. And it absolutely is an honour to be nominated by someone of considerable standing as described in the list of potential nominators above. No explanation is required about the significance of that nomination. This is an article about Greta and the various accolades, commentary (and abuse) she has received. It is not an article about the significance of various nominations and awards in general. Notagainst (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

In this case, the "award" is that a few member of parliament think highly of her. Until this thread came up, I accepted blindly and without the slightest basis that a nomination for a Nobel Prize is a BFD (big fucking deal). But the Nobel Committee's own efforts to debunk this pervasive bias has taught me the error of my ways. Once I learned the context, being so named by some members of parliament faded in import to such a degree it doesn't seem like lead material any more, but sure, we can add it in the body. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is a much BFD than her contribution to flygskam or "flight shame" which is still in the lead - but probably shouldn't be. Notagainst (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You might be right about the lead, but that's offtopic in this thread. Start another if you like. As for the Nobel the current Nobel webpage says

The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later. https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/

and an archived version of their page says

What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year? Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out. https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/

Every legislator in every national assembly is eligible to nominate, as well as several other people. This yeear they had the 4th highest number (over 300). I thought it was breathtaking until Jopal22 challenged my preconceptions. Given all this, maybe we should focus on what Greta says, which is... she would rather have the focus on her message than on herself. The big gap in this article is a punchy section about her message, e.g., her views on climate change, as you've said yourself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Using 'Existential crisis' in Wikivoice

The first sentence of the current version now describes global warming as an existential crisis (including the wikilink). It's perfectly fine to say that Thunberg says this, because that is factual.... Thunberg does say this.

However, it's an entirely different matter for Wikipedia to declare this as Truth(c) using WP:WIKIVOICE. Compare to The Guardian's recent decision to abandon "climate change" and "global warming" in favor of "climate crisis" and "global heating". They didn't just start doing that, they went through their internal processes and then told the world about them. (See climate crisis article for details). We have not even had a debate about this. Without a broad community consensus to make a similar change, we should maintain our historic approach to neutrally reporting what the RSs say. In this case, we should say that Thunberg talks this way and it should link the reader to the pinpoint article Climate crisis, which in turn needs lot more work from a broader range of editors than just me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

PS also, we really should not be linking to anything without carefully reading it. In this case, Existential crisis is all about psychiatric and emotional issues. I think the intended target is more like Global catastrophic risk or something like that, but why not just keep it in house at climate crisis and again, make that page better? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Then why not change it to that target? Be bold. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: I didn't because its already linked in paragraph 3, the reverting ed and I have previously butted heads and I'm working a better relationship, and I'm pushing 3RR. Thanks for adding your thoughts however. Eyes are appreciated! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree the current sentence does not feel neutral and we shouldn't describe global warming as an global catastrophic risk when that seems to be a (substantial?) minority view among scientists. We should maybe improve our pages of worst-case scenario GW, but that's something else. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I replaced it with "problems". The word is non-neutral and the wikilink is completely irrelevant. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy argues that we can't use the term existential crisis in the article even though "It's perfectly fine to say that Thunberg says this, because that is factual.... Thunberg does say this. However, it's an entirely different matter for Wikipedia to declare this as Truth." So all we just need to say is that Thunberg said it was an existential crisis and provide a RS.

Describing the climate crisis as a 'problem' is akin to describing the holocaust as a 'problem'. It minimizes the gravity of the issue and therefore is neither accurate or neutral. Notagainst (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The lede currently reads: "... who is credited with raising global awareness of the problems posed by climate change (also known as global warming)". I get the point about wikivoice, but not only is "problems" watered-down vocabulary, so are "climate change" and "global warming" a watered-down misrepresentation of "climate crisis" or "climate emergency" (words now preferred by outlets such as the Guardian). Esowteric+Talk 19:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not really true though.... "climate change" and "global warming" have very specific meanings in the field of climatology, and we're in shoal waters POV-wise because we're sailing into the shark infested waters of rhetoric and message framing. That said, if you look at our two articles climate change and global warming, take a look at the scope of each article and visit the talk pages about renaming them. That debate has been recurring for years and is about to heat up again. Of course, that's besides the point you raise about the Guardian and their move to embrace the expression "climate crisis". There certainly are RSs one could cite to argue Wikipedia should do that too. Even so, that will be heavy lift, I think. It would be a worthy discussion! We've just discussed this Talk:Global warming, although briefly.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Using the term "problem" is false balance. Wikipedia does have a bias towards the scientific and rational over denialism. The IPCC, a naturally cautious international body, has recently revied 6000 studies and said that we have only a dozen years to avert catastrophe. There is nothing wrong with stating in Wikipedia voice that there is a crisis.Charles (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

From what I read this is a common mis-interpretation of what the IPCC reports, but I have a sufficiently open mind to invite you to share an RS for where the IPCC said this in sufficiently clear terms that we don't need to spin it to reach the conclusion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I just edited the article with all the above comments taken to heart. The new bold revision contains an invisible inline comment regarding the Eng Wikipedia difficulties vis-a-vis the scope of climate change versus scope of global warming, a never-ending source of debate and consternation. Anyway, here is the new attempt as edited in this diff....

who is credited with raising global awareness of the problems posed by climate change<!-- >>>>>>>>>>>> EDITORS please do NOT link "climate change" because the correct article on the Eng Wikipedia is GLOBAL WARMING. Anyone who follows the climate crisis link will get to the right place, and we can link both CC and GW articles later<<<<<<<<<<<<< -->, and with holding politicians to account for their lack of action on what Thunberg calls the "[[climate crisis]]".

Will that work? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

PS.... IPCC uses the word "risks", not "problems". That could be tweaked to better comply with sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. I think it's possible that we will be able to use the climate crisis as wikivoice at some point in the (distant) future, when more centrally minded newspapers start using the term and it becomes mainstream in scientific discourse. But that point has not come yet and Wikipedia is not meant to be more progressive than the mean of newspapers. Using a term that is not (yet) in common use will also alienate people from Wikipedia that are fleeing their standard news outlets to get more reliable information here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me. The discussion about the scope of wiki articles on climate change and global warming is irrelevant to this article. If Greta calls the 'problem' an existential crisis, all that is required is a link to a RS where she makes such a statement. This is an article about her, so her description of the 'problem' is what should be included. Plus she is not the only one calling it an existential crisis. Many sources do so and all that is required is links to those RS. Notagainst (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@NAEG. If "The ONLY thing we care about is giving proper WP:WEIGHT to what is said in WP:Reliable sources", then the ONLY thing we should include (on this particular issue) are the RS where Greta says global warming is an existential crisis. Notagainst (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

First, this is the WP:LEAD which should be a summary of the body. Second, this is the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. So we can't pack too much into it. So with that context set, you say her description of the 'problem' is what should be included and the italicized article text above incluides which she describes as the "climate crisis". Seems to me that this text does exactly what you want, except that it relies on a meaningful link to climate crisis instead of the phrase "Existential crisis", which someone is sure to link to our article on mental health crises at existential crisis. The result would be a regrettable WP:EGG. So I don't see the mismatch between your stated goal and the italicized article text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

adjectives to describe speeches

In this edit, an editor reverted "passionate speeches" with an edit summary claiming GT is known for dispasssionate speech. Well, what do the sources actually say? Here is a sample of how media reported her various talks

• December minced no words and castigated https://qz.com/1497005/greta-thunberg-15-blasts-world-leaders-for-immaturity-at-cop24/
• April emotional speech https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/apr/16/greta-thunbergs-emotional-speech-to-eu-leaders-video
• July fierce speech https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/apr/16/greta-thunbergs-emotional-speech-to-eu-leaders-video
• August presents the issue with freshness and force https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/08/05/210371/210371 (opinion)

In contrast, I'm not finding much that describes her speeches as "dispassionate". Instead, I do find RSs that describe the status quo way of talking about climate as dispassionate (ironically, Wikipedia policy presently has us in the dispassionate bunch). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a distinction that needs to be made between the content of her speeches (what she actually says) and the tone of voice or manner in which she says it. The articles you cite above appear to be praising her content rather than her speaking style. I would argue her speeches are not 'passionate' because she is autistic (on the spectrum), which leads her to being unemotional in her presentation and to speak in a rather flat tone of voice. In fact her critics have often cited her 'monotone voice' as one of their concerns. I am thinking of adding a new section to the article about her Speaking Style because it is so distinctive, and one of the things that is notable about her. Notagainst (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem here, in my view, is that your fixated on your interpretatation, which is WP:Original research and no one cares. The ONLY thing we care about is giving prper WP:WEIGHT to what is said in WP:Reliable sources. The italicized words in my opening post all appear in those sources. You're welcome to add sources to the discussion. I would observe that "passonate speeches" is somewhat ambiguous. Does it mean delivery? The speaeker's emotional vibe? The audience reaction? So maybe my phrasing isn't the best. But it certainly isn't fatal, either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NEAG that critique should only be included when supported by RSs: prominent journalists / other people that have something to say. Also: please do recognize that autism is a spectrum and thus that it has different 'symptoms' for different people. The first hit on YouTube of her (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWsM9-_zrKo) has her becoming emotional for instance when she talks about the destruction of some nature, so it seems that these sources NEAG collected are right. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

As another wrinkle, we already have a consensus to shut up about her conditions except to report what Thunberg says about them in PRIMARY sources (that might include family comments too, I forget). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced dispassionate with "blunt". As you can see, this is not my interpretation; there are RS and your comment that no one cares is offensive. Notagainst (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

"Blunt" works, and those are some quality RSs you added, thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Greta's message

There has been discussion about whether or not it is appropriate to include the term 'existential crisis' in this article. NAEG argued that the term should not be included in the lead because the lead is meant to be a summary of what is in the body. Good point. When I looked through the body, I could not find any mention that Greta has referred to global warming as an existential crisis - even though that is probably the key message she has been making in every speech she has given. So I found a source where she did refer to global warming as an existential crisis and added it.

That set me thinking. It occurs to me that the article does not accurately represent Greta's point of view in one coherent section. Instead, the article has a collection of random quotes from various speeches she has made, and it is not clear from these what her overall message actually is. I propose that we create a new section, perhaps titled Thunberg's message, which describes her unique perspective and utilises comments from her various speeches. Otherwise, we could be adding comments every time she makes a new speech - which would not be helpful at all. Notagainst (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(A) Correction The issue is whether we say "existential risk" in WP:WIKIVOICE (e.g. "NAEG is a jerk") instead of using inline attribution (e.g., "His wife sometimes says NAEG is a jerk."). Why, of course we have to say, based on RSs what Greta says. So the debate here is variations of

Option A Thunberg is alarmed at the existential risk posed by the climate crisis. and

Option B Thunberg is alarmed at the effects of global warming, which she believes pose an existential risk and which she refers to as the "climate crisis". Thunberg characterizes them this way because, she says, blah blah blah....

(B) We agree we need a section on her views. I added a clean up tag to the article about the same time you started this thread, and the two things say pretty much the same thing. So on this we agree. The how is of course wide open at the moment.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

What is wrong with these options:

Option C Thunberg says global warming poses an existential risk to life on planet earth (link to source)

Option D Thunberg and numerous other commentators (links to RS) say that global warming poses an existential risk to life on planet earth.Notagainst (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

For this short hand "tone and vibe" discussion of the approach to take in a whole section, I don't see any difference between B and C. They are both RS based and use inline attribution, which is the point this debate, I think. As for "D" that's objectionable because this isn't an article about the views of others, and if the intent is to pump up the clout of GT's message with the weight of other's opinions then that would be POV. However, yes!! Bring on the views of others viz-a-viz "climate crisis" framing.... it would be wonderful to have a range of views start popping up at the near-stub article climate crisis. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Some use of WP:PRIMARY sources is probably appropriate, but this new section will be strongest if it relies on the bulk of quality WP:SECONDARY (or tertiary) sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I have created a section about "her message". Hopefully someone else will clean up the list of speeches. Notagainst (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yacht trip's Green credential

In the Life section, Greta's trip to the UN in carbon zero yacht is mentioned. Someone added this sentence "The green credentials of the trip have been questioned, as two new crew members will fly in from Europe for the return trip, and the two original crew members of the yacht may fly back to Europe.[23]" However the Guardian now reports that the journey will be carbon neutral, as the flights will be offset. Rather than add that new info to the article, I am removing the statement that the green credentials have been questioned. The 'questioning' is a subtle criticism which is now shown to be untrue thereby creating lack of balance. Adding the fact that the flights would be offset would lead to a storm in a teacup which does not add value to the section about what she has so far done in her Life. Notagainst (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

References

That the flights will be offset is a claim by Team Malizia’s manager (provider of the yacht used for this voyage), not a fact verified by the Guardian. Pavlor (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough - but the Guardian is a RS and its still a storm in a teacup.Notagainst (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Notagainst here. Gandydancer (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

(A) Also agree but add that I would keep an open mind about rewriting this issue as an example of an ad hominem attack.

(B) If that happens, beware of the POV challenge. Calculations of carbon footprint, carbon neutrality, carbon offset etc.... formula are as controversial as the design of survey questions... it's very easy to (un?)intentionally use a formula to get the answer you want to hear. So if we say anything at all, please do not assert any claims in WP:WIKIVOICE.

(C) It would be wonderful for editors who care to update those other pages I just linked, because they are out of date.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Reading the above, the evidence you present, and the conclusion seem completely disconnected, and it is slightly surreal to me! So here are my responses:

(A) The Guardian article, far from conflicting with the sentence, backs it up. It says "Her voyage sparked controversy, however, after a spokesman for Herrmann, the yacht’s co-skipper, told the Berlin newspaper TAZ that several people would fly into New York to take the yacht back to Europe." The article clearly backs up that the journey requirements have a significant carbon footprint.....and that they are going to have to undertake separate offsetting measures for the carbon.

(B) I completely reject the premise "'questioning' is a subtle criticism that has been shown to be untrue". I am happy to replace 'questioning' with a straight factual statement that the journey logistics as a whole were not carbon neutral. By putting questioning, it was simply meant to not tell the reader what to think, i.e. just set out the facts and let them have their own conclusions. Plus it is also shown to be true!

(C) To argue that we should leave out facts as it will create a "storm in a tea cup" is completely against the principles of wikipedia. To censor the truth, and purposely omit facts to control what the reader thinks is borderline WP:Vandalism.

(D) I do not understand the "ad hominem attack" premise. A ad hominem attack is attacking the person rather than the issue. Please back up that the author is making a personal attack to push a personal agenda, as you infer.

(E) I do not see what your issue is with Wikipedia:Let the facts speak for themselves. People should then be able to have their own opinions based on the facts e.g. "the journey as a whole has a higher carbon footprint that simply taking a plane journey, but I think it was the right thing to do to raise publicity for the cause, and it is not important because there is carbon offsetting", or "I think just taking a flight and carbon offsetting would have made more sense"

(F) The approach above is lying by omission (important facts are left out in order to foster a misconception). In this case to purposefully omit that that flights are required, and carbon offsetting is being applied, with the aim of giving the misconception that the journey logistics alone are carbon neutral.

Jopal22 (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that it's important to keep in mind that we must choose just a few words to tell of her U.S. trip and the fact that it may not have been completely carbon neutral is not one of the facts that we must choose. If this article were specifically about the sail boat trip to the U.S. then it most certainly would be appropriate. As it is the article states that the boat is carbon neutral, it does not say that the journey was, which is the best way to include this information, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

wrt "the article states that the boat is carbon neutral, it does not say that the journey was". You're right that it does not say that the journey is carbon neutral, but it does infer that it is, leaving many people reading with that impression by intentionally omitting inconvenient facts. We should replace "The yacht Malizia II [de] is fitted with solar panels and underwater turbines and so avoids generating carbon dioxide." with "The yacht Malizia II [de] is fitted with solar panels and underwater turbines and so avoids generating carbon dioxide, although carbon offsetting was required for commercial flights taken by the crew." Jopal22 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jopal22: Re your paragraph (F).... please re-read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Casting aspersions. In addition, the page is under DS for both BLP and CC, as explained in the banners at the top of the page and on your talk page. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy:. Agreed I could have been softer with my wording, but I stand by the premise of what I am saying. I also highlight WP:Casting aspersions issues above in "the 'questioning' is a subtle criticism which is now shown to be untrue" backed up by you saying this is an example of an ad hominem attack. This seems to me to be saying by adding the sentence it was my intention to add a personal attack which lacked encyclopaedic justification, and does not WP:Assume good faith. Anyway don't want to get bogged down by this, I just think we should be Wikipedia:Let the facts speak for themselves. Jopal22 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

When you say you don't want to get bogged down by this I understand you have withdrawn your criticisms here and this thread can be closed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

No. I mean I don't want get bogged down by accusing each other of WP:Casting aspersions and WP:Assume good faith. I completely stand by criticisms about not adding the carbon footprint and the offsetting taking place. Jopal22 (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Since this thread only exists to discuss article improvements, and general WP:FORUM discussion is not allowed, please propose some text with RS citation here in talk for us to examine and discuss. If you want to refer to what the article says please include a version number (see article history) and to quote use {{tq}} or something.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see above where I have already suggested new text. Namely "The yacht Malizia II [de] is fitted with solar panels and underwater turbines and so avoids generating carbon dioxide, although carbon offsetting was required for commercial flights taken by the crew."

Italics is the proposed text to be added. The citations are the Times article used in the original wording (text shown in Notagainst's opening message) (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/greta-thunberg-s-yacht-trip-to-new-york-not-as-green-as-it-may-seem-6fsn5sbpz), and the Guardian article cited in the Notagainst's opening message.

Jopal22 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Geez I have to apologize again!! This is getting to be a WALLOFTEXT and I overlooked that. I don't have a comment yet, I just wanted to admit my error ASAP. Sorry about that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Related articles

Interested eds may wish to develope the following

• consider addition to List of crossings of the Atlantic Ocean
• consider addition to Transatlantic_sailing_record#Crewed (oops, I guess that list uses a defined route for comparing times)
• Create Malizia II
• Create Voyage of Greta Thunberg.... there are enough RSs about various aspects of the trip to support a related article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Voyage of Greta Thunberg has been created. Schwede66 23:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Schwede NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Her full name should be included

Her full name should be included, "Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg". What is the problem with including it on here? MartiniShaw (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

In articles about living people we have very high standards for the inclusion of information. The source you provided (a Wikipedia page) is not considered of a high quality. In WP:BLP you can read which types of sources are of high enough quality to be used for this article.

Even if we have a reliable source for the information, I'd still argue against inserting it in the article, given the following guideline in WP:BLP: With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. If Thunberg or people around her who she probably gave permission to do so, are using the full name, it's clear they don't consider it a privacy concern. If they don't, they might do so for a reason. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Under what rule is "regarding their full name as private" a bar to the inclusion of the full name on Wikipedia? MartiniShaw (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You can find several more reliable sources if you google her full name, for example this article, but I agree with argument of Femkemilene.Jirka Dl (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Martin,

(A) This is a rehash of a prior discussion

(B) GT has some primary source material out there which (to best of my knowledge) does not use her full name, just Greta Thunberg

(C) See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#There_must_be_sources. I know you can find hits doing a google search but its a lot of work to wade through them to filter the actual RS-compliant ones from the chaffe, and once you do that, its going to be very hard to show us her full name is so "widely reported" as to overcome the spirit of the private personal information rule at WP:DOB. But if you want to try, go for it.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy Thanks MartiniShaw (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Under what rule is "regarding their full name as private" a bar to the inclusion of the full name on Wikipedia? MartiniShaw (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No rule that I can find.

When all one has to do is look at the Swedish article with her full name as supplied by the Swedish Tax Authority's published census, what's the actual point of censuring it here? Her parents chose to name her partly after a popular Belgian cartoon character. Is it English Wikipedia's job to hide that? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The citation has been given (by me) in edit summaries.... and the prior discussion....and this discussion above. All you have to do is read the links I bother to cite. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is far too biassed in favor of Greta Thunberg and her views.

Anything remotely critical of her, is immediately removed. Even the mention of her real name.

And how mentioning her name can be construed as criticism is beyond credibility. MartiniShaw (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

So, including discussions that make fun of her appearance, as you tried to do a couple of days ago, are "criticism"? Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't make fun of her appearance, as you are well aware.

To repeat: The article too biassed in favor of Thunberg and her views. MartiniShaw (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

LI didn't say that, as you are well aware: you just seem to think it's fine to include statements that make fun of herr appearance. Is that what you consider valid "criticism"? Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't say what? MartiniShaw (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of repetition: This article is far too biassed in favor of Greta Thunberg and her views. MartiniShaw (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree in full with MartiniShaw. The article has become an obvious embarrassment to Wikipedia, to anyone who wants us to create neutral articles and (as so heavily and obviously biased) to Ms. Thunberg herself. 2-3 editors working in sync own the article and remove anything that attempts to balance the promotional wholeness, and many of us have given up on such attempts. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

To point out the obvious, the article is about Greta Thunberg and her views - that's the whole point of having an article about her on wikipedia. Notagainst (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Response to Impartial Comment above

The article shouldn't be pro or anti Greta, just state the facts with a impartial context. The lead does sound like it is written by a WP:FAN though. My comments are:

Greta Thunberg (born 2003) is a Swedish student who is credited with raising global awareness of the risks posed by climate change, and with holding politicians to account for their lack of action on what Thunberg calls the "climate crisis".

(1) Don't think we need to mention she is a student (she's 16 it's given). Anyway she is no longer a student as she is taking time out travelling the world campaigning so this is false.

(2) I think credited with raising global awareness of the risks posed by climate change is a false representation of her. From what I have read and seen, she states the potential impact of climate change are already well known, and her movement is about compelling the world’s politicians act now on climate change. "The time for talking is over, we need action" etc.

(3) Saying holding politicians to account (to require a person to explain or to accept responsibility for his or her actions; to blame or punish someone for what has occurred.) sounds very WP:FAN and lacks citation. I haven't seen one politician justifying their (non) action as a result of Greta (only those aligned with her view agreeing).

In August 2018, at the age of 15, Thunberg took time off school to demonstrate outside the Swedish parliament holding up a sign calling for bold climate action. Her "school strike for the climate" began attracting media attention and other students then engaged in similar protests in their own communities. Together they organized a school climate strike movement, under the name Fridays for Future. After Thunberg addressed the 2018 United Nations Climate Change Conference, student strikes took place every week somewhere in the world. In 2019, there were at least two coordinated multi-city protests involving over one million pupils each.

(4) at least two coordinated multi-city protests involving over one million pupils each. This again sound like a WP:FAN. The citations only evidence one over a million. We should say reported to be over a million as there is no way to definitely verify the numbers. Also saying "at least" two generally sounds like "I want to make is sound like there are lots that big without providing evidence"

Thunberg is known for her blunt, matter-of-fact speaking manner, both in public and to political leaders and assemblies, in which she urges immediate action to address what she describes as the "climate crisis". At home, Thunberg persuaded her parents to adopt several lifestyle choices to reduce their own carbon footprint, including giving up air travel and not eating meat.

(5) This feels like something that should be in the body and not the lead. It feels a little like we are promoting her.

In 2019 Thunberg was featured on the cover of Time magazine, which named her a "next generation leader" and noted that many see her as a role model.[5] Thunberg and the school strike movement were also featured in a 30 minute Vice documentary titled Make the World Greta Again. Some media have described her impact on the world stage as the "Greta Thunberg effect".

(6) That she has been on the front of Time, and in a Vice documentary seems like it should be in a media coverage section of the body, and not in the lead. It again feels a little like we are promoting her.

(7) Some media have described her impact on the world stage as the "Greta Thunberg effect". The link is to a single newspaper that uses the phrase once in the headline. There does not seem to be any evidence that this is a phrase used widely in the media or in general. Also what the "Greta Thunberg effect" is is not really explained, with the wording "impact on the world stage" ambiguous and aggrandising.

The Swedish wikipedia lede is better:

Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg, born January 3, 2003, is a Swedish opinion maker and activist in the climate issue. She was noticed in August 2018, when she began to sit regularly outside the Swedish Parliament with a placard with the text "School strike for the climate". The campaign inspired young people in several countries to conduct similar demonstrations; they gather under the name Skolstrejk for the climate or "Fridays for Future".

I would look to improve the lead myself, but my previous attempt add a sentence to improve the page impacted by WP:CHERRYPICKING, got push back from multiple editors.

Jopal22 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm a major contributor to the lead, I guess I should reply. First, Jopal22, thank you for demonstrating meaningful discussion. You obviously took time and care to think about improving the article.

(Re 1) "student" can go, but I do think we need to say something more than her birth year, to report her youth, as most of the RSs take pains to do. I'm open to other wording that builds upon "born 2003"

(Re 2) Disagree for two reasons. First, you've read some PRIMARY sources and are sharing your thoughts, so I'll answer in kind. There is more than one level of "knowing", more than one level of "awareness". See cognitive dissonance and Dunning–Kruger effect for example. If the risks are so well known, why would she bother to list examples? So reading the same primary material and applying my prior learning I come to the opposite conclusion. But of course none of that matters, because we prefer to base articles on WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY sources. In this case, for just one example,

“The Game Changer Award was created for Greta Thunberg," says British GQ editor in chief Dylan Jones. "Her fearless dedication to raising awareness of the global climate change crisis makes her the absolute embodiment of this award...

There are plenty other RSs to use as examples if you dislike this one. She is credited in this manner.

(Re 3) I don't like "hold politicians to account either". That was added by @Notagainst: in this edit so I'll be interested to hear his/her reply to your constructive criticism on this point.

..... I will insert answers to the other points but wish to save my work .....

(Re 5) It's mostly my work and I would be happy to change it or see it changed. The most important part to retain is, in some agreed way, the phrase "climate crisis". Per WP:MULTI I'm intentionally not adding words to the prior sentence... we're debating how to talk about the Thunberg and "climate crisis" in other threads.

(Re 6) I mostly agree (about Time and that)... For summary style appropriate in the WP:LEAD I would rather just say she has received numerous honors and awards.

(Re 7) The RSs do credit Thunberg with a major part of the action leading to coining of a new word in several languages, with investor-noticeable imapcts in at least two global industries Aviation and carbon offsets. Fact there is just one cite is moot... per WP:LEADLINK we don't need any, unless its likely to be challenged. Well I guess you've challenged it. If you don't like that cite maybe this one, about the spike in investment dollars flowing into the carbon offset industry, with shared credit between [{David Attenborough]] and Thunberg.

THANK YOU for thoughtful constructive criticism. I don't put a lot of weight on the Swedish editors consensus, but by all means, you're welcome to advocate for changes you want to claim as your own. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for your responses. I was worried about WP:CPP from our previous interaction, but I think we are more comfortable with each others intentions now!. My comments on things which you pushed back on above

(Re 2) I think we are probably in agreement here but I have not explained myself clearly enough. The part I disagree with is "risks posed by" (which is not sourced by the GQ ref). Her "raising awareness of the global climate change crisis" is about making a big issue about the failure to meet the Paris agreement. This is what her original strike was about, this is what she talks about in all her platforms (i can get multiple primary/secondary/tertiary reference). Although she will sometimes refer to the risks, she explicitly says she is about action and getting things done. That's why I don't like it, as it misrepresents the central tenant of her movement.

(Re 4) Assume you agree?

(Re 5) Yeah slightly harsh of me here, but I don't like opinions on her style in the lead as it is never fully subjective. (critics might say her style is pretentious etc)

(Re 6) Would prefer not mentioning "honours" at all, as everyone has won some honour in their life, so it lacks context and feels a bit like a way of saying she is awesome

(Re 7) This (and promoting the Swedish wiki) is where I got a bit lazy, and wrapped up too quickly without doing my research, so I've lost some credibility here. Completely agree "Greta Thunberg effect" is a thing, although I think "Greta effect" has become more common. Still don't like the "impact on the world stage" phasing though.

If I had complete freedom to do what I pleased with the lead (which I don't), it would look like this (with some more refs, and altering body to be consistent where necessary):

Greta Thunberg (born 2003) is a Swedish climate activist who campaigns political policy and societal behaviour are not changing enough to reduce carbon emission by the levels required to avert a "climate crisis" caused by human activity.

In August 2018, at the age of 15, Thunberg began protesting by sitting outside the Riksdag every day for three weeks during school hours with the sign Skolstrejk för klimatet (school strike for the climate). Her demands were that the Swedish government reduce carbon emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement. Her "school strike for the climate" began attracting media attention and other students then engaged in similar protests in their own communities. Together they organized a school climate strike movement, under the name Fridays for Future. There have been numerous coordinated multi-city protests supporting her cause, with the largest occurring on 15 March 2019 reported to involve over one million pupils in over 100 countries.

In addition to attending rallies in cities participating in the Fridays for Future protest, her profile has resulted in her receiving invitations to speak in various venues including the 2018 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Katowice, the 2019 World Economic Forum (Davos), and France's lower house of parliament. In August 2019 she arrived in New York City to begin her climate demo tour of the Americas, including attending a UN Climate Action Summit in New York, and the 2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Santiago de Chile.

The term "Greta effect" has been used by the media to describe political, commercial or public actions that are perceived to have resulted from of her campaigning. Thunberg openly talks about her Asperger's syndrome, which she says limited her at times in her life, but was instrumental in her perspective and focus on the issue of climate change, which led to her protest movement.

References

Proposed merge with Voyage of Greta Thunberg

Doesn't need a separate article, best just to slightly expand the mention of it in her article. PamD 09:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw merge proposal. See below. PamD 07:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

At first sight, I agree. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

We only just proposed and created the stub what... maybe 48 hours ago? It came about in the course of a prior talk thread discussion, in which the proposer did not participate and has not even mentioned in this proposal. Methinks the precipitous timing of this proposal is a good faith accident but it is a textbook example of leaping without looking and unilateral wave making without even making contact first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't warrant a separate article. I suggest speedy deletion. Notagainst (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(A) No one is talking about sources (B) The merge proposal comes less than 10 hours after the stub was created. Could someone explain the reason for the rush? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I proposed the merge. I came across the stub while stub-sorting. There was no reference in its edit history to any previous discussion. It seems to me to be a small episode in the life of an amazing young woman, and not worth having a separate article. "The rush"? Well, if something isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia, it isn't appropriate. Stub-sorting brings a new pair of eyes to an article. Yes, it's sourced, but that still doesn't show it to have lasting encyclopedic significance as a stand-alone event. PamD 11:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

And to describe my action as "leaping without looking and unilateral wave making without even making contact first" is inappropriate. I see something which appears not to need a separate article, I have a quick look at its edit history in case it has suffered vandalism or major deletions etc, I PROD it if I think this is the right thing to do. PamD 11:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:MERGEREASON, If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time... I don't think you can realistically appraise that (A) less than 10 hours after an article is started (B) where the article has multiple contributing eds and (C) you haven't even inquired what they know and plan. Instead, I think there has to be some significant passage of time before you can reasonably draw this inference and I am certain that is needed before you can do it without causing irritation. In this case, the reasonable amount of time clock has barely started to tick. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in the article gives any indication that there is anything of interest to add to it. I should perhaps have used PROD and if that failed taken it to AfD. If you have more sourced, appropriate, content to add to the article then please do so. At present it shows no sign of being a suitable topic for a stand-alone article. Please try explaining why it should not be merged instead of responding aggressively. PamD 14:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

If its true, as I believe, that it takes more time to deal with this approach than it does to research and build article text... and doubly so when the same eds are engaged in related debates here and elsewhere, then its not clear to me which of our approaches is best characterized as "aggressive". If you don't believe you were inappropriately impatient then I can agree to disagree about that all try to learn from the exchange and move on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hard disagree. It's been up less than 10 hours, at least wait until editing on the page has died down (which is unlikely to happen.) It is definitely relevant enough to warrant it's own page, imo. --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Withdraw merge proposal. The article has now been expanded substantially and is no longer just a statement that she made her trip. While it probably has excessive detail there seems enough content to have a stand-alone article. Hint: when starting a new stub as a result of a talk-page discussion, please mention that discussion in edit summary and/or talk page. Thanks. PamD 07:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

The sentence "After Thunberg's student climate strikes gained momentum, climate change deniers Stefan Winterbauer of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and Katerina Janouch writing in the Swiss right-wing magazine Die Weltwoche, said there were "forces behind her". needs to be changed quickly.

Stefan Winterbauer is not a climate change denier, but a German journalist, writing for a german media critics journal called "meedia". He was mentioned in this VICE piece: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/mbzg8q/the-climate-change-deniers-trying-to-discredit-greta-thunberg - but from then on wrongly quoted. Here you can find a twitter thread where Stefan Winterbauer makes clear that he: a) is not a climate change denier b) does not belong to the "Global Warming Foundation" c) has never published anything in the mentioned publication named "Weltwoche" --> https://twitter.com/swinter/status/1168039779973423104

I strongly recommend deleting these three points in order to prevent any ongoing damage to reputation. Marcusengert (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the copy that you have suggested. It seems that we'd need better sources to include it - even though I'm unsure about Vice and the German site. Anyone that wants to return it can present their opinion here. Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Role of her mother

In the first section, it speaks a little of Greta's parents.

It omits mention that her mother is a celebrated climate activist. This is relevant and needs to be added.

One source is the press release from WWF Sweden on her being given the title "The Environmental Hero of the Year 2017" award, it is the source press release here: https://www.wwf.se/pressmeddelande/artisten-malena-ernman-och-biologen-rebecka-le-moine-utsedda-till-arets-miljohjaltar-av-wwf-2689982/ 173.206.223.5 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Without the slightest bit of context, I'm opposed. This isn't her Mother's biography and omitting any RS based facts that provide context for its relevance, this factoid lends itself to climate denier spin, which per WP:BEANS and the wisdom of linguist George Lakoff (e.g, when rebutting bad rhetoric don't repeat it) I won't articulate NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I've worked on a lot of bios and in my experience it is quite common to include some information on parents, sibs, children, etc. In fact, in my experience it is the norm. Probably best to not get into suggestions that what we include in this bio may or may not sway our readers about the reality of climate science and include or skip information that may influence them. Gandydancer (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)