Talk:Greta Thunberg

Notability

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.

---

Is this person really worthy of an article? 10:56, 4 December 2018‎ 31.208.27.41

No. Unless you consider that every persona created by the media for political purposes is worthy of an entry. Move to delete. Bougatsa42 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes! If you AfD it, about a dozen keeps will land really fast and it will be snow closed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes! I think it fulfills clearly WP:N criteria. Jirka Dl (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes! Keep it please! Fturco (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You needn't worry. The chance of this article ever, ever, ever being removed from Wikipedia is near zero. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Likewise, any criticism of this gallant climate hero will be excised from the article faster than you can say "climate has always changed."174.0.48.147 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

My, doesn't that statement just bubble with fairness? It is sad to see Wikipedia move into the leftist, One Wold camp--and I would feel identically if the movement were to the opposite side of the spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:C89D:AA62:48B4:5E8F (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this thread has just about run its course. This talk page is not a forum. She's notable because of policies and guidelines, period. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:52, 3 January 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.

Young Model of the Year?

My English is far from perfect - maybe the my translation is not correct. Model - in Swedish the meaning is "Example for others". Thanks for help. Jirka Dl (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC) I was confused by this also. Changed it to "Rolemodel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.172.205 (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Solved Jirka Dl (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Autism, Asperger's or both?

There are discrepancies among sources regarding Thunberg's diagnosis of Asperger's and/or Autism. e.g.

• From The New Yorker: "both Greta and her younger sister, Beata, have been diagnosed with autism, A.D.H.D., and other conditions..." [1]
• From Heavy.com: "Thunberg is 15 and autistic.... "Greta says on her Twitter profile she has Aspergers and told a journalist from The New Yorker that she sees “the world a bit different, from another perspective. I have a special interest. It’s very common that people on the autism spectrum have a special interest.” [2]
• From The Guardian: "Greta has Asperger’s syndrome, which in the past has affected her health, [her father] says." [3]
• Grist.org confusingly states: "Diagnosed with Asperger's and ADHD...", while linking to the New Yorker article above which does not specify Asperger's. [4]

Now, when reliable sources contradict each other, what do we do? Realizing that Asperger's is on the Autism spectrum, simply stating "autism" may misrepresent reality, but self-reported claims of a minor may also be misleading, inaccurate, or unreliable. We should look to the highest quality sources with the most accurate information, and attribute when claims differ. Sometimes journalists are simply sloppy or unclear. If enough sources corroborate each other, it might be more appropriate and precise to state something like "Thunberg has been diagnosed as on the Autism spectrum, and claims to have Asperger's" or some such qualification, of course respecting WP:BLP, WP:PROPORTION, etc. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Animalparty. I do not agree with "but self-reported claims of a minor may also be misleading" - but I agree with rest of your proposal. Autism spectrum is covering, according to me, the problem.Jirka Dl (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This article smells of manipulation

This article looks like it was written by a PR person. I think this might be the result of certain parties trying to manipulate people's perception of this person by curating her Wikipedia article.

My arguments are that this article:

• lists her "ancestor on her father's side" as a notable relative, which is very contrived. While Svante contributed to global warming research, he died in 1927 and him being included feels like someone trying to force him into the article. Global warming knowledge is not transferred genetically;
• was created on 1 Dec 2018 (just over a month ago), and it's already featured as a "Did you know" on the front page where she's described as "inspiration". Someone is influencing how this person is viewed in the public eye;
• is about a person whose parents are successful public figures—ones who could afford hiring PR people to represent their daughter, and who understand the value of publicity;

I am not opposed to the politics this person represents. I am bringing this up because I believe Wikipedia should be impartial, and this article doesn't feel objective. It feels like it was written by a marketer hired to manage this person's public image.

Hi Eseb. I think your fears are completely out of the question. If you will look at history, you will see that this article was created by many Wikipedians adding word by word. I had personally added whole paragraph about Prizes and Awards (from sewiki), and I am totally sure I am not her marketer - I am Czech, researching environmental problems in University. I had never seen her, but I see her as a very important person in the young people climate movement - following her activities some period before. For me is very interesting that this page is quite frequently under different attacks trying to dehonest here etc. Jirka Dl (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I added the ancestor content. No manipulation intended. I just add facts reported in media. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The article having been authored by multiple persons is not an indicator of impartiality. It has been observed that Wikipedia editors who appear impartial have accepted money for create credible-looking articles for people/businesses. We don't know who owns the accounts which authored this article. Alongside that, genuine members of the community such as yourselves add credibility to things which might have been written by PR people by contributing to the article, which makes it difficult to figure out if manipulation is actually taking place.

To me it seems too convenient that this person is described as an inspiration to people on Wikipedia's home page so soon after creation. Having seen what unscrupulous marketers are capable of, I'm worried this article might not be totally legitimate.

I personally believe in this person's mission, but it's important to ensure that all articles on Wikipedia are objective no matter what side you're on. Trust, but verify. Questioning and vetting is an important part of the scientific method. You need to be as critical of people on your side as you are of people on "the other side". User:Eseb (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a bit ludicrous. I just cannot imagine Greta paying Wikipedians or an expensive PR firm to promote herself. I mean, her allowance must be like a buck fifty. Plus, my source, if I remember right, was DemocracyNow.org, not exactly an org involved in profit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying a 16-year-old did this, but rather her family--possibly in an attempt to support her and create the foundation of a public-facing career for her in the near future. Please don't try to twist my words and make them sound ridiculous. All you have to do is give a marketing agency a bunch of money and they'll take care of all the dirty work for you. User:Eseb (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose anything is possible. Do you have any evidence? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eseb: I created (later nominated to DYK) after student protests in Australia which became headlines even in India where I am. Afterwards only I came to know the name Greta Thunberg. The word "inspiration" used by the news articles which covered Australian protests. Thanks. Gfosankar (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: in response to I just cannot imagine Greta paying Wikipedians or an expensive PR firm to promote herself, read this and possibly this post. --Treetear (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Treetear.

The first article is from the seeminly right-wing Sydsvenskan. That story is about someone's opinion, a bit of which translates as: "...Henriksson builds his reasoning on circumstantial evidence...to assumptions and to his professional experience from watching the PR industry...I recognize a PR campaign when I see one, he writes on Facebook..."

The second article is from an utterly, utterly unreliable source and the content appears to be pure conjecture. Did you inspect that source? It is like a blog, with Wordpress at the bottom.

Those pieces are not news, but opinions. So, they have opinions just like User:Eseb has an opinion. Where's the evidence. If I'm missing something in translation, please accept my apologies. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And it looks like all this is coming from Andreas Henriksson. I don't have Facebook and see nothing about him outside of that. Do you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will link here also one opinion - facebook clarification from her mother - of course, this is personal declaration. In addition I have to say once more - look through the history of the page, you will see that the article was written in very small amendments by many many people - this is really no way how PR agencies work.Jirka Dl (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Sydsvenskan is certainly not a right-wing paper, it is one of the most anti-right-wing and liberal dailies in Sweden (and the leading daily newspaper of its region). Also, it's a paper that is normally quite skeptical of anyone questioning the man-made impact on climate change. Their mentioning Henriksson's analysis of the situation around Greta makes a quite significant source, they wouldn't have wanted to touch this stuff if it had been a mere fringe theory. 195.67.149.163 (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Student strikes for climate

Dear everyone. Considering the vast amount of international news coverage on the student strikes for climate, should we make it as an independent article?
144.85.152.97 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC).

Looking at the numbers of participants in the article, this looks like rather minor event. Pavlor (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, many more school strikes are in preparation - I think that independent article would be useful - not all strikes are so much connected with Greta.Jirka Dl (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Only on Friday 11/1/2019 - School strikes for climate on about 80 places worldwide - documented here.Jirka Dl (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Speech "You are stealing our future"

Hello. Do you know if it is possible to have Greta Thunberg's speech "You are stealing our future" on Wikisource?
144.85.154.189 (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC).