Talk:Greta Thunberg

Article is definitely NOT NPOV

According to: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/greta-thunberg-climate-change-movement.html

Jimmie Åkesson, leader of the Sweden Democrats has described her as "the creation of her parents and a PR agency, echoing a puppet narrative that has become so firm on the European right that a full-length book has already been published about the family, The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg." He is the leader of a party that has about 1/7 of the legislature in the subject's native country.

And accodring to:

https://www.thegwpf.com/greta-thunberg-pr-puppet-or-climate-figurehead/

The article claims that “their success is largely down to the Swedish PR expert Ingmar Rentzhog, who has good contacts in several propaganda organizations”

Considering the controversial topic, and how well expanded the article is, almost completely missing any criticism of this individual does not allign with wp:NPOV. 205.175.106.54 (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the criticism that is published about her is from unreliable sources such as the GWPF, which we cannot add to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I agree with you that this article has a slight bias in favour of Thunberg, but adding ad hominum attacks of questionable sources is not the way forward. I think the best way forward is to reword and restructure what's already there. We tend to follow the wording from the sources to literally instead of rephrasing them in our neutral WikiVoice. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

NYMag is not a reliable source? 205.175.106.54 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Might be a reliable source for fact some bloke in Sweden is reputed to think X. That's about what we have here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"some bloke in Sweden" is the leader for 13 years of the 3rd (almost 2nd) largest party in the country where this political BLP is a citizen of, and according to this article, IS representing her country in part. Maybe you should go read wp:NPOV again 2601:602:9200:1310:682E:C7A2:A8BE:BBB6 (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)

@205.175.106.54:I've actually read the first article. It says that the Swedish bloke said she was ″the creation of her parents and a PR agency″, so ″[he was] echoing a puppet narrative that has become so firm on the European right″ that they published a book about her. I think that kind of undermines your point. --Yhdwww (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2019

(UTC) This whole article is predicated on the assumption that Ms Thunberg's views on climate change are correct. This in itself is NOT NPOV. What if Thunberg is wrong? 81.141.154.79 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

milder autism spectrum disorder

Sorry if this has been talked to a consensus, but I still found some editorial usage of "autism" as being her illness, which I think is a mistake. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve reverted your second edit that added the word ”milder” because the cited source for that sentence only references “autism” without qualification. DeCausa (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree because as editors we ought to edit on the side of scientific fact when there are a variety of sources, some that are exact in reference to such fact and some which use abbreviated or quoted references.

Just because a RS is misleading in its definition does not mean we need be if we have a choice. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There is already a much discussed consensus to rely on the subjects own description of her conditions. See talk page archives. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's gotta change. Think about it. Are you going to rely upon a politician's description of their own conditions? If Harvey Weinstein is calling himself a "compulsive sex addict who can't help himself" is that what you will rely upon? Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I hasten to add, I don't mean to be disparaging toward this subject; she seems to be a wonderful person. That was just the best analogy I could think of relating to the relying upon a subject's self description; that is absurd, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The ‘self-description’ point is a bit of a red herring in this instance. The point being made was that a particular commentator had said that being on the autistic spectrum had made her fearless in promoting her views. It actually makes no sense to insert the concept of “mild” into that. The commentator did not say that being on the mild end of the spectrum gave her that fearlessness. That gives an implication that the mildness was relevant to her fearlessness, which is not what’s being said. DeCausa (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Transatlantic crossing

It should be noted that 2 Europeans took a plane flight across the Atlantic to meet Thunberg's boat and sail it home from the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.177.139.146 (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Not relevant at all. Trillfendi (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

100% relevant. That flight absolutley nullifies her claim to no carbon emissions. The litterally flew a plane in. This page has been hijacked. Now, like many other wiki articles, it's just a propanganda piece in favfour of the activists (who are utterly refusing to back down). (DarkMithras)

howis it not relevant?? It cost 2x in emissions than if she'd just fly! Can we stop this pathetic argument and just state the facts on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andru nl (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You'll be lucky! This article has been well and truly hijacked. 86.187.226.244 (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Already extensively discussed. Existing consensus can be found in the talk page archvies NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the voyage should be in the article, but it's placing could be improved (not sure how, or I'd do it!). I'd rather see it somehow embedded in the rest of the article. Maybe a new section on her North America trip, with that as the first part, and the UN speech and a mention of Montreal? Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead infobox image

I’m the second editor to have restored the long-standing lead infobox image after several new users experimented with adding different images to the infobox, both of which, IMO, were suboptimal than the current image. I have no objection to a different image, but it should be an improvement. The current image shows her looking off the frame in a somewhat hopeful and optimistic way, with the Flag of Europe in the background. Viriditas (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What has the flag of Europe got to do with anything in this article? And is Thunberg known for appearing hopeful and optimistic? Somehow you have managed to conflate Inappropriate extreme confidence and Euroscepticism/Pro-Europeanism with this article. Not good at all! 81.141.154.79 (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be very confused. I merely described the image I restored so that people would know what image I was referring to in this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Progress on this article...at last!

This article has begun to be more balanced, thank Goodness.

It's not quite such a fawning fan page since a few critical points have been allowed to stay put.

Just for how long, remains to be seen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg#Criticism_of_Thunberg_and_her_campaign MartiniShaw (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no substance to the criticism, just the usual ad hominem attacks by climate change denialists. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Martin Shaw, I think you will find it's hard to write what you would see as a balanced commentary about criticism of an autistic child by middle aged, right wing, white men. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the same website that editors are dead set on trying to make Donald Trump a good article knowing damn well that article will never be stable. There are many “controversial” figures who have Good or Featured articles—even Adolf Hitler—it just takes patience to sift through the BS that comes through here daily. She has struck a nerve. Trillfendi (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler? What's he got to do with Greta? But while we're there, those People's Cars of Uncle Adi seem to be pretty durable and eco-friendly. (That's a joke - possibly in dubious taste - but still a joke. You may have heard of them. ) MartiniShaw (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s almost as if I said he was an example of a controversial figure whom long-suffering editors somehow fought through years of constant vandalism, disruption, and lack of neutrality to get to a Good Article standard. Trillfendi (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Sabbatical?

The article falsely asserts that Ms. Thunberg took a "one year sabbatical" from school. I am assuming good faith by suggesting the editor who added that is simply unfamiliar with the meaning of this word, and not just an ideological fanboy/girl. In either case, this sentence must either be removed, or amended to say something along the lines of "took a year off from school", "withdrew from school", "took a break from school". 2601:18F:4101:4830:312A:8D01:CFAB:77EC (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's not the correct term, but it was used in Time magazine [1] so it is reliably sourced. WWGB (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Just goes to show "reliable sources" aren't always correct...MartiniShaw (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

How about "...what Time Magazine described as a one year sabbatical..."? HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed external link to Time magazine, reworded reference of Thunberg's sabbatical from school by quoting Time, and cited Time as source.Johnrichardhall (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC) 81.141.154.79 (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the main point is being missed. Whether or not Time used the word "sabbatical" is an irrelevant justification for inclusion. There appears to be an overwhelming consensus acknowledging the fact that the use of the word "sabbatical" is inaccurate, and therefore inappropriate in this context.

I would humbly suggest that this line must be removed entirely. If Time writes something incorrectly, why is it worthy to include that error in an encyclopedic article?

2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:62 (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Consensus where and for what reason? You've asserted that the usage is wrong with no explanation. The word may have technical meanings in, say, academia, but such meanings are not the only valid ones; the word can be used correctly to refer to a person taking a break from activities which they will return to in the future. — Bilorv (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, words have meanings, and saying that some people sometimes use them inaccurately doesn't justify that usage. This is Wikipedia, not a Reddit discussion. Correct use of language here is important, and "sabbatical" is incorrect. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:62 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Time said it, everything in this thread is irrelevant WP:Original research. If you want to dispute Time's characterization, then show us other RSs of equal caliber.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy is correct that we should be guides by sources. Bilorv is also correct. English is not a language like French where there is some definitive accepted authority of language changes. Instead, English can evolve and change over time as the way people use it changes. Words can have different meanings in different contexts and while in some contexts using words in ways which can be argued to be wrong or misleading needs to be avoided, in other's it's no big deal. In this case, using a direct quote seems fair enough, as it seems unlikely the usage will significantly mislead or confuse readers about what is happening. I don't know the details of Thunberg's plans but I'd note our article Gap year currently includes sabbatical as an alternative name. It has done so in some form I think since 2011 when added by an IP [2] i.e. when Thunberg was still ~9 years old. It's not sourced from what I can tell, but this source [3] from 2013 does seem to use the terms interchangeably. This source from 1982 talks about tertiary students taking a sabbatical [4] although with quotation marks and only I think in the headline (but I couldn't read the while source). This from 2014 talks about family sabbaticals including their school age children [5] (try [6] if that doesn't work). In other words, how the Time appears to be using the word may be uncommon, but it's definitely not unheard of or something Time invented. In the UK there are apparently sabbatical officers [7] which seems to be sort of a cross-over of a classical academic sabbatical and a gap year. There are also others sources e.g. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] which use sabbatical in ways which don't really fit the classic mold. I'd note that the academic sabbatical is fairly different from the Shmita or sabbatical year in Judaism too. Nil Einne (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Impact section

Why is there a quote from Putin on this page? Commentary from him doesn't contribute knowledge about Thunberg. Criticism sections are discouraged. This article is beginning to fill with too many quotations. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in first voice, summary prose. We don't want to fill these pages with copy and paste quotations from politicians as we must not include propaganda of any kind. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Why should criticism of Thunberg be discouraged, if it is valid and constructive? 81.141.154.79 (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the Putin quote may have now been moved. (Not REmoved.) But that doesn't negate your point. There is far too much totally predictable content that consists of entirely predictable frothings at the mouth from people who want to disparage Thunberg. It's irrelevant to the purpose of a BLP article in Wikipedia, which is to describe a person and their actions. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the commentary about her has become too lengthy. Could do with a bit of abbreviation and tidying, with WP:CRITS in particular and WP:NOTNEWS in general in mind... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. A major world leader directly criticises a bio subject, and and is widely reported and commented on, ... and it’s not in the subject’s article? That doesn’t make any sort of sense. DeCausa (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense if the editor wants to slant the article in favor of Ms Thunberg. 81.141.154.79 (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The issue in question is not just about quoting Putin's words - it's about keeping within the guidelines (those I've mentioned above, WP:BLP and many others), maintaining encyclopaedic tone and not bloating the article with unnecessary verbatim reports of who said what about her. The content can be summarised, including some of the more notable names and citations so that readers can drill down if interested in the detail. This article is meant to be primarily about Thunberg's life, achievements and activities, not others' opinions of what she does or says. She still has a long life ahead of her, with a lot more media attention in the months and years ahead. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that to a point. The criticism section relies too much on random quotes at the moment. It should be based around themes if it’s to remain - although ideally it should be integrated into the rest of the article. But her notoriety is because she is advancing a campaign. If there is criticism of her campaign then that is highly relevant to her bio. DeCausa (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Why should criticism of Thunberg be discouraged, if it is valid and constructive? 81.141.154.79 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s not the test. Wikipedia is about reflecting reliable sources. See WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Then why should criticism of Thunberg be discouraged, if it is valid and constructive and reliably sourced? 81.141.154.79 (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you read WP:DUE? DeCausa (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes and my comment still stands.81.141.154.79 (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Then you’ll realise why your perception of “valid” and “constructive” is irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

How many individual activists were commented upon by both the president of U.S. and the president of Russia in the same week? This is huge. A 16 year old has enough attention from world leaders that they publicly criticize her. Try arguing against WP:DUE when Reuters, Associated Press, and Agence France Presse all cover the criticism. starship.paint (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The criticism can be noted but we must remain neutral. We need to write in first voice and not include propaganda here. That means quotations from politicians should be discouraged especially if they are critical of a living person. Its not huge, its trivial. We aren't here to document what was said about things. Likewise we don't note on Putin's page that he said something about Thunberg. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

As the person that added the quote in the first place, I disagree with you that this is solely a propaganda. Putin might not be the most loved person but he is a prominent person on the political spectrum and what he said is valid(how climate change activism ignore the developing countries) which has not been mentioned elsewhere. If you are against quotes, we can paraphrase it such that it does relay the whole message but I do not see you advocating to remove other quotes that are supportive of her. But to be frank my personal opinion is you support her(which is nice) but have a bias because of your support to eliminate any criticism from her wikipedia page which is supposed to be an objective source. kamyarg (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"Your support to eliminate any criticism from her wikipedia page"? You hit the nail on the head. Thank you. MartiniShaw (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly support including Putin's comments. IMO both the Trump and Putin wording is presently quite well-done. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that criticism of Thunberg does not necessarily only reflect on her, it also reflects on the criticiser. Also, we are not only here to read how Thunberg treats the world, but also how the world treats Thunberg. starship.paint (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don't see how including entirely predictable criticism from anyone adds anything to an article about Thunberg at all. I don't like Elvis Presley, but that is irrelevant to what he was. Those criticising Thunberg criticise every person pointing out that global warming and climate change are happening. It's not news. It's no surprise. It's completely irrelevant. There is a good reason criticism sections are discouraged. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s an overstatement. Firstly, there’s a criticism section because someone decided to create an Impact section, which contains plaudits. Given that and given that there is criticism out there, the Impact section couldn’t just be praise. Secondly, no one would find your opinion of Elvis Presley notable or of significance. It’s not comparable to the opinion’s of Macron, Putin and Trump. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, the opinions of those three are undeniably significant. Thirdly, it’s not just about the opinions of climate change deniers or whether those opinions are “predictable” to you - See Macron. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the opinions of Macron, Putin and Trump ARE insignificant on this occasion, because the article is about Thunberg, and what they have said is simply a rehash of opinions we already know they hold on the broader issues of global warming and climate change. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump and Putin were talking about Thunberg (“very happy”, “poorly informed”). This article is about Thunberg. starship.paint (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there any surprise in what Trump and Putin said? HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Does something need to be surprising to be included? Of course not. starship.paint (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

To some extent, yes, otherwise this encyclopaedia would be full of repetitive statements of the bleeding obvious from high profile politicians. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Re the question about to use or not to use quotes, IMO when one is making a critical comment it is usually best to use a quote. BTW, I've been trying to think of how commentary was used for a similar BLP and came up with Edward Snowden - who might be helpful for comparison. Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Given that Trump and Putin are not experts in any relevant field, and have not forwarded any meaningful ad rem criticism, their opinions are irrelevant.

IP: You're repeating yourself. And you seem to imply that the criticism by Trump and Putin is valid and constructive, but it's not. See WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Since Thunberg is part of an activist movement which merely promotes the scientific consensus, which also happens to be Wikipedia's POV, rather than some fringe viewpoint, pseudoscientific bunk, denialist POV or conspiracy theory like David Icke (or, for that matter, AGW denialists), and urges governments to heed the treaties they have themselves signed, valid criticism is naturally limited, and the article seems to favour Thunberg only because Wikipedia always sides with the scientific consensus.

Albert Einstein, for example, doesn't have a criticism section, either (even though he has been criticised for some opinions, mostly outside of his field theoretical physics, by mainstream writers, and attracted a lot of attention from antisemites who deny the validity and importance of his theories altogether; Thunberg is, of course, not a scientist herself, but an activist who might be described as a science populariser), and in fact, Wikipedia:Criticism discourages such sections and treats them as a symptom of a poorly written article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why the criticism by Arron Banks, who is only known because he donated money to a British political party who has never successfully had an MP elected to parliament is considered noteworthy enough for this page, but comments by Trump and Putin, the elected leaders of two of the most powerful countries on earth is not? Jopal22 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: - of course Trump and Putin are not scientific experts. But they are world leaders. Trump is the leader of the #1 power on Earth. Putin's Russia would be in the top 10. When Greta is trying to change the world (she's an activist!), of course what world leaders say is relevant, even if what they say may not neither valid nor constructive. Climate change is not only about science, it's about politics, and Trump and Putin are top-tier in politics. Frankly, criticism by Trump and Putin is an epic endorsement of Greta, in my view. starship.paint (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I also support this view, climate change is a political issue and any prominent political person/entity that responds(either support or criticism, does not matter) to Thunberg should be included. I image in 20 years when some youth is reading about climate change on Wikipedia s/he would want to know what the political leaders were thinking and what their reactions were. kamyarg (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"...climate change is a political issue..." Only to those who refuse to allow it to be seen as the scientific issue it began as. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That literally makes no sense. The point of her campaign is to persuade world leaders to change their ways (hence she addressed the U.N.) How is that not political? The negative response to her campaign (in varying degrees/reasons) of the Presidents of three major powers, three out of the five permanent members of the Security Council, is not relevant? Yeah, right. DeCausa (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I was there around 40 years ago when some extremely apolitical climatologists first identified the issues of global warming and climate change. Large corporations saw that doing anything about it would damage profits, and called on their political mates to stop anything being done. That side of politics created a massive set of lies and deception, thereby aiming to convince their long term supporters the science was wrong. It worked. A whole lot of people with no relevant knowledge now believe that the non-political science is wrong, for totally political reasons. The politics is really only on one side. This is real science versus politics. Greta and friends simply want the truth of the science accepted. Is that really political? Saying it's political allows those disputing climate change to call those who understand and accept the science lefties and assorted other insults. Most are not. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is. Only with most of the general public in support for pro-enviroment policies, politicians will act. That is exactly what Greta does: rising awareness in the general public with ultimate goal to change government policy. Pavlor (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You weren’t the only one around 40 years’ ago. Your objection to the politicians’ comments is that they are plain wrong. Correcting that is not our job: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. ”Greta and friends simply want the truth of the science accepted. Is that really political?” Of course it is. You missed off the implied end of your question: accepted by whom? By those who have the power to make the changes she’s demanding is the answer: Putin, Trump, Macron et al. That’s why their reaction is important to this article. DeCausa (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@HiLo48... science is "nonpartisan" but the decision to have policy based on goat intestine maggots versus science is by definition a political decision. So "follow the science" is indeed political. I think the word you're looking for is partisan.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48 is correct. Its not remarkable in the slightest what Putin said about Thunberg. It is trivial because people say anything. Trivia refers to "bits of information, often of little importance." A country that exports fossil fuels is going to have leaders who use rhetoric against Thunberg. Its not note-worthy. Its propaganda, we don't do that either. Not news. Criticism sections unwelcome. Criticism of something is not knowledge. It is commentary. Summary form in 1st person voice is what we do. We write here, we don't copy paste quotations. This article is not for a debate about climate change. We aren't here to determine the validity of Putin's comments. It is about a living person. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a different question and I agree. This stuff should get reduced to something like "Thundberg has been ridiculed by various world leaders such as Trump and Puting, and regularly turns their criticism into Twitter posts that advocate for her message". Period. That wasn't a serious effort at word smitthing, but that's the gist. we should reduce this stuff to just one sentence along those lines. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. Regurgitating completely predictable dogma from people who aren't the subject adds precisely nothing to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

What’s with the “predictability” issue? It’s irrelevant whether it’s predictable. I don’t however have a problem with getting rid of the quotes - summarising is better. But I do have a problem with NewsAndVentsGuy’s summary: it only applies to Trump. Putin and Macron (and his minister) made specific criticisms. It’s absurd to say that, in almost any bio, criticism from these three isn’t significant or is even “trivial”, but particularly one in which the person is undertaking a campaign to change the policies of world leaders. DeCausa (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be significant, and worth noting here, if Trump, Putin et al DID change their policies. But they haven't yet, so there is no news on that front. Nothing to see (write) here. Yet. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Makes no sense. Only when politicians’ change their minds should it go in the article? The reactions of world leaders, positively or negatively, is fundamental to gauging her campaign’s impact. DeCausa (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

New image in "Life" section

I see no reason to add a second image shortly after the initial image in the lead which is pretty much a duplicate of the lead image. What does it add? IMO, it adds nothing. I think it should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps one of the many images in the subsequent section could be used instead. Viriditas (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do we need more pictures of her? Wikipedia is not a fan website 81.141.154.79 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for help in editing

In my opinion it is very important to write here about the positive results of the climate action summit - the committments etc., and not only the negatives. For 3 reasons:

1. For people will see what was said and will check what was maked.

2. It is important to understand that the strikes all the activity of Greta Thunberg make a difference and the Secretary Genelal said clearly in the summit: “But there is a change in momentum. Largely this change in momentum was due to your [Greta Thunberg’s] initiative, and to the courage with which you have started this movement.”

3. We should be fair to the people in the UNFCCC working day and night to achieve some results and to the leaders that make some serious steps.

I begun to write some results in the page 2019 UN Climate Action Summit I put there some usefull sources. But I will very happy to receive some help in writing how much more concrete information in the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit page and putting the most important results with a link in this page and in related pages like School strike for the climate.

--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Opposed for lack of comprehensibility. Please write some proposed neutral biographical text about this person. Based on what I know of your past editing, you are likely to be tempted to insert some climate activism in what should be neutral biographical text. Please leave the activism to some other venue and focus on Thunbergs by-god biography. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)