Talk:Greta Thunberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconA version of this article was copy edited by EggOfReason, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 15 December 2018. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 


Sabbatical?[edit]

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)
She bunked a year off school. Stop being biased and tell it how it is. It isn't a Sabattical, not is it a gap year. She is too young for either. She made it clear that she refuswed to go in order to promote her protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:1817:A100:ADAF:BB63:5901:67AE (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The word "refused" (or even "refuswed") is pure tabloid language. Says a lot more about you than it helps to make a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
In the Swedish system education is mandatory "from August the year the child turns 7 to June the year the child turns 16" as her break is from July and she is already 16 she is no longer obliged to attend "grundskola" so she is not "bunking off" as she had done the previous years. According to this source [13] she took the year 9 tests and obtained the scores that are necessary to continue her education onto "gymnasieskola" which is necessary to enter Swedish higher education. As she has not decided to go on "gymnasieskola" she has in reality left the educational system. Sabbatical is linguistically incorrect and gives a status to her situation that is not compatible with the reality but sadly Time and others have used it. This source says she is taking a year away from education [14], this source calls it a [15] a "sabbatsår". But just because sources use a term that is linguistically incorrect doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to as well. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are many editors who would prefer bad writing from "reliable sources" to be repeated in the wikipedia article, than to write the article so it is clear and correct. Jopal22 (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I don't think that the sources matter in this instance because the word itself has specific connotations on English Wikipedia. 104.162.225.24 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality of head picture[edit]

I have no idea what the rules are on subliminal messages in photography on wikipedia, but is this image of Greta Thunberg with european stars forming a christian aureola behind her, like she's an angel descending from the sky, very neutral ?


Made me think of a [REDACTED-THEGOODUSER] in Verhoeven's Flesh and Blood (1985 film)

78.194.244.179 (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into it. Geordie (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Shit like this is why I had to get the talk page extended confirmed protected. Trillfendi (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Professional photographers use halo lighting effects in artificial studio environments to accentuate portraits as part of their toolkit. In natural environments, they tend to make use of the environment, or in this case, the background. That this happens to coincide with your religious interpretation is both a coincidence and a consequence of contemporary portraiture. I think if you look at celebrity portraits, you’ll find this kind of halo technique widely used. It’s not intended to be religious as much as it is to highlight the subject. The formula for this kind of shot implies a wide aperture and a shallow depth of field, resulting in a blurred background. This is standard practice. 2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:96 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
She's backlit, it's perfectly normal, as noted above. Acroterion (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • A) I personally don't care
  • B) Believing I understand Confirmation bias, I can admit that others might see it as the OP described
  • C) There are so many other pics to choose from, why use this one?
  • D) Bottom line, I would support a pic substitution. It would be interesting for the OP to suggest a few

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with A-D. Not sure the look of this pic is “typical”. Maybe the pic used in the Swedish WP is more “characteristic”. DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It is a cropped photo where she is standing in front of the European Parliament flag, which is perfectly appropriate unless one can argue that they should change their flag as well because it has some sort of religious emblem on it... Gandydancer (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with you here - her country is a EU member so it is legitimate. It is not caricature. It would be more worthy of criticism if it were a flag of a country or bloc not of her nationality.Cloptonson (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a forum on the picture but since you are talking about the aureola/halo, it is kind of funny. In a way, it's appropriate because of the way Greta is followed by many as a kind of Messiah on Global Warming. The followers probably don't see the irony of it. But perhaps I am wrong there and the halo has been snuck in deliberately! MartiniShaw (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies[edit]

This page is not in line with WP:CSECTION, specifically

"Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section."

In my view, by having separate sections for criticism/controversies, you make the rest of the page seem biased (as it lacks balance), and encourages people to add layer and layer of criticism/controversies because it is just a list rather than trying to fit in with the rest of the page.

Jopal22 (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the Impact section has sub-sections on “Support” and the “Greta effect” and without the criticism sub-section it would be unbalanced. Probably the way forward is to get rid of all sub-sections and weave all the existing text together. DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This thread is kind of irrelevant, because it is based on WP:CSECTION, which is part of a mere WP:ESSAY. And even though this isn't binding on anyone the essay itself is internally contradictory, as a later subsection of the essay says criticism sections are sometimes OK. There is probably wisdom in this essay, but its just some eds' opinion, not a policy or guideline that has been vetted by the community. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a WP:ESSAY with a guide to avoiding WP:CFORK. This page feels like a the intro/body is written by supporters of Greta, and the criticism section is an area for detractors. That seems like a fork to me. For instance look at Malala Yousafzai, there is no seperate section to zone all criticism in there, it is mixed in to the article. There is a perception that editors would never allow sentences like After she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, there was praise, but also some disapproval of the decision.[143][144] A Norwegian jurist, Fredrik Heffermehl, commented on being awarded the Nobel Prize: "This is not for fine people who have done nice things and are glad to receive it. All of that is irrelevant. What Nobel wanted was a prize that promoted global disarmament." on this page. Jopal22 (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh I agree we have problems, I'm just saying essays aren't controlling. Thanks for thinking about goals behind the essay. THAT is what is important but its a lot more work than winning-by-rules. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
So your backtracking and saying this thread isn't irrelevant, and we should take action to create a balanced intro/body of the article rather than seperating out critcism/contraversy into a seperate section? Jopal22 (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
To the extent the thread is trying to impose the contents of an essay as though they were policy it is indeed irrelevant. And now we can add silly personalization to the list of irrelevancies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, your talk page shows you discussing the creation of a Wikipedia article "Climate Doom". User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#Climate_doom.
This invalidates your ability to post on this article about Greta Thunberg from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.
You should consider your position and stop contributing to this article.
With best wishes. MartiniShaw (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The place to complain about me is WP:AE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I don't want to complain about you. I am asking you to consider your position and stop contributing to this article. All the best. MartiniShaw (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
OK... considering... Answer, "No". Meanwhile, please re-read Fcous on content.  DoneNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, cheers MartiniShaw (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Mother's story[edit]

I have moved text from the article to the grey box below. This text is part of her Mother's life story, as she experienced Greta's autism diagnosis. The only text in this whole section that seems to imply relevance to GT's BLP is the bit of WP:Original research tagged on at the end, where some editor claims a single news paper story in 2015 about her mother's experience made Greta herself a "known" person in Sweden three years before Greta's climate strike. I think some of this text might be relevant at her Mother's BLP but it isn't clear how her Mother's experience is relevant to GT's BLP. And the idea that being the kid of someone whose life was reported in a 2015 article makes the kid a nationally "known" person is quite a stretch. So I've removed the paragraph to here for a discussion of (A) RELEVANCE, and for someone to show this isn't (B) ORIGINAL RESEARCH. In addition, we have often debated what to say about her conditions and there is a prior consensus to only say what GT herself says. It's true that WP:Consensus can change but we need some reasons to change it. So far there is just some early edit warring, not any discussion or reasoning. What do you think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

*--- 2015 Asperger Diagnosis ---

In May 2015, Thunberg's mother Malena Ernman, a widely known singer in Sweden especially after representing her country at the Eurovision Song Contest 2009, turned to the press to report her family’s hard times (“hell of a year”) when Greta's depression manifested, resulting in her Asperger diagnosis. She said she wanted to make it public in order to help other families in a similar situation.

According to the mother’s report, in August 2014 her then 11-year-old daughter Greta suddenly stopped eating, talking, reading or wanting to do anything. This condition lasted for several months and the child finally got, among others, a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome. The acute phase of the illness affected the whole family to such an extent that the mother had a breakdown three times during her professional activity and that altogether five of her performances had to be cancelled.

The report appeared in Expressen, a widely read nationwide daily newspaper in Sweden. Thus Greta Thunberg became already then a known person in Sweden, that is three years before her much reported later political activity.[1]

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

References

NewsAndEventsGuy, I'm fine with this. Non illegitimi carborundum, y'all! Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, thanks for catching my accidental deletion of that paragraph. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome! It happens, I've done it myself NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
No. There was neither an edit war nor original research. If in the US your mother is someone like Jane Fonda and she discloses on a nation-wide channel that you have Asperger's, most people you will meet for the next 20 years will know about your condition. This is obvious, not original research. Then, the consensus is not that GT is the only permitted source on this. Her parents are as well. Read the archives. By the way, the parents are the only adults who are authorized to make it public, and they are of course more reliable than the sick child herself. --Saidmann (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
On the assertion that GT was known before her climate strike, if that's true, there should be a sea of RSs about GT besides her Mom's one-time comments in a newspaper story. Feel free to demonstrate this is true. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Please! Can you talk in English? RS can have several hundred meanings. I am not good at telepathy. --Saidmann (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
If you do not know that RS stands for reliable sources then you probably should not be hanging around the English Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This meaning does not make sense in that statement, because there cannot be other RS besides the parents. --Saidmann (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks. That is an entirely appropriate edit. Your rationale is spot on. Schwede66 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Saidmann, it's pretty funny you refer me to the archives but besides that... you've suggested we're doing something illegal here. If you believe there is a genuine legal problem you should not post here. Instead follow the advice in WP:NLT. But I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning. GT is now 16 and the matter would seem to fall under the EU's GDPR. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Come on. Now you are totally beside the point. Is this on purpose? I talked about reliable sources and the consensus in the disc archives on the matter. Not about legal issues. Of course a child may say about her illness whatever she likes. But such utterances are of very low value. The consensus states: "The consensus in this RfC is to include only information [on] Greta Thunberg's diagnoses that only she and her family have put out." There is no implication in the consensus that we "have to" use the kid's utterances. The parents are the much more reliable sources. By saying they are the only adults that are authorized to make things public I simply mean that medical statements from others are simply not relevant. --Saidmann (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Re "Is this on purpose?" Another good acronym to know.... if you see one you don't know, try searching on it by add WP: in front of it. For example, if I answered your question with "See AGF" you could search for WP:AGF which will lead you to WP:Assume good faith. That said, thanks for reminding me that the prior consensus was to consider things GT's parents say about her mental health issues too. So that resolves the prior consensus issue but doesn't address either relevance or the appearance of original research, so I'm still opposed to including this material in this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The issues of relevance and "original research" are easily settled by appropriate Google searches like for example this one. You have to read Swedish though, because GT's status as a known person was confined to Sweden up to 2018. --Saidmann (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
So, here's the thing @Saidmann: Greta's medical conditions, and their role in her activism, are clearly and prominently discussed in the Life section of the article. You are trying to make them an issue in the public's evaluation of her political statements, as a way to discount her brilliant take-downs of "business-as-usual" world political leaders. To me, that's like saying the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address are invalid because Lincoln was clinically depressed. Get over it, and stop trying, subtly and not so subtly, to undermine her impact. It's not going to work here. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Not at all. I neither made nor insinuated such a connection. --Saidmann (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Just a reminder that some or all of this article falls under special decisions from WP:ARBCOM, specifically WP:ARBBLP and WP:ARBCC. Both of those decisions have provisions about editor behavior. We are not allowed to do WP:Casting aspersions and we're supposed to WP:Assume good faith and on this talk page we are supposed to WP:Focus on content rather than each other. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This is NOT a Fan Page![edit]

Unproductive and unrelated to article improvement.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Yes, this has been discussed many times. But this page is still a Fan Page.

Complete with a picture of Greta Thunberg with a Halo of EU stars, of all things, for Heaven's sake.

This page is written from a Neutral Point Of View?


Who are you trying to kid?


Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a fan website


MartiniShaw (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources, and points of view are weighted upon their prevalence in reliable sources. If you have any reliably-sourced points of view you do not believe are properly represented here, you're welcome to add those points of view - based, of course, on cited reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
This was discussed already and there is no good reason to again start a new discussion about it. This editor is trolling and this discussion should not be allowed to continue. Let's not feed this troll. Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not a troll. You are accusing me of being a troll because you disagree with my viewpoint. Calling someone a troll is a personal attack like any other, and therefore prohibited under our policy against personal attacks. MartiniShaw (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
You may not be a troll but you are a single purpose account solely focused on Greta Thunberg. Trillfendi (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not "a single purpose account solely focused on Greta Thunberg".
Look at my contributions section.
and even if I were solely focussed on G T (which I am not), of what consequence is that? SO WHAT ? MartiniShaw (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)