Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Adam Kalkstein

After reference 98, there's a random statement and an attempt to reference something that seems out of place and should be deleted. It reads: Climatologist Adam Kalkstein agrees tgat Thunberg is 'mostly wrong' about climate change. </ref>'Sorry, Greta Thunberg, but you're (mostly) wrong', Adam Kalkstein, New York Daily News, 24/9/19 </ref>. Glawton 19:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Who is Adam Kalkstein? Kalkstein is a climate scientist at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. --Mmgst23 (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removal, and have removed the bit, because the claim was a misreading of what the opinion piece said. In addition, he's not very notable, the article is full enough, and the NY Daily News isn't a great source. Drmies (talk)

Excess reliance on a left-wing source

I note there are 30 references from The Guardian, noted for being left of centre, and only one from the Daily Telegraph. My addition of a second DT quote, with an important and original point, was deleted with no explanation, other than the irrelevant claims that the author is 'rightwing' and the DT 'supports' Brexit. This looks like censorship and bias. Crawiki (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is one of milquetoast criticism as opposed to genuine criticism. Why would hard-hitting criticism be unwelcome? This edit is entirely correct. It should not be reverted. The strongest criticism doesn't happen to come from politicians. The strongest criticism happens to come from journalists. Adam Kalkstein writes "Despite the tearful claims of stolen childhoods, suffering and death, Greta’s generation has grown up in the most prosperous time in human history... A common refrain from Thunberg is that we should 'listen to the science.' I wholeheartedly agree. The science suggests that despite some major environmental challenges, humans across the planet are better off than ever before, and the future is not unremittingly bleak." This is genuine criticism. It is hard-hitting because it strikes at the core of the enthusiasm that Greta Thunberg has come to represent which is to do something even if that "something" is arguably wrongheaded. If we are going to have "criticism" in the article, and we certainly should, then it should be of the genuine sort. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The frequent use of "left-wing" sources relative to "right-wing" sources shouldn't and isn't a problem for this article and others. The point of contention here shouldn't be whether a source is left-leaning or right-leaning. It should be whether those sources are reliable and factual in their reporting, which the ones used in this article, by and large, are. Sisuvia (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

There is plenty of talk on here about Greta exhorting people to "listen to the science". Yes, we all know about carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas and have known this since at least the 1940s. After a search on the Web I have found lots of people asking Greta to look at Milankovitch cycles...which is to say that it is Greta who should be looking at the science. I can see nothing that shows Greta has even heard about the Milankevitch cycles. No. This is not a forum. I am talking about what Greta Thunberg knows about Global Warming and its causes.

GT doesn't know about Milankevitch cycles, it seems. MartiniShaw (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Which is something of a red herring, since the Scientific consensus on Climate change does not allocate a meaningful role to Milankovitch cycles within the period required for industrial civilization to soil our planetary nest. On the other hand, all colours of herring are equally tasty! Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. But those who are unable to comprehend the M Cycles are arguably not intellectually fit to comment on C Change as a whole. MartiniShaw (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

For "excess reliance on left-wing sources", read "why aren't we giving adequate coverage to climate denial?" Milankevitch cycles, theories about an impending mini Ice Age, etc, and this partisan nit-picking griefing (?) are just backdoor ways of undermining scientific consensus that the current climate crisis is most likely mainly anthropogenic, and of knocking GT off her supposed pedestal. Esowteric+Talk 19:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Esowteric is correct here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Esowteric is correct about what? Why don't you try putting ideas into your own words? Then we would know what you are talking about. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the entirety of this particular comment by Esowteric (which does not, of course, mean that I necessarily agree with them about everything ever). I'm not sure how I was unclear, but if more words will help, I will happily pile them on. And I'd add that on further reflection, the comment above Esowteric's, to which I presume they were replying, is a violation of WP:NOTFORUM that promotes an unreliable source and is in my view unsuitable for this Talk page. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Blatant censorship of quasi-religious aspects

Numerous media articles have referred to Greta as a secular 'saint', 'prophet', 'guru', etc. She is compared to Joan of Arc, by supporters as well as critics. but every attempt to include these comments in the article is being censored, Aquillion being the worst offender . 'I don't like it' is not a valid reason to delete. Properly sourced, original and pertinent, deserves inclusion. Crawiki (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please! Maybe she can cure cancer and end poverty in her spare time, too. WWGB (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is saying she can cure cancer. Keep your straw man off here. Thanks a bunch. 81.141.154.53 (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Blatant censorship of economic argument

Aquillion persistently deletes An article from the Mises Institute, describing the potential economic effects of Greta's suggested policies on poorer countries such as India, China, Turkey. The article uses numerous data to support the view that reducing fossil fuel use would halt industrialisation and economic progress, thus halting healthcare improvements. In other words, more people would die. Aquillion, you just can't go on like this. A balanced article must reflect all shades if opinion, not just those you agree with. 'i dont like or understand it' is no justification for this censorship. Crawiki (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The Mises Institute is a libertarian think-tank that has been described as "neo-Confederate" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. One could argue that it is hardly a reliable source for anything, economic or otherwise. But if there exists a reliable alternative source that corroborates the Mises Institute's claims, I believe that the editors here would love to see it. Sisuvia (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, coastal flooding, displaced populations, refugee crises and resource wars would probably incur a buck or two of healthcare costs. Including only one speculation about economics would violate NPOV even if the source for that one speculation didn't have massive red flags. XOR'easter (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

"Aquillion, you just can't go on like this." Yes he/she can, and they will. MartiniShaw (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Opinions are included based on their prominence in reliable sources, not based on WP:FALSEBALANCE. The opinions of the Mises Institute on this topic are not widely covered in mainstream secondary sources, which makes them undue. As I said above, it seems like you're pushing to have the article be half-critical, which is not how balance works - we cover what mainstream, high-profile sources say in accordance with the weight and breadth of the coverage, with lesser or more fringe things covered more briefly or, if they have no secondary coverage, not at all. When most mainstream coverage is positive (as in this case), the article itself will be largely positive. In fact, much of the critical coverage takes a specific tone acknowledging that coverage of her has been largely positive - grumbling about that, complaining about it, yes, but acknowledging it. Even if you think that that's a bad thing, Wikipedia is not the place to try and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; we reflect the mainstream coverage uncritically. "We need to add this to make the article more critical" isn't a valid argument. If you want it to be more critical, you first need to survey all the sources (especially high-quality mainstream ones) and use that to make the argument that coverage as a whole, taken collectively, is more critical than our article. You haven't made that argument yet. If it is true that the opinions and feelings about her that you're referencing are commonly-felt, then you should be able to find numerous WP:SECONDARY sources voicing them or covering them, not just a single think-tank. --Aquillion (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

But of course no one said "We need to add this to make the article more critical". You are merely putting quotation marks around words that are of your own coinage, Aquillion. (Also, please sign your comments.) Bus stop (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Going over the arguments for the proposed changes (from edit-summaries and above):

• "Some balance restored to an otherwise entirely uncritical lead."
• "It's absurd that an unqualified 16yo has attracted such a wide, uncritical audience. This section deserves expansion."
• "Similarly, the world should know that her critics include respected climatologists."
• "The article as it stands is blatantly biased in favour of its subject, verging on hero-worship."
• "In the Impact section there are three subsections and 12 paragraphs favouring GT, only one section of 6 paragraphs devoted to criticism."
• "I note there are 30 references from The Guardian, noted for being left of centre, and only one from the Daily Telegraph."
• "A balanced article must reflect all shades of opinion"

To me, all of these comments read as starting from a presumption that the article must contain more criticism, or must cite more sources critical of climate-change, or must otherwise be critical. (Some of the statements above contain fragments of what could be a valid argument, but they're missing that key point about the tone of overall mainstream coverage, which means they boil down to "add more criticism because it needs more criticism", yes.) If you can argue that coverage overall is more critical than our article, go ahead and do so; but I'm not seeing it right now, and I am seeing a lot of arguments that amount to "the article needs to be more critical", or which seem to come from the general position that having more criticism is axiomatically necessary for balance. Perhaps to you it is obvious that the overall mainstream coverage of the subject is more critical than our article, but I'm not seeing it at all; and certainly aside from you most of the other people arguing for adding more criticism don't seem to understand that they need to make that argument first. In particular (since it was what I was replying to), it is not true that a balanced article must reflect all shades of opinion - that is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE - and, therefore, saying it amounts to saying "this article needs more criticism." Opinions that are grounded in WP:FRINGE science must be excluded per WP:PROFRINGE, and opinions that are only lightly touched on in the sources should be given little coverage or omitted entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Keeping the article focused

In re the above discussions, I'd just like to remind people that this article is not the place to debate climate change, just as the article on Isaac Newton is not the place to explain his theory of universal gravitation. Regardless of whether there is a climate crisis, Greta and the young people protesting with her believe it exists, and her notoriety is based on her actions and speeches, not on the correctness or incorrectness of her views. As to quasi-religion, again, Wikipedia has an article on Jesus, another on Historical Jesus, and another on Christianity (and many on its variations). If "Thunbergism" ever goes beyond a passing fad on social media, maybe there will be justification for a separate article that discusses the semi-divinity of "Greta of Arc". Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, no evidence exists that i wish to make the article 'half-critical'. Another Straw man argument, derived from things other than the available evidence. As per NPOV, I am trying to ensure all sides of the argument are represented. Nor am i trying to set up an argument about climate change. Again, no evidence for that. 'GT is a secular saint/prophet/guru' is a comment about GT, not about climate change. Crawiki (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

All sides of the argument must be represented in accordance with their weight in reliable, independent sources. Dropping a bunch of opinion pieces into the article and creating a bloated WP:QUOTEFARM of a criticism section isn't neutrality. What you need to do is stop, slow down, and produce secondary non-opinion pieces to demonstrate that the opinions you are trying to add to the article represent such a major part of the coverage of her. Right now I am not seeing it - the section is already bloated and gives WP:UNDUE weight to fairly marginal opinions on the topic, as well as to people that take WP:FRINGE positions on the science. --Aquillion (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternative for Germany

@Crawiki: Why do you keep changing AfD's well known political positions? Right-wing, for example, is the very first adjective used in the Alternative for Germany article. Please establish consensus before making any further changes of that nature. --Yhdwww (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps because they are meaningless, pejorative labels. The Nazis were national socialists and described as right wing. The USSR espoused 'socialism in one country', and were said to be left wing. Spot the difference.

On the subject of'please establish consensus', you might like to ask Aquillion why he deletes every edit I make in this article . Comparing the article for Malala Yousafzai, i see accusations of CIA agent, Jewish agent, anti-Islam, etc are allowed to stand. Yet apparently i cannot say that GT is 'an uneducated teenager', even when it's her description. Crawiki

Alternative for Germany has been described in many sources as being right-wing or far-right, and the inclusion of the term "right-wing" adds to a reader's understanding. There is nothing "meaningless" about it; it's a clear statement of where the party sits in the long-established political spectrum. Of course, an editor who is "right of centre" is never going to be happy with the consensus of opinion about activists like Greta Thunberg whose issues are thought to be "left of centre". Esowteric+Talk 21:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Unless, that is, they are sufficiently objective and cognitively-fluid to take off their own hat when they come here and instead don their Wikipedian hat.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esowteric (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)‎

Injustices inflicted on Native Americans

There are non sequiturs in the article that might be addressed. "In each city or location, Thunberg delivered a keynote speech which she began by acknowledging that she was standing on native or indigenous land. For example, in Iowa City she said: "We realize we are on indigenous Ioway land, the land of the Sioux and Meskwaki."...In Denver Thunberg recognized "that the rally was taking place on Indigenous land that belonged to the Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes." [40] In Charlotte, NC, after acknowledging that she was standing on "colonized indigenous land once belonging to proud Cherokee, Catawba, Sugeree and Congaree people," Thunberg said: "In acknowledging the enormous injustices inflicted upon these people, we must also mention the many enslaved and indentured servants whose labor the world still profit from today." Is this about her opposition to climate change? I don't think so. Or maybe our lede fails to mention she is an advocate for Native American rights. She is entitled to articulate any thought she would like to articulate. But we are not obliged to merge unrelated ideas. Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thunberg has evolved into an activist. She is incorporating her other concerns into her activism. Certainly, she began as a climate activist but has grown. As with many activist she is not limited to one thought or concern. Wikipedia should not endeavor to pigeonhole her but rather to evolve her bio as she evolves. Thunberg was keen to begin each North American speech mentioning the indigenous people, et al, of the land upon which she stood. She obviously wanted to bring sharp focus to indigenous people, et al. Mentioning this in her Wikipedia bio is simply reflecting her opening message in every speech. By omitting her references to indigenous people, at al, Wikipedia would then become a censor.Johnrichardhall (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The lede says "Greta Thunberg FRSGS (born 3 January 2003) is a Swedish environmental activist on climate change whose campaigning has gained international recognition." Our article makes no attempt to explain what injustices against Native Americans has to do with environmental activism on climate change despite devoting a lot of text to injustices against Native Americans. The way this is written constitutes hagiography. Is this just a matter of hopping on the bandwagon of cool causes? Is there some logical connection between injustices against Native Americans and environmental activism on climate change? Is this virtue signaling run amok? Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly what it is. When she is back in Sweden, it will be interesting to see what she has to say about the injustices of the Germanic tribes against the pre-Germanic ones in Sweden. And the injustices of the 32.3% of the inhabitants of Sweden being of a foreign background (2018) against the 67.7% of non-foreign background. Great stuff this. --Saidmann (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A tad of research and you'll be privy to her stance on "injustices of the Germanic tribes against the pre-Germanic ones in Sweden."Johnrichardhall (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, as for "injustices against Native Americans" and climate change .... had the land not been stolen from the Native Americans, at a minimum, the environment and wildlife would not have been so damaged. But that's just an opinion (and I'll assume you'll think is a crazy one). As soon as the lock on Thunberg's bio is released (which I think it should never be due to the fixation on her bio from both her supporters and her critics) you can edit and delete away until the bio reflects your stance/opinion/judgement. Johnrichardhall (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not obvious that injustices to Native Americans are related to climate change. Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Territorial acknowledgements are part of the vernacular of North American political discourse, and do not especially represent activism on indigenous rights issues. The Canadian government and mainstream Protestant churches in the United States and Canada often begin meetings when other events by acknowledging indigenous territorial claims, when this is not in any way the theme of the event and the event itself is not activist in any way. As I understand it, the mention of these acknowledgments in the article simply recognizes that the subject is employing this vernacular in North America without suggesting that indigenous rights issues are part of her expertise or advocacy. Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I am unconcerned whether "indigenous rights issues are part of her expertise or advocacy" or not. References to injustices against Native Americans are seamlessly sandwiched between references to climate change as if they were the same subject. They are not the same subject. Arguably they are unrelated subjects. Do Native Americans benefit from any aspects of the country that supplanted the nations that they were part of, which pre-dated the USA? This is a complex issue. We are writing hagiography when we steamroller over these arguably unrelated issues. That is because of the inherent virtue signaling in not only agitating to save the planet but also in lamenting the injustices done to Native Americans. Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "inherent virtue signalling" is an NPOV way to describe anything, tbh, much less BLP content. At least, I would like to see some reliable (non-op-ed) sourcing on the concept first. Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

We have an article Virtue signaling. It is "the conspicuous expression of moral values". Saving the planet is not a "moral value"? Lamenting mistreatment of Native Americans is not "moral value"? I'd say these are textbook examples of moral values. But this isn't the main point I am making. You can't imply that injustice to Native Americans is related to opposition to manmade climate change. You need a source to say that. The present arrangement is sleight of hand. Supposing readers are sympathetic to injustice done to Native Americans but they are on the fence about supporting radical measures to supposedly slow down climate change. By seamlessly sandwiching "the enormous injustices inflicted upon these people" between "the importance of reducing emissions" and "emission reduction targets" we are implying commonality of theme. But are they of the same theme? No, they are not. Injustices done to Native Americans has nothing to do with manmade climate change. The only thing they have in common is they are both conspicuous expressions of moral values. The subject of the article has done nothing wrong. We should be writing an objective article about the subject. A separate paragraph can separately note expressions of solidarity with Native Americans. We should not be pulling the wool over the reader's eyes by implying that concern with Native Americans is related to concern with climate change. Alternatively, find a source tying Native American concerns to climate change concerns to Greta Thunberg. Bus stop (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not what the current article does, though, at least not the section in Canada. It simply includes what reliable sources have said about Thunberg's speeches, including their territorial acknowledgement. There isn't any wool being pulled. And an argument that Thunberg is inappropriately conflating indigenous and climate change issues would require, you know, actual sourcing. It isn't our job as WP editors to produce perform critical disassembly of Thunberg's ideas - that would be OR. Newimpartial (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source tying together man-made climate change, Native American rights, and Thunberg? If such a source exists, it is not in the article. Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I am going to suggest a connection between injustice toward Native Americans and climate change. I want to be clear that I am not advocating its inclusion in the article, but I want to offer all involved in this discussion information that might (I hope) help this discussion move forward. The connection may be found under the umbrella of radical ecofeminism, a school of socioeconomic analysis whose main points (I lift this straight out of the WP article) are:

1. The mechanistic materialist model of the universe that resulted from the scientific revolution and the subsequent reduction of all things into mere resources to be optimized, dead inert matter to be used.
2. The rise of patriarchal religions and their establishment of gender hierarchies along with their denial of immanent divinity.
3. Self and other dualisms and the inherent power and domination ethic it entails.
4. Capitalism and its claimed intrinsic need for the exploitation, destruction and instrumentalization of animals, earth and people for the sole purpose of creating wealth.

Under this school of thought, the near-genocide of Native Americans was part and parcel of the capitalist exploitation of the earth which has led to the current climate crisis. I make this connection from personal experience. From 1975 to 1990, I was a member of an ecovillage, Twin Oaks and a Quaker-inspired radical feminist non-violent social change organization, Movement for a New Society. Anybody involved with either of those organizations would see as obvious the connection that Greta seems to be making. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

No doubt GT will be off to the Brazilian jungle next, to make the same point there? But why single out Indian clearances, and no mention of every other historical contributor to global warming... Coal mining, oil refining, natural gas... Crawiki (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This is all pseudo-religious. "Thunberg delivered a keynote speech which she began by acknowledging that she was standing on native or indigenous land." Really? So what? What does "standing on native or indigenous land" have to do with man-made climate change? Thunberg said: "In acknowledging the enormous injustices inflicted upon these people, we must also mention the many enslaved and indentured servants whose labor the world still profit from today." The implication is that "the enormous injustices inflicted upon these people" has something to do with climate change. Is it relevant to climate change that "we must also mention the many enslaved and indentured servants whose labor the world still profit from today"? Wikipedia should not be preaching a new religion in which climate change is tied up with injustices to Native Americans—unless sources make that connection. This sort of stuff has to be rewritten in such a way as to create the correct disconnect between these two issues. On the one hand you have man-made climate change. On the other hand you have injustices to Native Americans. They are not related. Unless of course sources say they are related. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The reliable sources are reporting events in Canada, where it is customary to open social justice events, but also many Christian religious services and secular governmental events that have no notable connection with either social justice or indigenous issues, with a territorial acknowledgment. There is no need to say° more about this than our article actually says, namely, that the article's subject followed this convention albeit in her own way. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you are saying. What does this mean: "There is no need to say° more about this than our article actually says, namely, that the article's subject followed this convention albeit in her own way." Could you please re-phrase that? Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll try. The article currently repeats what Thunberg says in offering territorial acknowledgments at climate change rallys in Canada. Unless reliable sources offer further interpretation or criticism of what she has said,then the current balance in the article is just right IMO. There is certainty no reason to import critiques of territorial acknowledgement into this article, unless RS themselves do so re: Thunberg, and it would essentially be OR to import such critiques. Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul Lieberman your linkage of capitalism with 'exploitation and destruction' is rather off beam and highly politicised. Do you have a reliable source? The mainstream definition of capitalism is 'the investment of accumulated capital, by entrepreneurs, in the production of goods and services, for profit'. Profit in turn is a form of income, not wealth. Wealth is created by saving, not necessarily by capitalism. I speak as a former economics teacher with a degree in that subject. Crawiki (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Crawiki, as I said, I'm not advocating. I am pointing to a radical school of thought that considers capitalism a root cause of exploitation of people (as through colonialism) and the environment (as through mining, logging, burning coal, etc.). It may be that such a philosophy may be behind Greta's repeated acknowledgement of Native Americans in her speeches. I don't say it's correct, I just suggest it may be an explanation. I don't want to argue about what capitalism is; I want the editors of this page to understand that there are non-mainstream schools of thought that may be at play in Greta Thunberg's thinking on exploitation. Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Whatever road in life people are on, rather than adopt a single issue, they are likely to "buy into" a package of several related issues, such as environmentalism and human rights. Esowteric+Talk 19:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Woah! We are reading too much into this! Greta is merely acknowledging the indigenous inhabitants of the land on which she is standing out of respect. It's a simple tradition in many places, we do it all the time in Australia; at the beginning of every government meeting in the Northern Territory, Australia, with respect to the tribal land we are on at the time. Sometimes we also acknowledge specific events if relevant. That's all she's doing. If you don't do it in your local government meetings, suggest it. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ex! This is a simple explanation, and it rings true! My political theory riff was, as Crawiki said, "rather off beam". Let's leave it at that. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I think if the article is not overly long there should be room for both commentary on her participation in the tradition of acknowledging the contributions of Native Americans and also including the perspective that there may be religious overtones to the phenomenon associated with the person. This is alluded to in the article by Madeline Grant writing "Religious thinking pervades our supposedly secular age". Attempts to add material deriving from that article have been reverted. Yet we are expanding on what is being characterized as "a simple tradition". If it is a "simple tradition" it is inconsequential. Greta Thunberg isn't a scientist. Of consequence to an article like this is the phenomena of the social movement found in the attitudes of those who enthusiastically follow her. Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 November 2019

change Greta Thunberg to Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg in the lede MartiniShaw (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Izno (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Full protection

(pinging @Chetsford. There was a full protection section above, I have moved the statements from that section and merged them here)

Pinging @Deepfriedokra Thank you for locking down Thunberg's page--it was needed. With regard to all the back and forth over Greta's bio page, John Lennon's words seem apropos: "Nobody told me there'd be days like these. Strange days indeed, most peculiar, Mama." Johnrichardhall (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Deepfriedokra I think the full protection should remain indefinitely . . . due to the fixation on her bio from both her supporters and her critics.

Pinging @Deepfriedokra Would you consider reapplying full protection to this article, please? Lessons have still not been learnt. Esowteric+Talk 18:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Lock down seems to me to be an admission of failure. Issues of censorship and political bias here, as detailed in various prior talk topics, need to be addressed and resolved, not ignored. User:Crawiki

Did that innocent quote really need reporting at the WikiProject Spam talk page? Esowteric+Talk 15:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

As per a request at WP:RFPP, I applied full protection for two days. I did this based on the appearance of a plethora of rapid, overt and crypto reverts by extended confirmed editors that were beyond the scale of corresponding discussion occurring on the Talk page, coupled with the special sensitivity due this article as a WP:BLP. If you feel full protection is excessive, please feel free to ping me here and I'll restore it to semi-protected status. Chetsford (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it'll help get a discussion going. --Yhdwww (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Simply put, a lot of people who have a vested interest in this page are losing their minds. I’ve never seen anything like it in the few years I’ve been on here. Full protection is necessary. Trillfendi (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Having lost their minds, those same people are busy spraying graffiti on freeway bridges fucking up the environment, before going to McDonalds for a large fries. MartiniShaw (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Now that’s funny. Trillfendi (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This comment is not directed to any specific editor, however, full protection was applied with the intent it would encourage discussion and consensus on the Talk page versus edit warring. A precursor to discussion and consensus is GF by all parties which precludes making colloquial diagnoses about the supposed mental illnesses of other editors. If full protection merely transfers combative interpersonal behavior from the Main page to the Talk page it has no utility, will need to be lifted, and future Main page edit warring resolved via the 3RR noticeboard. Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It was a joke. At no-one's expense in particular. Cheers! MartiniShaw (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

pinging @Chetsford. I believe that full protection is the only way to return to a sense of decorum on Thunberg's bio page--thanks; consider leaving this protection in-place indefinitely.Johnrichardhall (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection isn't justified at this time. Chetsford (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Are you keeping an eye on this article? My watchlist tells me that protection has just expired and we are back where we were before protection. I've done too much editing that I should protect the article myself. Schwede66 19:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a clear consensus that the subject's full name, Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg, should be included in the opening sentence.

Cunard (talk) 09:27, 15 December 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.

---

Should the subject's full name, Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg, be included in the opening sentence? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I think it is appropriate to include her full name in the lede, but it should only include her full name. IE don't say "Greta Thunberg (Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg born 3 January 2003)..." just say "Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg (born 3 January 2003)..." Cook907 (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would anyone repeat her name in parentheses if her full name was there? Trillfendi (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, I'm sure you've seen worse things out there 😂. Cook907 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Several times an hour, my friend. Trillfendi (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

We generally would only use parenthetical when the person is most commonly known by a pseudonym or have changed their name. When they are commonly known by a nickname or some other condensed version of their real name, we would generally use the full birth name. When someone is known by a condensed version of a changed name, then we would use the COMMONNAME for the title, use the full current name for the initial bold, and use their birth name in parenthesis. For an example, see Bill Clinton. GMG^talk 21:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes as discussed above. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes I can't think of any reason not to. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, consistent with MOS:FULLNAME. WWGB (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, bring in compliance with the MOS. (Summoned by bot) -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes with reliable sources because this is her name. Haven't heard a reasonable argument against so far and we include the full names of living people such as Kiefer Sutherland and because of MOS:FULLNAME. This should have been in for months, shame on those who reverted multiple times without consensus and in defiance of standard Wikipedia practices. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. It's already there in the info box. Just put it in the lead sentence as per other BLP's. Cheers guys! MartiniShaw (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per MOS. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 22:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks, and I agree. I think we need to provide the couple of reliable sources that people came up with in the "full name" thread above, to meet policy on WP:VERIFY and WP:BLPPRIVACY.

In answer to @MartiniShaw's dismissively signing off with: "Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg's full name is already there [without reliable citation] so any special considerations for privacy (or whatever the no-full-name people are coming up with) are without any merit whatsoever." Again, I would gently point out that (generally speaking) BLP contains policy and MOS contains guidelines, and that policy trumps guidelines which trump essays.

WP:BLPPRIVACY: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public ..."

Hence the need for more than one RS citation. Anyhow, many thanks! Update: Thanks for doing that, @WWGB. Esowteric+Talk 06:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Absolutely HAL333 16:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Of course. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 17:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Im not clear what the objection to inclusion is. Im open to changing my mind, but i saw nothing compelling in my brief read of the discussion above. Bonewah (talk) 14:36, 2 December 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.

Protected edit request on 26 November 2019

Current

Greta Thunberg FRSGS (born 3 January 2003) is a Swedish environmental activist on climate change whose campaigning has gained international recognition. Thunberg first became known for her activism in August 2018 when, at age 15, she began spending her school days outside the Swedish parliament to call for stronger action on global warming by holding up a sign saying (in Swedish) "School strike for the climate". Soon, other students engaged in similar protests in their own communities. Together, they organised 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 students each. Thunberg is known for her blunt, straightforward 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 convinced her parents to adopt several lifestyle choices to reduce their own carbon footprint, including giving up air travel and not eating meat. References Notes

Proposed

Greta Thunberg FRSGS (born 3 January 2003) is a Swedish environmental activist on climate change whose campaigning has gained international recognition. Thunberg is known for her blunt, straightforward 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. Thunberg first became known for her activism in August 2018 when, at age 15, she began spending her school days outside the Swedish parliament to call for stronger action on global warming by holding up a sign saying (in Swedish) "School strike for the climate". Soon, other students engaged in similar protests in their own communities. Together, they organised 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 students each. At home, Thunberg convinced her parents to adopt several lifestyle choices to reduce their own carbon footprint, including giving up air travel and not eating meat. References Notes

Reasoning: If she is "known for her blunt, straightforward speaking manner", then this should surely be in the top paragraph, especially to flesh it out a bit and because it is significant - arguably one of the reasons people listen to her. I have not changed any wording, simply moved the ordering around. I have moved the remainder of the paragraph to join with the paragraph above, but this sentence could be moved elsewhere, left alone on its own paragraph, or simply removed. I look forward to discussing this proposal and I thank you for your time. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: should I go for a WP:RFC or wait to see if others participate or create a new section to discuss this? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No need for that. Just allow a few days to give others a chance to comment. If there is support (or no opposition) then I can make the change. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: is it long enough now? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, there is no longer full protection on the article. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you go ahead and make the change and be prepared to discuss further if an editor disagrees. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the help. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Her full name Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg should be put in the lede

Her full name should be put in the lede. Everyone else's bio page does this. Including the lovely Tony Blair, for instance. And the handsome Charles Clarke. And Paul McCartney. And Paul's daughter, Stella McCartney. MartiniShaw (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why certain editors keep deleting it from the opening on the English wikipeida. Not acceptable given we can source it and it is her name. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite. Mussolini has it. Hitler too, though Adolf (born Adolphus) only had one first name. I can't find anyone else who does not have their full name in the lede, and I have looked all over the place. As you say, not acceptable. MartiniShaw (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You already brought this up for discussion on 31 August 2019. See the existing thread in the archives. As for me, I'm concerned that the inclusion of her full name would cause unwanted titillation among those who are biased against the subject. Esowteric+Talk 17:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

And that is, itself a rehashed discussion from 4 June 2019. Esowteric+Talk 17:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:BIRTHNAME. I don't see the risk of "unwanted titillation among those who are biased against the subject" being a factor in that guidance. It's her name (as included in the infobox), so - if it's reliably sourced - it should be included in the opening sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Full names, especially of BLPs that get a high level of attention, require a reliable source. If not it’s best left in the infobox. For example, for YEARS people thought Emilia Clarke’s middle names were Isabelle Euphemia Rose based on shotty sourcing from some British business database; but in her op-ed she said her full name was Emilia Isobel Euphemia Rose Clarke. Same name, different variation. Err on the side of caution until then. Trillfendi (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence". No mention of any "caution" in the Manual Of Style on Wikipedia. And her full name is given in the info box so your argument is without any merit whatsoever. At the risk of repetition of the MOS, "the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence". MartiniShaw (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Caution comes from the Biography of Living Persons policy, not the manual of style. The first word is literally caution! Is it that hard? Trillfendi (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a reliable source giving her full name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Trillfendi, is what hard? The BLP rules you are referring to do indeed have "Caution" as literally the first word. BUT...the sentence is "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event."

Is Greta Thunberg discussed in terms of a single event? Obviously not. Don't flog dead horses. Thanks! MartiniShaw (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Policy doesn’t discriminate against notoriety. Trillfendi (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Or against puppets on strings. MartiniShaw (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify who and what you mean by "puppets on strings"? Esowteric+Talk 15:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

What did I mean by that phrase? I was referring to some editors on here who seem to be easily influenced by those who should know better. I won't name names in order not to miff anyone. I hope that explains things a little, and nobody in particular was troubled. Cheers! MartiniShaw (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked MartiniShaw for a continuing pattern of boundary-pushing on this subject. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It is an excellent source. Well done. Thank you for your thoughtful, hard work! MartiniShaw (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source ..."

WP:BLPPRIVACY: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public ..." Esowteric+Talk 18:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Her full name is already in the article. The article breaches the Wikipedia's Manual Of Style by not putting the full name in the lead sentence. MartiniShaw (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Makwan Prize referenced in this article, which quotes her full name, has been presented to her. If her name was given wrongly, or if she objected to its publication on that site, it is reasonable to assume that the organisers of the prize would have removed or corrected it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

MartiniShaw, you write "Do not add irrelevant claptrap about privacy. Her full name is already on the page. It should be in the correct place!". MOS contains guidelines; BLP contains policy. Policy trumps guidelines, and guidelines trump essays. Esowteric+Talk 18:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Are there any other good examples of living people (notable, by definition) where we withhold mention of publicly and reliably known full names on the grounds of privacy concerns? If not, it seems that the only factor in this case is that some editors think that publication of her full name in the lede would in some way fuel opposition to what she says - which is an irrelevant consideration. If this disagreement is not going to be resolved on this page, it should be put into a wider forum for discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps take it to an RfC, Ghmyrtle? Is there precedent, or do two RSs fulfill the policy "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". The word "widely" looks deliberate on the part of the policy-makers. Esowteric+Talk 18:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Esowteric: You have no evidence it would cause titillation among our readers, and your comment about readers biased against the subject seems completely off-topic, we can't anticipate the reactions of our readers and nor should we. If you want to include your assertion in our BLP policy go ahead and try, otherwise your comment has no value here, what matters is sourced material not original research editors causing titillation among so-called prejudiced readers. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Esowteric: Two previous discussions strongly indicates no consensus to not include. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: That was just an aside. I am actually concerned that including GT's full name may contravene existing WP BLP policy, though I may be mistaken, and I'm willing to stand corrected. This has already been discussed at length twice (see archives), so maybe it's not such a clear-cut issue? Esowteric+Talk 19:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm also aware that we're into a second recent full page protection for partisan content disputes, so it would be good to hear from uninvolved editors. Esowteric+Talk 19:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that the inclusion of her full name would cause unwanted titillation among those who are biased against the subject
• tit·il·la·tion - the arousal of interest or excitement, especially through sexually suggestive images or words

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. GMG^talk 19:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I've struck through that comment. There have been so many content disputes and quibbles here recently, finding any way to nibble away at the article and demote the subject's standing or, as her opponents would say, "deify" her – that I gave way to momentary exasperation. Esowteric+Talk 20:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Some good examples include Salvador Dali, Kiefer Sutherland and Mobutu Sese Seko, Sutherland still alive. So what is different about Greta? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we have a reliable source, I'm not sure I understand how including her full name says anything one way or another, for or against. Seems like a pretty mundane fact. GMG^talk 20:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg's full name is already there so any special considerations for privacy (or whatever the no-full-name people are coming up with) are without any merit whatsoever. The issue here is that her full name Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg should be in the leading sentence like every other BLP on Wikipedia. If it is a mundane fact then let's just do it. Cheers! MartiniShaw (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the full name to the lede. As noted in the RfC section below, I think the two reliably-sourced citations should be provided (whether the full name occurs in the lede or the infobox) to meet policy on WP:VERIFY and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Esowteric+Talk 06:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Prior to this, the infobox entry should have been cited. Esowteric+Talk 07:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you guys should edit the official page to show her full name. I read all the talks here and it's nonsense that the US and BR version does not show up her full name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.216.145.7 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree Totally agree. Relevant sources must be provided tho. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 09:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

When people speak of Thunberg

Its not remarkable. Forget about documenting commentary. What people utter is called trivia. Wikipedia is not for listing what was said about people. That is not Wikipedia's role. This is not the news. This is an encyclopedia. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

What's your point? --Yhdwww (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's wrong to include what people say about people in our BLPs we're sure doing it wrong in a lot of our good BLPs. Gandydancer (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that "we're sure doing it wrong in a lot of our good BLPs" is no argument for saying it is not wrong. 86.187.165.129 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the reinstatement. The comments by people and Greta's responses are relevant and of value. However, the section might improve if more concise. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Relevant? How? What knowledge do those sentences provide? When we include commentary, that is, when people speak of things and we parrot that here it tells me about the speaker only. It is a statement about a statement, not a statement about Thunberg. Reason 1 to omit: Offtopic. If it was so valuable to include on Thunberg's page then why isn't it more valuable to place it on Putin or Trump's page? When we include speech of a political nature we must not include propaganda. Reason 2 to omit: WP:SOAPBOX. The over-use of quotations in Wikipedia is called a cascading failure. We are supposed to summarise in Wikipedia's first voice. What is said about things is trivia. Inserting third party speech is not presenting knowledge. Reason 3 to omit WP:TRIVIA. No encyclopedia needs to include a single quotation to be complete. The editing system is failing to deliver appropriate content. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

An assertion that "no encyclopedia needs to include a single quotation to be complete" is mildly interesting but completely unsupported by the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. The talk page of the biography of this young woman is certainly not the proper place to discuss a radical change in how this encyclopedia uses quotations. You must take that policy discussion to a broader and more appropriate venue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

We already have a policy on that. It states No propaganda of any kind. Propaganda is information that is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. So our rule is to "not include information which may not be objective". All these quotes are subjective. Cascading systemic failure to be encyclopedia is demonstrated by including quotations. The fact that Trump tweeted a video is not remarkable, it is off-topic, propaganda, trivial and lazy to include quotes like this. When we insert quotations we are not following our policy that "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." - Shiftchange (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTATION: Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Only when we can't use Wikipedia's own voice, when its not propaganda, when its not off-topic and when its not trivia should we include quotations. That is what we have decided. This is for knowledge on Thunberg only, not for the discussion of her. Not forum also applies. Use quotes in cultural works only would be a good reform. I am not going to have an edit war on this page. I can see many people will keep an eye on this article and that this page is not appropriate for more discussion on this topic. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This is true, but it also says Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. I feel that some people fall into the trap of dropping excessive quotations into an article just because they want to present every possible argument for a particular POV. That's not really appropriate and turns sections or even entire articles into a WP:QUOTEFARM. Quotes have to be WP:DUE for inclusion, which usually means there ought to be secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we do need to done down on the less-significant op-eds and more minor voices; summarizing the broad statements (ideally stuff discussed in-depth in secondary sources) is worthwhile, but part of the reason criticism sections are a bad idea per WP:CSECTION is because they tend to become dumping grounds for random op-eds out of a desire to fill them out. I'm particularly baffled at the heavy attention given to relatively inconsequential comments by Madeline Grant and Guillaume Larrive - does it really make sense to weigh these equal to commentary from major world leaders? In cases where there aren't very many people commenting, it might make sense to include op-eds, but as it is I feel we can safely remove them and still have every noteworthy strain of commentary about her represented. --Aquillion (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

What you are identifying is that quotes are cherry picked arbitrarily. If it is not worth including on Donald Trump's page that he tweeted about Thunberg with a video how could it be relevant to include his actions or words here? - Shiftchange (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean, secondary coverage is a reasonable way to decide what's included. And what's included depends on how it relates to that person's notability - that is, relative to other coverage of them. So the standard to put something on Trump's page (given that he's president of the US) is higher than putting something on Thunberg's page. But at the very least we can remove stuff with no secondary coverage, given how much coverage Thunberg has gotten, yeah. --Aquillion (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Post-nominal letters

MOS:POSTNOM "When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section." Royal Scottish Geographical Society is from Scotland, Greta Thunberg is from Sweden, and she is not regularly associated with FRSGS. Jerry Stockton (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seems they are not justified there, at least not at the moment. They're still allowed in the infobox though. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

As Thunberg is not from Scotland, and she is not regularly associated with FRSGS, I have again removed the post-nominal letters from the lead. Jerry Stockton (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

For post-nominal letters to be included in the lead section the honor must come from the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or the subject must be regularly associated with the organization. 1) Thunberg was not born in Scotland and is not a resident or citizen of Scotland. 2) Thunberg is not regularly associated with the Royal Scottish Geographical Society. The post-nominal letters FRSGS do not belong in Thunberg's lead. Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thunberg's photograph in the infobox is captioned with FRSGS. She was also awarded Time Person of the Year (2019), Ambassador of Conscience Award (2019), International Children's Peace Prize (2019), and several others. Suggest that except for her name, no caption is needed, but if one is going to be added, "Time" Person of the Year (2019) would be more appropriate than FRSGS. Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Um, that's not the photo caption, that's a normal infobox name post-nominal? This guy's also got one. Don't think he's Scottish either, is he? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, David Attenborough is not Scottish and he is not regularly associated with FRSGS, so should the post-nominal letters in his lead also be removed? Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The advice for honorific_suffix at Template:Infobox person just says this:

To appear on the line below the person's name. This is for things like |honorific_suffix=[[Officer of the Order of the British Empire|OBE]] – honorifics of serious significance that are attached to the name in formal address, such as national orders and non-honorary doctorates; do not use it for routine things like "BA". It is permissible but not required to use the {{post-nominals}} template inside this parameter; doing so requires {{post-nominals|size=100%|...}}.

So I'm not sure it needs to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Alongside Sir David, Joanna Lumley and Michael Palin are lurking as well. Thincat (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Joanna Lumley has a residence in Scotland, so there is no problem with the inclusion of FRSGS in her lead. Thunberg was not born in Scotland nor does she reside in Scotland. She is also is not regularly associated FRSGS, so there is a problem with FRSGS post-nominal letters in her lead. It keeps being added to her lead with the claim it was added by consensus. That consensus has not been found. Jerry Stockton (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Joanna Lumley is also known for playing Purdey in the New Avengers, alongside Gambit and Steed. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's silly to include any honorifics after her name. I doubt she would want it, and being an FRSGS is not relevant to her activism. If Oxford decided to give her an honorary degree, I doubt she would change the way she introduces herself. I think Greta is just Greta. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest that most people who have honorary titles tend not to "introduce themselves" using their post-nominal letters. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"People who have honorary titles tend not to "introduce themselves" using their post-nominal letters"; Nor do Academy Award winners, nor do Super Bowl winners, nor do World Series winners, nor do ad infinitum . . . "introduce themselves" as such, but they are referenced as such. Johnrichardhall (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, John! That's what I was getting at. I doubt Paul McCartney insists on being announced as "Sir James Paul McCartney". Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@User: Paulmlieberman: You missed my point. While I assume neither McCartney nor Thunberg would demand to be introduced by honorary citations, neither would either of them (I assume further) demand to be reintroduced if their honorary citations were mentioned/used. This fixation on Thunberg's FRSGS MOS:POSTNOM is worthy of a Shakespearean comedy: "Much Ado About Nothing." Surely there is better use of editor's time and effort to improving Thunberg's Wikibio. But then again, maybe not, since I am yet again wasting fleeting time on five letters of which Thunberg was honored with and bestowed: FRSGS. Johnrichardhall (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Let's move on to more important issues. Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Request to add native pronunciation of surname

On Japanese TV she is referred to as グレタ・トゥーンベリ as if the surname is pronounced "toon-berry". I am a bit curious as to whether this is correct. Can we get a native pronunciation of the surname in the article? Thanks. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @PeepleLikeYou: Here's an interview wherein at thirteen minutes and seven seconds into the the interview Greta addresses the many pronunciations of her name. Click and go to 13:07 of the interview where Greta pronounces her name.Johnrichardhall (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. I think it would be an improvement to the article to add the pronunciation to it. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think an audio clip would be an excellent addition. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @PeepleLikeYou and @Paulmlieberman. I just found that there is an audio clip of the correct pronunciation of Thunberg's name within her bio. It is found as "cite 2a (note a)" of the opening sentence on her bio, right after her printed name. It can also be accessed here:

Thank you very much for your contribution. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed there is such a note in place and has been for some time. The surname in normal English (standard English phonetics) is Thun (starts with vocal 'th' as in them, those & rhymes with gun) plus -berg which rhymes with the first syllable in Ferguson or in the surname of Peter Bergman and many other Americans. People interested in learning and practicing Swedish phonetics can see that note. However the long 'u' in Swedish is practically impossible for speakers of English to say 100% right. If I were trying to teach it I would suggest Tibnberry. "Toon-" is way off the mark. Mispronouncing any name - trying but not succeeding (like when CNN makes an incomprehensible mess of Göteborg) - is not considered courteous when it comes to personal names and is thus always inappropriate. We know Greta in English from Greta Garbo and I recommend, there too, to stick to standard English phonetics. When getting into its Swedish pronunciation we run into standard Swedish versus Stockholm dialect, etc. - it's complicated - which thanks to Ms. Garbo is not needed here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting discussion of pronunciations. It seems to me that it would be kinder to readers to put the pronunciation somewhere easier to find than buried at the end of a list of references with nothing but the letter "a" to indicate its presence. But I am sure the authors of this article know what is best. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It is considered an reading encumberment to have foreign language notes in the lead. In my opinion, the footnote procedure is an excellent solution and very easy to use for any reader. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I have now restored the best solution. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That's the "best solution" in your opinion, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There has been quite a discussion about this somewhere, where someone who is very good at adding pronunciations agreed with sevenral others that it is much smoother for lead reading to have them as footnotes. Can't find it right now, but we can do an RfC here if you are very dissatisfied. Can't quite understand why you would be. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You cant find it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure that although we may not agree on the details, the central interest of all the participants here is in trying to make the article as good as possible, so let's keep an open mind about the possibilities. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we simply add a pronunciation already? 205.189.94.12 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing considers that the current solution of putting the pronunciation under the letter "a" after references in the lead is "an excellent solution and very easy to use for any reader". PeepleLikeYou (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

AGREE it was referenced like that (with the letter "a" linking to it) before the current brouhaha. Johnrichardhall (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Should we add another section on Criticism?

Particularly relating to Donald Trump, and his mocking of her.161.97.25.40 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. 81.146.44.26 (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Does it really merit its own section? Why does it not belong in one of the criticism sections already in existence? Nightenbelle (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

NOPE. Johnrichardhall (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Greta political agenda missing despite being a political figure

There is no mention whatsoever to her political affiliation or those of her close advisors, despite her co-signing far-left extremist manifesto.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-strikes-un-conference-madrid-by-greta-thunberg-et-al-2019-11

"After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities."

The literal call to dismantle "Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems" is a common far left objective in the western world, uncorrelated to ecology outside o`f ecology being a mean to an end.

Omitting such an important political bias held by Greta would is against Wikipedia policy of factual neutrality, ESPECIALLY on a currently controversial personality.

This is bad in these days and age, as it will lead to more and more people considering wikipedia "biased and unreliable". There is nothing wrong with being far left, however there is something wrong about being a "neutral" encyclopedia omitting acknowledged fact about someone because it look bad for their image/cause.

Suggestion : I'm against adding quote in general, as they can be taken out of context. Howvever, adding a line paraphrasing the above quote in the "Message" section and adding a link to the manifesto in the footer seem apropriate, as it is factual, does not quote out of context, and allow readers to see that Greta is not limited to ecology in her political scope.

Edit : Someone asked for source. Source is Greta herself. Provided link is to the original publication she made. Mirrors exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.132.20 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

By policy we are primarily influenced by what independent, reliable secondary sources say. Do we have any on this point? Also, making the link between the terms one figure uses and the labels attributed to other figures is SYNTH and OR, which are forbidden by policy. Newimpartial (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

If by "far left", you mean anyone who isn't "far right", then sure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"If by "far left", you mean anyone who isn't "far right", then sure." Johnrichardhall (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)