Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

BIAS Alert: Why does the article start with Health (mental health)?

Why does the article start with the Mental health section? This is the first section the reader reads.

Do you see the same pattern in any other articles on public figures? Do you see the article of Jordan Peterson starting with mental health or health problems? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

Do you see a section on mental health in Early Life on Einstein's page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

The health section is usually at the bottom of the page. Trying to conspire the health section on mental health into the Early Life section is biased.

There are multiple issues with this article being biased.

See guidance here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-11-29/Essay Partizan Kuzya (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Bios often begin with early life and proceed chronologically. Her mental health issues (particularly depression) preceded her activism. In fact, the accompanying distress she experienced about climate change is a major factor that motivated her to begin her activism. As for the other bios you link, every person is different with different life experiences in different sequences. There is no cookie-cutter requirement that certain issues must be addressed in a specific order for every bio. Often the simplest explanation is the best explanation. This is simply the chronological organization of her early life. It's not a conspiracy to devalue her. She herself often talks about her mental health issues; in fact, she has stated that her autism has been an advantage in her activism. Unfortunately your criticism plays into the very problem that people with mental health issues, including Thunberg, must struggle with regularly: mental health problems are something that shouldn't be discussed, and if they are discussed they should be perceived as a character flaw instead of a normal part of the human condition. Thunberg makes no apologies about her mental health issues, nor should she. Nor should Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

→Einstein had autism, which originated in early childhood; there is no section on mental health on Einstein's Early Life page, and he is not BLP. The recognition and emphasis should be on her work and not her condition. She is an environmentalist and not a mental health advocate. Her acceptance and openness to discuss the condition is possibly a defense mechanism against negativity. By placing the Mental Health section in the beginning of the article, there is an intention to divert the reader from her work and label her.

Mental Health should be moved to the bottom of the article, as it is done in all other bios. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please address these points:

• Are you saying that her health issues are not an important part of her life, even though she frequently discusses them and they served as a catalyst for her activism? People are not one-dimensional; activism is not the only important thing in her life.
• Why do you object to a chronological presentation of her life, as is done in many bios on Wikipedia?
• Let's take an analogy of actors. Should health issues in early life always be relegated to the bottom of the article? For example, Katie Leclerc's hearing impairment is discussed before her acting career. As far as I know, no actor began acting immediately after birth, so their early life is discussed before what they are most noted for.
• Or are you saying that only mental health should be moved to the bottom, unlike other early health issues?
• You are simply wrong in your sweeping generalization that "Mental Health should be moved to the bottom of the article, as it is done in all other bios". Here's just a few that I was able to find a about 90 seconds: Talia Grant, Susan Boyle, Dakota Johnson, James Durbin (singer), Channing Tatum.

And let me discuss your wild speculation that her discussion of her mental health is a "defense mechanism". You have no evidence of that whatsoever. And you have once again put forth the unjustified stigma of mental health that has done so much harm to people like Thunberg. She doesn't discuss her mental health as a "defense mechanism". She discusses it because she accepts it as a part of her life that has played a role in her activism, not a defect that she must deal with by using a "defense mechanism".

Sundayclose (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

→Please provide an example of a prominent public figure on a scale of Thunberg who has their first section titled Mental Health, and who is not a mental health advocate. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I gave you examples above if you bothered to look at the articles. You completely ignored every request for explanation above. You have provided no reasonable argument against a chronological account of her life, other than your implication that discussing her mental health somehow tarnishes how Wikipedia portrays her. Until you can provide that, you and I are finished here unless someone else expresses their opinion. I'll leave the POV tag that you placed up for another week to give others a chance to respond. Sundayclose (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

→ None of the examples you provided have a section titled Mental Health. Please provide few examples where a public figure has their first section titled Mental Health. Additionally, please make sure that there male public figures. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. Your complaint is where in the article mental health is discussed. In each of the articles I linked, mental health issues are discussed before the other information related to the subjects' notability. Again, please address the questions I asked above. Sundayclose (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand the point that it is problematic to start a political activist's article with a mental health section. However, as Sundayclose also pointed out, it is part of a chronological presentation and plays a significant role in her public appearance. Additionally it's just two short paragraphs, so I don't see an undue weight on the issue. --Yhdwww (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's especially not a WP:WEIGHT problem because Thunberg has talked openly and frequently about her mental health issues, those issues are related to her activism, and she has been ridiculed publicly because of them. Sundayclose (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a textbook WP:GREENCHEESE discussion. @Partizan Kuzya: if you would like to propose a specific edit to improve the article, please do so. If you're just going to demand that other editors correct a problem that's only apparent to you, please go do something else. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

→I propose:

• A. Create the Health Section and move Mental Health content into that section. The section will be at the end of the article, as it usually appears in bios. Or,
• B. Remove the title Mental Health and keep its content in the Early Life section without the Mental Health title.

If you oppose any of these, please provide a few examples where the Mental Health section is the first section of the articles, and further discussion will be done. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I like your suggestion B. Her mental health issues are not negligible, and a notable part of her early life, which is naturally the first part of the article, and they do tend to naturally flow into discussions of her activism, so keeping them early makes sense; yet calling them out with a bolded heading does tend to denigrate the activism, which is, after all, the main point of the article. I think we can live without the early life subsections since there are only five paragraphs total in Early Life, and breaking that into a tiny main section and two two-paragraph subsections is questionable in itself. I'll be bold and do that. --GRuban (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I like it. It also kind of gives a purpose to the TED Talk quote. --Yhdwww (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

→Thank you for rework! I think it was a good choice and compromise. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any change in headers until Partizan Kuzya responds to the questions I asked. Otherwise I'm not convinced that this isn't a thinly veiled attempt to minimize her mental health issues out of concern that it will tarnish Wikipedia's presentation of Thunberg. And I disagree that this article "denigrates" her activism. When she actively discusses her mental health issues she is not denigrating her activism; neither are we. GRuban, I respect that you were being bold, but it's inappropriate to make a change regarding an issue that is being discussed until the issue is resolved by consensus. Please don't change the headers until we see that consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If I may be so bold? While your questions were quite relevant to Partizan Kuzya's original proposal of moving the mental health section to the bottom of the page, none of them seem to apply to the latest change, which leaves the text exactly where it was, just removes the subsection heading. Agree? Or, if I missed something, please do repeat the question that is still relevant. We're down to four paragraphs in Early life, which makes breaking it into a main section and two subsections seems even less apt. --GRuban (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@GRuban: I respect your concern, but my issue is that there should be no changes in how the mental health part of the article is organized, including headers, until there is a consensus. At least at this point in the discussion. I know you act in good faith and I don't believe you have any ulterior motive, but I am concerned that this discussion was started as an effort to minimize her mental health issues. Your change certainly doesn't do that to the extent that moving it to the bottom would, but I want some closure on Partizan Kuzya's rationale for reducing the emphasis on mental health issues. It's the usual practice on Wikipedia not to make any changes in the article pertaining to a talk page discussion until there is an agreement to make changes. If there is enough support for your change here that's the way it will be. Right now I oppose the change, but this discussion is less than a day old; others may come along who are OK with the change. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

With respect, you seem to be opposing this change based on your suspicions of the motivation of the person who proposed it. That seems to be personalizing the issue just a bit. This shouldn't be about getting closure on Partizan Kuzya's rationale. In the end, we'll make the change or not make the change, and 99% of the people reading the article neither will nor should know or care "how the sausage is made". If, regardless of your feelings towards Kuzya's original proposal, you still believe that the four paragraph Early life section needs splitting into a main section and two subsections, please explain. I'm all for consensus: but rather than wait for others to come in and overrule your opposition, I'd like you to be part of it. --GRuban (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Also with respect, regardless of Partizan Kuzya's attempt to minimize her mental health issues, I believe those issues are a major part of her life, and that they have impacted her life significantly. As such, they merit a separate subsection in "Early life". This influence of mental health on her life has been complex, causing her distress but also motivating her to action and helping her to maintain a remarkable focus on environmental issues in the face of harsh criticisms and resistance. She says it herself in the TED talk comment quoted early in the article. That quotation is where it should be because it succinctly summarizes the impact of her mental health issues on her activism. Sundayclose (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

→@Sundayclose:There is no dismissal or minimization of her condition. The current revision has the same text, the same organization and placement of the text, the same chronology, and is consistent with the WP bios, including the list of bios that you provided -- none of those bios have a separate section titled Mental Health.

My responses were reverted and can be found in this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greta_Thunberg&oldid=992901254

There were three consensus votes and minimal rework, so GRuban had all the right to continue editing the article. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Partizan Kuzya: Your responses do nothing except demand that there should be an article with a separate mental health section. Please respond to the questions. GRuban was within his rights to be bold with his edit, but now that it has been challenged it requires consensus. Until there is a consensus there will be no change. Please be aware that consensus is not a vote. And a consensus is not determined one day after a discussion begins. It would help if you would actually answer my questions because failing to do so suggests that you're evading the questions, but obviously no one can force you to do that. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

→→@Sundayclose:. The questions were answered. Additionally, you are avoiding the request to provide bio articles that contain the Mental Health section as their first section. Since this is the only article that I see that has the Mental Health section titled and placed at the beginning of the article, this is still considered bias and controversial.

Merely proving a point does not do good to the community. So, please don't get involved in lenghthy discussions that take away your and the users' time. We all could rather write a new article or do really necessary edits.

There need to be a fair and equal treatment of subjects described in this encyclopedia. Thunberg should have the same bio organization as other prominent public figures, which will not single her out. Partizan Kuzya (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Partizan Kuzya: You did not answer the questions, and it appears you don't intend to do so. You are making the same arguments that you have already made. So I assume you have nothing new to say; until you do I'll be directing my editing elsewhere. Whether there are changes in the article depends on whatever consensus may or may not emerge here. So now we wait and see. Feel free to "write a new article" while we wait. Sundayclose (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

→Just an update for those who reads the discussion at this point: Sundayclose reverted GRuban's change, and the article still has it's first section titled Mental Health.

*Current proposals:

• A. Create the Health Section and move Mental Health content into that section. The section will be at the end of the article, as it usually appears in bios. Or,
• B. Remove the title Mental Health and keep its content in the Early Life section without the Mental Health title.Partizan Kuzya (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• C. Keep the "Mental health" header unchanged (because it is an important part of her life). Sundayclose (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support change option B. I agree that the article should not begin with a "mental health" sub-heading. There's no need for a heading there. It means you have Early life, following by two sentences with no heading, one paragraph with a heading, then another paragraph with a heading. It's better as one section called "Early life" as in this version. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Option B. Like I already said, I like the changes GRuban made. They don't change the content or the weight, but they improve the structure and readability of the article. --Yhdwww (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Option B. Same as Yhdwww above.PeterWD (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Support Option B. There's nothing wrong with the content but the sub-heading "Mental health" is unnecessary and possibly WP:UNDUE. For consistency I would also remove the sub-heading "Activism at home". Tammbeck^talk 14:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly oppose Option A. Thunberg's personality is central to her activism. The structure of the article must adapt to the subject. Both B (with both subheadings removed) and C are OK for me. Plumbum208 (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Option B The other subheading could also be removed as the section is quite short. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Option B Strongly support Option B. Her mental health is not at all a primary factor to her environmental efforts and world-wide popularity. Gandydancer (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Option B per SaraSV Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I think this is as clear Wikipedia:Consensus as we get around here, so I'm going to remove the subsection headings again. --GRuban (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with GRuban that the consensus for removing the subsection headings has become increasingly clear. Although I still have serious concerns about the original underlying motivation for minimizing Thunberg's mental health issues because of the sad historical stigma of mental illness, I think the consensus is a reasonable compromise that does not sweep mental health issues under the carpet. Thanks to Gruban and some other editors for a reasonable discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! As a side note, are there really any of us who regularly spend hours debating a few bolded words in an online encyclopedia article and yet think we aren't somewhere on the autism spectrum? --GRuban (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your continuing work on this article! Partizan Kuzya (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Typo in the section Position on climate change

There is a typo in second para in the quote "... unimaginable amounts of mone.y" which should be replaced by "... money." Garlicbeaver (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Garlicbeaver, done, thank you. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

In the section titled: "Social media activism" The following sentence: "Thunberg has also spoken out in support of the ongoing 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, in a Tweet.[43]" needs update due to the backlash and impact it created in India.

Proposed Addition : "In one of her tweets she had linked a google doc that guided and encourage protesters in India. This resulted in immediate backlash and as a result Thunberg deleted that tweet. India Government filed FIR report against the authors of this document for inciting violence and condemned Greta Thunberg for siding with them."

Reason: This is one of the top media stories all over India and even in Global Media such as BBC right now. The current wikipedia entry is lacking complete information about the tweets and backlash that need to be added to the page for factual reasons.

Cybersj (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. That doesn't look like a reliable source. You also need to elaborate on 1. what was in the Google doc 2. why there was "immediate backlash". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ganbaruby, Sure thing, I've updated the text with more information and also added 3 different references major news outlets corroborating the story.

Proposed Addition : "In one of her tweets she shared a link to a Google document that had several resources to mobilise people against the farm laws. The document in Thunberg's tweet showed details about January 26 protests and other street protests. The screenshots of the documents were widely shared on social media. This resulted in immediate backlash and as a result Thunberg deleted that tweet. Delhi Police filed FIR against the authors of the document under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race) and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), India Today reported on Thursday." Cybersj (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has been able to update the whole story on her wikipedia page so this change is no longer needed. Cybersj (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Anonymous quotations for criticism

In the Greta Thunberg § Social media activism section, quotes from anonymous spokespersons in The Times of India (RSP entry) are being used for criticism of Thunberg in relation to her tweets about the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest. Since Thunberg is a living person, the paragraph should be rephrased to avoid the use of anonymous quotes, per WP:BLPGOSSIP. — Newslinger talk 17:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This was resolved in Special:Diff/1005777885. — Newslinger talk 03:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Should we move the first two citations in the infobox?

Somebody didn't like the way Greta's full name looked in the infobox, so they inserted an HTML line break before her last name. IMHO, that is a *bad thing*, so I looked for another way to force the infobox to be wider so the name would fit together properly. It's inside a nowrap template, so why did it wrap? I tried several solutions; none worked. Then I noticed that the start of the first of two (not particularly relevant) citations butted up directly against "Thunberg". I inserted a space, and now it looks fine! But, should those citations be there, or after her full name in the article lede, or elsewhere or not in the article at all? I know this is a trivial issue, but polishing the article a bit wouldn't hurt. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Hola, como estas. Ok peace out sisters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.37.229.134 (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"sisters"? 81.154.172.180 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hyphenating ages

"... after being invited by Tokata Iron Eyes, a 16 year old Lakota climate activist." SHOULD BE CHANGED TO: "... after being invited by Tokata Iron Eyes, a 16-year-old Lakota climate activist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:A2B3:AC00:F936:1DF0:B5D2:7587 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done DonQuixote (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Claims of oversimplifying

I don't really see how people "claim" Thunberg is oversimplifying major world issues, mostly because she is. She seems to express the opinion that climate change is just something everybody can easily achieve, and that the world should be wake up and be ashamed, to say this is ridiculous is barely scratching the surface but I understand Wikipedia must be neutral, however, the fact that she is oversimplifying the issue isn't really an opinion, more of a fact.

~~Omir Laa~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omir Laa (talk • contribs) 03:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Starting with "She seems to", then turning that "seeming" into a "fact" in the course of the same sentence is not really good reasoning.

If you want to have your opinion in the article, you need to find it in reliable sources first. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want a reasoned argument on this you're wasting your breath. 81.152.239.100 (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Or you are the simplifier by failing to grasp that Thunberg goes for the bigger picture: no matter how complicated it's also urgent, no time for the usual eternal positioning and squabbling. Someone might go searching for a source that supports that, too. Etcetera. 151.177.57.31 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

If you want a reasoned argument on any of this person's entourage - you're wasting your breath Clean Arlene (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

From German Wikipedia

BDS support

Greta Thunberg (and also Fridays for Future) openly support BDS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions ). This has been revealed today through statements by Greta Thunberg and an official FFF channel. The reception is already running at full speed. https://www.rnd.de/politik/fridays-for-future-teilt-israel-boykottaufruf-deutsche-aktivisten-distanzieren-sich-NNS2T2YF3BFJ7NA7VA3KA5QBCU.html or https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article231040461/Greta-Thunberg-Kritik-wegen-Tweet-zu-Israel-und-Palaestinensern.html How and Where do we best incorporate this into the article?--Muaddin (Discussion) 13:15, 11 May 2021 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.155.47.99 (talk)

Delhi police filed FIR on her farmer's protest toolkit tweet.

Please mention that Delhi police filed GIR on her farmer toolkit tweet. Source Rizosome (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rizosome: Not directly related to her. Probe Not Against Greta Thunberg: Police on "Sedition" FIR For "Toolkit" AdithyaKL (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Some related content is currently in the article, including using primary sources such as Tweets and some sources of uncertain reliability. There also are undue details going against WP:NOTNEWS. It probably could remain in a shorter form and only using some of the independent sources, like The Guardian and Reuters that already provide a decent summary... —PaleoNeonate – 03:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Per Espen Stoknes

I am pretty sure that Greta Thunberg has met the Norwegian psychologist Per Espen Stoknes, on the border between Norway and Sweden. If any one can find a reliable source for this, it could be added to the article. Rollo August (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Part of the border meeting is shown about 40 minutes into episode 3 of the BBC mini-series "Greta Thunberg: A Year to Change the World." Someone who can access the BBC iPlayer for the episode would be able to confirm (it's locked outside the UK); unfortunately the episode summary there does not specifically mention Stoknes. BumblyBea (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

While GT has done many things meriting mention in her Wiki BLP, we don't reprint people's day timers. Why is this meeting of such substance it should go in the article? Notice you just said the episode summary didn't mention it, and this is about her whole bio so why should it be mentioned here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021

2402:3A80:151B:E9AA:A946:4BAB:6795:C59F (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

controversy beside a the so called the activist Greta is also involved in an international propaganda gang . currently she participated as an active member of toolkit gang in India as said the Indian government and many news agency of India.

Can you link to a specific highly reliable source that says this? --GRuban (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

the opening post seems like a WP:BLP vio to me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Showbiz. 92.40.180.73 (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

X-Site sticker

Concerning the edit here [1] by @Pol098:

https://www.huffpost.com/archive/au/entry/greta-thunberg-sticker-canada-oil_au_5e5c5c2ac5b6450a30c0da9b reads: Michelle Narang, a resident of Rocky Mountain House in west-central Alberta, first brought attention to the decal on Facebook. She ended up calling Doug Sparrow, a general manager at X-Site, to ask him if he was aware of what the sticker, which appeared to depict the rape of a minor. “She’s not a child, she’s 17,” he responded, Narang says.

That's all I see in the referenced article. It also says: The stickers, reading “X-Site Energy Services,” were handed out as promotional material to be worn at jobs sites, a worker told HuffPost Canada.

If they later denied it after getting caught, then have a reference to where that was done at. Dream Focus 23:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The Huffpost article cited seems to have been edited since I edited the Wikipedia article yesterday. It definitely cited Sparrow as saying that neither X-Site, nor any X-Site employee, was involved in making the sticker. There was no comment on reports that X-Site had been distributing the stickers. It now makes no mention of the Sparrow denial. The Huffpost article makes no mention of having been edited in the past couple of days, and is not archived in the Wayback Machine; someone may have been secretly sanitising it. If X-Site did make any denial, it should be reported (without comment or bias as just another fact). I have found another source and have added it, but have no interest in either including or excluding the denial from the article, I leave it to other editors to amend as they see fit.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Some news articles appear to report about a later apology admiting that it occurred, that it is taking action, but also claiming that others have also produced images with their logo since... Like https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/we-will-do-better-x-site-energy-apologizes-for-greta-decal-1.4834983 —PaleoNeonate – 08:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Less quotations is better

We don't need lengthy quotations of her statements describing herself in the lead. That is not appropriate. That isn't what the lead is for. It is supposed to be a summary that can stand alone. We are supposed to be writing prose, in first person Wikipedia voice. - Shiftchange (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree in principle but only see a few quotes there, citing BBC, not lengthy self-descriptions. I suggest being more specific in case I missed something. —PaleoNeonate – 08:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to split section for honors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no concensus. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

---

I don't see why we should make a new article for this content, but I did notice that the required discussion thread was not started by the ed who added the tag, so.... discuss away..... for now, because there was no reason given (and see WP:SPLIT), I am opposed but I'll listen to reasons with an open mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose section is not that long - if it became too long it could be cut down to the biggest honors Chidgk1 (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Sorry, that's my bad; I was the one who added the tag. I meant to add to the talk page afterwards but got distracted and forgot to—it had been a long day. The reason I proposed the split was because I felt it was too long, and as someone with vision impairment, I found the section somewhat difficult to navigate. I don't believe that simply reducing the section will help, as that would reduce the comprehensive coverage of the awards she's received. I feel a split would somewhat reduce these issues, as if I'm having trouble reading it, there would no doubt be others out there experiencing the same problem. It was more an accessibility concern than anything else. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Although I am sensitive to accessibility issues and wish everyone would subject everything they create to rigorous usability testing, that reasoning isn't mentioned in our guidelines for splitting articles, is it? I admit its been awhile since I studied that one, but this is your proposal. Do you see that reason in there somewhere? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I apologise, I meant to come back to this; I'm only here because something reminded me of this (I really should've asked for a ping). That reason isn't mentioned at the guideline for splitting articles admittedly, but it's certainly a reason I'd imagine others would be receptive to. Maybe that's something I could propose to be added in. Regardless of my own accessibility concerns, I do still think this section is quite long. Maybe I should draft a split article and see what others think about it? I think others would be less opposed to a separate article once it actually exists. Sean Stephens (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't count on that, and if you propose a tweak to the splitting guideline, please do the right thing and provide a link to this discussion so editors interested in the guideline understand the backstory. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose At this juncture the section is not too long. That stated, there may come a time when it needs to be split. For now, it's a moot point.Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Far from overlength. Belongs with the other text and should remain integrated with it. Ex nihil ^(talk) 07:21, 3 November 2021 (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.

Gender Neutral Pronouns

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.

---

From what Ive read Greta thunberg prefers to use gender neutral pronouns and be referred to as an IT. The article should use gender neutral pronouns and not refer to Greta thunberg as her. 2A01:598:9081:626:1:2:D9A6:9D48 (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As per above, where did you hear this?Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the nearest topic I could find, in The Independent from 2019. But it's quite different to the very odd claim made above. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If you read the article in detail you can see that Greta thunberg uses the it pronoun. It also wanted to trademark it's name earlier as well. 2A01:598:9081:626:1:2:D9A6:9D48 (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would provide a direct quote. DonQuixote (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thunberg is not directly quoted in any way in that article? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

They just went and stuck 'it' instead of 'he' in Julian Assange's article so doesn't seem to be here to help. Need far beter evidence than their word. NadVolum (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw (and reverted) that, so they maybe here on some crusade ot to make a point, but if thunberg does user It, then we should.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This is perhaps a continuation of a previous spurt of such gender changes by a registered user with a number of blanked warning notices, to many other articles including Greta Thunberg's, most of which were reverted. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes I should have said I did have a quick look at the article but didn't see evidence for what they were talking about. They should provide the evidence in a more easily digstible form. Thundberg did refer to "his Anger Management problem" about Trump. NadVolum (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That's definitely correct that Greta thunberg wants to be referred to as IT.46.114.2.213 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it, source?Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Above seems to be the same as Special:Contributions/46.114.4.66 and Special:Contributions/2A01:598:9081:626::/64, it may be best to just revert and WP:DENY, if it persists, to ask for page protection at WP:RFPP. —PaleoNeonate – 21:03, 19 October 2021 (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.

It is possible that she prefers to be known as Hen (pronoun) in Swedish, which does not have quite the same connotations as "it" in English. PatGallacher (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

To people who can edit this:

The article says, Greta's got Asperger syndrome. Please change it to autism, because 1) the old term is not used anymore 2) Hans Asperger was a nazi, he decided, which autistic people could live, and slaughtered the rest, so, it feels like an insult. 106.206.219.206 (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source. DonQuixote (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any change is necessary. Wikipedia's voice is not used in this article to describe the objective facts about terminology or the history of the term. The information about Asperger's refers either to the fact that she was diagnosed or to her own comments about the disorder. When she was diagnosed it was referred to as Asperger's. And we certainly can't refactor her own use of the term. If there is a reliable source in which Thunberg discusses the differences in terminology or history of the term, that might be included, but to the best of my understanding she has never done so. Additionally, the term is linked to Asperger syndrome, which provides the details about terminology. Sundayclose (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

We still talk about the Stark effect in physics, even though Johannes Stark was a Nazi who opposed "Jewish physics". PatGallacher (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2021

In the section "The Greta effect", I would like to add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph:

But the Greta effect also seems to have other facets. According to another study from 2021, public hesitation in recognizing the risks inherent in climate change may be the result of a complex process of opinion dynamics or social learning among social media users . According to this study, the polarization phenomenon apparently induced by Greta Thunberg could be explained by modeling the existence of contrarians in the society.

This sentence is related to other links in Wikipedia:

Contrarians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrarian social learning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_models_of_social_learning 37.161.153.66 (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 05:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That text does not really work in a Wikipedia. It summarises a rather long, very recent and as yet uncited, paper and is written in highly technical language, while at the same time being pretty unspecific. "a complex process of opinion dynamics or social learning among social media users" – I'm sure that can account for it to some extent, but the phrase does not explain very much. Reading the source, I discovered that the study was carried out on a rather limited dataset of tweets in Italian, and that the presence of "contrarians" is postulated by the researchers, who clearly acknowledge the limitations of their study. I have read the source (or relevant parts of it) and to my mind, this is content that might belong in Mathematical models of social learning, but not necessarily here. (A very minor point, but Itcouldbepossible, please make sure to follow WP:ENGVAR. The text you added is not in British English.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

References

"Memes about Greta Thunberg" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Memes about Greta Thunberg. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 19#Memes about Greta Thunberg until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for Featured Article Status

Discuss nominating "Greta Thunberg" article for feature article status. Its status is currently good article. See "Wikipedia:Compare criteria Good v. Featured article." Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mural of Greta Thunberg in Bristol.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2022

Please add dates per short description by following parameter:

{{Short description|Swedish climate activist (born 2003)}} 112.204.221.155 (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Done (except parentheses). Captainllama (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Captainllama: Parentheses is needed per WP:SDDATES for lifetime if most important. 112.204.221.155 (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seems wasteful to me in the short description but... done. Captainllama (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Greta Thunberg Mural SF.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Bias

I don't know about bias in "challenging world leaders" but that's what Thunberg does. "Asking society" is very amorphous and I don't know even what that means. Elizium23 (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2022

In the “Continued activism” section there is a sentence that reads “ In July 2022, Thunberg criticized the European Parliament on Twitter for voted to label fossil gas as "green" energy.” Could someone please make the tenses easier to read? (like changing voted to voting) Undergroundwaterfrog (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Undergroundwaterfrog: I fixed it; thank you for noticing! Aerin17 (t • c) 23:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks :) Undergroundwaterfrog (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Bias

The statement "hardly a surprise considering the immense, growing 'disconnect' between scientific reality and those - politicians and media - at the helm" is quite obviously biased and painting very broad strokes image of the politicization of climate change. 96.30.162.42 (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2022

Johnmax20 (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Please let me edit this page. 🙏

This isn't an edit request - you haven't said what changes you want to make. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit needs to be made

Challenge global leaders needs to be replaced with eco terrorist and Marxist as she has stated her goal is to bring down western governments. Below is a link supporting why this change is necessary https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/02/greta-thunberg-time-overthrow-wests-oppressive-racist-capitalist/ 2601:543:C880:AC0:643A:72D2:82F8:E6F (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done. Biographies of living persons are required to have explicit support for such controversial labels. Your link to an opinion piece by India McTaggart is not enough. What you need to do is show multiple WP:SECONDARY sources calling her an ecoterrorist and/or Marxist. Explicitly—not by inference. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Why does the article claim that she was nominated for Nobel Prize? Source of this claim? The committee keeps nominations secret for years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8E7F:47E0:C52D:478A:6B85:B5E8 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

There's literally three sources cited in the lede. DonQuixote (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Tweet

Should there be a mention of her recent Twitter response to Andrew Tate? Considering that it was only posted yesterday and is already the 8th-most liked tweet. ForeverStamp (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it WP:DUE? What secondary sources are covering it? Elizium23 (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

NBC News and The Hill are two. --ForeverStamp (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It is the 7th most liked tweet on the platform. Appu (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

My default assumption is no per WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTNEWS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The fallout resulted in the arrest of a person (with general NOTABILITY) for human trafficking. The causal chain is not that complex, and her first Twitter response is on the most like tweets top list on Wiki and rising. Her follow up got a million likes in 3 hours as of now and dominating reddit. While it doesn't carry the same weight as her climate work it rates up there enough to get a mention in other work just since she tied it back into environmentalism with her "this is what happens when you don't recycle" tweet made from in front of Parliament while protesting on her Friday event and which is going to end up one of the most viewed tweets in history. It's not NOTNEWS and quickly rising past the PROPORTION threshold in this editor's opinion. 2603:8090:1200:E00:617E:45F2:3A0:82C3 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Citations are needed for your alleged "causal chain". Elizium23 (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. It mentions her changing her twitter bios to match what people have said about her, but something this notable isn’t getting put on the page? Be for real. This will get added to the page eventually Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The event was added to his page and some of the edits became viral. I think it's poetic that her page, full of awards and nominations, has no mentions. Arosa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: the Andrew Tate article says: ".. Thunberg's reply is currently the 7th most-liked tweet." That wording needs to be adjusted e.g. "By 29 December 2022, Thunberg's reply was the 7th most-liked tweet". But I can't even edit Talk:Andrew Tate to suggest that. Perhaps you can. Thanks. 86.187.234.59 (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Certainly worth a mention. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure where this would fit into her page, but reaching the top-10 most-liked tweets isn't a flash-in-the-pan moment. So here's at least a source someone can use to reliably insert something about this: [2] (Addendum: ugh, apologies for forgetting to sign; not sure why the bot didn't catch and sign for me). --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, at least it fits on this page: List of most-liked tweets. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

According to that page, it's now risen to be the 5th most-liked tweet. --ForeverStamp (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate page now just refers to it as "one of the most-liked tweets" to deal with the improving position. I do think it's worthy of mention here on her own page. --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Another of her tweets has now been added to the list of most like tweets. He tried to troll her, and her response burned him to the ground. Some RS are speculating that his reply to her tweet provided the evidence needed for the authorities to locate and arrest him. Many RS beyond the ones listed below cover this story, and we should give it a blurb. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that was pretty funny. Fwiw, added List of most-liked tweets to See also. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

See Also -- link to Xiuhtezcatl Martinez

Imho the **See Also** section could also contain a link to Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, like Thunberg et al. an important contemporary environmental activist who started as a minor, roughly at the same age. 2003:F6:3712:D547:1D5:D8C:F47:C736 (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate and Greta Thunberg

This needs to be added to the page for a wide variety of reasons. Number 1: Andrew tate has it on his page Number 2: she now has two of the most liked tweets on the platform, which I would argue is more relevant than her changing her twitter bio which is included Number 3: Multiple sources exist proving it’s notability

https://www.mamamia.com.au/what-did-andrew-tate-say/amp/

https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/unknown/swedish-activist-greta-thunberg-mocks-the-arrest-of-streamer-andrew-tate-«this-is-what-happens-when-you-dont-recycle-your-pizza-boxes»/ar-AA15OyTl

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/small-dk-energy-greta-thunberg-burns-andrew-tate-on-twitter/news-story/5aba9e0260cc1b62ccd28cedb0f1f6d3?amp

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8034698/thunberg-tweet-linked-to-tates-arrest/

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/video/environmental-activist-greta-thunberg-shuts-down-andrew-tate-with-viral-response/ao10wfzyl

https://www.ndtv.com/feature/greta-thunberg-takes-another-swipe-at-ex-kickboxer-andrew-tate-over-his-detention-in-romania-3650853/amp/1

https://www.news.com.au/world/owned-so-hard-how-a-pizza-box-landed-tate-in-custody/news-story/6c67b8384ffbd62ae65c07f37242f5d3

There are more which I can provide but this obviously needs to be added as she’s basically the main reason for his arrest inadvertently

Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No, disagree, this is just a flash in the pan moment as far as Thunberg is concerned,and of no ongoing relevance to her life or career. Which contrasts with Tate, who's apparently been arrested with the tweets forming a part of his story.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No one said it had to be more than one paragraph though. It could be a sentence. Whether it has any impact on her career in the future is irrelevant, it still happened and is notable. Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This is classic recentism. It's amusing. It's entertaining. But please try applying the ten year test. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again, irrelevant. Apply the ten year test to the will smith Chris rock smack? Yet that exists. I would understand the contention if it was some thing that got 100,000 likes but this is obviously a big thing, shown by it now being the 3rd most liked tweet on the platform and rising. Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In ten years, Andrew Tate will still be in prison, therefore it's still gonna be notable. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Because it's been made clear further down in this discussion that his arrest had nothing to do with the exchange of tweets. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In ten years, will people be confused by her changing her twitter bio? Maybe. But that’s still there. Will people be confused by something arguably much more notable? Less likely. Don’t know why this is still such a big issue Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it's trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Her tweet had nothing to do with her arrest it seems. Doug Weller talk 08:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s obvious that without her he wouldn’t have been arrested inadvertently or not Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/30/andrew-tate-explainer-arrested-greta-misogyny/

"Despite the online speculation that Romanian authorities were able to locate Tate after he posted a video in response to Thunberg containing a pizza box from a local spot that gave away his location, authorities denied that the video played any role. The investigation into Tate and his brother began in April after the U.S. Embassy called Romanian authorities with information that a U.S. citizen was being held involuntarily at a house in Ilfov." —PaleoNeonate – 15:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Notability is not the standard we use for inclusion of facts in articles. WP:DUE is the way we measure whether something can be included. If it is proportionally covered by WP:RS then we can consider inclusion. This is a lower standard than notability. Elizium23 (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

hello i would like to preserve Greta Thunberg personal email "smalldickenergy@getalife.com" under her profile name. since internet right and freedom of speech is under attack. dont want this information lost, freedom of information, ect. even if it at the very bottom of the wiki page, "she said it, so it must be true" write it down... Preserved it, preserve, preserve, preserve... to bad the dirty native couldnt preserve their land until the our white people came. at least im not afraid to say "only winners rewrite history." who prisoners of war becomes The Holocaust survivors. and 1750-1900 native of this land befor the white one, we killed like 80% of the natives of this land in a huge Genocide. long story short. "preserve Greta Thunberg personal email "smalldickenergy@getalife.com" under her profile name." 74.206.159.62 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Er...it's a joke email.... DonQuixote (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg Pronouns

They have made it clear to use they/them pronouns, not she/her. This Wikipedia article should reflect that. 49.192.222.28 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for this claim. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's possible that she uses gender-neutral pronouns in Swedish which do not translate exactly into English. PatGallacher (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but we still need the source. I understand Swedish. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If this were true, one would think Swedish editors would know it, but her Swedish article uses feminine pronouns. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Parents in the infobox

@Rowing007: Why do you think User talk:Thedarkknightli#Infobox person isn't supportive? The rules have been changing. There's no consensus that different parameters are required. --Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

For the nth time, per the template's documentation, the "mother" and "father" parameters may be used, and they are used on multiple other pages of a notable person with 2 notable parents, as well as in the example on the template's page. Nothing you presented on your talk page constitutes a valid argument against this position; it's just your personal opinion and the personal opinion of a random person you pinged. I am stating that per the documentation, the use of these parameters is valid, so, kindly stop this crusade. Rowing007 (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. The template's example isn't the only standard and should be updated. Opinions given by experienced editors (e.g. User:SNUGGUMS) should be considered. --Thedarkknightli (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, WP:OWNERSHIP should be respected. --Thedarkknightli (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This is truly unhinged. The template says the parameters may be used. They are used. Their use is valid. End of story. If you have an issue with the template itself, start an RFC on the template's talk page. Rowing007 (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, weighing in as an uninvolved editor. This is a ridiculous thing to be bickering about. Her parents are going to be listed either way; I'm not sure why it matters whether they're listed together in the "parents" parameter or separately in "mother" and "father". However, my preference would be for "parents", because the template documentation is very clear that "mother" and "father" are only to be used if the subject has only one notable parent. Yes, the use of both parameters is valid, but I don't see any reason to do so in this case. Aerin17 (t • c) 16:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hear hear! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The mother and father parameters are used in the example on the template's documentation, and they're used on multiple other articles of people that have 2 notable parents. Further, it helps disambiguate the mother and the father. The template documentation clearly states may be used (optionally with father parameter) in place of parents parameter and may be used (optionally with mother parameter) in place of parents parameter. As their use is valid per the template documentation, there is no reason to forcibly impose the other style. Like I mentioned, if Thedarkknightli has such an issue with this, he should start an RFC on the template's talk page. Either way, this is a truly ridiculous point. Rowing007 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

And once again, the template documentation also states If subject has only one notable mother and only one notable father, mother and father parameters may be used instead. Rowing007 (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You're not hearing us. It doesn't matter. This is not a hill to die on. Spend your time improving the article instead. (This obviously applies to both people involved in the dispute). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

To be very clear, that's what I've been doing from the start. I don't really need to be told to edit instead of discussing a completely innocuous and valid edit I made with someone (Thedarkknightli) so vehemently opposed to it. How I choose to spend my time is my prerogative. I do agree that the other party's energy in this discussion would lead to more fruitful results if they were to open an RFC on the template's talk page instead of further engaging here. Rowing007 (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bastun: Got it. --Thedarkknightli (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Occupation - student, activist?

Thunberg is now 20 years old. Is she still a student? The article mentions her "autumn break" from school in 2022. What school is she attending and what is she studying? Her occupation is listed as "environmental activist" - is someone paying her? This is basic demographic stuff that should be addressed in the opening section. 64.30.93.144 (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Nationality is not necessary info in the short description 🇦🇽

If you insist, you can add a descriptive symbol in the short description which you want to keep within letter limits. Less is more. Nowadays those flag emojis are all the rage for what they're worth. Wikipedia advises not to emphasize ethnicity. ToniTurunen (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@ToniTurunen: Including the country is, in fact, recommended for short descriptions (see WP:SDEXAMPLES), while flag emojis are not allowed in short descriptions (see WP:SDFORMAT). Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Nationality is frequently present in the first sentence of biographies. Ethnicity is not. We should continue to say she is Swedish. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Andrés Iglesias mural of Greta Thunberg above Mason Street, San Francisco.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Andrés Iglesias mural of Greta Thunberg above Mason Street, San Francisco.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Her "alleged" deleted tweet from 5 years ago is real

Recently, she has been accused of allegedly deleting a tweet that she allegedly made 5 years ago. There is dispute as to whether she actually made the tweet. So, for the record, here is a link to an archive of the tweet, along with the dead link to the original tweet. I am merely posting these links to show that the tweet is indeed real.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190827160619/https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1009757391515156480

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1009757391515156480

The text of the deleted tweet states:

“A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.”

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You need reliable sources to add that to the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-greta-thunberg-deleted-tweet-675395214080

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, she didn't say that the world would end in 5 years from her posting, only that the world would end if we didn't stop using fossil fuels by then (by now). We have not, so according to her the world is going to end, but without any implied date as to when. Pretty funny that she deleted it, though. 98.209.242.183 (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So a 15 year old tweeted a one liner that misquoted a 72 year old Harvard scientist, and was wrong. I'm shocked, I tell you! I guess now I know not to make any major decisions based on one line tweets from 15 year olds about the imminent apocalypse. Note, we don't even have that one liner in our article about that scientist, James G. Anderson, so adding it to her article seems a bit much. --GRuban (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

By deleting the tweet, Thunberg is acknowledging the need for accuracy and credibility in discussions about climate change, and avoiding spreading misinformation. Thunberg was trying to erase her past statements and positions, which may undermine her credibility as a climate activist. The deletion should be included in her page. Ojvolleyball (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly: bollocks to that. See WP:DUE. There is absolutely no basis for inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Article misleading information

It states this incorrectly "France 24 reported that several crew would fly to New York to sail the yacht back to Europe". That is not true as Greta sailed back with the yacht. BBC documentary shows that as well. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p090xz9z/i-am-greta Whoops444 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Protest against windfarms on Sami land

Shouldn't this be mentioned? Kdammers (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't what be mentioned? Details and source needed. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Most likely referring to this. There's quite a lot of writing about it although it's also very recent. Wikipedia is not the news, we can wait and see if this is still relevant 6 months from now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

GA requirement

Does the section "In popular culture and art" still makes the article meet the GA requirements since it has a maintenance banner? I'm not sure what should be done here, but would like to discuss that. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see much wrong with that section at all, I think the banner is misplaced. As per MOS:POPCULT it's written in prose, not a list format, and isn't a random collection of trivial appearances but a decent collation of significant events and works of art, and it's well sourced. WaggersTALK 12:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, let's remove the banner then? PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done WaggersTALK 13:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

I think is fair to add on the article that Greta came back to Europe by Cathing a ride on a low carbon yacht. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/13/greta-thunberg-to-hitch-a-ride-to-europe-with-australian-youtube-influencers The article is about Greta, not about the crew coming back by plane. I think the information given by citing France 24 news is misleading or, at least, incomplete. Whoops444 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see how this would be relevant? Callmemirela 🍁 13:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Add a criticism title

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.

---

Why does a notable activist like Yeonmi Park have a "critics" header (which she should on an unbiased website) but does Greta Thundberg not have any criticism described about her? 2A02:1811:1C77:F700:554D:7047:FB24:F1F7 (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably because Park is notable enough for reliable sources to criticise here whereas Thundberg isn't notable enough. DonQuixote (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This article seems more like praise than an unbiased article. Bjoh249 (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly Greta Thunberg has received far more attention in the media than Yeonmi Park, and is far more "notable". But most of the media has a left wing bias, and therefor rarely criticize Thunberg(not Thundberg) for her often naive views. It certainly isn't hard to find examples of news articles criticizing her, if we look a little bit outside of the typical left wing sources(New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, etc., etc.):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnbbrandon/2021/11/07/greta-thunberg-is-trending-again-on-twitter-for-the-wrong-reasons/?sh=5b259d7638bf

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-problem-with-greta-thunberg-s-sea-crossings/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/greta-thunberg-climate-activist-united-nations/

https://fee.org/articles/the-real-problem-with-greta-thunberg-is-not-her-age/

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-her-mothers-memoir-reveals-the-extent-of-greta-thunbergs-suffering-and-exploitation TruthZero (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is politically biased in favor of the Left. SimpsonDG (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Science and truth tend to be of the left. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow, no bias in that statement (rolls eyes) Bjoh249 (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

If you can cite reliable sources and write a well-written sentence/paragraph/section/etc., then go right ahead. Although, to be honest, the controversy of not doing much more than crying "listen to the experts" probably isn't more notable than the controversy of discrepancies in personal testimonies, which, in the relevant article, is just one paragraph of content (Yeonmi Park#criticism). DonQuixote (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Far too much of the criticism of Thunberg is of the form "What would she know? She's only a child?" That is NOT notable, and if it was included, would make her opponents look like idiots. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Her opponents don’t look like idiots, her supporters do, because they are. Bjoh249 (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Did a person just wrote that "Science and truth tend to be of the left". I got to tell you, it's a bold step trying to assign a political spectrum and a whole political ideology to science and truth itself. One might say it's asinine. Could you maybe point to a video or article of perhaps Slavoj Žižek where he asigns a political leaning to science and truth, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.139.69 (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman wrote: "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias" Stephen Colbert said "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" Both were correct. All progress in society comes from progressives, whereas conservatives tend to protect the status quo and resist any change. Some conservatives not only resist change, they are regressives who try to undo changes they don't like and return society to what they consider the "good old days", which weren't all that great. They think the oppression of women, misogyny, homophobia, slavery, etc. are good things. They are not content with allowing others in society to hold enlightened beliefs, they try to force others to believe as they do and insist that only one POV should rule, namely their own. They can't tolerate a pluralistic and free society and may even attack others who believe otherwise than themselves. Many mass shootings demonstrate this tendency to use violence as a protest against progressive views.

Not all change is good. It is a truism that one cannot achieve any improvement without change, but there is a lot of change that is not an improvement, and progressives are not the only ones who try to change society. Regressives try to change society by undoing progressive changes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion but I can see it straying way off topic if it continues; let's keep the focus here on this specific article. WaggersTALK 12:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Cough* akshally they’re called reactionaries

Dronebogus (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the more common term. Too bad there isn't a parallelism "Progresstionary vs Reactionary" as there is with "Progressive vs Regressive". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s your opinion. Bjoh249 (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

yes, but it’s your opinion being presented as fact here. Bjoh249 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Can we please stop this WP:FORUM discussion? The question was about a criticism section, and a criticism section is generally not encouraged. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

"They think the oppression of women, misogyny, homophobia, slavery, etc. are good things. " Your point being? The main article on conservatism already includes as a definition that conservatism serves as a "general defense of social and economic inequality." That is what its support for social hierarchies translates to, that some people are inherently inferior. Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2023 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2023

Please remove FRSGS per MOS:POSTNOM, because it already exists in honours and awards section. This can be only this person with a subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence. 112.204.206.165 (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Schooling.

What's her academic background? 2600:100C:B250:CA08:E49A:BA3E:D23:F472 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

She just graduated high school, as mentioned in the section just above this one. DonQuixote (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

2022 onwards (addition request)

I think you should add the following to the section labeled 2022 onwards: "On June 9, 2023, Thunberg stated that she no longer can skip classes as a way to draw attention to climate change because she would be graduating high school later that day." <ref>https://apnews.com/article/greta-thunberg-climate-graduation-protests-fridays-c60cec5b666550b9240648227649e91f "Ten days later she was detained with other activists after they stopped traffic in the oil terminal of the port in Malmo, Sweden. She was subsequently charged by Swedish prosecutors with disobedience to law enforcement." <ref>https://apnews.com/article/sweden-greta-thunberg-climate-protest-f0aab9ffa2bac1031aed62a07cbb10d5 8.9.81.21 (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done both edits/additions made and also split subcategory to be more descriptive than "2022 onwards." That's Not My Name 2020 (talk)19:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thunberg's Arrests

As Thunberg's protests move from passive and legal protests to confrontational and illegal protest with arrests and convictions, a new page category might soon be in order. That's Not My Name 2020 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

London Oil Summit arrest

Should the article mention her arrest which occurred today? Pladero (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source please. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done addition made under Post-high school. Also, see new category below: Thunberg's arrests.That's Not My Name 2020 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)