Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Role model

In this edit, User:Swill999 changed the first sentence from

"...is a Swedish schoolgirl, climate activist and iconic role model for worldwide student activism.

to

"...is a Swedish schoolgirl, climate activist and has been described as a role model for worldwide student activism."

Swill999 explains in a hidden comment: "original text was 'is an iconic role model for worldwide student activism', is this appropriate for the lead? The old phrasing has neutrality concerns, and seem like an opinion. The sources obviously present her with a positive POV. Should this phrase be removed from the lead altogether or possibly include later in the article saying that some notable people (would need to find examples) have stated that she is a role model?"

I've made a minor change to expression, and it now reads

"...is a Swedish schoolgirl climate activist who has been described as a role model for worldwide student activism."

I don't mind Swill999's formulation "described as" but, since she's so obviously a role model, I'm also happy to call her that in Wikipedia's voice ("is a role model" as opposed to "described as a role model").

I'm happy to lose "iconic". I suppose she is the icon for today's school kid climate activisim but right now it just feels a bit hyperbolic. I'm open to persuasion on all of the above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I would submit that "hailed as a role model" is a suitable compromise for all sides. It's both factually accurate, does not make any factual claims of that status, yet also does justice to the impact she's had in the world. "Described" is just far too non-committal and even dismissive of her impact, implying the existence of a factual disconnect between the "description" and the objective reality, which is nonsense. There is absolutely no doubt about her status as a role model. Her activism has inspired millions of schoolchildren around the world to become activists themselves. Her social media page gets thousands of messages of support from children, classrooms and schools across the globe on a daily basis, all of whom are taking action in their turn. She speaks to crowds of tens of thousands on her travels. If all that does not add up to the very definition of a role model, then please explain what is and why the definition specifically excludes her? Cadar (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose it's fine as is. Not everyone has hailed her. Some are worried about her well-being as a sort of exhibit. We don't need to add our own POV to all the hype. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The term 'hailed' is too value-laden for encyclopedic (wikipedic) purposes. I prefer saying 'regarded as', which adds up to the following sentence:

  GT is a Swedish climate activist who is regarded as an iconic role model for worldwide student activism.

I think @Anthonyhcole and SergeWoodzing: are both plain wrong to argue that media reports are generally 'hyped' when describing her as an iconic role model. And @Cadar: is right to describe in detail the impact she has made in the world so far (thx for your post). I've been bold, and added my sentence above to the article already (inspect this diff) to keep the discussion active. Gaeanautes (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Boldness is not supposed to include changing article text while there is an ongoing discussion and no consensus. Nor does it include citing blog sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: Apologies for being a little too bold on this issue. It had been nine days since the last post in this subsection, so I got the impression that the discussion had withered. But now we're up again, which was one of my intentions. Consider my following points for discussion:

• There are other reliable sources around substantiating that she is an iconic role model by now. Still others can be found...
• The comment in your earlier post, that "We don't need to add our own POV to all the hype", appears futile, even nonsensical, to me. Whose POV are you talking about here, and what is 'all the hype' anyway? As WP editors, we are supposed to carefully document the sources referenced, not to dismiss them across the board as 'hype'.
• I agree that there are now some sources criticising her activism—but this is exactly because she has now become an iconic role model: Controversial political figures are always criticised. We could add a paragraph in the lead, summarizing the criticism from the growing 'Controversy' subsection. That would be NPOV editing. And it wouldn't contradict the fact that she's an iconic role model!
• As WP editors, we don't solve or sidestep real-world disagreements—we document these disagreements. Although we may reach consensus on the WP editing among ourselves, we cannot expect real-world consensus to ever appear.

– I would like other editors around to join the discussion anytime...

References

End of post, Gaeanautes (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward the inclusion of "icon" or "iconic", now that I've had time to get used to it. She actually is (and is frequently described in very reliable sources as) an icon and a role model for today's student climate activism. So, I'll support something like "...an icon and role model...".

I'm not happy with "hailed as". Seems over the top, and cliimate science deniers certainly aren't hailing her so if we're going to use it we should use "hailed by some as" but I'd prefer to avoid it altogether. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I've restored "role model". The opening sentence now reads "... is a Swedish climate activist and a role model for international student climate activism." It's a bit clumsy so please fix prose if you can. She's much more than just a climate activist, and there seems to be agreement above for "role model". Whether we should include "icon" is still open. Also, I'd like us to consider "inspiration", since she certainly is that (and the New York Times source supports it.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Uh, changes have been made again now to article text against consensus. Can we stop doing that? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Climate change deniers"

"Climate change deniers" - Such a term used in the article speaks for itself and conveys an uneducated and bigoted attitude by the writer. Labeling especially a group of political opinion this way adds to the problem. Simplistic, untrue, inaccurate, inferior-portraying labeling of political opponents is typical smear tactic. People are not denying climate change (actually: the existence of). "Denier" by itself is already a tricky label, and here it was made worse. (This is related to the comparative issue of excessive "troll"-labeling.) - Much better alternatives: "Critics of the AGW thesis", "AGW critics". While this refers to (anthropogenic) global warming and not climate change, the latter is the replacement label for what is still supposed to be the former only. - One can easily come up with more labels that are all better than the cultish "climate denier". - But go ahead and keep it; As I said, it speaks for itself about the credibility of the article. People aware of propaganda techniques will draw their conclusions. --37.138.171.178 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• You know what, I took this in good faith--in better faith than it was posted. I could put quotes around the phrase (after all, it's the exact same wording that's used by one of the sources), but there's this other thing: we have Climate change denial, and since I do not believe Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet, or a purveyor of "cultish" words, I'm going to roll with the phrase as we have it, and Ima put your "typical smear tactic" in my Voodoo pipe and smoke it. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• By all means. Climate change deniers are nice people. But the label 'Climate change denial' doesn't sound nice. So, for the sake of political correctness, some new label should be invented instead. For example, 'AGW critics' or another nice abbreviation or euphemism. Otherwise, the deniers will be offended and start weeping. Just like in the post above. Uh, terrible. And not nice.

Alert: You have just been exposed to an instance of wiki-sarcasm. Take all necessary precautions. <chuckle> --Gaeanautes (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Across at Twitter (and in one attempted edit here), climate deniers are now calling themselves "climate realists" and using similar hashtags, just like 9/11 "Truthers". Esowteric+Talk 15:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course "climate change deniers" don't deny climate change, they don't agree with the scientific consensus, which apparently is a bad thing. Not sure what climate change denial has to do with 9/11, r what 9/11 has to do with this article. Remember, we are here to be neutral and all those who think they are here to support Thunberg should probably withdraw from editing and let neutral editors take over, neutral according to our WP:NPOV policy. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

So why then do you edit this article, RichardWeiss? Schwede66 21:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• And this is the very core of your problem. Wikipedia is biased to scientific consensus (an encyclopedia can´t be written other than that) giving due weight to minority viewpoints. Climate "realist" pov is so ignored in scientific circles, it is considered fringe and can´t have equal weight as scientific consensus in any article. Once scientific consensus changes, Wikipedia will reflect that. As of label for these people, stick to what the RS use. Pavlor (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: I think you're way out of line on the issue of neutrality, and for several good reasons. Consider the following:

• The NPOV policy doesn't exclude editors who happen to have their own personal opinion on the subject of an article. The NPOV Explanation subsection states that "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another." In other words, the NPOV policy pertains to the editing activity as such, not to the personal opinions of the editors involved in this activity.
• What editors here have explicitly expressed their support of Thunberg? Who, exactly, are you complaining about?
• Even if one or several editors choose to express their support of Thunberg explicitly on this talk page, it wouldn't be wrong of them to do so. It would only be irrelevant. Editors are present here to develop and discuss the content of a WP article, not to quarrel with each other about their personal opinions (<phew>, what a relief at that).

That's all for now. I think it's time for you to carefully reconsider your position on the issue of neutrality. Kind regards, --Gaeanautes (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ogg audio file pronunciation

Maybe I'm getting old and my hearing isn't what it used to be, but in my Chrome browser and downloaded and played through VLC Media Player, the ogg audio file for pronunciation of the name "Greta Thunberg" sounds like "Gera-yetta Toon-barri". Is a better recording available? Esowteric+Talk 17:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

In my computer (Safari, VLC) it worked well the second or third time, like it usually is with ogg files. I found one more on Wikimedia Commons –https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greta_Thunberg_says_own_name.ogg – but there the name is barely audible among the background noise. Keinstein (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2019

In the section #TEDxStockholm, please change "realizing" to "realising", which is the standard UK spelling. 80.3.78.196 (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Spiked is an unreliable source

The controversy section currently contains this statement Spiked Online raised concerns that Thunberg is being used as a propaganda tool by the media to spread unjust fear about climate change, saying "When it comes to climate change, the normal rules of politics and the usual ways that adults relate to children have all been abandoned."[58][unreliable source?]

@Esowteric has tagged it as an unreliable source. I agree. Among other ridiculous statements in this article, it says: "They (teachers) could show that even the most secure scientific knowledge around climate change is still contestable." Something like 97% of scientists say the science is not contestable. The scientific evidence for climate change is overwhelming. The author of the Spiked Online statement is clearly a climate change denier and the Spiked info should be removed because it comes from an unreliable source. Notagainst (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not sure whether Spiked is an unreliable source, hence the question mark at the end of the template. It appears to be a partisan source, but there is no inline template for that, only a banner for a whole article. I guess it depends on the overall balance and context of the section (?) Esowteric+Talk 11:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason I wondered about whether it was an unreliable source is that the mass-market British tabloid, Daily Mail has been deemed an unreliable source, and Spiked is (imo) at least as, if not more partisan. Esowteric+Talk 11:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't assess whether Spike Spiked is a reliable source based on this article but on Spike Spiked overall. I don't see Spike Spiked as being an unreliable source and unless the Wikipedia community as a whole thinks it is (as we do with the Daily Mail) the source should be considered reliable. Taking out a single sentence from a single article to claim Spike Spiked is an unreliable source seems like nonsense to me. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: This is about Spiked (magazine), not Spike Magazine. Esowteric+Talk 15:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Any source that is peddling climate change denial can only be treated as unreliable. Schwede66 12:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right. Where is the policy or guideline which states this? And what about WP:NPOV? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 06:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

What Schwede66 said. "characterised as libertarian and anti-environmentalist. It is funded in part by donations from the Koch Brothers." Hardly in any way unbiased when it comes to climate change, so. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear: This is about Spiked (magazine), not Spike Magazine. Esowteric+Talk 14:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It is we, Wikipedians, who are supposed to be unbiased and it is not up to us to judge anything (anything) politically. Some editors seem to have trouble remembering that when they want us all to edit according to their political opinions. I am asking everyone (again) to concentrate on being neutral. It may be hard, but that's what we do on English Wikipedia. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Climate change denial is not a political opinion, it is a politically motivated scientific error. As such, it is WP:FRINGE, and Wikipedia's neutrality explicitly does not mean we should give equal time to fringe opinions. So, you are wrong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, the personal opinions of Wikipedians are not to enter into our work on the project. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Physics isn’t a personal opinion. It is fact. Schwede66 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: We can't be sure of that. There is no evidence that climate change skepticism is fringe, especially given those who don't support climate change are a heterogenous and not a homogenous group. @Schwede66: Physics is fact? Which bit of physics are you talking about? Physicists don't know everything about physics, and they are the first to admit this. Physics is about discovering the truth, it hasn't all been discovered already, though we know certain things. And climate change is about chemistry and biology as well as physics, and these are even more complex subjects we know even less about. Besides, what has this got to do with Spiked as a reliable source? Please don't remove the source without achieving consensus on it being reliable; we may need to go say to the reliable sources noticeboard to get further community input and in the meantime it should stay. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No, Hob Galding is correct "Climate change denial is not a political opinion, it is a politically motivated scientific error. As such, it is WP:FRINGE", and given the rules about pages about living persons, it should be removed until a very strong case for its inclusion as a relevant reliable source. — Aldaron • T/C 18:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support the removal of Spiked: Climate change denial is indeed fringe, this particular source is obviously highly unreliable, and WP policy explicitly states that contentious material must be removed immediately from any BLP article. This case is clear-cut. Besides, the discussion here is becoming increasingly repetitive and confrontational, so if it goes on much longer, we should run an RfC on the issue instead, I say. Gaeanautes (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you can't be sure of that, but those familiar with fringe science do. Climate change denialists are not heterogeneous at all: they are all market fundamentalists. People who believe markets should not be regulated, and who therefore invent or accept any reasons to disbelieve anthropogenic climate change in order to prevent regulation of fossil fuel markets. Maybe you should start reading the relevant literature. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Am I the only one here who sees way too much on this page of the totally unsourced personal opinions of editors trying to influence article content? This is that, and that isn't this, and this is considerered so, etc etc etc - Can we stop that and try harder to stick to verifiable, sourced facts? Such a waste of time, otherwise!--SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• @SergeWoodzing: Look, according to the talk page guidelines, the very purpose of a talk page is "to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article". True, editors are supposed to stay on topic, deal with facts, and discuss edits. However, that's exactly what we're doing here. Are you really in good faith? Or are you trying to stall any discussion by ordering everybody else to keep quiet? In my opinion, evidence is mounting up that you're a disruptive editor, campaigning to drive away productive editors. I would like to have some inputs on this from other editors. Please inspect some of the previous posts made by this editor on the current page. Where is the administrator? Thank you. --Gaeanautes (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if that harang aimed at me personally constitutes a personal attack, but not having criticized any individual myself, I certainly feel attacked personally. I think we should be able to back up our personal opinions about this article's content with reliable (reliable) sources, not just our own unsourced personal opinions which I think have been given way to much space here. Can't see how that could drive away any editors seriously interested in improving the article with well-sourced info. I can see how my opinion on focus (reliably sourced input) might irritate someone, but I didn't think it would irritate anyone that severely. Sorry! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want sources, read the reliable sources given by the article Climate change denial, which says the same thing people are telling you here. Pretty obvious solution to your problem, don't you think? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not questioning those reliable sources. This talk section concerns one questioned source. My problem here, with this page generally, is that far too much space is taken up by the personal opinions of editors without those personal opinions being backed up with reliably sourced information. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Alexandria Villasenor

Alexandria Villasenor is an American climate activist. Editors who watch this article may want to put Villasenor onto their watchlist, too. Similar shenanigans can be expected. Schwede66 09:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Schwede66. Just changed "|Nationality = Jews" to American. Esowteric+Talk 12:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Truancy?

When I was kid, playing hookey was called truancy and was a big inexcusable no-no. If Ms. Thunberg has her school's permission to do this, as I think I read somewhere, wouldn't it be a good idea to include that and a good source? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The school's input is of little relevance compared to the fact that it's both illegal and highly frowned-upon in Sweden to skip school. But isn't that the point? She's trying to change a system which makes it illegal to miss school, but legalises the destruction of the future for which the kids are supposed to be educated.

Cadar (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Are going peacock here?

Comparing with Swedish Wikipedia's brief & concise article can we agree that we now are going overboard with the adulation and puffery here? Needs to be looked at neutrally before it gets too embarrassing. Rarely have we ever seen so many long intricate quotes, so much wordy & flattering explanation, me thinks. Reinstating template. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I've been keeping a close eye on this article for several weeks now, and I've not noticed any unusual degree of "puffery" which has been allowed to stand. Care to share a specific example, so we all know what we're dealing with?

Cadar (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Swedish article, it's an unbalanced comparison. There's probably not one person inside Swedish borders who isn't fully aware of her and her campaign. The same can't be said for the rest of the world, therefore a fuller and more comprehensive article is not just justified, it's obligatory.

Cadar (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cadar: That is the worst argument I have ever seen on Wikipedia. How about not making assumptions about our (including Swedish) readers? And as for "the rest of the world" let's not assume everybody other than Swedishj will read the English article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Cadar. SergeWoodzing claims the article is 'wordy' and 'flattering' and 'needs to be looked at neutrally' but provides no examples to support his argument. You seem to be suggesting Wikipuffery - "the puffing of a subject or the addition of praise-filled adjectives and claims." Puffery refers specifically to the unnecessary use of adjectives so you need to show us some adjectives you are concerned about to justify the template.

Notagainst (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The same can't be said for the rest of the world, therefore a fuller and more comprehensive article is not just justified, it's obligatory. Such statement is somewhat disturbing and gives more weight to OPs concern. Our purpose here is to write a balanced article for encyclopedia, not to promote the article subject. However, only real problem I see here is a question of due weight of some of the included content, listing every minor appearance and quoting every word of the article subject may be regarded as a puffery. Pavlor (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Speaking at the United Nations, Davos, or COP24 are hardly minor appearances - especially for a 16 year old. These are major achievements.

And the brief quotes taken from these speeches are far from 'every word'. I would argue that your exaggerations and mischaracterisations are a better example of puffery than anything in the article. Notagainst (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I provided third opinion of an uninvolved party. Note this is a wikipedia article about Greta Thunberg, not Greta Thunberg´s itinerary and diary. Better summary of these appearances woud certainly help (she may give a dozen such speeches/year, do we really need a separate section for every one of them?). Pavlor (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No offence - but once again you have mischaracterized the situation. There is no mention of her itinerary or her diary anywhere in the article. There is a brief quote from each of her recent speeches which makes up a small part of the total article. If she continues to make speeches, editors can address the need to summarize them if that's appropriate. At the moment, the suggestion that she might make a dozen speeches a year is more puffery about something that hasn't happened - yet. Notagainst (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Has not happened yet? Public demonstrations - October 2018; TEDxStockholm - 24 November 2018; COP24 summit - 4 December 2018[; Davos - 23 January 2019; European Economic & Social Committee - 21 February 2019; Berlin - 29-31 March; EU leaders - April 2019: I don´t know how you call it, but this looks certainly like an itinerary and diary right now. This entire section is close to 1/3 of the entire article prose. Pavlor (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: That is the worst argument I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Really? OK. I think I'll leave that one uncontested, since I can't speak for what you may or may not have seen on any given site. That's on you, not me.

@RichardWeiss: Regarding the rest of your input, please explain how any Swede can not know about Ms Thunberg in detail? I have a number of Swedish friends and contacts. She is their main topic of conversation these days, despite their relative lack of interest in her cause. She and her campaign are in every media outlet, newspaper or TV channel in the country. (Do I really need to point this all out? Fair enough). But, and here's the thing, the same cannot in all fairness be said for the rest of the world where the lingua franca is English but they do not have the benefit of the saturation level of Swedish media, or the benefit of a Swedish education so that they can speak or read the language. Therefore it falls on us, as editors of the English article (see previous sentence) to supply the information otherwise lacking. No? And, how exactly, given these facts -and yes, they are facts- is cutting the English article down justified? I've seen no cogent arguments yet from any dissenters apart from unsupported suggestions of puffery and an attack on my point of view. But not one of you has any actual facts to bring to the table to back up your contrary POV. Not one.

@Pavlor: What I find highly disturbing is the assumption that my statement that we need to supply sufficient information in an article automatically implies some kind of bias towards its subject. And it's laughable in the face of concerted efforts from multiple editors to throttle information which is well cited and does not weight the article in any particular direction. I'm not going to dignify that contention with an answer beyond this. But I will say that I am not the only one who is finding themselves forced into the position of defending content which by rights in any less contentious subject would never be questioned, and I am not the only one who has noticed a distinct negative bias from editors who are quick to step in to remove material or content, sometimes without consultation. And that's all I have to say.

Cadar (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Your passion is commendable, but it maybe harder to maintain NPOV then. As of unilateral removal of content, this certainly is not my way, as I´m only watching this page. Pavlor (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pavlor: The "passion" is actually an increasing lack of patience over the double standards demonstrated around this article. If you or anyone else wants to intimate bias or any lack of neutrality, then feel free: find one - yes, just one - example of my bias anywhere within the article and share it with the rest of the class. Take all the time you need. Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on, and despite your claim to the contrary, "only watching" the page doesn't extend to expressing an unfounded opinion against another editor. An editor, I might add, whose sole contribution has been an attempt to maintain the "neutrality and balance" which are so readily thrown around as accusations within this discussion, but notably isn't allowed to extend to the content of the article in question without argument and one-sided deletions.

Cadar (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As if there was a large scale disruption of this article. So far, problems were discussed on the talk page and usual vandalism quickly removed. So, your passionate reply above is another red flag for me. However, my understanding of English language is limited, hence I apologize, as my words may sometimes sound too rude for their intended meaning. We should leave discussion about other editors and decide what to do with the "Subsequent speeches" section, which certainly is not a showcase of encyclopedic content. Pavlor (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

And we should not remove the peacock template until this healthy discussion has led to improvement. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We're still waiting for concrete examples of the peacockery which results in the template being replaced.

Cadar (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Cadar, RichardWeiss and Schwede66 are right. The discussion on the talk page does not support that WP:peacock is an agreed problem. No one has provided a single example of an adjective anywhere in the article which demonstrates puffery - including SergeWoodzing who added the label in the first place but has not provided any examples of puffery at all. He (and possibly other editors) seem more concerned about undue weight than puffery - but that's another discussion altogether. I am removing the label. Notagainst (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

BLP

I have removed some of the personal attack material made by Neuding and Dale in Quillette. BLP requires high-quality sources. It is doubtful that Quillette is high quality. The BLP page also says: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Notagainst (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Media criticism" hardly has any criticism of Thunberg by media at all. Very weird section as worded now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Media criticism doesn't necessarily mean criticism by the media. It refers to attacks published in the media. If you think the section is 'weird' perhaps you could change the heading from Media Criticisms to Criticisms. Notagainst (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced sentence

This sentence After Thunberg's student climate strikes gained momentum, climate change deniers attempted to discredit her.[62] Writing in The Guardian, Aditya Chakrabortty notes that eco-denialists have also begun resorting to "ugly personal attacks" on Thunberg. has now been moved back to the subsection "Media criticism". It contains no criticism by media and is supportive of Thunberg. Thus it should be placed under "Media support". I'll move it again, unless someone can come up with any reason for it to be misplaced as it is now. Criticism by media of those criticizng Thunberg obviously is not media criticism of Thunberg, who is the subject of this article and all of its sections. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You are reading something into these sentences that isn't there. They are not supportive of Thunberg - they are neutral descriptions. The first sentence After Thunberg's student climate strikes gained momentum, climate change deniers attempted to discredit her is an introduction to the criticisms that follow. The second sentence noting that eco-denialists have also begun resorting to ugly personal attacks on Thunberg expands on the nature of those attempts to discredit her. These sentences are not supportive in any way. They simply explain what follows. Notagainst (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence has no connection to any media stance at all. In the second sentence Chakraborty's utterance is clearly supportive of Thunberg in noting negatively the ugliness used against her. . --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence refers to the negative stance adopted by climate change deniers in the media. Notagainst (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Re the second sentence. Once again you are reading something into it that isn't there. You say Chakraborty notes 'negatively' the ugliness used against her. Which adjective or words does he use which denote a negative connotation. There aren't any - he has simply stated the facts - that eco-denialists have begun resorting to "ugly personal attacks". It is the eco-denialists who are being negative, not Chakraborty. Notagainst (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"In the second sentence Chakraborty's utterance is clearly supportive of Thunberg in noting negatively the ugliness used against her." - It's not clearly anything of the sort. It's stating a fact, that the attacks on Thunberg are ugly, which they are. There is no support of her personally express or implied in that sentence.

Cadar (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Coming to this via WP:3O, but I'm not entirely clear on the disagreement. It's only about which section the sentence should be in? If so, I think I may understand the confusion. We're only citing e.g. that Vice article about her being targeted by climate change deniers, which is itself more like "media support," but it's talking about "media criticism". The way to fix that without moving it might be to elaborate on some of the examples of people/publications attacking her, rather than just allude to it via Vice. That said, it would probably make even more sense to just collapse the two sections into a single "media coverage" or something similar. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

If you "elaborate on some of the examples of people/publications attacking her", you risk breaching WP:BLP. See section below. Notagainst (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Either we're using reliable sources and appropriately summarizing what they say, in which case BLP doesn't seem like much of an issue, or we're using unreliable sources and they should just be removed. I tend to agree that it's not ideal to lean on Quillette for such things. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, the dispute was about which section the § belonged in. As it was, the criticism section began with criticism of the criticism, not of Thunberg, as a sort of apology to invalidate any criticism of her at all. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Full name

The young lady's full name, as per the Swedish Tax Authority's public census (and svWP), is Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg. Good faith attempts to add it here cannot be considered "name vandalism". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing:, do you have a reliable source for the middle names? I removed them not as vandalism, but because I couldn't find a suitable source, and looking briefly again with google all I can see is blogs and pages that look like copies of svWP (where no source is given either). I'm also not sure that we can use the tax authority's census directly without that being original reasearch? If there is an adequate source I agree that they should be in the article. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The Swedish Tax Authority publishes an up-to-date census which is used as a reliable source under thousands of Wikipedia articles. They are by law prohibited from publishing incorrect information. What could be morr reliable that the Swedish Government in a case like this? I'm no great expert on original research, but I've seen it argued many times over the years by a few editors who just didn't like something added, with sources that looked OK to me. I'm not saying that's so here, but I have seen that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that the argument is that the census is a primary source, and it tells us that there is a person called 'Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg', but not that that person is the subject of this article. See WP:PRIMARYCARE (the bullet point on articles about people). Now, I imagine that there aren't too many people living in Sweden called Greta Thunberg, so the criticism is a bit pedantic, but making that interpretation of the source is the original research. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The census in question also gives her birth date, birth place and the names of her parents & sister. Can't see how that could be ambiguous. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I would regard something published by the Swedish government about an individual as a secondary source, because it is not published by the individual or published on direct behalf of that individual. But in this context, definitions vary a bit in regard to what can be considered primary or secondary.

In either case, it is not really important for us to determine if it is primary or secondary, because both can be used in articles - it's not about notability, but just about finding a (or the best) reliable source for some tiny bit of information in order to ensure that we don't publish anything false or misleading. For pure facts like names and dates, it is fine to use primary sources - actually, sometimes they are even more desirable than secondary sources, because they are closer to the subject and thus typically more accurate (regarding provable facts, that is, not opinions or interpretations).

By our standards for WP:RS, something published by the Swedish government can be regarded as top reliable, because, neutral as they are, they have a high interest and are legally bound to publish only correct information. The report apparently also includes other information identifying the subject, so the idea that someone else could be meant can be ruled out. By that idea, we basically could not use any sources, because we could never be sure that this particular Greta Thunberg is meant.

In Wikipedia we generally strive to provide the complete name in the introduction of an article because we are an encyclopedia, and this is top encyclopedic information. So, if the name can be traced to a reliable source (like in this case) I think we should include it. There is one exception: If Greta Thunberg or an official representative would ask us not to publish the full name, then common courtesy would dictate to take it down regardless of if we have reliable sources for it or not.

While having an online link is not a requirement in a RS, it can still make it easier to verify that the information is actually found there. So far I have seen only remarks refering to a tax report, but not the report itself. Can someone provide a link?

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

PS The Swedish article is also of reasonable length and content, not an (in my opinion) extremely detailed, excessively cited/quoted over-glorification like this one. Embarrassing especially to Ms. Thunberg herself. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Other wikipedias use her full name and we have 2 refs for this, neither of which are Wikipedia copies or blogs. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

What was in the infobox was only "Greta Ernman Thunberg". Perhaps you missed that? OK now. Full name is full name . Thx. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Text at Brendan O'Neill (journalist) about her needs work

I think the editor who added this was well-meaning but as a new editor didn't use secondary sources and it doesn't include enough context - the text in question is:

"This belief has extended from criticism of environmentalists into an attack on Greta Thunberg in his April 22, 2019 article "The Cult of Greta Thunberg" in which he describes the 16-year-old as a "millenarian weirdo" and criticises the "monotone voice" speech patterns of the Swedish Nobel Peace Prize nominee who speaks English as a second language."

I deleted it because of that and an IP reverted me. I've found an independent source which maybe we could use.[1] I think it would be better if someone more familiar with the subject worked on this. Minor issue, the IP added an unsourced birthdate and I think that may be why they restored that. I'm going to remove it again but leave the text above in the article. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Mural Picture

Would someone like to add a picture of the 50 foot high mural to the article? It is quite a striking image. Notagainst (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not in that part of the world, otherwise I'd gladly get some photos. It's Bristol, right? I don't even know anyone who lives there we could ask. I'll give it some thought and ask around my contacts to see if someone can help or knows someone who can.

Cadar (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

New Category:Climate activists ?

This article now lists several other (young) climate activists under See Also. There is currently an en:wp Category:Climate environmentalists, but no category for Climate activists, so perhaps we should create a new category, below Category:Activists, that might be more suitable for listing articles about such named individuals?PeterWD (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Put me down for a support.

Cadar (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

What exactly will be the difference to Category:Climate change environmentalists? Schwede66 17:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I anticipate that Category:Climate activists might come below Category:Climate change environmentalists, or below Category:Climate change, and another parent might be Category:Activists by issue. Category:Climate activists already exists at Commons - see Category:Greta Thunberg there.PeterWD (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's all good. But who decides whether an individual goes into the 'Climate change environmentalists' or 'Climate activists' categories? Are they exclusive, i.e. do you have to belong to one or the other? Where would Al Gore go? I'm very unclear about the distinction. Schwede66 19:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's a grey area. In my mind, an Environmentalist is a person who supports and believes in the philosophy, but that might involve professional or amateur study of the subject, teaching, researching, writing academic papers or books. An activist would be included in that group, but additionally takes an active part in protests and broadcasts to the wider community.PeterWD (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, Encarta's dictionary gives these definitions:

Activist

vigorous action: vigorous and sometimes aggressive action in pursuing a political or social end

Environmentalist

in politics - somebody working to protect the environment: somebody involved in issues relating to the protection of the natural world, especially a member of a political group campaigning against the perceived harmful effects of industrialized societies

So an environmentalist is a specifically political animal whose main concern is the environment, and who may actively campaign but it's not a requirement. On the other hand, an activist is a "vigorous" or even "aggressive" campaigner for the environment. They're not mutually exclusive, and most activists are probably also environmentalists if they are inside or working with the political system to bring about change. Which is the definition of Ms Thunberg's activities. If we discount the political angle then activists can be safely folded into environmentalists as a sub-category. If the political aspect is deemed necessary to the definition, then most young activists are not strictly environmentalists by that definition, which might justify a separate category.

Hope that helps.

Cadar (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't convince me at all. Extinction Rebellion, for example, is strictly based on non-violent direct action. That's the exact opposite of "aggressive". And if you bring in a political angle for change, there is then a sliding scale from non-political to entirely political. At which point will one move from one category to the other? I predict that this differentiation will never work. Schwede66 09:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you. I was just sharing definitions to help with the discussion. As stated in my previous comment, the two definitions are not mutually exclusive. And as implied but not specifically stated in my comment, it comes down to consensus on whether or not the WP definition for the purposes of categorisation involve the political angle or not. For example: Inga Zasowska is a Polish teenage activist by the strictest definition who is starting her own school strike for the climate. Her action is strictly non-political, yet she could also be classified as an environmentalist since her work is absolutely for the benefit of the environment. I can go on to cite other examples, but I think the point is made. We need consensus on what the definitions will be for our purposes before we can decide on what categories apply. For myself, I see no problem with creating a sub-category of climate activist under environmentalists, since their work - which may or may not be specifically (or partially, or whatever) political - yet still has the same general objectives in mind.

Cadar (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent change in the lead

Editor Раммон, whom I respectfully invite to this discussion, added labels to the Greta Thunberg´s supporters in Swedish and Norwegian parliaments. I reverted that edits - as this article is about Thunberg and not about her supporters, but this was reverted again with "This is important information about her supporters" rationale. I don´t think such POV has any place in a BLP article. Your opinion? Pavlor (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for Nobel Peace Prize is an important fact. But it also important who nominated her for the prize. The previous version of the article that informed readers that nominators were "three members of the Norwegian parliament", was incomplete because she was nominated by 5 deputies of two parliaments - Norwegian and Swedish and in both cases these deputies were from marginal parties. I suppose these details are very important and the article must contain them. Раммон (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Party allegiance - why not, but other labels are certainly unnecessary (and unsuitable for BLP). Pavlor (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Which labels are certainly unnecessary? Раммон (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Eco-socialists, neo-Marxists, trotskyists, LGBT activists and radical feminists - sounds like work of a propaganda department... (even if true, it does not belong to THIS article) Pavlor (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have taken into account your comments. Раммон (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

OK. Is the % of seats of these parties mentioned in the sources? If not, it is an original research and should be removed (well, I don´t see any sensible reason to even list these numbers here, when linked articles offer enough info). Pavlor (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I added sources about % of the seats of these parties. I suppose that % of seats show that Greta was nominated for the Nobel by marginals and that it is an important encyclopedic information. Раммон (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

As I feared, pure OR (% aren´t in these sources - and the Norwegian party has even fewer seats, than you listed). As of marginal Nobel nomination, I see your POV and you should not push it here. However, I would remove this entire Nobel thing altogether, until she gets one of course. Pavlor (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

% aren't OR - reread WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". In this case there are reliable sources that show these percents. Раммон (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Your source doesn´t show these % and your count is even wrong in one case. OR, pure and simple. Pavlor (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Раммон: I might have inadvertently reverted your edit without checking it properly. My apologies! I need to deal with some issues and will be back later. Thanks for coming to the talk page to resolve this.

Cadar (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Раммон: Why did I receive a message from you stating that I had been reported for "edit warring", together with a link to a page which has no mention of me or such a war? What is going on here? Does this concern the changes you made to this article? I just commented previously concerning that. Where is the report of the "edit war"? If it concerns me, I need to know where it is so that I can deal with it. I take these kinds of allegations very seriously indeed.

Cadar (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

After this your edit with comment "This is just vandalism" I started writing a new request on the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. As I did it for the first time, I did not know that I should at first create the request and then inform you about it. So I first created notification on your talk page and then I saw that you admitted your mistake. So I reverted my edit on your talk page. Раммон (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Раммон: I was going to leave a reciprocal message on your talk page, but I found that you seem to have removed yours and my own edit to my talk page, and furthermore, that you seem to have a history of contentious edits and being blocked by administrators. I think that speaks for itself. In future, DO NOT start making reports about edit warring with other editors unless and until you have discussed the issue on the relevant article's talk page. Thank you.

Cadar (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the next time I will do everything in accordance with the Wikipedia's rules. Раммон (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Cadar, by the way, reverting edits of another editors without examining of the sources can lead to block. Раммон (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@Раммон: I do not make a habit of reverting other editor's work without due cause, which is why I posted my earlier comment. But it seems you have much more experience with blocks and edit warring than I do. You might like to keep your own advice in mind.

Cadar (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• These numbers are certainly original research, and as the user Раммон is adding them massively - not only in English Wikipedia, but also in Russian, French and Ukrainian, - I reverted them until relevant sources are found. Wikisaurus (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

New Wikipedia project proposal: "climate change"

For all editors who are interested, we're busy with putting together a proposal for creating a new Wikiproject called "Climate change" which will focus on managing, updating and improving all articles and other content related to the current climate crisis the world is facing. It will also count as an upgrade from the current climate change task force to a full project. Anyone who has any input or would like to put your name down in support of us, please make your way over to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Climate_Change and pitch in. You're very welcome! Thanks.

Cadar (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sept 2018 leaflets

I removed the text She hands out leaflets outside the Swedish parliament that state: "I am doing this because you adults are shitting on my future." because the source is dated Sept 2018, which dates the leaflets to very narrow window of time, and I am seeing this text 10 months later and written in the present tense, as though she's still doing this. Maybe she is, I don't know. The point is, this RS only says what she'd been doing for two weeks last fall, so the text and the source are inconsistent. If you can fix it so it passes NPOV and VERIFICATION, or add other sources with a longer period of time for this action, please do NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

References

All that is required is a change of tense.Notagainst (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Saw your diff, yeah, that works, thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

OPEC sentence

I moved this here from the lead

That impact has been so significant that the movement she inspired is now perceived by OPEC as the “greatest threat” to the fossil fuel industry.

A. The sentence is WP:PUFFERY (...."soooOOOOOOO significant".....)
B. The sentence is false. This is the opinion of the head of OPEC expressed in comments to one news outlet. That's very different from an organization position statement.
C. The original report at AFP appears to have disappeared and its hard to zero in, based on RSs, exactly whom the guy was talking about. Was it just the school movement, or climate activism in general. We know how GT responded, but I can't find the original source to see what the guy actually said. Can you?
D. Even if we can't justify specifically putting this on GT's bio page (for these or other reasons) it can certainly go at Fossil fuel divestment or Public opinion on climate change and places like that.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the simple facts need to be included because they are both actual and significant. How does this wording sound:

The activity of Thunberg and other climate activists has been named by Mohammed Barkindo, the secretary general of OPEC as OPEC's "greatest threat". In response, Thunberg stated this was the climate movement's "biggest compliment yet".

Based on what source? We know what GT said about what he said, but we don't really know what he said because the original RS appears to have been taken down. If that news outlet (AFP) is a printed paper, maybe someone can find the print copy and we can use that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

PS The lack of clarity on this point is highlighted at the start of this article at Grist. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

If you give up on the sensationalist "greatest threat" phrase, its easy to rewrite the sentence to reference his criticism of GT and the students in more general terms because the RSs have abundant more general criticism. I especially like how the kids of OPEC ministers are seeing their student peers in the streets and asking their parents troubling questions. There's no doubt this official was talking of GT and her colleagues in that part of his reported remarks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this counts, but I found this link. However, it seems to be referring to the AFP as a source.

https://news.yahoo.com/climate-campaigners-greatest-threat-oil-sector-opec-153115584.html

There are also a number of other links, of which the most significant are probably The Guardian, CNBC, Grist and QZ. The others are obviously pro-climate eco sites of various kinds.

Cadar (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

That's RS for Yahoo News' interpretation of his remarks but this isn't an article about Yahoo News and what they think. Alas, its good, but it's not good enough for declaring, in WikiVoice, that the "greatest threat" phrase was specifcally calling out GT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

This may be helpful. Climate campaigners 'greatest threat' to oil sector, says Opec It appears to be the original source from AFP. Notagainst (talk) 09:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Notagainst and my apologies to Cadar about the yahoo news link you posted. I had to study the MalayMail piece to figure out why that's AFP and finally found the abbreviation at the end of the text.... and it looked just like the Yahoo News story Cadar linked yesterday. Sure enough, it says "AFP" there too, at the start of the text. So thank you both for helping clear up the question about what was the original source. Alas, in my view this text does not provide adequate WP:Verifiability that he was talking of GT so specifically that this should be on her biography page. It's adequate, I think, for inclusion on the School climate strike page though NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC) (fixed redlinks today... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC))

refs for this section

References

Greatest Threat

Mohammed Barkindo called "unscientific attacks" the greatest threat to fossil fuels, not greta thunberg. The author then speculates that is was in relation to Greta. It in misleading at best and inaccurate at worst and should be removed

https://www.malaymail.com/news/money/2019/07/03/climate-campaigners-greatest-threat-to-oil-sector-says-opec/1768003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.87.138 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I only agree to the extent we still hadn't done a good job with this. I have made changes to the article which hopefully resolve the merry go roundNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Structure problem

The section on media and political response is poorly concieved. After the basics of who and what, the rest of everything is all about media and political response. IMO, it would be better to just have a criticism section and not worry about sneaking in rebuttals under that section heading. Let the rest of the other sections be the rebuttal. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This section is almost entirely about the media response rather than political response. I have deleted the political aspect from the heading. Notagainst (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Insults section

I just removed this section as at least one of the sources (Pravy prostor) used was weak (to put it charitably) and in my POV any BLP article requires high quality sources for any controversial content (which plainly worded inclusion of that insult certainly is). Your opinion? Pavlor (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please oh please oh please never talk about edits via pronoun. Instead always include a DIFF. That way others can instantly know what you're talking about without guessing... and risking misunderstanding. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Re the German stickers, even with high quality sources I personally think that's juvenile tripe and should be ignored. We already have a section saying people are doing backlash. Are we going to list every insult from around the world? Similarly, are we going to list every supportive statement from around the world? (Answer to both - 'Hell no'. Speaking of hell, are those fires fossil fuel powered?) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that section was inappropriate and you were correct to remove it. It is not a case only of needing high-quality sources. It is a case of needing relevance to the biography, which is a matter largely for editorial discretion. We apply that discretion to, as NewsAndEventsGuy correctly says, avoid indiscriminate listings of insults and supportive statements. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with NewsAndEventsGuy and Mkativerata. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This RFC is malformed. I have no idea what the RFC is about. An RFC is supposed to be worded in a neutral manner. "Should we do X?" You are already starting the RFC with your opinion, which is not a good thing. My suggestion is to close or delete this RFC and start again. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I did not start any formal RfC (that was fellow editor Раммон [2], who also inserted disputed content in the article). I only removed possible BLP violation and asked other for their opinion. Pavlor (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the RFC template based on your comment that this wasn't intended as an RFC; I agree that slapping an RFC template on an existing discussion is a really bad way to start one, and it seems hard to picture this producing any sort of usable consensus in its current form. If someone feels an RFC is necessary, feel free to start a proper one and ping anyone who commented here or whatever. --Aquillion (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"CLAIM" within the article

Could the editors of the article please pay some attention to WP:CLAIM?--TMCk (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not join us per WP:SOFIXIT ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

See Symptomatic treatment.--TMCk (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI about page protection

FYI, I have requested that pending-changes protection be increased to full semi-protection. Here is the request thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, guess I learned something. The request was denied, with three knowledgeable admins in agreement that the current protection level is exactly right. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I should point out that this situation can change. The article has PC protection for a year, based on its current level of activity and vandalism. But if the article suddenly becomes much more heavily edited, or is subject to a swarm of vandalism, it is possible to add semi-protection on top of the PC protection for a few days - and after the semi-protection expires, the PC remains. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

What we say about Greta's diagnoses

The consensus in this RfC is to include only information Greta Thunberg's diagnoses that only she and her family have put out.

Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 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.

---

• Deutsche Welle asserts: "Greta was finally diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, her younger sister Beata turned out to have an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)".
• The New Yorker asserts: "both Greta and her younger sister, Beata, have been diagnosed with autism, A.D.H.D., and other conditions."

Wikisaurus choosed to believe in Deutsche Welle. But I suppose that others reliable sources support The New Yorker's version:

1. The Guardian asserts that Greta has obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) and selective mutism;
2. Greta said: "I was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrom, OCD and selective mutism".

What other editors think about it? Раммон (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

For starters I changed the section heading because the former was phrased (accidentally) in an unfortunately limiting way and we need an expansive discussion to get a real answer. And my real answer is that even as more sources show up, I see little reason to depart from the consensus we achieved in March when we talk about it earlier. The result of that discussion was to rely on this BLP subject's own personal public words about her medical status. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

In here I found this: "Greta is not alone in her mental suffering, according to the book. Her sister Beata, who was 12 when the book was written, lives with ADHD, Asperger’s syndrome, and OCD." That is media use Thunberg's book as a source of information about Greta's health. So we should do the same - read and cite the book. Раммон (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Quillette looks like a collection of non-RS opinion pieces, similar to Forbes so that's not a great source. If you can find some Terms and Conditions that would help us evaluated its editorial control and so assess its RS value we can revisit. Otherwise, you're waving your hands in a vague way at a book you apparently haven't read. What do you expect anyone to say? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Seeing how we're talking about the medical condition of somebody who is not only a living person, but also a minor, I don't see how any option other than "only use information that was demonstrably put out by her or her family" could even come close to being OK. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Precisely what we agreed the last time this came up. See my earlier comment in this thread for the link to that discussion in the archives. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep to her own/ family assessment of her condition as there are obviously contradictions in reliable sources, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• We shouldn't encourage any sort of content which hints at an authoritative 'diagnosis' other than that which she or her family has offered into the public domain. If it were felt necessary to comment on the various 'conditions' with which she has 'diagnosed' via the media, it should be made crystal clear that these are opinions, not facts and each 'opinion' quoted verbatim, with unambiguous citation. For example, The Guardian content is opinion, not fact and, were it to be retained, should be clearly marked as such. Fortnum (talk) 16:59, 10 August 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.

Using 'Existential crisis' in Wikivoice

The first sentence of the current version now describes global warming as an existential crisis (including the wikilink). It's perfectly fine to say that Thunberg says this, because that is factual.... Thunberg does say this.

However, it's an entirely different matter for Wikipedia to declare this as Truth(c) using WP:WIKIVOICE. Compare to The Guardian's recent decision to abandon "climate change" and "global warming" in favor of "climate crisis" and "global heating". They didn't just start doing that, they went through their internal processes and then told the world about them. (See climate crisis article for details). We have not even had a debate about this. Without a broad community consensus to make a similar change, we should maintain our historic approach to neutrally reporting what the RSs say. In this case, we should say that Thunberg talks this way and it should link the reader to the pinpoint article Climate crisis, which in turn needs lot more work from a broader range of editors than just me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

PS also, we really should not be linking to anything without carefully reading it. In this case, Existential crisis is all about psychiatric and emotional issues. I think the intended target is more like Global catastrophic risk or something like that, but why not just keep it in house at climate crisis and again, make that page better? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Then why not change it to that target? Be bold. Drmies (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: I didn't because its already linked in paragraph 3, the reverting ed and I have previously butted heads and I'm working a better relationship, and I'm pushing 3RR. Thanks for adding your thoughts however. Eyes are appreciated! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree the current sentence does not feel neutral and we shouldn't describe global warming as an global catastrophic risk when that seems to be a (substantial?) minority view among scientists. We should maybe improve our pages of worst-case scenario GW, but that's something else. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I replaced it with "problems". The word is non-neutral and the wikilink is completely irrelevant. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy argues that we can't use the term existential crisis in the article even though "It's perfectly fine to say that Thunberg says this, because that is factual.... Thunberg does say this. However, it's an entirely different matter for Wikipedia to declare this as Truth." So all we just need to say is that Thunberg said it was an existential crisis and provide a RS.

Describing the climate crisis as a 'problem' is akin to describing the holocaust as a 'problem'. It minimizes the gravity of the issue and therefore is neither accurate or neutral. Notagainst (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The lede currently reads: "... who is credited with raising global awareness of the problems posed by climate change (also known as global warming)". I get the point about wikivoice, but not only is "problems" watered-down vocabulary, so are "climate change" and "global warming" a watered-down misrepresentation of "climate crisis" or "climate emergency" (words now preferred by outlets such as the Guardian). Esowteric+Talk 19:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not really true though.... "climate change" and "global warming" have very specific meanings in the field of climatology, and we're in shoal waters POV-wise because we're sailing into the shark infested waters of rhetoric and message framing. That said, if you look at our two articles climate change and global warming, take a look at the scope of each article and visit the talk pages about renaming them. That debate has been recurring for years and is about to heat up again. Of course, that's besides the point you raise about the Guardian and their move to embrace the expression "climate crisis". There certainly are RSs one could cite to argue Wikipedia should do that too. Even so, that will be heavy lift, I think. It would be a worthy discussion! We've just discussed this Talk:Global warming, although briefly.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Using the term "problem" is false balance. Wikipedia does have a bias towards the scientific and rational over denialism. The IPCC, a naturally cautious international body, has recently revied 6000 studies and said that we have only a dozen years to avert catastrophe. There is nothing wrong with stating in Wikipedia voice that there is a crisis.Charles (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

From what I read this is a common mis-interpretation of what the IPCC reports, but I have a sufficiently open mind to invite you to share an RS for where the IPCC said this in sufficiently clear terms that we don't need to spin it to reach the conclusion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I just edited the article with all the above comments taken to heart. The new bold revision contains an invisible inline comment regarding the Eng Wikipedia difficulties vis-a-vis the scope of climate change versus scope of global warming, a never-ending source of debate and consternation. Anyway, here is the new attempt as edited in this diff....

who is credited with raising global awareness of the problems posed by climate change<!-- >>>>>>>>>>>> EDITORS please do NOT link "climate change" because the correct article on the Eng Wikipedia is GLOBAL WARMING. Anyone who follows the climate crisis link will get to the right place, and we can link both CC and GW articles later<<<<<<<<<<<<< -->, and with holding politicians to account for their lack of action on what Thunberg calls the "[[climate crisis]]".

Will that work? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

PS.... IPCC uses the word "risks", not "problems". That could be tweaked to better comply with sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. I think it's possible that we will be able to use the climate crisis as wikivoice at some point in the (distant) future, when more centrally minded newspapers start using the term and it becomes mainstream in scientific discourse. But that point has not come yet and Wikipedia is not meant to be more progressive than the mean of newspapers. Using a term that is not (yet) in common use will also alienate people from Wikipedia that are fleeing their standard news outlets to get more reliable information here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me. The discussion about the scope of wiki articles on climate change and global warming is irrelevant to this article. If Greta calls the 'problem' an existential crisis, all that is required is a link to a RS where she makes such a statement. This is an article about her, so her description of the 'problem' is what should be included. Plus she is not the only one calling it an existential crisis. Many sources do so and all that is required is links to those RS. Notagainst (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@NAEG. If "The ONLY thing we care about is giving proper WP:WEIGHT to what is said in WP:Reliable sources", then the ONLY thing we should include (on this particular issue) are the RS where Greta says global warming is an existential crisis. Notagainst (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

First, this is the WP:LEAD which should be a summary of the body. Second, this is the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. So we can't pack too much into it. So with that context set, you say her description of the 'problem' is what should be included and the italicized article text above incluides which she describes as the "climate crisis". Seems to me that this text does exactly what you want, except that it relies on a meaningful link to climate crisis instead of the phrase "Existential crisis", which someone is sure to link to our article on mental health crises at existential crisis. The result would be a regrettable WP:EGG. So I don't see the mismatch between your stated goal and the italicized article text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

adjectives to describe speeches

In this edit, an editor reverted "passionate speeches" with an edit summary claiming GT is known for dispasssionate speech. Well, what do the sources actually say? Here is a sample of how media reported her various talks

• December minced no words and castigated https://qz.com/1497005/greta-thunberg-15-blasts-world-leaders-for-immaturity-at-cop24/
• April emotional speech https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/apr/16/greta-thunbergs-emotional-speech-to-eu-leaders-video
• July fierce speech https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/apr/16/greta-thunbergs-emotional-speech-to-eu-leaders-video
• August presents the issue with freshness and force https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/08/05/210371/210371 (opinion)

In contrast, I'm not finding much that describes her speeches as "dispassionate". Instead, I do find RSs that describe the status quo way of talking about climate as dispassionate (ironically, Wikipedia policy presently has us in the dispassionate bunch). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a distinction that needs to be made between the content of her speeches (what she actually says) and the tone of voice or manner in which she says it. The articles you cite above appear to be praising her content rather than her speaking style. I would argue her speeches are not 'passionate' because she is autistic (on the spectrum), which leads her to being unemotional in her presentation and to speak in a rather flat tone of voice. In fact her critics have often cited her 'monotone voice' as one of their concerns. I am thinking of adding a new section to the article about her Speaking Style because it is so distinctive, and one of the things that is notable about her. Notagainst (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem here, in my view, is that your fixated on your interpretatation, which is WP:Original research and no one cares. The ONLY thing we care about is giving prper WP:WEIGHT to what is said in WP:Reliable sources. The italicized words in my opening post all appear in those sources. You're welcome to add sources to the discussion. I would observe that "passonate speeches" is somewhat ambiguous. Does it mean delivery? The speaeker's emotional vibe? The audience reaction? So maybe my phrasing isn't the best. But it certainly isn't fatal, either. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NEAG that critique should only be included when supported by RSs: prominent journalists / other people that have something to say. Also: please do recognize that autism is a spectrum and thus that it has different 'symptoms' for different people. The first hit on YouTube of her (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWsM9-_zrKo) has her becoming emotional for instance when she talks about the destruction of some nature, so it seems that these sources NEAG collected are right. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

As another wrinkle, we already have a consensus to shut up about her conditions except to report what Thunberg says about them in PRIMARY sources (that might include family comments too, I forget). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced dispassionate with "blunt". As you can see, this is not my interpretation; there are RS and your comment that no one cares is offensive. Notagainst (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

"Blunt" works, and those are some quality RSs you added, thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize and awards

Please see https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/questions-and-answers-about-the-nomination-process-for-a-nobel-peace-prize/?fbclid=IwAR0sg7R3jT8R-Mvg7Jp2tQ4zT5DV5NOW9OZtH99ZG4za3-SNtdjsBk4bafo for information about the Nobel Peace Prize nomination process. Specifically:

Who can nominate? Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize requires no invitation. Eligible nominators are university rectors or chancellors, professors of political and social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; members of national assemblies, governments, and international courts of law; previous Nobel Peace Prize Laureates; board members of organizations and institutions that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and former advisers of the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

What is the benefit of allowing so many nominators? The Nobel Peace Prize is international and the broad eligibility of nominators ensures that a great variety of candidates from all corners of the world is brought forward to the Committee’s attention every year.

Is there a list of all of the nominees for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize? Contrary to common belief, there is no public list of the current year’s nominees. The complete list of eligible nominees of any year’s prizes is not disclosed for another 50 years – a restriction as governed by the Nobel statutes.

What does it mean to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize? Any person or organization can be nominated by anyone eligible to nominate. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has no say in submissions that arrives according to the criteria, strictly in who is actually awarded the prize in October. To simply be nominated is therefore not an endorsement or extended honour to imply affiliation with the Nobel Peace Prize or its related institutions.

Therefore I would suggest either that we do not mention her Nobel Peace Prize nomination, or if we do we put it into context that the nomination process is extremely broad, and the committee has no vetting process over nomination, and clearly sets out that being nominated is in no way an endorsement or honour in itself.

Also with the Time magazine cover. Hitler was on the cover of Time magazine. We should also not phrase this like an honour, just that it means she has become notable in public debate/influence.

Jopal22 (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! Those are both excellent NPOV observations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. A valuable contribution. Given that the nomination received so much coverage, maybe we should still mention it but point out the relevance of it all? Maybe something along these lines: "Her March 2019 Nobel Peace Price nomination received disproportionate media attention, as the nomination process tries to encourage a great variety of candidates and despite popular belief, most nominations never become public knowledge." Open to your thoughts. Schwede66 02:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

If she was nominated for a Nobel peace prize, that's a fact and should be cited. And it absolutely is an honour to be nominated by someone of considerable standing as described in the list of potential nominators above. No explanation is required about the significance of that nomination. This is an article about Greta and the various accolades, commentary (and abuse) she has received. It is not an article about the significance of various nominations and awards in general. Notagainst (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

In this case, the "award" is that a few member of parliament think highly of her. Until this thread came up, I accepted blindly and without the slightest basis that a nomination for a Nobel Prize is a BFD (big fucking deal). But the Nobel Committee's own efforts to debunk this pervasive bias has taught me the error of my ways. Once I learned the context, being so named by some members of parliament faded in import to such a degree it doesn't seem like lead material any more, but sure, we can add it in the body. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is a much BFD than her contribution to flygskam or "flight shame" which is still in the lead - but probably shouldn't be. Notagainst (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You might be right about the lead, but that's offtopic in this thread. Start another if you like. As for the Nobel the current Nobel webpage says

The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later. https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/

and an archived version of their page says

What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year? Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out. https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/

Every legislator in every national assembly is eligible to nominate, as well as several other people. This yeear they had the 4th highest number (over 300). I thought it was breathtaking until Jopal22 challenged my preconceptions. Given all this, maybe we should focus on what Greta says, which is... she would rather have the focus on her message than on herself. The big gap in this article is a punchy section about her message, e.g., her views on climate change, as you've said yourself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)