Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

The impact on the latest UN summit

There is almost no links and no "see also" about that information. Even if there was some, several lines in the article are needed because, the influence on the results of the summit was probably the biggest achievment of Greta Thunberg and the scoool strikes by now. I writed something about it, invited to improve.

--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted this with the following comments a) not a subsection of "Greta Effect" b) no evidence she personally achieved anything c) most text is about the summit, not her d) her role in the summit was already discussed earlier in the page

In direct response to your comments

1) There is a link to the conference in the earlier text

2) There is no evidence she had "influence on the results of the summit"

Jopal22 (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

After my restoration and another deletion, the text now attributes the claim that she had an effect to the Secretary General and provides a source; I am fine with the removal of the material that was about the summit itself and not the impact of the BLP subject. Newimpartial (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't usually delete outright things twice, but this has been added again without any attempt to address the legitimate concerns outlined above. So let me set out these concerns more clearly, and please do not add again until these have been addressed

• Nowhere in the piece does this say that this is the "Greta effect". It doesn't not belong as a subsection of this part.
• The quotes are not from the UN Climate Action Summit as stated but from the UN Youth Climate Summit, a separate event
• The SG said there is momentum behind the climate movement, and attributed some of this momentum to Greta (whilst standing next to her), but nowhere has anyone attributed her momentum impact in "helping to achieve some results at the UN Climate Action Summit". This is WP:SYNTH. The reality is any commitments made by countries at the summit were probably agreed by national governments before, and there is no evidence any of these commitments would not have happened without Greta.
• The source isn't the best. It uses a UN press release rather than an independent source.
• The summit is already mentions and discussed earlier in the page, a repeat mention in two different areas is just messy.

Jopal22 (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mother's story

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

*--- 2015 Asperger Diagnosis --- In May 2015, Thunberg's mother Malena Ernman, a widely known singer in Sweden especially after representing her country at the Eurovision Song Contest 2009, turned to the press to report her family’s hard times (“hell of a year”) when Greta's depression manifested, resulting in her Asperger diagnosis. She said she wanted to make it public in order to help other families in a similar situation. According to the mother’s report, in August 2014 her then 11-year-old daughter Greta suddenly stopped eating, talking, reading or wanting to do anything. This condition lasted for several months and the child finally got, among others, a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome. The acute phase of the illness affected the whole family to such an extent that the mother had a breakdown three times during her professional activity and that altogether five of her performances had to be cancelled. The report appeared in Expressen, a widely read nationwide daily newspaper in Sweden. Thus Greta Thunberg became already then a known person in Sweden, that is three years before her much reported later political activity.

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

References

NewsAndEventsGuy, I'm fine with this. Non illegitimi carborundum, y'all! Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, thanks for catching my accidental deletion of that paragraph. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! It happens, I've done it myself NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No. There was neither an edit war nor original research. If in the US your mother is someone like Jane Fonda and she discloses on a nation-wide channel that you have Asperger's, most people you will meet for the next 20 years will know about your condition. This is obvious, not original research. Then, the consensus is not that GT is the only permitted source on this. Her parents are as well. Read the archives. By the way, the parents are the only adults who are authorized to make it public, and they are of course more reliable than the sick child herself. --Saidmann (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

On the assertion that GT was known before her climate strike, if that's true, there should be a sea of RSs about GT besides her Mom's one-time comments in a newspaper story. Feel free to demonstrate this is true. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Please! Can you talk in English? RS can have several hundred meanings. I am not good at telepathy. --Saidmann (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If you do not know that RS stands for reliable sources then you probably should not be hanging around the English Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This meaning does not make sense in that statement, because there cannot be other RS besides the parents. --Saidmann (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks. That is an entirely appropriate edit. Your rationale is spot on. Schwede66 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saidmann, it's pretty funny you refer me to the archives but besides that... you've suggested we're doing something illegal here. If you believe there is a genuine legal problem you should not post here. Instead follow the advice in WP:NLT. But I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning. GT is now 16 and the matter would seem to fall under the EU's GDPR. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Come on. Now you are totally beside the point. Is this on purpose? I talked about reliable sources and the consensus in the disc archives on the matter. Not about legal issues. Of course a child may say about her illness whatever she likes. But such utterances are of very low value. The consensus states: "The consensus in this RfC is to include only information [on] Greta Thunberg's diagnoses that only she and her family have put out." There is no implication in the consensus that we "have to" use the kid's utterances. The parents are the much more reliable sources. By saying they are the only adults that are authorized to make things public I simply mean that medical statements from others are simply not relevant. --Saidmann (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Re "Is this on purpose?" Another good acronym to know.... if you see one you don't know, try searching on it by add WP: in front of it. For example, if I answered your question with "See AGF" you could search for WP:AGF which will lead you to WP:Assume good faith. That said, thanks for reminding me that the prior consensus was to consider things GT's parents say about her mental health issues too. So that resolves the prior consensus issue but doesn't address either relevance or the appearance of original research, so I'm still opposed to including this material in this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The issues of relevance and "original research" are easily settled by appropriate Google searches like for example this one. You have to read Swedish though, because GT's status as a known person was confined to Sweden up to 2018. --Saidmann (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

So, here's the thing @Saidmann: Greta's medical conditions, and their role in her activism, are clearly and prominently discussed in the Life section of the article. You are trying to make them an issue in the public's evaluation of her political statements, as a way to discount her brilliant take-downs of "business-as-usual" world political leaders. To me, that's like saying the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address are invalid because Lincoln was clinically depressed. Get over it, and stop trying, subtly and not so subtly, to undermine her impact. It's not going to work here. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. I neither made nor insinuated such a connection. --Saidmann (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

The section "...becoming vegan and giving up flying...etc" needs a reliable source. If one can't be found, the BLP rules say this should be deleted. These rules/guidelines indicate that the "citation needed" link can't be used on BLP pages; the guidelines state that the information requiring the citation shouldn't be there in the first place. MartiniShaw (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

In this version that sentence is followed by reference #11 and #17. Are you claiming those refs do not support the text? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying the present version does have refs that support the text? If so, Please point them out. Thanks!

The ref that you referred to from a previous version of the article has Thunberg self-reporting on her purported vegan behavior.

Self-reporting by its very nature is an invalid, useless reference. MartiniShaw (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Somehow one ref from months back got dropped from this text. I've restored it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks! MartiniShaw (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

October 31 edits

Since 11 days all issues presented in connection with the subsection "2015 Asperger Diagnosis" are now resolved and three editors have supported it. Therefore it is now put back into the article. --Saidmann (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

When Saidmann restored the text earlier today, I thought the consensus here was different and I deleted it. He restored it again and we had some discussion at his user talk. It turns out we disagree what you other editors meant above. So @Schwede66, Paulmlieberman, and WWGB:.... please clarify whether you think this is an important section to KEEP or DELETE (or something else). Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify, I supported NewsAndEventsGuy's rationale to delete the text. Schwede66 17:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy's rationale. What I said on Oct. 17 was in support of NewsAndEventGuy's deletion of Saidmann's text. I wrote "NewsAndEventsGuy, I'm fine with this. Non illegitimi carborundum, y'all!" A separate section is not appropriate. I think that having a separate section and calling it an "illness" in the title is giving too much emphasis to a condition that does not prevent her from being a highly effective speaker for her cause. The role of Asperger's in her life and activism is well covered in the "Life" section of the article. Saidmann's insistence on having a separate section, and on attempting to make it very prominent in the article, is akin to attempting to discount the quality of the Gettysburg Address because Lincoln would, today, be diagnosed as being clinically depressed. It's an attempt to discredit the message by disparaging the speaker. Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

GT's message and biodiversity/extinction

GT's message goes beyond human concerns, as she also talks a lot about biodiversity loss and Extinction. My reversion of John's good faith bit about the beetle today [1] is about editorial presentation of this material. But the guy John was quoting was making an important point about GT's message, and I think we should add text about her concerns for other species to the message section. What do you think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Johnrichardhall: NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Support The quote was already there without citation and without credentials. I simply researched the quote and added the source and provided Max Barclay's credentials. As for adding "biodiversity/extinction" as part of Thumberg's message, I believe that that is spot on and should be included as part of her message.Johnrichardhall (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @NewsAndEventsGuy: Johnrichardhall (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

GT's message and indigenous peoples

Additionally, and equally important, Thunberg's message should include her stance that indigenous peoples be at the forefront of her appearances, especially in her involvement in North American protests/rallies/strikes. She has done so in Canada in Montreal, Edmonton and Vancouver; she has done so in the USA in Iowa City, Denver, Standing Rock, etc; and she has done so in Europe. What do you think?Johnrichardhall (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @NewsAndEventsGuy: Johnrichardhall (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Placement for the stage? Who cares? What's it mean? What does GT say about indigenous people's in her climate message? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Placement for the stage?" -No- "Who cares?" -Not us- What's it mean? -No clue- "What does GT say about indigenous people's in her climate message?" -Must be nothing-.Johnrichardhall (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If RSs turn up, let's talk about 'em. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out that Thunberg is always keen to align herself and associate her message with the indigenous peoples of the regions she visits. By doing so, Thunberg ensures that indigenous peoples are provided a larger platform than they would normally receive for their activism. A pedestrian review of her North American appearances would provide RSs. If time permits, I may collect RSs and suggest a paragraph for inclusion in Thunberg's message. Johnrichardhall (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do. In fact, in general please start by finding RSs because starting threads without them is sure to go nowhere. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere is exactly where Wikipedia is cited as a RS. Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas.Johnrichardhall (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Johnrichardhall I've definitely read transcripts and articles about her speaking on the subject of indigenous rights in connection with climate change so I think there are probably good sources that we could incorporate in this article. For example, this article might be good here. Michepman (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Michepman. I usually just contribute to established pages/topics/sections by adding sources and citations where omitted or where clarification is needed, and do not usually suggest subjects/topics or start threads because ... well, this back and forth with NewsAndEventsGuy is a prime example of why; I'd rather have a root canal with no Novocain. Accordingly, I'll jump out of NewsAndEventsGuy's sandbox to avoid further sanctions and/or postings on my talk page which I delete post-haste. Johnrichardhall (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Pinging @Michepman: Pinging @NewsAndEventsGuy:

Parents in the Info box

Is there a particular reason she no longer has a father and just her mother is there? He doesn't have his own page, but this should not wipe him out of existence.

Will add unless someone else wants to.

--TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@TheMightyAllBlacks: Parents are included in an infobox only if "independently notable". Her father, without a Wikipedia article, does not satisfy this requirement. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You couldn't point me to this policy could you? As it is completely new to me. Thanks. --TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ignore that. Found it. Though I do question why he no longer has his own page given his acting career and he has a swedish one. That and he is pretty much Greta's manager --TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"Svante Thunberg" used to be an article, but it was nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, where the WP:CONSENSUS was to delete the article and redirect "Svante Thunberg" here, to Greta Thunberg. The discussion is here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

IMO the redirect was an unfortunate decision, since this article doesn't say anything about him. I wanted to insert Svante Thunberg into the article, but that template is now messed up by the redirect, I think deletion would serve the reader better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång - For what it's worth, the redirected page can still be accessed here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Svante_Thunberg&redirect=no

I'm not sure how that template works but if accessing/modifying that Svante Thunberg redirect would help you then I think you can do so at the above link. I agree that it does not make sense to redirect the Svante article to Greta Thunberg when Greta Thunberg does not mention him at all (a reader seeing this would get no useful information). Michepman (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why do you say the article does not mention him at all? He is in the Life section. WWGB (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"at all" is technically incorrect, sure. But still not a helpful redirect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why does the article need to refer to her parents at all? The article is about GT, not her mom and dad MartiniShaw (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Context? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have discussed the situation with the closing admin and consequently, Svante Thunberg redirects to Malena Ernman for the time being. There is the option of increasing Svante Thunberg's coverage in this article and if (and when) that's achieved, please feel free to revert the edit. Schwede66 08:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yes, mentioning her mother and father is contextual if you consider her mom and dad to be part of GT's campaign. Otherwise GT's parents are no more in context than including, for example, Paul McCartney's parents in the article on Paul McCartney. References to GT's parents - both of them - should be removed. MartiniShaw (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, this article's title is not "Greta Thunberg's campaign". And if it was, they are likely involved since she's underage. And since she's their daughter. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If her parents are "likely involved [in her campaign] since she's underage", as you say, then this should be mentioned in the article. This is POV, but if you can give Reliable Sources, please would you point us at them? Thanks! MartiniShaw (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If there is such info out there it'll probably turn up sooner or later. This article's title is still not "Greta Thunberg's campaign", and the mention of her parents is reasonable and reffed. "Greta Thunberg is an example of special creation" would be much harder to find RS for (at least for now, but give it a few decades and who knows). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think a better term than "context" is "related information". It is a contrivance to omit mention of parents, especially of a 16 year old. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy to agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, pretty much every BLP that I've seen on Wikipedia mentions the immediate family of the subject somewhere (either in an infobox or in a personal life section). For example, Tom Hanks (Thomas Jeffrey Hanks[8] was born in Concord, California on July 9, 1956[9][10] to hospital worker Janet Marylyn (née Frager, 1932–2016)[11] and itinerant cook Amos Mefford Hanks (1924–1992)). It doesn't seem to be prohibited by any policy that I can tell, and there's no rule that says that parents can only be mentioned if they are part of the reason why the person is notable, so it's really just a matter of consensus. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead image

Umm...@Schwede66: I'm not sure it's too much to expect that if you revert a change, you should have some reason for doing so other than "seek consensus". Normally the "seeking consensus" part is based on your rationale for reverting in the first place. GMG^talk 17:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: If you go through the talk page archive, you will find that the choice of lead image is hugely controversial and has caused long discussions. As such, it's natural that you would seek consensus first before changing it. You may not be aware of that history, though, hence my revert and pointing you to here to discuss it. Thanks for starting a discussion. I myself won't participate in the discussion itself; I shall be happy to go with whatever consensus is achieved. Schwede66 17:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It is helpful, for those of us trying to figure out what is going on, if you put this bit in the edit summary. GMG^talk 17:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure; will do in future. Schwede66 19:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of her surname

How about some IPA in the first sentence? Equinox ◑ 15:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There are some users who are excellent with IPA that I have run into. For example, IvanScrooge98; Kbb2; EEng; GiantSnowman; Nardog. I will reach out to them on their talk pages later and see if they are willing to contribute to this page. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox: It's already in a note after the very first two words (her name to be exact) in the lede. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help User:Kbb2! I didn't even finish typing my message on your talk page haha before you added that note. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't add it, it was already there. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Well, thanks for pointing it out! (That's me up there BTW, I just registered an account to thank you). Omanlured (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Omanlured: No problem. Welcome. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

FRSGS

Is she entitled to use this honorary title? I note that nobody else awarded it uses the letters after their name. Rustygecko (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia biographies include significant postnominals. Contrary to your claim, Wikipedia biographies of people awarded the FRSGS do have the letters after their name. So it's unclear what you're asking. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

GT's parents should not be in the article

Mentioning GT's mother and father is only relevant and contextual if you consider her mom and dad to be part of GT's campaign. Apart from GT saying her parents are not happy with her school strikes, her parents are not involved in her campaign. Otherwise GT's parents are no more in context than including, for example, Paul McCartney's parents in the article on Paul McCartney. References to GT's parents - both of them - should be removed. MartiniShaw (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

She is only 16 years old. What in particular, concerning her parents, are you objecting to? Can you quote the reference to her parents that you are objecting to? Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course, Paul McCartney discusses his parents, as do almost all Wikipedia biographies. Information about parents and close family is standard biographical information. Plus, her parents are both very notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In broader discussions about Thunberg, out there in the tabloid world, the only times I can recall seeing her parents mentioned are in comments suggesting that she is being manipulated by them, particularly her father. That's pretty POV stuff. Here in Wikipedia we need reliable sources for what we write. I have seen nothing in such sources to support the view that her actions have anything to do with her parents. She is clearly a strongly self-motivated person. Unless someone can show that her parents are relevant to her actions, they don't belong in the article. As for the "She is only 16 years old" comment above, I don't see the relevance. We have articles on many sports and entertainment stars who are minors that don't mention the subject's parents. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for mentioning she is 16. That is ageist of me. But when we write "At home, Thunberg convinced her parents to adopt several lifestyle choices to reduce their own carbon footprint, including giving up air travel and not eating meat" we are simply acknowledging the reality of a younger person living with their parents. This matters due to her convictions concerning the environment and humankind's impact on it. Bus stop (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course, articles that discuss her in a biographical context often mention her parents, in no small part because her mother is a famous musical performer and her father is a TV actor. Removing any mention of her parents would be a bizarre thing to do to a biography of a person whose parents are very well known in their own right. Are we next going to remove his parents from the biography of John Quincy Adams? When a biography properly lacks information about parents, that is because verifiable, reliable information about the parents has not yet been found by Wikipedia editors. As for tabloid manipulation claims, they should be rigorously excluded from the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The nitpicking going on in this article truly is amazing. Trillfendi (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

And that comment doesn't help. The nitpicking about Thunberg outside this article is also truly amazing. People who don't like her message have adopted the nastiest and dirtiest tactics to discredit her personally so as to discredit her message. She really has exposed the uglier side of modern humanity. We must do everything we can to avoid any of that here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

"the uglier side of modern humanity" Adults don't like being lectured-to by young adults. This is not peculiar to "modern humanity". The question many are grappling with concerns the apparent wisdom being spoken by someone so young. This has gotten knickers in a twist if I understand that Britishism correctly. Bus stop (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This Australian might have said "knot" rather than "twist". I like the alliteration. But your point is a good one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me guess—you are constantly throwing shrimps on barbies. Bus stop (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Her parents (and grandparents) are essential. The reason her campaign got off the ground is they are almost royalty in Sweden. Rustygecko (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section

It's absurd that an unqualified 16yo has attracted such a wide, uncritical audience. This section deserves expansion. Crawiki (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Crawiki—would merely expanding the criticism section address what you posit is absurdity? What is it that you would like to see added to the criticism section? I think suggestions should be more concrete in nature. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This article already contains examples of critical reactions to Thunberg. It's unclear that we need more - per WP:DUE we strive to represent reliable sources, not simply compile everything critical ever said about a person. Additionally, there is no evidence that "Mises Wire" (a blog?) is a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof—Crawiki is saying that it is absurd that an unqualified 16yo has attracted such a wide, uncritical audience. I can't say that is entirely off-base. I don't think Crawiki is saying that merely expanding the criticism section addresses this absurdity, if indeed it really exists. The question as I see it is: do sources address the posited absurdity? Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

What "uncritical audience"? I see plenty of examples of criticism here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@ NSBroff The "uncritical audience" referred to is widespread and you are being deliberately obtuse (probably). Cheers!

I've restored this. It is not entirely off-base, in my opinion, and it is somewhat well-sourced. There is a specific reference to religious fervor with quasi-religious allusions that is absent in other "criticism". Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And I have removed it again per WP:BRD and WP:BLP. There is no consensus for its inclusion, criticism sections are deprecated (the article already has a place to discuss responses to Thunberg's activism) and "Mises Wire" is an unidentified source of unclear reliability. In addition, the section is extremely poorly written, makes unsupported claims ("many commentators"?) and fails to attribute statements of opinion. Whether any of it is due weight is questionable. The inclusion of this material has been challenged and it should not be reinserted absent clear consensus that it's appropriate in this biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be called a criticism section. (Yes, "criticism sections are deprecated"). This is a reliable source, isn't it? This may be a WP:BLP but it is not an article deriving from the hard sciences. I think valid criticism would include the observation that the phenomenon being covered in our article includes "religious thinking". I think that would be valid for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Madeline Grant is a pro-Brexit right-wing commentator for a conservative newspaper. Her opinion might be due weight. But this article already includes lots of quotes from people criticising Thunberg. Do we need more such quotes? If we do need more such quotes, wouldn't we also need more quotes from Thunberg's supporters, as surely it would violate WP:DUE to disproportionately represent opponents? We already give more space to opposition than to support, which is arguably a violation. I'm willing to listen to arguments that say we should have more quotes from both sides but I'm firmly convinced that simply piling more opponents into this article is unwarranted and inappropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The question is not one of "more quotes" (or fewer quotes). The question involves approaches to examining the phenomenon that is at the heart of our article and the subject's meteoric rise to prominence. Is "religious fervor", or at least the possibility of this, already addressed in our article? If not, then it should be considered valid for addressing. "Quasi-religious fervour is no substitute for hardheaded discussion of costs, benefits and policies. Nor, indeed, should it stop us from asking whether it is really appropriate to expose a child to this level of global scrutiny."[2] This is valid for inclusion, whether paraphrased or quoted. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

See my edit a moment ago, apologies for not noticing this section before. Tganks, Baranof, for pointing it out. Misses Wire is the published voice of the very respected Mises Institute. I don't see that BLP applies here. There is nothing 'titillating or sensationalist' about anything i wrote this morning. Alsi they raise points which have not been raised elsewhere in the article:1,the quasi-religious aspect. 2,the lack of concern for poorer countries 3, that respected climatologists disagree with her. Comments therefore should be reinstated under the revised heading. Crawiki (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Mises Institute is both a think-tank and a WP:BIASED source. While we can quote them under certain circumstances, I would argue that their criticism of people they disagree with on ideological grounds is generally WP:UNDUE unless we have secondary sourcing, since there's nothing noteworthy or interesting about it - they are essentially just reaffirming their pre-established position. --Aquillion (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

There's another possible criticism to be made, namely that GT should not be encouraging kids to miss school. Re Bus stop's comments above, part of the absurdity is the polarised nature of the debate. Everybody who's not an 'activist' or 'believer' in climate change is labelled a 'denier'. This is a Straw man tactic. There is room for 'climate change sceptics' somewhere in the middle. For example, climatology has yet to agree on the causes of the PETM or the mini ice-age. If the science cannot explain the past, how can they predict the future? Crawiki (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

For mini ice age, read Little Ice Age. Apologies for error. Crawiki (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"the polarised nature of the debate" There is no debating religion. The value as I see it of the import of this source, which you added, is to add a moderating element to the all-or-nothing aspect to discussion of environmental impact of industrial processes. I certainly don't understand the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum and how it might have bearing on the present moment. But it is certainly science and not religion. When I read about older people fawning over the subject of this article it is religion that comes to my mind. The source makes that connection. Whether right or wrong I think some reference to that source warrants inclusion in the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't even have a criticism section to begin with (nor a 'support' section, for that matter). Per WP:CSECTION, they're not a good way to organize articles (and one of the reasons they're bad is specifically because they encourage people to "fill them out" by finding every possible opinion or story that could go into them, which is inappropriate - reception and coverage should go in the appropriate parts of the article without dividing it strictly into "favorable / unfavorable" or "supporter / critical", with the WP:DUE weight for all of it assessed together. A criticism section by definition encourages WP:FALSEBALANCE, eg. things that are trivial relative to the subject's overall coverage suddenly get pushed into the article because they fit into that section. Also, a criticism section (or, even worse, a criticism / supporter split, as the article seems to have now) encourages people to pidgeonhole sources into one or the other and makes it harder to accurately describe impartial sources, or ones that touch on both critical and uncritical points - and in doing so it encourages editors to find lopsided sourcing on both ends, leading to WP:CHERRY problems. What we ought to do is look for the most prominent opinions and things people have said about her and cover it all, impartially, in one reception section. --Aquillion (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "Criticism" or "Controversy" sections in principle. Sometimes, they're a natural, albeit uninspired, way to gather together material, and they don't turn out so badly. In this case, however, I believe you are correct, and the issues to which the organization scheme is prone are particularly likely to manifest. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion—I never advocated dividing it strictly into "favorable / unfavorable" or "supporter / critical". I favor the inclusion of reliably sourced information. This may be a WP:BLP but it is not science, math, physics, etc. The observation that the enthusiasm surrounding the subject of the article looks like religious fervor is an observation worth noting, if it is reliably sourced. It is not right, or wrong, correct, or incorrect. We aren't reporting on a topic from the hard sciences. The question is not whether there should be a "criticism" section or not, or at least that is not the primary question. With or without a "criticism section" we should note that some sources observe something slightly "religious" about the followers and fans of the subject of this article, and that the subject of this article, according to some sources, bears the hallmarks of a religious character. "Following an earlier address in Brussels, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker deferentially kissed her hand for the cameras, like a penitent medieval monarch at a shrine." This quote might warrant inclusion in our article: "And, like an ascetic saint, Thunberg is praised for her self-denial. The press attention that accompanied her two-week voyage across the Atlantic highlighted her embrace of its physical rigours, drawing particular attention to the symbols of her suffering; the cramped conditions, the plastic bucket attesting to the lack of showers or toilets. Rarely do her followers ask 'where are her parents?', because they see her as a sacrificial lamb." Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, you removed the Mises Institute reference, claiming it to be an 'ideological' article. I don't see that. Please read the article. It's based on logical cause and effect, supported by abundant data. This is just wrong. Even if you're right, that's no excuse to also delete the further points published in the Daily Telegraph and New York Daily News. As stated above, these are legitimate and original points which add to the article. Crawiki (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, please reply? Your reasoning thus far appears to run thus: 'I haven't read X, but it's bound to be ideological, so delete it. Y and Z were added at the same time, so I'll delete those too.'

I'm reinstating all three. If you get around to reading the Mises article and can find anything 'ideological' in it, let the world know. The idea that GT's meteoric rise is a quasi-religious phenomenon is original and deserves inclusion. Similarly, the world should know that her critics include respected climatologists. Crawiki (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. There is no consensus for inclusion of the material, and the objections have been repeatedly explained to you. If you'd like to open an RFC, that would be your next step. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof—we should be aiming to write a balanced article. Where there is criticism that is reliably sourced and on-topic, it should be considered for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It has been considered, and at this point there is no consensus for its inclusion. The objections have been repeatedly explained - this article already places undue weight on critical views and there is no need for more of them - particularly without any attempt to balance by also adding more positive views. The relevance of several of the putative sources is questionable; how including the opinion of some random economist from a far-right think tank improves the article is unclear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"this article already places undue weight on critical views" No, it does not. It presents milquetoast criticism instead of trenchant criticism. Bus stop (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Then if some of the existing criticism is, in your words, "milquetoast," you would not object to removing some of it in exchange for adding the disputed section, such that there is no net gain in space devoted to critical views? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, NorthBySouthBaranof, but this biography should not be a hagiography. You misunderstand WP:BLP. Quantity of words of so-called criticism is not the most important factor to be considered. At this point you are not removing mild criticism, rather you are removing criticism that gets to the heart of the matter. Is the status of the planet's environment as Greta Thunberg describes it? You are removing the sources ascribing error to her assessments. This gets to the crux of the matter. You mean the reader should not be apprised that some say "Sorry, Greta Thunberg, but you’re (mostly) wrong"? Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure no hagiography ever included a random climate change denier saying that the saint in question had "many mental disorders." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Much of the criticism is of her followers and fans rather than of her. Her followers and fans are said by some reasonably good-quality sources to regard her as an "ascetic saint". I am likening your repeated removal of this source to hagiographic writing. Why would Madeline Grant's voice be unwelcome? You have noted that "Madeline Grant is a pro-Brexit right-wing commentator for a conservative newspaper." No matter her political leanings her point that "Religious thinking pervades our supposedly secular age, from the purity-obsessed 'clean eating' fetish, to the unforgiving online lynch mob, with its public shamings and demands for penance. The Greta Thunberg phenomenon will fascinate future sociologists – and for similar reasons" constitutes criticism of a more fundamental nature than that enunciated by various mealy-mouthed politicians already included in the article. Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The point is that, first, the opinions of a neutral source are more noteworthy than the opinions of someone who already disagrees with the subject on ideological grounds; and, second, intentionally seeking out critical opinions from relatively obscure outlets or from WP:BIASED sources (who can be counted on to reliably say such things about anyone they disagree with) is WP:FALSEBALANCE. If these criticisms are noteworthy, we should be able to cite them to more neutral, mainstream sources covering them. Otherwise we risk having the article turn into a WP:QUOTEFARM where editors dump the opinions of random axe-grindy culture warriors and think tanks in order to argue by proxy. Opinions are included based on the WP:DUE weight in terms of the relative prominence of the source and the attention that that opinion has gotten from secondary sources, not an editor's personal opinion that it is fundamental or mealy-mouthed. --Aquillion (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The Mises institute itself is a think tank devoted to advancing a specific ideological point-of-view. Therefore, everything they say or publish falls under WP:BIASED; while we can cover it, the standard for WP:DUE is higher, especially for negative material about a WP:BLP. The fact that they would have objections to a high-profile opponent of climate change is simply not, in and of itself, notable. --Aquillion (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, you appear to be talking nonsense. The article as it stands is blatantly biased in favour of its subject, verging on hero-worship. The phrase 'climate schoolstrike', despite having its own separate article, gets 20 mentions in the text, which is annoyingly repetitive. In the Impact section there are three subsections and 12 paragraphs favouring GT, only one section of 6 paragraphs devoted to criticism. Critics are portrayed as 'vicious' people making 'ad hominem' attacks. The section includes an uninformative paragraph about Trump which is merely a soap-opera spat and should be reduced to one or two lines. This article is also superficial, with only tangential references to the complexity of the problem, and the economic effects on poor countries. When i try to remedy this, you deleted three articles, all of which are respectably sourced and offer detailed arguments on the economic, theological and climatological aspects. You don't explain why you're doing this, and you're acting as if you own the article. You don't. Crawiki (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If the statement "Sorry, Greta Thunberg, but you're (mostly) wrong" is the headline of an opinion column in a tabloid (a tabloid for which there is no consensus on the reliability of even its factual reporting), then no, there's no particular reason that we should apprise readers of it. It's the Internet; op-eds are a dime a dozen. The same goes for one individual's description of Thunberg's fans as consumed with religious fervor (and using the broadest possible definition of "religious thinking" to do so). If it's already so clear that future sociologists will be fascinated, more and better sources would be saying so. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"It's absurd that an unqualified 16yo has attracted such a wide, uncritical audience". Is there any evidence that GT knows anything about the Earth's orbital effects on the climate? I think not. She seems to blame all global warming on human activity. Therefore yes, you are correct in your assertion about the absurdity of GT's audience. MartiniShaw (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

To suggest that a 16-year old Swede does not understand, say, Axial tilt, would be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. As for her drawing some obvious conclusions from the Scientific consensus on climate change, that is just evidence-based political action. The only people who call the audience for her movement "uncritical" are those predisposed to deny the consensus that quite clearly exists, or who don't want to hear the evidence-based proposals that derive from that consensus. Mostly Texans and Australians tbh. Newimpartial (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"To suggest that a 16-year old Swede does not understand, say, Axial tilt, would be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence." Do you have any evidence for that statement? Thanks, friend! MartiniShaw (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN, the burden of evidence is on the person who wants to add material, especially negative material about a WP:BLP; you're the one who has to provide reliable mainstream sourcing for your claims. It also feels like you're under the impression that all articles must have equal amounts of negative and positive material about their subject; this is not true, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. We cover prominent, mainstream views in accordance with their predominance in mainstream sources; more fringe opinions are covered more briefly or, in some cases, not at all. If the bulk of mainstream coverage is positive (and I think that, in this case, it clearly is - some of the things you've said above and the sources you're trying to cite even plainly take the position that that's the case), then our own coverage has to reflect that. Even in situations where there is significant negative coverage, WP:BLP requires that we cite that coverage to the highest-quality sources and avoid giving it WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your input! MartiniShaw (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Image A

Image B

I replaced a photograph of Thunberg File:Greta Thunberg au parlement européen (33744056508), recadré.png with what I regard as a more characteristic one: File:Greta Thunberg at the Parliament.jpg. They were taken on the same occasion and have the same source and CC licence. The one with the EU flag in the background has been cropped from File:Greta Thunberg at the Parliament (33744056508).jpg. I have come here because my edit has been reverted with the suggestion to discuss it. I am not wanting to start (or participate in) a great debate about which of very many photos might be best but I hope any RFC-like discussion could be with File:Greta Thunberg at the Parliament.jpg in place. Thincat (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I personally think the first image is better quality from a photography standpoint, but the second image is also good. I would be fine with both. One idea -- could we keep the first image as the top of the article and use the second image further down near the section that refers to the European Parliament speech? If not, then I would be OK with switching the images. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the IP when s/he says the first image is the "better quality from a photography standpoint, but the second image is also good." I also suggest that it could be used somewhere else in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The second image without the EU flag should be used. The one with the EU flag implies that the EU is involved in backing her. The EU does not back any particular person. It is better to keep any EU links out of this already tumultuous subject. MartiniShaw (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

To my mind, the first photograph implies nothing more than that Greta Thunberg has spoken at the EU. It has nothing to do with Brexit, nor about backing, or lack of backing, from the EU. Esowteric+Talk 13:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

She isn't British so the EU backdrop clearly isn't associated with Brexit. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. "Clearly"? Clearly you are unaware of the heated verbal and sometimes physical fighting going on in the UK about Brexit. Or if you are, you enjoy provoking Brexiteers. I don't. Cheers. MartiniShaw (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I think Image B is better photographically. Image A is a caricature of the person. I don't think "photographically" means iconic, or that which would serve to sell a product. If we were trying to sell the hypothetic product "Greta Thunberg Quick Oatmeal" we might put Image A on a cylindrical cardboard container containing oatmeal. But if we are trying to represent the subject of this biography I think Image B better depicts the thinking, articulate person Greta Thunberg is. Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Caricature? Yes, and more specifically, as a cute little kid. GT is actually now 16, pretty well grown up, and image B reflects this better. MartiniShaw (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Image A suggests a person dreaming. In Image A the person is not in the midst of speech. They are only smiling. Is this an article on a person who only smiles well or a person who speaks well? Image B suggests a person articulating an idea or responding to possible disagreement articulated by others. The image for uppermost placement in the article should be one that emphasizes verbal articulateness. Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I have yet to see a lead image to be one that represents a person speaking because that is the major thing they do. For example, that's about all that politicians do and we don't show them in photos where they appear to be mid-sentence. In fact, I've worked on many bios and we've looked for a pleasant smile photo to replace a speaking photo when we had to crop whatever we could find. Naomi Klein is a recent example. The present photo is the most appropriate until something better turns up. Gandydancer (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"I've worked on many bios and we've looked for a pleasant smile photo to replace a speaking photo". Why? Why would you look for a "pleasant smile photo to replace a speaking photo"? Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I should just say "pleasant-looking photo"...and why? - because that is the norm. Gandydancer (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing ununpleasant about Image B, and it shows her in her element—verbally articulating a point of view. She is a force to be reckoned with. Her strength is inextricably linked to her ability to verbally articulate a point of view—one which, incidentally, not all agree with. The person is a verbal powerhouse. We should depict her speaking. Bus stop (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A indicates the power, prestige and recognition that she has and does it beautifully. B is a nice picture of any young person talking anywhere about anything. I suggest we keep A until maybe an overwhelmingly representative picture emerges. But matters little in the greater scheme of things. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"B is a nice picture of any young person talking anywhere about anything." That is precisely why "B" is preferable. What is called for is an ordinary image. She isn't god. We should not be seeking an image conveying "power, prestige and recognition". This is an ordinary person, not even a person of an age in life at which one is more likely to have clout and heft. Are pre-teens known for having influence on the world stage? This isn't the biography of an elder statesman. What we should want to depict is Greta Thunberg in her working environment. She doesn't even wear dress clothes. Is that a power suit she's wearing? Her power emanates solely from her voice. It is her ability and especially her initiative to put together words that matters most. We should not be prettifying, idolizing, or idealizing her. Image B is preferable because it shows her "working" and because it doesn't represent her as someone special. Bus stop (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

What's this about Greta Thunberg being "pre-teen"? She is sixteen years old. That is well into her teens. Whatever point you are making about her looking better in image B, it is not to do with her age. Anyway, I would agree that image B looks better. Image A makes Greta look a bit "weird". And she is not weird. MartiniShaw (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I prefer B - a more neutral image. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

She is not a pre-teen. I stand corrected. I should not be exaggerating about her youth. But she is closer in age to being a pre-teen than an elder statesman. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Picture A making Greta look "weird" seems to be a view held exclusively by you. There is nothing weird about the picture, nor her in it. Aside from that, this article is about a notable invidividual involved in the global movement, not about someone who only smiles or someone who speaks well, @Bus stop:. So your argument in favour of picture B is rather silly. Articles about individuals with pictures present in the infobox are almost always of them smiling whilst standing or sitting down if such pictures are available. It makes little sense for this article to deviate from the norm when the status quo is fine as is. Sisuvia (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with image A, too. And I'm not going to join the milling throng of malcontents who want to take this fine young lady down a peg or two. Esowteric+Talk 17:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Esowteric—you say "And I'm not going to join the milling throng of malcontents who want to take this fine young lady down a peg or two." Is this somehow relevant to choosing an uppermost image for this article? And I'm just curious—are you including me among what you are characterizing as the "milling throng of malcontents"? Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia—in Image A she could be contemplating and addressing what she perceives to be a problem with gumball machines. This potential downside which is associated with Image A can be avoided by using Image B, which conceivably could be depicting someone addressing environmental degradation. She is speaking and the trunk of her body and her arms are included. This suggests someone actually doing something rather than just looking pretty. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Out of all the photos of Thunberg in cyberspace, I am at a loss as to why these two have fixated so much attention. But I guess a picture is worth a thousand words ... and equally as many reasons one person may prefer photo "B" over "A" and vice versaJohnrichardhall (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia—thank you for pinging me from the section on "Too many photographs". You correctly pointed out that I posted a question directed at you in that section that I really should have posted to you in this section which is called the "Infobox photo" section. You said "Aside from that, this article is about a notable invidividual involved in the global movement, not about someone who only smiles or someone who speaks well, @Bus stop:. So your argument in favour of picture B is rather silly." I can't understand that. Can you help me decipher that? I know "this article is about a notable invidividual involved in the global movement". I know this article is "not about someone who only smiles or someone who speaks well". But why is my "argument in favour of picture B is rather silly"? How does one thing follow from another? Why would I accept that my argument is silly just because the subject of the article is not merely someone who smiles well but also someone is a notable individual involved in a global movement? Your argument makes no sense to me. And below, in the other section, you say "@Bus stop: Here's a recommendation; re-read my post." OK, I've re-read your post. It makes no sense to me. To cut to the chase, why not just articulate your argument in favor of Image A? All I want to do is understand your reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop:, want to know why I explicitly pointed out that this article is about a notable individual and not about someone who only smiles or someone who speaks well? Because that's exactly the argument you used against retaining the status quo. Just as I have stated above, the article is about an individual involved in a global movement, whether or not the picture implies that Thunberg is only someone who only smiles or speaks well, which is wholly subjective, should not be a factor in the decision to either retain the status quo or to use picture B instead. When I said "re-read my post", it was referring to your accusation that my argument in favour of picture A is fueled by my supposed opinion that Thunberg is "cuter" in picture A. When in fact I have never made such a point, i.e that she is cuter in picture A, therefore we should use picture A. I have only ever made one reference to the supposed cuteness of Thunberg, and that was in response to the user (Crawiki) who was complaining of there being too many photos within the article and that "cuteness is more appropriate to glossy mags", when the inclusion of those pictures were not meant to "show off" Thunberg's cuteness, as I have said in the message responding to Crawiki. Sisuvia (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia—smiling and speaking are two different things, or at least I am differentiating between the two in my argument. Image A depicts the person smiling. Image B depicts the person speaking. That is my admittedly oversimplified analysis. I favor the image depicting the person speaking over the image depicting the person smiling. Correct me if I am wrong but I think you favor image A. My question is simple: why do you favor Image A over Image B? Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I don't favour one over another. I favour the status quo. The status quo, picture A, is a picture that is suitable enough for the article, and there lacks a good enough argument for changing it with another. Sisuvia (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Then why not just say that in the first place Sisuvia? I was responding to reasoning presented by you: "Aside from that, this article is about a notable invidividual involved in the global movement, not about someone who only smiles or someone who speaks well, @Bus stop:. So your argument in favour of picture B is rather silly. It sounded to me like you were saying that one image was a better representation of "a notable invidividual involved in the global movement". I was curious to know why you would think Image A was more representative of "a notable invidividual involved in the global movement" than Image B. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Too many photographs

There are 8 photos in this article. Surely, too many? Cuteness is more appropriate to glossy mags. Admiration of icons is all well and good in a religious setting. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Crawiki (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, too many photos. It's hero-worship. Why else so many photographs? Yes GT has a point. But no, she should not be revered as (almost always) right. Hagiography? Not far off. That's just my view. I hope I haven't offended anyone on here (this time LOL). MartiniShaw (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the photo in the section titled Thunberg's message. It was very similar to the preceding one, and seemed to serve no additional purpose. I'd suggest to the previous posters though that our concerns should be around the quality of the article, rather than the guessed at motives of other editors. To me, the remaining photos show different aspects of Thunberg's life, and the impact she has had. If you want other photos removed, please identify specific ones, and give reasons related to the quality of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I hope people realize they can boldly remove things. Is everything really worth discussing? Trillfendi (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes you can be bold, and then get a ban for disruptive editing! Thanks for the advice, anyway! MartiniShaw (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of other Wikipedia articles about individuals that feature roughly the same amount of pictures. Nor are the pictures an attempt to show off her cuteness, which is wholly subjective and not a legitimate factor in the inclusion of these pictures. Sisuvia (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Sisuvia—you wrote several sections up "Aside from that, this article is about a notable invidividual involved in the global movement, not about someone who only smiles or someone who speaks well, @Bus stop:. So your argument in favour of picture B is rather silly." To an extent I agree. This article is about an effective person, who may step on a few toes to achieve her goals. I'm trying to understand why you favor Image A. We don't care whether she's cute or not. Believe it or not we are trying to write a good article about Greta Thunberg. The present uppermost image, Image A, is not problematic because she is arguably "cute", but rather it is problematic because relative to Image B she seems vacant, ineffectual, and anodyne. The effort is to get a more dynamic image into the uppermost slot. Image B fits the bill. Bus stop (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

(back on track...) No there are not too many photos judging by what we use on other bios. Some of us like more photos and those that like less can perhaps ignore what they see as too many while those of us that like more would just be out of luck. Gandydancer (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Here's a recommendation; re-read my post. No where in it am I arguing that the supposed "cuteness" of Thunberg should be a factor in any decision regarding photos. Neither is my response to your argument in favour of picture B in the section further above relevant to this specific discussion concerning the amount of photos in the article. Sisuvia (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Johnrichardhall—you've reverted here. Can you tell me why you favor one image over the other? I notice you have not weighed into this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop You are aware of the "Infobox photo" section above, having weighed in on the issue. I reverted because photo "A" should remain until consensus is reached. This "infobox photo" has been edited and reverted before. Out of all the photos of Thunberg in cyberspace, I am at a loss as to why these two have fixated so much attention. But I guess a picture is worth a thousand words ... and equally as many reasons one person may prefer photo "B" over "A" and vice versa.Johnrichardhall (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

What's the bike photo doing there? The bike photo might work if the sign on the bike said "use bikes instead of cars". It doesn't. Anyone want it keeping? If so please say why. Thanks! MartiniShaw (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The bike photo shows a slogan from the climate strike movement. What are you trying to nitpick here, exactly? Newimpartial (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The bike photo refers to an old election. Yesterday's news. WWGB (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

History - which this article is - is literally yesterday's news. Therefore WWGB's argument is invalid. Newimpartial (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

No nitpicking. Why remove the picture? The clue is in the title of the section: Too many photographs. Yes we can see the bike. The sign is in Swedish. Very nice. But out of place here where we speak English. Best wishes. MartiniShaw (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

When Wikipedia covers global BLP subjects, is there some policy suggesting that photos relating to the subject should show English-language content (as opposed to the captioning, which is in English)? You may not have taken the Globalize template seriously enough, Martini: English Wikipedia is not some kind of Anglo-Saxon council project. Newimpartial (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

A picture of a bike on a biography page? The article is about Greta Thunberg: not bikes, not global warming, not using cars. If you insist on a bike picture, how about a picture of Greta Thunberg on a bike then? Thanks, friend! MartiniShaw (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Your argument against the inclusion of the picture with a bike in it falls completely flat when you realise that the bike and the statement that is stuck to it references Thunberg and the movement in which she is a major figure. Sisuvia (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

What Sisuvia said. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

To use a phrase from the "Infobox photo" section of this Talk page I would say the bicycle image is good "from a photography standpoint". So I wouldn't argue for its removal. There are tradeoffs in any of these considerations. Does a bicycle carrying signage relating to global warming belong in a "Greta Thunberg" article? It is not clear that it does—but somehow it fits. It is not specifically on-target but it adds to the quality of the article and it certainly is not jarringly out of place. Oh, and it says "Greta" on it. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and it says "Greta" on it. Oh, right. So having her name on it makes it acceptable then? So if the sign said "Greta is an e****" that would still be OK? No it wouldn't. Kind regards! MartiniShaw (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the immediately preceding comment represents WHATABOUTISM or rapid goalpost redeployment, but in neither case is it a policy-compliant argument. Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The general problem is using too few images, I think using lots of images here is great and we should NOT remove images cos somebody doesn't like. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think there should be more images of Greta Thunberg? Is there any valid reason at all? Your finding her sexually attractive will not do as a valid reason 81.141.154.53 (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

81.141, no evidence exists that i find GT 'sexually attractive'. Straw man and Mudslinging argument, designed to draw attention away from the real issue here, which is the attempted veneration of GT by editors who should know better. Crawiki (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't slinging mud at you Cwiki, the mud was for RWeiss 81.141.154.53 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. Should have read with more care. Crawiki (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Edits reverted, no reason given

NbySBaranof just deleted 1500 words from the article without explanation, and asks for prior discussion. I provided explanations for each edit he/she deleted. He/she has not. The onus is therefore on him/her Crawiki (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

All of the edits were dubious at best. For example, pulling a self-description as "an uneducated teenager" out of its context and dropping it into the lede is pretty clear POV-pushing. Removing a secondary source — a publication that, though seen as partisan, has been judged generally reliable — is generally a bad move. (There's no "double standard" in finding Vox acceptable while rejecting "Mises Wire", since the former has been evaluated by the community and the latter not.) NorthBySouthBaranof made a good call. XOR'easter (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• The "uneducated teenager" bit is so far out of context that it strikes me as a hard WP:BLP violation. Do not restore that one, in particular, to the lead without a clear consensus supporting it. Some things are debatable or involve disagreements over WP:WEIGHT, but this is severe enough that it can't be left in for any length of time. EDIT: Also, per WP:ONUS, you are incorrect - the onus is on you to obtain consensus for things you want to add. Not just "an explanation", but an actual consensus of editors. This is particularly true, of course, when trying to add negative material about a WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there a list somewhere of 'sources evaluated by the community'? The lead should summarise the article with due weight. The fact that GT describes herself as 'uneducated and does not discuss politics' is highly significant, given that much of her time, according to the rest of the article, is spent in doing exactly that. I don't accept your allegation of pov pushing. Crawiki (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there a list somewhere of 'sources evaluated by the community'? Yes, I linked to it. The fact that GT describes herself as 'uneducated and does not discuss politics' is highly significant — no, the fact that she happened to say that about herself once does not mean it is among the most important things that readers should know about her. On top of that, it's a misquote — a paraphrase being passed off as a quotation. The quoted phrase does not actually appear in the New York Magazine profile from which it was supposedly taken. XOR'easter (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

And that's NOT pov pushing? The world doesn't need to know that she says one thing, while doing the opposite? Crawiki (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Even if you feel that way, that is your opinion and not a fact. If you think that this is a major focus of coverage, don't waste your time making your own personal arguments for why your own feelings tell you it's important - instead, produce reliable, mainstream secondary sources that have discussed it, to illustrate its importance; then we can use those to base our coverage of it on. We can of course include more obscure or even, in some cases, WP:FRINGE perspectives - but the weight they're given is lesser; we can't simply put them in the lead or devote bloated sections to them just because you think they're cool. If you want to keep adding such material to the article, let alone the lead, you need mainstream secondary sourcing demonstrating its significance; in particular, organizations and individuals that already deny climate change are WP:FRINGE and, therefore, their opinions on topics related to it gets less weight. --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Reading the actual profile makes clear that she is not saying one thing, while doing the opposite. XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, i don't accept that anything I've added has been 'bloated', relates to personal 'feelings', or to 'climate change denial'. If you wish to make such accusations, please specify instead of generalising. According to the source quoted in the lead, she did say that she 'tries not to discuss politics'. At the same time, she makes speeches criticising government policies. Crawiki (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

No, she doesn't discuss politics, in the sense of pushing for specific policies, or suggesting that a change in leadership would benefit her cause. Specifically, in the interview you cited, she said she would not presume to promote a particular political structure as part of the solution to the problem she wants addressed:

Instead I asked what more change would look like. “If we imagine a world in which the powerful are really focused on addressing this at the scale that is necessary, what kind of power structure would we be looking at?” “I mean, that is not for me to say,” she said, “because I am just an uneducated teenager. I can’t really speak up about things like this; no one would take me seriously. So I try not to speak about politics and that kind of … structure. I just think that we need to listen to the scientists and the experts so they can say how best to run the situation. I mean, I don’t know how things are going to look like in even the near future. I don’t know how the situation is going to look like in even a week from now because things can change. So I think—that is both the scary part but also the hopeful, exciting part, because things can change so quickly.”

Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I would favor placing in the lede that she concedes she is not a scientist because climate change is fundamentally a scientific matter. If she is conceding she is an "an uneducated teenager" that warrants prominent placement. It is strongly alleged that some of her "solutions" are dangerous especially to the health of people in developing countries. We are not saying in Wikipedia's voice that she is incorrect about anything. We are allowing the reader to know that she is not presenting herself as a scientist. In this source, New York (magazine), we find:

Instead I asked what more change would look like. "If we imagine a world in which the powerful are really focused on addressing this at the scale that is necessary, what kind of power structure would we be looking at?"

"I mean, that is not for me to say," she said, "because I am just an uneducated teenager. I can’t really speak up about things like this; no one would take me seriously. So I try not to speak about politics and that kind of … structure. I just think that we need to listen to the scientists and the experts so they can say how best to run the situation. I mean, I don’t know how things are going to look like in even the near future. I don’t know how the situation is going to look like in even a week from now because things can change. So I think—that is both the scary part but also the hopeful, exciting part, because things can change so quickly."

I don't think NorthBySouthBaranof should be removing from the lede that Her sudden rise to world fame has made her a leader, though she admits to being 'an uneducated teenager who doesn't discuss politics' in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that awuillion will argue that black is white, if it suits his pov. The criticism section is not 'bloated' by comparison with the Detailed descriptions of transatlantic crew members and tweets relating thereto which aquillion insists on retaining. Also says that 'most of the criticism section is irrelevant', which is utter nonsense. Please, do not insult my intelligence by saying i include stuff because it is 'cool'. I do not. The lead should reflect the weights of the article. By making it devoid of all criticism, Aquillion is imposing censorship. Crawiki (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• General comment. We are also simply trying to write well. Well-written sentences commonly highlight oddities. A biography isn't a cardboard cutout of a two-dimensional character. We are contrasting her meteoric rise to world fame with a statement of humility on her part. Why should a well-written sentence be removed when it is well-supported by sources? I don't think there is anything wrong with this: Her sudden rise to world fame has made her a leader, though she admits to being 'an uneducated teenager who doesn't discuss politics'. I don't think anyone is trying to knock her off her pedestal. She is a notable and important individual but she is not flawless or infallible. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We can't quote her as saying that she is "an uneducated teenager who doesn't discuss politics" when she did not actually call herself that. It's not a direct quote. The direct quotes in the source provided do not even have the same meaning as the phrase "an uneducated teenager who doesn't discuss politics". Nor would any single self-applied epithet warrant placement in the lede unless overwhelming secondary and tertiary coverage established it as among the most fundamental descriptions she applied to herself. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
    • We can say that she refers to herself as "an uneducated teenager". And we can do so in the lede. Why can't we? The source quotes her as saying "I am just an uneducated teenager". What is the objection? Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
      • The first objection is that the exact quote that NorthBySouthBaranof removed was not in the cited source. Presenting it as such would be extremely dishonest. The second objection is that there is no indication that even a correct quote would be lede-worthy. The third objection is that even a correct quote, shorn of its context, would easily tip over into POV-pushing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
        • She says she is an "an uneducated teenager". Yes, it is "shorn of its context". But its meaning has not changed—or has it? Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
          • In the original context, it was a reply to a question, and it could mean "uneducated about grand matters of sociopolitical structure"; it could even have been a reference to how other people would perceive her, as much as or more so than how she perceives herself. (Read the exchange aloud and see how it sounds.) It's a bit of self-deprecation that was part of her explaining why she focuses where she does. Cramming it into the lede just doesn't work. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ALT text

Can you add ALT text for the infobox image? I.e. "Greta Thunberg in 2019" or "Greta Thunberg in 2019 at the European Parliament". Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 11:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Schwede66 17:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit suggestion.

Shouldn't La Vagabonde in the sentence in the section 2019 visit to North America, "On 13 November 2019, Thunberg departed North America and headed to Spain for COP25. She set sail from Hampton, VA, USA, aboard a 48-foot catamaran, the La Vagabonde," be italicized? CHICHI7YT (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed – done. Schwede66 01:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Honours and awards

For discussion:

The Honours and awards section, as it gets lengthier (and it will get lengthier still), is becoming hard to read. It is now hard to locate a specific award; many of the entries are rather garbled; names of the awards may be incorrect; it is often unclear what the award is given for generally or what it is being given for in this instance.

Maybe the entry order should be:
Name of award, Giver of the award, Date of award, Whether shared. Description of award. Notes. Linking throughout to Wiki pages where they exist. Citeref.
I believe that it is still useful to keep it in its chronological order because this in itself tells a story.
Bolding the award is maybe not Wiki policy but it does read better. This would then render the current entry:

On 12 April 2019, Thunberg shared the Norwegian Fritt Ords Prize, which celebrates freedom of speech, with the Nature and Youth organisation. The conferring organisation, Fritt Ord noted their determined committed activism even in the face of pervasive online and media harassment. Thunberg donated her share of the prize money to a lawsuit which seeks to halt Norwegian oil exploration in the Arctic.

As:

Fritt Ord Award by the Fritt Ord Foundation, Norway (Stiftelsen Fritt Ord) on 12 April 2019, shared with Natur og Ungdom. One of two annual awards to one or more persons or organizations that have contributed in the organization's areas of interest, especially freedom of expression. The award includes a monetary component and a statue by sculptor Nils Aas. Thunberg donated her share of the prize money to a lawsuit seeking to halt Norwegian oil exploration in the Arctic.

But leave it in its chronological position.
There is quite a bit of work involved in sorting out this list, (it requires actually looking up what the award is actually about) which I am happy to do.
Comments welcomed. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The "Honours and awards" section does need reorganization, indeed. Your idea sounds good overall. Just as a matter of prose style, I think that if the information is given as paragraphs, it should be in complete sentences; fragments would work better in a table. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter, I have slightly adjusted the version above to make it as 'one sentenc'y as possible but there were grammatical problems in combining them all; it started needing semicolons. I think it reads OK so long as they are all the same sequence. A table would be too unweildy for this and harder to read is my personal opinion.

Pinging @Ex nihil ^(talk) -- I agree that the award should be listed first. I had done that awhile back only to have it reverted Johnrichardhall (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC).

Ping @Ex nihil ^(talk) I'd be happy to assist you in the research and development of the rearranged section of Thunberg's Honours and awards section. We could split the entries in half and tackle the project that way?Johnrichardhall (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Great offer Johnrichardhall, because there's a lot of work in there, perhaps we let the format discussion settle down a bit first. Can always develop it in sandpit. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)