Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Donald Trump subsection - bloat.

This weird sub-section, at the same structural level as the Politicians sub-section (is Trump not a politician?) has today had a paragraph added to it about what Steve Mnuchin and his wife think about Thunberg. Mnuchin isn't Trump, so it's obviously in the wrong place at best. Nor is his wife. As the Mnuchin comment was completely predictable, and very non-notable considering who his boss is, and his wife is an actress(!), I saw this as inappropriate, trivial bloat and removed it. It was quickly re-added by another editor, one who only registered less than a week ago. That re-adding has not changed my mind. I accept the massive mount of criticism in this article very reluctantly. It's all highly predictable and adds nothing. We all already know what they think about anything in this area of discussion. But I will strongly oppose the addition of more such nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"New to editing (under 20 edits)"? I share your concerns. Esowteric+Talk 10:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there is a great deal of criticism and it may eventually need to be trimmed down eventually but I'm OK with it for now. HiLo, do you think it would be better to move Mnuchin's comment up with the other politicians? (I'm OK with it where it's at.) Also, I changed the word "sabbatical" because the time she spent in N.A. would not be termed a sabbatical. Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not OK with the amount of criticism right now. It's pointless. Far too many words. Even if all those people deserve to be mentioned for their highly predictable comments, they are very repetitive. A list of names would be enough. (Still too much actually, because there is nothing new, newsworthy or surprising about them.) As for the Trump and the Politicians sub-sections, why are they separate anyway? As I asked above, is Trump not a politician? HiLo48 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, Thanks for your post here. In response to concerns about too much criticism, I've removed of the OPEC guy because he's not that well-known compared to leaders of states (says me as a European..) This means that I have increased the bias towards the global north a bit more unfortunately. Which means there are now three reasons to remove that minister I believe:

1. To get balance criticism/positive response more in line + summary stylish
2. To remedy global north bias
3. Because he's not that important on grand scale of things.

@ Gandydancer I don't quite understand you being okay with it for now. Could you clarify? Do you think it would be an small improvement, but you don't think it's worth the fuss/you want to prevent an edit war at all cost?

Another question: Thunberg herself refers to her year out of school as a sabbatical, as do multiple media outlets. They don't refer to her trip abroad as the sabbatical. How come you believe this to be incorrect? I think that word is useful as it explains why her activism became more intense in September last year compared to previous.Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Femkemilene (talk · contribs)Thanks for pointing out my error. I forgot that she was still in school and took a year off. As for "...but you don't think it's worth the fuss/you want to prevent an edit war at all cost?", no not at all. If consensus agrees that it be reduced in number I would go along with that without fussing about it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Femkemilene, if WP:RS providing criticism are "biased" to the "Global north" then Wikipedia has no right "remedying" that bias. We reflect what the sources say according to where we find them, per WP:DUE. Elizium23 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. You talk about "the sources", but we are using only that subsection of reliable sources published the Global North, ignoring reliable sources from elsewhere. To get a balanced article, we might have to go a bit more out of our way and use RS from different parts of the world. For instance, India's newspaper often come in an English version as well, and maybe we can find some info there to make sure we adhere better to the NPOV requirements. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Femkemilene, I am not sure what you thought I wrote that you disagree with, because you just amplified and agreed with what I said. Elizium23 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

My interpretation of what you said is that we should accept the current bias in the article. Sorry if I misunderstood. How would you like to remedy our bias in the selection of sources? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of criticism, and "highly predictable" criticism in particular, some perceive a religious dimension to climate activism. We have for instance "Greta Thunberg is the first saint of our cruel new environmental religion" and "St. Greta Spreads the Climate Gospel". These are good quality sources providing interesting criticism. I think this stuff belongs in the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

That is an interesting theme from the right indeed, this religious fixation. Do you have any secondary sources that describe the criticism? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is a respectable publication. The lede of our article should not be saying "The Journal editorial board has promoted pseudoscientific views on the science of climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos". Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with WSJ, but the world's biggest climate denier Murdoch bought it WSJ in 2007. Is it still a respectable conservative source? Comments about that article should be on that article's talk page. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that inferring a religious dimension based on the use of the word "Saint" is specious (see Secular saint). The English language is full of poetry, and should not be taken so literally. The only WSJ piece I've found referring to "Saint Greta" is an editorial. Paulmlieberman (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Well of course it is an opinion and written in an editorial. Did you think the source had proof that the subject was a bona fide saint? Furthermore cultural enthusiasm can take on a religious flavor. That is what the articles are pointing to. "More striking than the ubiquitous crowds accompanying her, however, is their quasi-religious reverence. She is portrayed as a child-prophet, a modern-day Joan of Arc in her ability to inspire a movement." They are saying "there are religious echoes to Thunberg’s doomsday activism". Is there some reason our article should not pass along that observation to the reader? Bus stop (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Editorial/opinion pieces don't belong here at all. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I simply say again, the multiple, highly predictable criticisms of Thunberg add nothing to the article. Yes, we must mention that she has been criticised, but unless this is by someone really surprising, such as David Attenborough, there is no point to all the individual statements at all. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the current content under the press section is quite good actually (did not write it), for it shows criticism of her in a broader context. Attacks at her and her responses are partially what made her famous and therefore do deserve a point even if they're not surprising.

Let's get back at the comment from that US minister though. What are good reasons to include that one? He's not known outside of the US, nor was his comment a real big media moment. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48—you mean it would not be an "opinion", when stated in the first sentence of the lede, and supported by multiple reliable sources that "Thunberg is known for her straightforward speaking manner"? That is an "opinion". This is in response to "Editorial/opinion pieces don't belong here at all". Bus stop (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

IMO in some articles it is appropriate to have a large amount of response from a large variety of people and organizations. For example, our article Trump administration family separation policy has an extremely large section on response including most large health organizations, most large religious bodies, politicians, even including all five of the living presidents wives, and so on. I find it appropriate for this article as well. Gandydancer (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I find it inappropriate in that article as well, for pretty much the same reasons as here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You stand totally alone in that position. No one has ever tried to remove one name or complained about them. Gandydancer (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. Your comment says nothing to me about the quality of my arguments. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, it isn't even criticism of Thunberg to say that some of the fans of Thunberg, according to some commentators, display signs of worshipfulness for Thunberg. It is merely tangentially related material. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Worshipfulness, and comments about that, are no more than the hype we see in far too many articles about sports "stars". Irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I wish we could remove the politicians' criticisms of Thunberg, and, especially, the character assassination, but there's this: the entire reason Thunberg began her campaign, and she and millions of other young people continue it, is their perception that politicians have been largely avoiding dealing with climate change for decades, and that those politicians need to be shamed into action. So the reactions of politicians in positions of power is highly relevant to our article on Greta. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Personally, I would remove the section on Trump in it's entirety. Not everything Trump does is important just because you can find a source for it. In terms of weight, we give Trump equal weight with...the entire rest of the world's political leaders, and even more so, because the article also mentions Trump in the section on the entire rest of the world. I understand that people really want to include every salacious detail for articles on contemporary politics, but let's make a good faith effort to not be a parody of ourselves. GMG^talk 15:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Look, I'm all for addressing the climate emergency, and I'm supportive, but I have to admit that Greta Thunberg is a controversial character and that there are many, a great many detractors, and their POV needs to be afforded due weight. Esowteric+Talk 15:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not as simple as "detractors". There is commentary. There are observations. There are factors that are not being addressed in the article. How do we explain a young girl seemingly leading a global movement? Isn't that a question not being addressed in our article? There will be "supporters" as well as "detractors" in addressing how Thunberg became the person leading climate activism in the world at this time. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to balance the article with more conservative views, and added the pope and the boycot of Thunberg by French parliamentarians today. I believe the article currently addresses the question quite well: she had a popular idea (striking), did it, held speeches that became viral and people had strong opinions about those speeches, in both directions. There have been many examples of young peoples leading true revolutions, so this is historically not at all exceptional. Small note about language. If you would have called me a 'young' girl when I was 17, I would have found that denigrating as that is how one often dismisses teens under 12. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing or denigrating anyone. The source writes "None of this is to denigrate Ms. Thunberg. She’s clearly a sincere and talented young woman who has dedicated herself to what she believes to be the highest moral cause. Agree or disagree with 'climate crisis' rhetoric and some of the methods deployed in its name, but one can’t help being impressed by her diligence in pursuit of duty and principle in an age with so many less wholesome activities for teenagers."[1] Bus stop (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

References

"Good article" nomination?

If this is a "good article nominee" then the standard needs raising, big time. 86.187.233.204 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You can nominate anything. It does not mean it is good, but it was nominated. The difference is that people take the nomination seriously if it's not obviously a bad choice. 2604:2000:69D9:B800:ED83:1D08:ABEE:2907 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The nomination brings with it a procedure to improve the article. Since the nomination the structure has improved and some potential promotional material has been removed. If you have any concrete suggestions how to improve, we're listening :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm slightly surprised it would be stable enough for a GA-nom, but good luck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, the stability criterion isn't that strict. There must not be any edit warring going on within the article (so talk page doens't matter) and we musn't have big disagreements about content. Quickly evolving content is actually okay. I've been eyeing this page for GAN for half a year and now felt it was sufficiently stable to try. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Woah, hey, "evolving content"? Don't people believe in "content creators" anymore? What would Pope Francis say? Are we "creation deniers"? Elizium23 (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

To be honest this article doesn’t really go into the criticism of herself. InvictusImperator (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Editorializing when editing-- see article's "view history"

Is it appropriate to editorialize when describing an edit? The following was posted by Bus stop in the edit description (see "view history" of article): "Without expanding to any degree within the confines of the lede about how her "sudden rise to world fame has made her...a target" we may as well not mention that it has "made her...a target". The rest of the paragraph (in the lede) makes no mention her being a "target"—the rest of the paragraph merely expands on how it has made her a "leader". (original 07.02, 25 January 2020) SignorUgarte (talk)

@SignorUgarte: I don't quite understand your question. Could you clarify? I think the fact that she gets critisism should be mentioned in the lede. The current sentence (without target) feels a bit off and could easily be left out entirely. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

New to editing (under 20 edits). I just wanted to know if I could run on at length in the edits summery or should it be brought to the talk pages. I have no opinion concerning the topic: leader/target.I'm so new forgot I forgot to sign my statement above which I just did. Thanks. SignorUgarte (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

SignorUgarte—this is an edit summary. I am explaining why I made the edit. How is it "editorializing"? I agree with Femkemilene that "The current sentence (without target) feels a bit off and could easily be left out entirely." Bus stop (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, was just trying to define "briefly describe your changes" for myself. I misused the word "editorializing" as a descriptor for "not briefly." Thanks, I probably should have asked on the editor's talk page and not here. SignorUgarte (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

You could have responded by pointing out that I failed to "Avoid long summaries". Thank you for giving me a break on that. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I've been out of the loop on this. I've not been in the best of health (better now). I actually really appreciate Bus stop's explanation, as I was the one who wrote that sentence, and I think Bus stop is correct. Now I see that the sentence is entirely gone, and the paragraph lacks an organizing first sentence. I will try to correct this soon (at work just now), and put back the "target" part, with corroborating statements. Some of you may disagree with me on the need for this, but I believe Wikipedia articles benefit from expository statements, especially in the lede ("An expository paragraph presents facts, gives directions, defines terms, and so on. It should clearly inform readers about a specific subject." Exposition (narrative)). Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Paulmlieberman, and I think another editor above expresses agreement when they say "I think the fact that she gets criticism should be mentioned in the lede." Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

'Target' is very vague. I have added 'for criticism' Pinklydo (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

ADHD diagnosis incorrect

I have removed the statement that Greta was diagnosed with ADHD. The two sources which alluded to it do not say where they got the information from. This source Family memoir explores childhood of climate activist Greta Thunberg quotes Scenes from the Heart written by her mother. It says her sister Beata was diagnosed with ADHD - not Greta. Pinklydo (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that was a good call. We should hold back with providing this type of information anyway, and surely if it is probable these sources made a mistake. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Good Article!

Woo-hoo! We made it! Thanks to all of you dedicated editors! (Now, if only we could pull together this kind of effort for the much longer Frederick Douglass article.) Paulmlieberman (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well done everybody! Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Political views vs Her message

Although Greta urges politicians to take greater action, her stance is not ideological (left wing or right wing) and so not inherently political. Her message is based on the science and all she does is urge politicians of any and all persuasions to follow the science. She also urges corporations and individuals to do more. She is an activist and a humanist - but does not espouse ideas or perspectives belonging to any recognizable political ideology. The heading Political views is inaccurate and misleading. Pinklydo (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Her stance is inherently political, because she is an activist. Her call for action is based on political ideas such as equity and fairness. Left wing/right wing is a divide that is somewhat losing importance in the current political climate, with the divide national/global being the more important one. As Thunberg urges international cooperation, champions Indigenous rights and inclusion of the Global South she fits perfectly on this spectrum. Many of her ideas fall straight into the political ideology green politics. Just because she claims she doesn't do politics doesn't mean she doesn't.

Her message to me comes over as very promotional. Again, the word 'Her' goes against WP:HEADINGS, and it should be 'Message'. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I favor the heading "Political views" over headings like "Her message" or "Message". If our article is going to contain political material, which it does, then section headings should be consistent. Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say "Political views on climate change" (or "Message on climate change"). The section does not say whether she's a socialist, or a Holocaust denier, or any other political stances. The section discusses her position on issues and actions she wants to see taken, specific to climate change. Paulmlieberman (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That lovely 1968 video for I've Gotta Get a Message to You is almost certainly a copyright violation. (Even if that YouTube user name is an anagram). So I'd urge you to remove it. Editors have been known to be indefinitely blocked for such postings. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, removed. Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing it already. It was their second UK No 1 (after "Massachusetts") and their first US Top 10 hit. I see Greta's message more like that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• You might replace with "social views" which would be a broader term than political views. But "message" is hardly neutral, and comes off entirely too much like environmentalists are going to start knocking on my door asking if I'm headed for climate heaven or climate hell. GMG^talk 18:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Science is NOT politics. Personal anecdote, just to explain that - Forty years ago I provided IT support at the Bureau of meteorology in Australia to a couple of climatologists who created some of the first computer models demonstrating global warming and climate change. None of us were ever thinking of politics when we did this. (Our salaries, our ONLY income, was from the Australian government.) It simply wasn't a political issue. I had enough training in maths and physics to understand that the science behind these models was real and sensible. I still know this science is correct. The science isn't political. It's only those who want the science to be wrong who have made this political. But I haven't. Nor has Greta. By saying it's all political, we are caving in to those who want the science to be wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thunberg is a prophet, and she is standing on the corner with a sign saying "Repent! The end is near!" Her prophecy has a fresh veneer of political action and scientific basis, but it is still the prophecy of Jonah, walking his three days' walk through Nineveh, announcing, "Forty Days More and Nineveh Shall be Overthrown!" and I have to wonder if she will live to a ripe old age, seeing everyone take action on climate change, and be disappointed that life goes on. Elizium23 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Sure. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

...I can't tell if this is parody... GMG^talk 15:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

... I thought she was strictly NPO. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48 and Pinklydo that Political views is incorrect. Thunberg's modus operandi is actually apolitical, she points to the science and calls for evidence-based action. Social views is better but also incorrect for the same reasons. She has no political or social agenda, this is one of her characteristics. She is arguing that our response to climate change cannot be a political one but is so serious that it must just be based on the science. We have no time for politics, only evidence-based action. Personally, I thought that Thunberg's message was fine, and Femke Nijsse's suggestion of just Message, even finer, talk Message on climate change is also good if a little tautological, but if that is not liked can we have something that better describes what she is doing? What is the essence of what she is saying and doing? Perhaps we could have: Support for the consensus on climate change. Or, just Consensus on climate chage Or Science-based action Or, Demand for evidence based action or even Position on climate change. Whatever, Political views is almost perfectly not Thunberg and is at the root of why people misinterpret Greta and why politicians seem unable to marginalise her by using political arguement. We really need something else. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the brainstorm and the many ideas. I think the only one of those options that is both accurate and neutral is: position on climate change. Shall we do that one?

I still think that support for consensus isn't accurate, as she is advocating for a lot more than just 'listening to the science': for equity, for the rights of the Global South and other normative issues that have nothing to do with consensus science. The science can only tell us things like: we are causing climate change, and we could solve it by doing A or B. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

: (Apologies for the mismanaged edit conflict, I didn't mean to delete anyone, reopened an earlier version.)

Position on climate change is fine by me. She does have the occasional foray into things that might be called 'political', such as climate equity and the recognition of indigenous peoples, but these are peripheral and the essence of what she does is to point away from herself and towards a large body of work forming the climate consensus and created by many others. I think this is why so many people find her so irritatingly unassailable, none of the ideas are hers. Politics is about governance, she is an indignant survivalist. She critiscises politicians , by implication, endorses none. She tables documents by the IPCC in lieu of a requirement to table her own and she says "I should not be here, you should be listening to the scientists" (something like that). She has no political platform, seeks no office. This simple message has been pretty much all she has ever done. I think all we can say is that she has a position on climate change but she didn't invent that position. That very short section, by the way, is rather important to the article and in my view undercooked, it is about what she is actually arguing and is pivotal to the article, but has gotten a bit muddy of late and the article leaves us to work out what her position is for ourselves. I rather preferred it when it was reduced to four dot points (probably because I set it up that way myself!!) because as it stands, the article puts a newcomer to quite a lot of effort to disentangle what Greta is really on about. Sorry, that was a bit long. Thanks for finishing it. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

One section heading that might be accurate (if a bit provocative) would be "Testimony". Here's a statement from the WP article that rings true to me from my time working with Quakers on political action:

In the Religious Society of Friends, the word testimony is used to refer to the ways in which Friends testify or bear witness to their beliefs in their everyday lives. In this context, the word testimony refers not to the underlying belief, but the committed action which arises out of their beliefs, which testifies to their beliefs. Common areas in which modern Friends are said[by whom?] to testify include testimony towards peace, testimony to simplicity, testimony to truth and integrity, and testimony to equality.

Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

God no. First, "testimony" in normal contexts has a specific legal meaning. Second, we can well do without even more thinly veiled suggestions that Thunberg may actually be the second coming of Christ. GMG^talk 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"Testimony" might be the right word if we bear in mind that "Greta Thunberg is the first saint of our cruel new environmental religion" and that "St. Greta Spreads the Climate Gospel". Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh no, not the halo thing again. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The 24-hour news cycle is free to engage in hero-worship and deification to their hearts content. We're an encyclopedia, and we don't care whether our "headlines" grab anyone's attention. GMG^talk 17:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

One to look out for: Mobilize Earth

Here's a new initiative worth looking out for, just beginning to make the first news stories: Mobilize Earth. Haven't seen any comments or shares from Greta Thunberg as yet. Esowteric+Talk 19:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Position on climate change

Ex nihil wrote: That very short section, by the way, is rather important to the article and in my view undercooked, it is about what she is actually arguing and is pivotal to the article... I rather preferred it when it was reduced to four dot points (probably because I set it up that way myself!!) because as it stands, the article puts a newcomer to quite a lot of effort to disentangle what Greta is really on about. I agree. I also preferred it when it had four dot points which made it clear what her stance actually was. Pinklydo (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ex nihil, please show us the four points in this Talk page, so we can see what you're referring to. Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Paulmlieberman, it used to be this, below. However, I'm not proposing it be reinstated. This section is not too bad now and reads better than it used to. If I was trying to be didactic I would dot-point it for clarity but I don't think Wiki is overly fond of dot points and seems to prefer narrative. However, the clearer we can set out her arguements, (which are actually very simple, but get lost) the better because we've only got this little section to do it in; the rest of the article is more of a rambley: Then she did this and then she did that... sort of narative. Trouble is, it's always going to be derivative or fall into 'own work' because I can find nowhere to cite that says concisely "This is what GT believes".

The dot points were:
Thunberg's rhetoric uses graphic analogies to highlight her concerns, she often speaks bluntly to business and political leaders.
She has stated four interwoven themes:

• Humanity is facing an existential crisis because of climate change.
• The current generation of adults is responsible for climate change.
• Climate change will have a disproportionate effect on young people, and that too little is being done about the situation.
• Politicians and decision-makers need to listen to the scientists.

Thunberg relies on the scientific community's consensus on climate change. From this consensus she says that the Paris Agreement's Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5° C commitment is insufficient and that the greenhouse gas emissions curve needs to start declining steeply no later than 2020. In February 2019, at a conference of the European Economic and Social Committee, she said that the EU must reduce their CO₂ emissions by 80% by 2030, double the 40% goal. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Upcoming BBC documentary series

Greta Thunberg to make new documentary series for the BBC. "The series will follow the teenage climate activist on her international crusade, giving an ‘inside view on what it’s like being a global icon’." Esowteric+Talk 16:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

And a piece from the BBC. Esowteric+Talk 13:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

2019 Nobel prize nomination

The article says "Nobel Peace Prize nomination, 2019, by two deputies of the Swedish parliament and three deputies of the Norwegian parliament." but the references don´t speak about the two deputies of the Swedish parliament ¿Who are these two deputies? Is a mistake because of the 2020 nomination? --Javiermes (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. Fixed it. Paulmlieberman (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Position on climate change or Position on global warming?

I think Position on global warming is more accurate. What do you think?--Javiermes (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, prefer to avoid the use of the term "global warming", as it misleads, in that it does not reflect the range and scale of impacts humanity will feel. Paulmlieberman (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that "Position on global warming is more accurate" I think "Position on climate change" is preferable because likely the subject of the article would equally oppose the negative effects of global cooling. Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Paulmlieberman. "Global warming" is too restrictive, and there is definitely climate change in various forms. Esowteric+Talk 10:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answers!--Javiermes (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed section

I have removed a recently added section of the article which was solely sourced to three unreliable websites: a Swedish far-right blog widely described as racist and xenophobic; a Turkish government propaganda organ owned by the president of Turkey; and a Canadian far-right commentary outlet. None of these are reliable sources for the purposes of the BLP policy, particularly noting the requirement that high-quality sources be used for controversial or defamatory claims. The material should not be reinstated without quality sourcing and clear consensus here that it is given due weight and is fairly written. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Naomi Seibt

There was an article in Sunday's Washington Post about the "anti-Greta", Naomi Seibt.

The English language article on her is just a stub. I'm thinking it would be a good idea to expand the article, and, maybe, link to it from the criticism section of the Greta article, to make people aware of what the climate-deniers are trying to do.

Then again, if she's not getting much attention, maybe we shouldn't draw attention to her...?

The German-language article has much more information, so we could translate what they have: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Seibt If somebody reading this is fluent in German, perhaps you could do this. If not, I will try. Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ignore it. This is the article about Thunberg, not her enemies. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Her father and the infobox

Svante is not independently notable and does not have his own article (redirects to his wife/Greta's mother.) We do not put non-notable people in {{Infobox person}}. It is just not done. When someone has children we put the number of children unless some are notable. Therefore, the "father" parameter in this article goes unused. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Allegations regarding Keean Bexte

I'd like to discuss the possibility of verifying two Swedish sources stating that the private security firm of Greta Thunberg assaulted a Canadian reporter named Keean Bexte from Rebel News.

"Swedish papers Samhällsnytt and Nya Dagbladet published an article stating that the Canadian reporter Keean Bexte had been assaulted by Greta Thunbergs private security guards as he approached her to ask some questions about her school strike in Stockholm. After the assault, the guard allegedly said "You are dangerous to us"."

Samhällsnytt and Nya Dagbladet are both two online newspapers protected by Swedish constitutional law. Two articles mention that a Canadian reporter was assaulted, and due to Greta Thunbergs media popularity, mainstream media has avoided mentioning this. A documentary called "Greta Inc" includes the scene where a security guard pushes the reporter. Its also mentioned in Politikfakta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fa alk (talk • contribs)

References

--Fa alk (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

None of those sources are reliable - they're extremist fringe publications, as noted above. Whether or not they are "constitutionally protected" has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia views them as reliable.

Keean Bexte formerly worked for a white supremacist website which sold merchandise promoting racial hatred, and should not be viewed as credible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with the subject of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty much a good point. This seems tangential to Thunberg. Bus stop (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The assaults by Thunberg's private security firm are on film. More credible than that is not possible. 86.187.165.195 (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

" I'd like to discuss the possibility of verifying..." Why do you want to verify this? What's the security firm's actions got to do with Thunberg? Do you think Thunberg is responsible for the actions of her security firm? It is unlikely Thunberg can be held responsible for a third party's behavior. 86.187.165.195 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC) The allegations should be in the article because Thunberg is responsible for her employees behavior. 86.187.235.225 (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Block evasion by Special:Contributions/81.141.154.0/24... Striking comments. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

How is she responsible for the behaviour of adults, regardless of who employs them? El_C 06:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Her own COVID-19 speculation

I know that self-identification is the biggest WP:V loophole ever created, and we are in love with whatever notable people say about themselves to interviewers and allegedly WP:RS but do we really need to repeat Thunberg's completely unfounded speculation that she had COVID-19? She had no testing, she has no medical opinion, she has nothing but her teenage feelings telling us that maybe she possibly had it. Given that she has also allegedly recovered from it, I see no reason to include it at all in her bio. Completely WP:UNDUE stuff. Elizium23 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

we are in love with whatever notable people say about themselves... No, we are not. 86.187.165.195 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Block evasion by Special:Contributions/81.141.154.0/24... Striking comments. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You'd be surprised! Elizium23 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, per WP:BLPSPS, we absolutely can't use her Instagram as a source to say her father (or anyone else) had the disease, because that's a claim about a third party. Elizium23 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Shes a role model and warns young people to be aware they may not realize they have the virus but they could still pass it on to others more at risk. Besides she had symptoms so its not unfounded speculation. That aside, we put all her opinions about climate change up (which some people think are unfounded) so whats the difference. Pinklydo (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinklydo, your clumsy restoration included the claim about her father, which as I said falls under WP:BLPSPS and I have helpfully WP:BLPREMOVEd it again for you. You're welcome. Elizium23 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well done. Pinklydo (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"Well done"? LOL 86.187.231.43 (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Block evasion by Special:Contributions/81.141.154.0/24... Striking comments. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Her climate-change advocacy is what she's famous for. Her statements about COVID-19 are not. Obviously her positions on climate change are more notable. --Aquillion (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes Elizium23. You are correct. The COVID-19 speculation should be removed. 86.187.164.230 (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Block evasion by Special:Contributions/81.141.154.0/24... Striking comments. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, you saw I went a bit further and removed all that stuff. The sourcing is poor, the writing is poor, the relevance is...just not there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Early life & personal life

Block evasion by Special:Contributions/81.141.154.0/24
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thunberg is "known for her youth". Pointless remark. 86.187.162.232 (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC) There seems to be some difficulty deciding where Greta's statement that she thinks she had Covid-19 should go. It has moved from the Further activism in Europe section to her Early life and now to a completely new section called Personal life. Since there is already a section about her Mental health under Early life (which is very personal), it seems to me that getting Covid-19 fits under this section as well. I don't think we need a new section called Personal Life. Pinklydo (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Is she going to diagnose herself with hypochondria as well? Elizium23 (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC) LOL 86.187.231.43 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Most articles on living celebrities (see, e.g. Colin Powell) have a section near the top called "Early life" or "Early life & education", and another section close to the bottom (after all the public things they are famous for) called "Personal life". I was modeling this content move on those articles. Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Point taken - except that Greta is only 17 and Colin Powell is 83. At the moment everything Greta has done has occurred in her Early life. The second point is that if we're going to have a separate section called Personal life, her mental health issues should probably be under that section. Pinklydo (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC) I disagree. "early life" implies events that help shape you as a person. COVID doesn't fit there. We could try to eliminate all mention of it, but I'd rather just stick it down at the bottom. Her mental health issues are part of how she became a person who has galvanized the climate change movement, hence "Early life". Paulmlieberman (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC) @Johnuniq: has opined on WP:BLPN to the effect that a WP:BLPPRIMARY source is not sufficient for these kinds of claims. If you find secondary source(s) then it can be re-added. Currently, this is just a random thought-bubble from social media. Elizium23 (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC) I think "Early life" is relative to when the notable person began their career or activity. Thunberg has begun her activism at an early age, and so her "early life" would only encompass events that occurred before she embarked on her "career", necessarily cutting off by 13-14 or so. I also feel "Early life" and "Personal life" in most BLPs is a very artificial dichotomy and it's not an ideal situation to have someone's birth and upbringing in the very beginning of an article, and their marriages, social life, and death in a completely different part of the article. It lends a very disjointed feel to the bio. Elizium23 (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC) A useful test for a situation like this is to defer adding text for, say, a month. Consider it then if reliable sources are still discussing the issue. Discussions in a month (not including whatever ranting is going on in social media) would lend weight to the idea that the claim is more than a thought bubble. Per WP:NOTNEWS, delaying is not a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Just FYI, I agree with both Elizium23 and Johnuniq. Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC) The story has developed. Greta was interviewed by the New Scientist and says just because of Covid-19, we shouldn't take our foot off the accelerator regarding climate change.Pinklydo (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Does this have something to do with her personal health? Elizium23 (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Pinklydo, personally, I would continue suppressing the speculation that Thunberg was infected (and quit doing it to her father too) because it's immaterial to the points she raised about the pandemic in general. Her personal health is not important to the movement she is a leader of. Elizium23 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 1) She also speculates that the world is facing an existential crisis - but nobody wants to suppress that. 2) If she didn't think she and her father had got the virus, she might not be talking about the pandemic at all. Of course its material - just as her mental health issues are material to her concern about the environment. Pinklydo (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC) @Pinklydo "She also speculates that the world is facing an existential crisis" well yes, but it's a tiny bit different in that the speculation over her possible infection with Covid-19 isn't (so far as I'm aware) against a background of 98% of scientists convinced that she has. I think it's probably best to not emphasise dubious trivia until it reveals itself –in time – to be a material fact, or not. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 1) She is not backed by 98% of scientists saying we are facing an existential crisis either. That is her own speculative take on the issue - one that many agree with, but not 98%. The 98% refers to scientists who agree that global warming is due to human beings. 2) Her perception that she had the virus is not trivia if it informs her thinking - which it clearly has. Pinklydo (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Better leave her COVID19 speculations out. Nobody knows if she had it or not; it's her own OR. It has played no significant part in developing her thinking. The New Scientist article was about the distraction from the CC debate, not about her. It is not a significant event; if it had killed her, yes, she had mild symptoms that some might construe as COVID19. Maybe 70% of us are destined to get it, are we going to tag 70% of living bios with it? Ex nihil (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Better leave her COVID19 speculations out. You said it! Quite so, Ex nihil. 86.187.164.230 (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Message to Editors

I thought it is wrong, but some editors said it is correct. I am apologised. I will see it carefully and i will be behave here. Thank you for your attention. Rdp060707 (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit, Rdp060707? I don't think it's a bad edit, but some people object to "non-notable" names in Info-boxes. Bus stop (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Picture change

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to use the most recent photo (the one made in March 2020). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

---

More recent image

Seeking a consensus for whether we should use this more recent image in the infobox - File:Greta_Thunberg_urges_MEPs_to_show_climate_leadership_(49618310531)_(cropped).jpg - from March 2020, or the older image from April 2019 that is currently used in the infobox

the older image from April 2019

Both are clear high-quality images. Helper201 (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Thatsnotmyname2020. May I ask what the problem is you have with the new infobox image that was added? It is more recent that the one you have reverted to and is very clear and well taken. I see no reason why it is in any way inferior to the photo you have reverted to. In addition, this change has been active for almost two weeks and no one else has seemingly had any problem with this change until your sole revert now. Helper201 (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted to long-standing photo while this discussion is going on and consensus is reached to replace it. I prefer the one we have been using. I would have reverted it when it was first changed but missed it because I have a very large number of pages on my watch list and sometimes do miss some things. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert to later image (4March2020). It's not about 'like' or 'prefer', a recent image is surely more relevant/notable for a growing person than one taken more than a year earlier than now. However, perhaps it might be better to use a less severe crop from the original (File:Greta Thunberg urges MEPs to show climate leadership (49618310531).jpg).PeterWD (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, we just had a RfC on this photo in January 2020. A year-old photo is hardly too old to use. As for a lengthy post about my reasons that I prefer the photo that was settled on at the RfC, editors go to all the trouble of holding one so that the issue does not need to be edit warred over for at least a while, certainly more than four months. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A year-old photo is hardly too old to use.On the contrary. At Thunberg's age a year makes a huge difference to a person's facial appearance. The lede photo is too old to use. 86.187.164.230 (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Block evasion by Special:Contributions/81.141.154.0/24... Striking comments. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it is far too soon after an extensive RFC to unilaterally change the photo. We would need equally strong consensus to change it now. Elizium23 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PeterWD, the newer image should be used. Reasons have been clearly presented as to why this more recent photo is preferable. No reason has been given as to why the older picture is in any way better than the March 2020 photo, which was taken after the prior discussion regarding the infobox photo in January 2020, and as such was not part of that discussion. The prior discussion was also hardly that recent being almost 6 months ago. Helper201 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding to Helper201 but I have been busy. I reverted the photo because of the consensus that was reached through at least two lengthy RfCs. To change the infobox image a new consensus must be reached. As I have always stated: I could not care less what photo is used so long as it is the one reached through a consensus--and the one you posted, Helper201, was posted unilaterally without discussion or consensus.Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Well, we have, PeterWD, 86.187.165.195, and myself in favour of changing to the more recent image. Gandydancer opposed, although the only reasons they have given thus far is the prior consenus, which we are now re-discussing, and their own personal preference. And seemingly yourself Thatsnotmyname2020 as neutral. So, 3 for, 1 against, and 1 neutral. Helper201 (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think the more recent image is much better and more accurate and should be used. Nihlus 14:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support using the more recent image shown above. Tammbeck^Talk 14:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the newer image - it looks more matured which wlil arguably help her to be taken more seriously in her work. The current photo looks child-like. Katherine2005 (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support newer image. ~ HAL333 14:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep the April 2019 image in the infobox. Elizium23 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Since she's so young, a more recent picture makes more sense (since there is an age difference that's at least somewhat noticeable). I also don't see any reason not to use a more recent photo. - Whisperjanes (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the newer image. Everything and everyone changes. Thunberg certainly has and the picture must reflect this. 86.187.234.12 (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Block evasion by Special:Contributions/81.141.154.0/24... Striking comments. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the newer image. At her age, when she is quickly maturing, the use of a more recent photo is appropriate. Esowteric+Talk 14:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hold your horses @Helper201: you should not be the one closing this RFC, since you are the original poster. Furthermore, it has only run for less then 4 days, not nearly long enough to achieve consensus: an RFC can run for up to 30 days. Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - needs to consider that there are better portrait images, such as in the January discussion. There’s no point in replacing the current consensus with a poor MOS:IMAGE - we’d just be back here discussing replacing it again. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. We need an image that is both pertinent and encyclopedic, and I haven't seen one better than the newer image in this discussion. Tammbeck^talk 12:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Montreal_14 crop

Use a better image. There are at least two images of more relevance in the article itself -- and the appearance is also required for BLP to be of portrait quality -- or as IMAGE says it, "Use the best quality images available.". Yet here the image has a stray green dot, poor lighting, stray hairs, and taken at odd angle. The Montreal image at least has less stray hairs and no green dot. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support In the old picture, she looks just barely out of girlhood. In the new one, she looks like a very intelligent, self-possessed (yet not full of herself) young woman. Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Elizium23: - the person that posts an rfc can be the one that removes it, - see point 1. of WP:RFCCLOSE. We quickly had a large volume of people come in to support using the more recent image. There is also no specified time limit for when to end rfc's. We have 10 people that support the new image and only 3 against. Helper201 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverted infobox picture: I reverted the infobox picture because four or five days of a RfC is not enough time on this contentious issue——it's only enough time to railroad a preference. All other RfCs ran for a month, and so should this one . . . to allow everyone time to state their point of view. Changing the picture after only a few days of discussion is disrespectful to all editors who have worked on Thunberg's page and who have expressed opinions in past RfCs. Again, I could not care less what picture is in the infobox, but I do care about fairness and that this third or fourth RfC is allowed at least the same amount of time as did previous infobox picture RfCs.Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support the newer image. Given that she is child, every year there is a physical change and image in this situation must be latest. Mikola22 (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose EU Parliament photo is better JamesVilla44 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. First choice would be "Montreal_14 crop". Second choice would be the one with the caption "More recent image". I prefer a depiction of the person with a more "incisive" expression. The expression I see on the image currently in the article I would describe as "anodyne" and "agreeable" and "passive". I think the image labeled "Montreal_14 crop" shows her with what I would describe as a "wry smile". She is also more "animated" as opposed to "passive". In the one labeled "More recent image" she seems to be "engaged with the audience", making that image a good choice as well. Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  She looks like she inhaled a cloud of smug from someone's Prius. Elizium23 (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm unsure how to respond to that, Elizium23. Do you mean "smug" or "smog"? And in which one, in your opinion, does she look that way? Bus stop (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support 86.187.170.217 (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Block evasion by Special:Contributions/81.141.154.0/24... Striking comments. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a vote. A preference of support absent an argument will not be considered or weighed. El_C 23:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Exactly! As El_C stated: this is not a vote, it is a request for comments—hence the "RfC." Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• But other comments above are non-substantive and therefore merely votes, even if using more words, including you, Thatsnotmyname2020. If you wish to endorse one image over another you should probably expend the effort to articulate why you favor or disfavor the various images under consideration. Bus stop (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop, thank you for your obvious observation(s). Your complete dedication to Thunberg's infobox picture is absolutely nonplussing. I could not care less what picture is used. My only concern is that the process is fair and that cognitive reasoning and critical thinking accompany any vote . . . in other words, a posit must be put forth with a vote. Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• This "cognitive reasoning and critical thinking" is exactly what I had in mind—so we are on the same page, Thatsnotmyname2020! Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, El_C, Thatsnotmyname2020, and all others, in over a week since the rfc was posted and plenty of comments we actually have no constructive reasoning why the April 2019 photo is better than the more recent March 2020 photo. The minority that have stated support for the older photo have made comments such as, - "Keep the April 2019 image in the infobox" (Elizium23), Markbassett brining up image quality, of which the new image is of a high standard and does not note in any way how it is a poor quality image, and the prior consensus, of which I have stated this newer image was not part of that discussion as it was not available at the time, and "EU Parliament photo is better" by JamesVilla44, again, just an opinion. Plenty of reasons have been given to use the more recent photo. Helper201 (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The generalized facial expression of the "EU Parliament photo" is a drawback. The facial expressions of the other two are more specific and therefore suggestive of the development of a thought. Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• This RfC started on June 5, 2020. I suggest that it remain active and that no decision of consensus is rendered until July 1, 2020. That way, enough time would have been allowed for previous editors to offer comments, additional images to be offered, and for a overall consensus to be reached. Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thatsnotmyname2020—are you going to weigh in with an opinion on the various images under consideration? Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, Bus stop, because this will be a never ending discussion. As this fourth or fifth—in under a year—RfC reflects. Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Why would "this will be a never ending discussion"? Thank you for pinging me. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• To quote myself: "As this fourth or fifth—in under a year—RfC reflects." Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC

• Support new image as her appearance has changed a lotChidgk1 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support new image, her appearance has changed and the background is better contrast than the old image. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support new image, as a more recent image of someone whose appearance had noticably changed is more relevant. I'll note that the RFC is in particular about these two images, and while it's fair to propose other solutions, there being better images than the one being proposed does not mean that we should continue to use the old image. Arathald (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think the old photo with the EU flag in the background is particularly inappropriate since the circle of stars reminds me (but maybe only me?) of a halo. She is on occasion referred to as an angel, sometimes admiringly, other times mockingly, and the choice of that particular photo might seem pointed. Thincat (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support new image - the newer photo better represents her current appearance. Ed6767 talk! 18:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I will Support that. Her look is changing, because she is born in 2003. The first one looks ok. I approve that, thats ok. Rdp060707 (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Rdp060707—please use the same form as the above votes so your vote will be counted. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. so... How can i vote? Rdp060707 (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean just use the same format, Rdp060707. I'll do it for you. Notice the change I've made. I've altered your original post. It is now similar to the format used by other voters. Also notice I've adjusted the indentation of our posts. Bus stop (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help. When is the ending of the proposal? Rdp060707 (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. Probably in a few years. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2020 (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.

Short description

Age and birthdate

This edit to the short description by @Geekpotato24: fails WP:DATED. If you want to stress her youth, you can write (born in 2003) but I don't think it's worth it. Elizium23 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, you can undo my edit. Geekpotato24 (talk to me!) 00:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Plumbum208 (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

what kind of activist

While we're on the subject of the short description, I am not sure about the term "climate activist". The article uses the common term "environmental activist", and the usual term is "climate change", so I would support changes in either direction. Elizium23 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The term for the physical phenomena (be it "global warming" or "climate change" or "climate crisis" etc) is one thing. The term for one's life work is something else. Personally, I think "climate activist" is most accurate but I have not researched RSs to support this opinion with evidence. Just musing out loud... Is GT an activist for/against climate change or an activist for/against a safe and steady climate? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Whatever the term, it seems foolish to have a disconnect between the lede and shortdesc. Elizium23 (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(A) Agree with Elizium they should be the same

(B) FYI from our article Climate movement... The climate movement is the collective of nongovernmental organizations engaged in activism related to the issues of climate change. It is a subset of the broader environmental movement, but some regard it as a new social movement itself given its scope, strength, and activities. (links in original.

(C) The very dubious WP:GOOGLETEST favors "climate activist". Go to Google advanced search. Enter Greta Thunberg under all words, and then under exact phrase do a search for "climate activist"(1.4 million hits) and the other for "environmental activist" (300-400 thousand hits) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: article on American youth climate activists

There's an article in the NY Times Magazine today about Jamie Margolin. I think an article about her or her group Zero Hour should be started. Unfortunately, I am recovering from a recent accident and I don't think I've got the energy to start it. I'll be glad to contribute to it next week. Thanks for all your work on this topic! Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC) My mistake. There is an article. I must have typoed.Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

References

The Greta Thunberg Foundation

Thunberg, the media, and Wikipedia, have referenced "The Greta Thunberg Foundation" as where she is donating her prize monies from which the funds will be dispersed to nonprofit and NGOs whose causes Thunberg supports or is involved. Does anyone have any information as to the formation of said foundation: its status, its structure, its board members, its country of origin, etc? Wikipedia editors have cited its existence but I do not see a link to the foundation or a direct independent correlation for "The Greta Thunberg Foundation" and its actual existence. I am not implying tomfoolery on Thunberg's part at all, I'm just indicating that I cannot find it. Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a legal entity created in Sweden, or so this articles says [2] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's another one from Zeit Online: [3] Tammbeck^talk 13:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The foundation is a legal entity registered in Stockholm, Sweden in 2020. Its full name is "Stiftelsen The Greta Thunberg and Beata Ernman Foundation".[4] It has a c/o address with a financial services company von Euler & Partners.[5] Searching for Greta Thunberg in the registry of foundations gives a text in Swedish about the purpose of the foundation. The board has 5 members, the chair person is the CEO of von Euler & Partners the other members are Greta's parents and two other persons.[6] Plumbum208 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove picture change Rfc

Any chance we can get the above "picture change" Rfc removed now? It is occupying a lot of space on this page which is not needed anymore. Thank you.Thatsnotmyname2020 (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2020

In the section titled: "Further reading" The following bullet-point entry: "Greta Thunberg Speeches and Interviews". WhatWouldGretaDo. A compilation of Thunberg's speeches and interviews, along with IPCC Reports Change the URL FROM: "whatwouldgretado.org" TO: "royalwebsites.com/whatwouldgretado"

Reason: whatwouldgretado.org no longer operational. I changed the URL changed to: "royalwebsites.com/whatwouldgretado

Thank you. 2600:1700:B20:4E90:3C09:2BB:2B0A:3CEA (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. 00:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This website is highly dubious. The root server says that the domain name is for sale; is it expired? parked? being hawked by the owners? The WhatWouldGretaDo site is (1) unofficial, (2) claims to have no copyright, but hosts a copyrighted photo, (3) claims is no longer being updated. I believe it fails WP:ELNO. Elizium23 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

whatwouldgreatdo.org is for sale, but not the replacement http://royalwebsites.com/WhatWouldGretaDo/. Sundayclose (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sundayclose, yes it is - go to [7] Elizium23 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Ah, OK. Thanks for the info. Reverted my edit. Sundayclose (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

MAGA Smearing

The first sentence contains politically based misinformation designed to discredit her: "...to protest what she perceives is the inaction and/or insufficient response of governments and the business sector to the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change." It is actually a fact that most governments have failed to comply with the Paris Agreement and this has nothing to do with her "perception". https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/nations-miss-paris-targets-climate-driven-weather-events-cost-billions/ Ironically, the very core of her message is to encourage people to consider the facts, not the opinions of her or anyone else.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.154.84.175 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

These are subjective assessments, and so we must attribute and properly frame all POV material. Elizium23 (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I do believe here that the subjective assessment is shared so widely among experts, that the current wording is biased. It implies she is likely not right. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. We should not disguise facts as opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)