Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Greta's message

There has been discussion about whether or not it is appropriate to include the term 'existential crisis' in this article. NAEG argued that the term should not be included in the lead because the lead is meant to be a summary of what is in the body. Good point. When I looked through the body, I could not find any mention that Greta has referred to global warming as an existential crisis - even though that is probably the key message she has been making in every speech she has given. So I found a source where she did refer to global warming as an existential crisis and added it.

That set me thinking. It occurs to me that the article does not accurately represent Greta's point of view in one coherent section. Instead, the article has a collection of random quotes from various speeches she has made, and it is not clear from these what her overall message actually is. I propose that we create a new section, perhaps titled Thunberg's message, which describes her unique perspective and utilises comments from her various speeches. Otherwise, we could be adding comments every time she makes a new speech - which would not be helpful at all. Notagainst (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(A) Correction The issue is whether we say "existential risk" in WP:WIKIVOICE (e.g. "NAEG is a jerk") instead of using inline attribution (e.g., "His wife sometimes says NAEG is a jerk."). Why, of course we have to say, based on RSs what Greta says. So the debate here is variations of

Option A Thunberg is alarmed at the existential risk posed by the climate crisis. and

Option B Thunberg is alarmed at the effects of global warming, which she believes pose an existential risk and which she refers to as the "climate crisis". Thunberg characterizes them this way because, she says, blah blah blah....

(B) We agree we need a section on her views. I added a clean up tag to the article about the same time you started this thread, and the two things say pretty much the same thing. So on this we agree. The how is of course wide open at the moment.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

What is wrong with these options:

Option C Thunberg says global warming poses an existential risk to life on planet earth (link to source)

Option D Thunberg and numerous other commentators (links to RS) say that global warming poses an existential risk to life on planet earth.Notagainst (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

For this short hand "tone and vibe" discussion of the approach to take in a whole section, I don't see any difference between B and C. They are both RS based and use inline attribution, which is the point this debate, I think. As for "D" that's objectionable because this isn't an article about the views of others, and if the intent is to pump up the clout of GT's message with the weight of other's opinions then that would be POV. However, yes!! Bring on the views of others viz-a-viz "climate crisis" framing.... it would be wonderful to have a range of views start popping up at the near-stub article climate crisis. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Some use of WP:PRIMARY sources is probably appropriate, but this new section will be strongest if it relies on the bulk of quality WP:SECONDARY (or tertiary) sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I have created a section about "her message". Hopefully someone else will clean up the list of speeches. Notagainst (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Yacht trip's Green credential

In the Life section, Greta's trip to the UN in carbon zero yacht is mentioned. Someone added this sentence "The green credentials of the trip have been questioned, as two new crew members will fly in from Europe for the return trip, and the two original crew members of the yacht may fly back to Europe.[23]" However the Guardian now reports that the journey will be carbon neutral, as the flights will be offset. Rather than add that new info to the article, I am removing the statement that the green credentials have been questioned. The 'questioning' is a subtle criticism which is now shown to be untrue thereby creating lack of balance. Adding the fact that the flights would be offset would lead to a storm in a teacup which does not add value to the section about what she has so far done in her Life. Notagainst (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

References

That the flights will be offset is a claim by Team Malizia’s manager (provider of the yacht used for this voyage), not a fact verified by the Guardian. Pavlor (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough - but the Guardian is a RS and its still a storm in a teacup.Notagainst (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Notagainst here. Gandydancer (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

(A) Also agree but add that I would keep an open mind about rewriting this issue as an example of an ad hominem attack.

(B) If that happens, beware of the POV challenge. Calculations of carbon footprint, carbon neutrality, carbon offset etc.... formula are as controversial as the design of survey questions... it's very easy to (un?)intentionally use a formula to get the answer you want to hear. So if we say anything at all, please do not assert any claims in WP:WIKIVOICE.

(C) It would be wonderful for editors who care to update those other pages I just linked, because they are out of date.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Reading the above, the evidence you present, and the conclusion seem completely disconnected, and it is slightly surreal to me! So here are my responses:

(A) The Guardian article, far from conflicting with the sentence, backs it up. It says "Her voyage sparked controversy, however, after a spokesman for Herrmann, the yacht’s co-skipper, told the Berlin newspaper TAZ that several people would fly into New York to take the yacht back to Europe." The article clearly backs up that the journey requirements have a significant carbon footprint.....and that they are going to have to undertake separate offsetting measures for the carbon.

(B) I completely reject the premise "'questioning' is a subtle criticism that has been shown to be untrue". I am happy to replace 'questioning' with a straight factual statement that the journey logistics as a whole were not carbon neutral. By putting questioning, it was simply meant to not tell the reader what to think, i.e. just set out the facts and let them have their own conclusions. Plus it is also shown to be true!

(C) To argue that we should leave out facts as it will create a "storm in a tea cup" is completely against the principles of wikipedia. To censor the truth, and purposely omit facts to control what the reader thinks is borderline WP:Vandalism.

(D) I do not understand the "ad hominem attack" premise. A ad hominem attack is attacking the person rather than the issue. Please back up that the author is making a personal attack to push a personal agenda, as you infer.

(E) I do not see what your issue is with Wikipedia:Let the facts speak for themselves. People should then be able to have their own opinions based on the facts e.g. "the journey as a whole has a higher carbon footprint that simply taking a plane journey, but I think it was the right thing to do to raise publicity for the cause, and it is not important because there is carbon offsetting", or "I think just taking a flight and carbon offsetting would have made more sense"

(F) The approach above is lying by omission (important facts are left out in order to foster a misconception). In this case to purposefully omit that that flights are required, and carbon offsetting is being applied, with the aim of giving the misconception that the journey logistics alone are carbon neutral.

Jopal22 (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that it's important to keep in mind that we must choose just a few words to tell of her U.S. trip and the fact that it may not have been completely carbon neutral is not one of the facts that we must choose. If this article were specifically about the sail boat trip to the U.S. then it most certainly would be appropriate. As it is the article states that the boat is carbon neutral, it does not say that the journey was, which is the best way to include this information, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

wrt "the article states that the boat is carbon neutral, it does not say that the journey was". You're right that it does not say that the journey is carbon neutral, but it does infer that it is, leaving many people reading with that impression by intentionally omitting inconvenient facts. We should replace "The yacht Malizia II [de] is fitted with solar panels and underwater turbines and so avoids generating carbon dioxide." with "The yacht Malizia II [de] is fitted with solar panels and underwater turbines and so avoids generating carbon dioxide, although carbon offsetting was required for commercial flights taken by the crew." Jopal22 (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jopal22: Re your paragraph (F).... please re-read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Casting aspersions. In addition, the page is under DS for both BLP and CC, as explained in the banners at the top of the page and on your talk page. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy:. Agreed I could have been softer with my wording, but I stand by the premise of what I am saying. I also highlight WP:Casting aspersions issues above in "the 'questioning' is a subtle criticism which is now shown to be untrue" backed up by you saying this is an example of an ad hominem attack. This seems to me to be saying by adding the sentence it was my intention to add a personal attack which lacked encyclopaedic justification, and does not WP:Assume good faith. Anyway don't want to get bogged down by this, I just think we should be Wikipedia:Let the facts speak for themselves. Jopal22 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

When you say you don't want to get bogged down by this I understand you have withdrawn your criticisms here and this thread can be closed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

No. I mean I don't want get bogged down by accusing each other of WP:Casting aspersions and WP:Assume good faith. I completely stand by criticisms about not adding the carbon footprint and the offsetting taking place. Jopal22 (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Since this thread only exists to discuss article improvements, and general WP:FORUM discussion is not allowed, please propose some text with RS citation here in talk for us to examine and discuss. If you want to refer to what the article says please include a version number (see article history) and to quote use {{tq}} or something.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see above where I have already suggested new text. Namely "The yacht Malizia II [de] is fitted with solar panels and underwater turbines and so avoids generating carbon dioxide, although carbon offsetting was required for commercial flights taken by the crew."

Italics is the proposed text to be added. The citations are the Times article used in the original wording (text shown in Notagainst's opening message) (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/greta-thunberg-s-yacht-trip-to-new-york-not-as-green-as-it-may-seem-6fsn5sbpz), and the Guardian article cited in the Notagainst's opening message.

Jopal22 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Geez I have to apologize again!! This is getting to be a WALLOFTEXT and I overlooked that. I don't have a comment yet, I just wanted to admit my error ASAP. Sorry about that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Related articles

Interested eds may wish to develope the following

• consider addition to List of crossings of the Atlantic Ocean
• consider addition to Transatlantic_sailing_record#Crewed (oops, I guess that list uses a defined route for comparing times)
• Create Malizia II
• Create Voyage of Greta Thunberg.... there are enough RSs about various aspects of the trip to support a related article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Voyage of Greta Thunberg has been created. Schwede66 23:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Schwede NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

The sentence "After Thunberg's student climate strikes gained momentum, climate change deniers Stefan Winterbauer of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and Katerina Janouch writing in the Swiss right-wing magazine Die Weltwoche, said there were "forces behind her". needs to be changed quickly.

Stefan Winterbauer is not a climate change denier, but a German journalist, writing for a german media critics journal called "meedia". He was mentioned in this VICE piece: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/mbzg8q/the-climate-change-deniers-trying-to-discredit-greta-thunberg - but from then on wrongly quoted. Here you can find a twitter thread where Stefan Winterbauer makes clear that he: a) is not a climate change denier b) does not belong to the "Global Warming Foundation" c) has never published anything in the mentioned publication named "Weltwoche" --> https://twitter.com/swinter/status/1168039779973423104

I strongly recommend deleting these three points in order to prevent any ongoing damage to reputation. Marcusengert (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the copy that you have suggested. It seems that we'd need better sources to include it - even though I'm unsure about Vice and the German site. Anyone that wants to return it can present their opinion here. Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Voyage of Greta Thunberg

Doesn't need a separate article, best just to slightly expand the mention of it in her article. PamD 09:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Withdraw merge proposal. See below. PamD 07:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

At first sight, I agree. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

We only just proposed and created the stub what... maybe 48 hours ago? It came about in the course of a prior talk thread discussion, in which the proposer did not participate and has not even mentioned in this proposal. Methinks the precipitous timing of this proposal is a good faith accident but it is a textbook example of leaping without looking and unilateral wave making without even making contact first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't warrant a separate article. I suggest speedy deletion. Notagainst (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

(A) No one is talking about sources (B) The merge proposal comes less than 10 hours after the stub was created. Could someone explain the reason for the rush? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I proposed the merge. I came across the stub while stub-sorting. There was no reference in its edit history to any previous discussion. It seems to me to be a small episode in the life of an amazing young woman, and not worth having a separate article. "The rush"? Well, if something isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia, it isn't appropriate. Stub-sorting brings a new pair of eyes to an article. Yes, it's sourced, but that still doesn't show it to have lasting encyclopedic significance as a stand-alone event. PamD 11:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

And to describe my action as "leaping without looking and unilateral wave making without even making contact first" is inappropriate. I see something which appears not to need a separate article, I have a quick look at its edit history in case it has suffered vandalism or major deletions etc, I PROD it if I think this is the right thing to do. PamD 11:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:MERGEREASON, If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time... I don't think you can realistically appraise that (A) less than 10 hours after an article is started (B) where the article has multiple contributing eds and (C) you haven't even inquired what they know and plan. Instead, I think there has to be some significant passage of time before you can reasonably draw this inference and I am certain that is needed before you can do it without causing irritation. In this case, the reasonable amount of time clock has barely started to tick. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in the article gives any indication that there is anything of interest to add to it. I should perhaps have used PROD and if that failed taken it to AfD. If you have more sourced, appropriate, content to add to the article then please do so. At present it shows no sign of being a suitable topic for a stand-alone article. Please try explaining why it should not be merged instead of responding aggressively. PamD 14:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

If its true, as I believe, that it takes more time to deal with this approach than it does to research and build article text... and doubly so when the same eds are engaged in related debates here and elsewhere, then its not clear to me which of our approaches is best characterized as "aggressive". If you don't believe you were inappropriately impatient then I can agree to disagree about that all try to learn from the exchange and move on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hard disagree. It's been up less than 10 hours, at least wait until editing on the page has died down (which is unlikely to happen.) It is definitely relevant enough to warrant it's own page, imo. --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Withdraw merge proposal. The article has now been expanded substantially and is no longer just a statement that she made her trip. While it probably has excessive detail there seems enough content to have a stand-alone article. Hint: when starting a new stub as a result of a talk-page discussion, please mention that discussion in edit summary and/or talk page. Thanks. PamD 07:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Impact on parents

In this edit, Femkemilene removed the lead text talking about her impact on her parents with an edit summary saying That's not really important, right?. I disagree. Her story turns on her parents making lifestyle choices. Before that, armed with climate change knowledge she manifested the onset of what sounds to me like "severe" symptoms for her mental health challenges. It was her parents eventual response that seems to have helped her break out of that shell and try to talk to others too. Thunberg says as much. See our article text in the main body Thunberg credits her parents' eventual response and life-style changes with giving her hope and belief that she could make a difference. I don't care if its in the lead, but I do think this is an essential piece of her story. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it deserves a place in the context of her biography. In the lede, it was a weird sentence I think, disconnected. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Can live with that, ok. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is far too biassed in favor of Greta Thunberg and her views.

Anything remotely critical of her, is immediately removed. Even the mention of her real name.

And how mentioning her name can be construed as criticism is beyond credibility. MartiniShaw (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

So, including discussions that make fun of her appearance, as you tried to do a couple of days ago, are "criticism"? Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't make fun of her appearance, as you are well aware.

To repeat: The article too biassed in favor of Thunberg and her views. MartiniShaw (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

LI didn't say that, as you are well aware: you just seem to think it's fine to include statements that make fun of herr appearance. Is that what you consider valid "criticism"? Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't say what? MartiniShaw (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of repetition: This article is far too biassed in favor of Greta Thunberg and her views. MartiniShaw (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree in full with MartiniShaw. The article has become an obvious embarrassment to Wikipedia, to anyone who wants us to create neutral articles and (as so heavily and obviously biased) to Ms. Thunberg herself. 2-3 editors working in sync own the article and remove anything that attempts to balance the promotional wholeness, and many of us have given up on such attempts. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the comment above warrants being deleted as abusive, though it is "pointed". Removal, however, could be misconstrued as WP:OWNERSHIP. Esowteric+Talk 12:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If one applies AGF to my removal of that comment it might just as easily be viewed as advocating and teaching the spirit behind arb statements about the Purpose of Wikipedia and User Conduct, which are admittedly part of the climate change principles, but only wikilawyers would care to distinguish those remarks on that basis and folks who apply AGF to this would be talking about RS based article improvements instead of still reading this side issue. Note that I've offered to do whatever form of DR this ed wants but I was rebuffed. Offer still stands though. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

What I "rebuffed" on my talk page was not anything that I could take, in good faith, as a serious constructive offer or suggestion. Surprised that the user would feel licensed to do so, I took it as attempted bullying, not earnestly in the interest of improving this article. I had no dispute of any kind with that user until h/s showed up on my talk, so the "DR" angle, to me, is contrived and irrelevant, here and on that page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Your complaint about is about a WP:CABAL exerting [{WP:OWNERSHIP]]. Our WP:Dispute resolution options exist to try to break logjams of this sort, real or perceived, and that failing if you still think these things are true then you should complain at WP:AE. But if you have RS-s for your desired changes it shouldn't get that far, because I am willing to participate in any of the DR options you invoke. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, I have complained about nobody by name but only about the content of this article as I perceive it and why I perceive it has become so embarrassing as an unbalanced whole. I have never had any personal interaction with you until you wrote 3 times on my talk page. One of the things you wrote was about focusing on content not on any contributor, which, to me, means any individual contributor by name. That's exactly what I think we should do (often having cited WP:TPYES myself over the years). You are now free to do that, by ceasing to personalize this discussion to engage any particular individuals. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The article needs work for neutral balance & puffery. It reads like an idolizing fan page. Arbitrary edits like this to remove tags in that regard, do not help us here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

To point out the obvious, the article is about Greta Thunberg and her views - that's the whole point of having an article about her on wikipedia. Notagainst (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Response to Impartial Comment above

The article shouldn't be pro or anti Greta, just state the facts with a impartial context. The lead does sound like it is written by a WP:FAN though. My comments are:

Greta Thunberg (born 2003) is a Swedish student who is credited with raising global awareness of the risks posed by climate change, and with holding politicians to account for their lack of action on what Thunberg calls the "climate crisis".

(1) Don't think we need to mention she is a student (she's 16 it's given). Anyway she is no longer a student as she is taking time out travelling the world campaigning so this is false.

(2) I think credited with raising global awareness of the risks posed by climate change is a false representation of her. From what I have read and seen, she states the potential impact of climate change are already well known, and her movement is about compelling the world’s politicians act now on climate change. "The time for talking is over, we need action" etc.

(3) Saying holding politicians to account (to require a person to explain or to accept responsibility for his or her actions; to blame or punish someone for what has occurred.) sounds very WP:FAN and lacks citation. I haven't seen one politician justifying their (non) action as a result of Greta (only those aligned with her view agreeing).

In August 2018, at the age of 15, Thunberg took time off school to demonstrate outside the Swedish parliament holding up a sign calling for bold climate action. Her "school strike for the climate" began attracting media attention and other students then engaged in similar protests in their own communities. Together they organized a school climate strike movement, under the name Fridays for Future. After Thunberg addressed the 2018 United Nations Climate Change Conference, student strikes took place every week somewhere in the world. In 2019, there were at least two coordinated multi-city protests involving over one million pupils each.

(4) at least two coordinated multi-city protests involving over one million pupils each. This again sound like a WP:FAN. The citations only evidence one over a million. We should say reported to be over a million as there is no way to definitely verify the numbers. Also saying "at least" two generally sounds like "I want to make is sound like there are lots that big without providing evidence"

Thunberg is known for her blunt, matter-of-fact speaking manner, both in public and to political leaders and assemblies, in which she urges immediate action to address what she describes as the "climate crisis". At home, Thunberg persuaded her parents to adopt several lifestyle choices to reduce their own carbon footprint, including giving up air travel and not eating meat.

(5) This feels like something that should be in the body and not the lead. It feels a little like we are promoting her.

In 2019 Thunberg was featured on the cover of Time magazine, which named her a "next generation leader" and noted that many see her as a role model.[5] Thunberg and the school strike movement were also featured in a 30 minute Vice documentary titled Make the World Greta Again. Some media have described her impact on the world stage as the "Greta Thunberg effect".

(6) That she has been on the front of Time, and in a Vice documentary seems like it should be in a media coverage section of the body, and not in the lead. It again feels a little like we are promoting her.

(7) Some media have described her impact on the world stage as the "Greta Thunberg effect". The link is to a single newspaper that uses the phrase once in the headline. There does not seem to be any evidence that this is a phrase used widely in the media or in general. Also what the "Greta Thunberg effect" is is not really explained, with the wording "impact on the world stage" ambiguous and aggrandising.

The Swedish wikipedia lede is better:

Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg, born January 3, 2003, is a Swedish opinion maker and activist in the climate issue. She was noticed in August 2018, when she began to sit regularly outside the Swedish Parliament with a placard with the text "School strike for the climate". The campaign inspired young people in several countries to conduct similar demonstrations; they gather under the name Skolstrejk for the climate or "Fridays for Future".

I would look to improve the lead myself, but my previous attempt add a sentence to improve the page impacted by WP:CHERRYPICKING, got push back from multiple editors.

Jopal22 (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Since I'm a major contributor to the lead, I guess I should reply. First, Jopal22, thank you for demonstrating meaningful discussion. You obviously took time and care to think about improving the article.

(Re 1) "student" can go, but I do think we need to say something more than her birth year, to report her youth, as most of the RSs take pains to do. I'm open to other wording that builds upon "born 2003"

(Re 2) Disagree for two reasons. First, you've read some PRIMARY sources and are sharing your thoughts, so I'll answer in kind. There is more than one level of "knowing", more than one level of "awareness". See cognitive dissonance and Dunning–Kruger effect for example. If the risks are so well known, why would she bother to list examples? So reading the same primary material and applying my prior learning I come to the opposite conclusion. But of course none of that matters, because we prefer to base articles on WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY sources. In this case, for just one example,

“The Game Changer Award was created for Greta Thunberg," says British GQ editor in chief Dylan Jones. "Her fearless dedication to raising awareness of the global climate change crisis makes her the absolute embodiment of this award...

There are plenty other RSs to use as examples if you dislike this one. She is credited in this manner.

(Re 3) I don't like "hold politicians to account either". That was added by @Notagainst: in this edit so I'll be interested to hear his/her reply to your constructive criticism on this point.

..... I will insert answers to the other points but wish to save my work .....

(Re 5) It's mostly my work and I would be happy to change it or see it changed. The most important part to retain is, in some agreed way, the phrase "climate crisis". Per WP:MULTI I'm intentionally not adding words to the prior sentence... we're debating how to talk about the Thunberg and "climate crisis" in other threads.

(Re 6) I mostly agree (about Time and that)... For summary style appropriate in the WP:LEAD I would rather just say she has received numerous honors and awards.

(Re 7) The RSs do credit Thunberg with a major part of the action leading to coining of a new word in several languages, with investor-noticeable imapcts in at least two global industries Aviation and carbon offsets. Fact there is just one cite is moot... per WP:LEADLINK we don't need any, unless its likely to be challenged. Well I guess you've challenged it. If you don't like that cite maybe this one, about the spike in investment dollars flowing into the carbon offset industry, with shared credit between [{David Attenborough]] and Thunberg.

THANK YOU for thoughtful constructive criticism. I don't put a lot of weight on the Swedish editors consensus, but by all means, you're welcome to advocate for changes you want to claim as your own. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for your responses. I was worried about WP:CPP from our previous interaction, but I think we are more comfortable with each others intentions now!. My comments on things which you pushed back on above

(Re 2) I think we are probably in agreement here but I have not explained myself clearly enough. The part I disagree with is "risks posed by" (which is not sourced by the GQ ref). Her "raising awareness of the global climate change crisis" is about making a big issue about the failure to meet the Paris agreement. This is what her original strike was about, this is what she talks about in all her platforms (i can get multiple primary/secondary/tertiary reference). Although she will sometimes refer to the risks, she explicitly says she is about action and getting things done. That's why I don't like it, as it misrepresents the central tenant of her movement.

(Re 4) Assume you agree?

(Re 5) Yeah slightly harsh of me here, but I don't like opinions on her style in the lead as it is never fully subjective. (critics might say her style is pretentious etc)

(Re 6) Would prefer not mentioning "honours" at all, as everyone has won some honour in their life, so it lacks context and feels a bit like a way of saying she is awesome

(Re 7) This (and promoting the Swedish wiki) is where I got a bit lazy, and wrapped up too quickly without doing my research, so I've lost some credibility here. Completely agree "Greta Thunberg effect" is a thing, although I think "Greta effect" has become more common. Still don't like the "impact on the world stage" phasing though.

If I had complete freedom to do what I pleased with the lead (which I don't), it would look like this (with some more refs, and altering body to be consistent where necessary):

Greta Thunberg (born 2003) is a Swedish climate activist who campaigns political policy and societal behaviour are not changing enough to reduce carbon emission by the levels required to avert a "climate crisis" caused by human activity.

In August 2018, at the age of 15, Thunberg began protesting by sitting outside the Riksdag every day for three weeks during school hours with the sign Skolstrejk för klimatet (school strike for the climate). Her demands were that the Swedish government reduce carbon emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement. Her "school strike for the climate" began attracting media attention and other students then engaged in similar protests in their own communities. Together they organized a school climate strike movement, under the name Fridays for Future. There have been numerous coordinated multi-city protests supporting her cause, with the largest occurring on 15 March 2019 reported to involve over one million pupils in over 100 countries.

In addition to attending rallies in cities participating in the Fridays for Future protest, her profile has resulted in her receiving invitations to speak in various venues including the 2018 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Katowice, the 2019 World Economic Forum (Davos), and France's lower house of parliament. In August 2019 she arrived in New York City to begin her climate demo tour of the Americas, including attending a UN Climate Action Summit in New York, and the 2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Santiago de Chile.

The term "Greta effect" has been used by the media to describe political, commercial or public actions that are perceived to have resulted from of her campaigning. Thunberg openly talks about her Asperger's syndrome, which she says limited her at times in her life, but was instrumental in her perspective and focus on the issue of climate change, which led to her protest movement.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jopal22 (talk • contribs) 12:20, September 1, 2019 (UTC)

References

Worries about this being a fan-page

Talk of being mentioned in Time Magazine, "being known for her blunt speaking", etc etc - Wikipedia is not a fan website

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_fan_website 81.146.44.116 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment! I've sought a compromise between bold climate action (implying virtue) and the technical climate change mitigation to stronger climate action. With sources critical of her often of low quality (commentators), it's not always easy to make this a balanced article. More suggestions are welcome! Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Role of her mother

In the first section, it speaks a little of Greta's parents.

It omits mention that her mother is a celebrated climate activist. This is relevant and needs to be added.

One source is the press release from WWF Sweden on her being given the title "The Environmental Hero of the Year 2017" award, it is the source press release here: https://www.wwf.se/pressmeddelande/artisten-malena-ernman-och-biologen-rebecka-le-moine-utsedda-till-arets-miljohjaltar-av-wwf-2689982/ 173.206.223.5 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Without the slightest bit of context, I'm opposed. This isn't her Mother's biography and omitting any RS based facts that provide context for its relevance, this factoid lends itself to climate denier spin, which per WP:BEANS and the wisdom of linguist George Lakoff (e.g, when rebutting bad rhetoric don't repeat it) I won't articulate NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I've worked on a lot of bios and in my experience it is quite common to include some information on parents, sibs, children, etc. In fact, in my experience it is the norm. Probably best to not get into suggestions that what we include in this bio may or may not sway our readers about the reality of climate science and include or skip information that may influence them. Gandydancer (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of context, one example is we shouldn't take for granted that the influence went (only) from mother to daughter. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Refs

Let's keep the refs in the article and not put them all in a refs section. It makes editing a nightmare. Doing this requires consensus, please seek that consensus before and not after acting. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure... embedding citations throughout an article makes the editing window a nightmare, and with references grouped in a single section is vastly easier to organize, polish, and perfect their formatting. So we have differing opinions. @RichardWeiss: do you plan to join us as a page editor here? Seems to me that when personal opinion and preference are consistent with our P&G, then we need a good way to decide consensus. The best way to do that is by applying a commonsense spirit of the principle espoused at WP:ARBCC#Purpose of Wikipedia, which I respectfully suggest means the opinion of folks doing the work should be given primary consideration. Forgive me if I have overlooked your contribs here, but I don't recall seeing you at this page previously. It would be wonderful to have your help, don't get me wrong! But I'm trying to work hard on all the refs, en masse, prior to nominating for a good article review. Can you lend a hand with that? How would you suggest we organize the workload? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean, "do you plan to join us as a page editor here?" I've been editing here for months, please withdraw that rather off comment. Claiming that you do more work on Wikipedia or even that I don't do any is so obviously false it is hard for me to assume good faith with you. Just cos YOU haven't seen me here previously and can't be bothered to check the history isn't my problem. Howevem even if I were a brand new editor your claim that this article is yours because you allegedly edit it more than me simply shows you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Please study our policies and guideliens before commenting to me again. I am not into putting up with your out of order comments because of your laziness and your fake assumption that you have more rights here than me. So I am going to ignore that part of your comment. If what you said re refs was true it would be done in all articles, it is done in almost none, and with good reason, it makes editing a nightmare for editors. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

House Hearing on Climate Change

Am I missing this or is this not yet included. https://www.c-span.org/video/?464405-1/youth-activists-urge-lawmakers-action-climate-change&vod= — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPprivate (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed for participation to Rise for Climate demonstration

Can someone vouch for her participation to the Rise for Climate demonstration in Brussels with some citations? Common Dreams and New Internationalist in the paragraph do not mention about it.--直蔵 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The pronunciation of her name is incorrect.

On Democracy Now, Amy Goodman asked Greta how she pronounces her name, how her parents named her. Here it is, how she pronounces her own name. Someone should fix that. Amy Goodman would certainly give permission, if that is needed for Greta's own words. https://www.democracynow.org/2019/9/11/greta_thunberg_swedish_activist_climate_crisis At 13:16 and 13:51 Greta pronounces her name as her parents named her. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:301D:32FC:4D20:1155 (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've found what looks like a more correct pronunciation "IPA-sv|²ɡrjeːta ²tʉːnbærj" in an earlier revision of the page. Is this pronunciation correct? Esowteric+Talk 08:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Esowteric: Hi, there does not seem to be a consensus here for this edit. --Tamravidhir (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Here's the diff where NewsAndEventsGuy changed to the current, incorrect pronunciation (as we might pronounce her name, but she and other Swedes do not), without consensus, if that is needed. Esowteric+Talk 09:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

When I fiddled, I assumed possibly wrongly and as usual with assumption, stupidly that her name is a common name with a common form and whatever I did or did not do was based on that assumption. If anyone has a better basis to do something else please see WP:SOFIXIT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I did comply with the "so fix it" but was reverted due to an apparent lack of consensus. Esowteric+Talk 11:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I withdraw any opinion on the matter, so now see WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. It comes back to me now. Someone pointed at an older BLP of another Swede named Greta, and they argued that the pronuncation inside the "( )" should be the same as that one. Being an older stable article, I assumed that had been vetted and was an accepted standard form. So I supported copying and pasting. But I don't know what I'm talking about, and if Greta has said anything to shed light on the matter, she's the expert about her own name. So with that, I should shut up, because I don't know, and please discount any prior comments I've said when measuring the current state of consensus. I apologize for sticking my oar in these waters without a compass or depthfinder. Thanks for your interest here, Carry on! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, for Brits like me, the pronunciation of the innocuous-looking name, "Greta" does appear counter-intuitive. Earlier, I thought it was the ogg audio file that was distorting the pronunciation. Esowteric+Talk 12:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Greta has been a fairly common name in Sweden and it has never, unless highly dialectal, been pronounced with a "j" inserted. And certainly it's pronounced no differently for a film star. The consonant group "grj-" on the whole is unknown in standard Swedish.

I can't promise to have time to back this up with sources that might not even exist online because the thing is so self-evident to all who know Swedish in some depth, but I can think of two possible reasons why some strangers seem to hear this "j": 1) the pointed "r" (in southern central Sweden northwards) that contains some high formants, like [j] does, and is unfamiliar to most English- (or French- or German-)speakers; 2) the somewhat diphthongised pronunciation of long "e" in southern central Sweden (including Stockholm), something in the direction of [eɛ]. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is a clear example of the diphthongisation I mentioned, in the infinitive kreta. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks IP, it's always nice to hear from someone with good insight!! which doesn't mean I agree or disagree, just appreciate the thoughtful input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Afterthought: here is a real Swedish [j] before [e:] for comparison. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

With my limited knowledge of Swedish (I lived there for 4 years) the IP editor above is absolutely correct and the current pronunciation in the article is incorrect. Tammbeck (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

birthdate sources

Several sources that mention her birthdate as 3 January; https://culturacolectiva.com/history/greta-thunberg-teenage-activist-against-climate-change, https://www.geni.com/people/Greta-Thunberg/6000000003876621045, https://arcticportal.org/ap-library/news/2110-greta-thunberg-s-climate-campaign, she is also mentioned on the swedish wikipedia to have been born on 3 January.

While it is likely that 3 January is her most likely birthdate, I recognize that I do not have enough sources to make an acceptable change to the article. I just wanted to point it out, maybe I missed some more reliable sources that do mention her birthdate. 78.108.56.35 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

In Sweden, birthdays are official searchable information unless you have a 'hidden' identity. There are quite many pages you can search for a persons birthday, and they all give this date for here, e.g. (for the later under "personnummer", 20030103 is decoded as year 2003, month 01, day 03, XXXX are extra numbers to give an unique social security number, show sex and a checksum and despite also being public, normally withheld on these services.) Sijambo (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I was actually coming here for a second time to mention Ratsit, could it be used as a source? 78.108.56.35 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

birthday.se would be better. Ratsit does not display birthday but only personnummer, and there are extremely rare cases where they run out of number for a particular day and hence give a number with different date. Better to use any of the reliable sources already quoted. Sijambo (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia turned into a fan site?

Should there not be a cite for the over zealous description of her effect on politicians in the first paragraph?

"Greta Thunberg[a] FRSGS (born January 2003[1]) is a Swedish environmental activist who is credited with raising global awareness of the risks posed by climate change, and with holding politicians to account for their lack of action on the climate crisis.

And an explanation as to why this article would be one of the only biographical articles that doesn't actually feature the persons real name would handy. --TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sad silence here. Embarrassing to Wikipdaia & Ms. Thunberg & family, this grotesquely overdone article which, as a particular weirdness amidst all the glory, omits her full name. It's not even a political matter really. Just embarrassing, like it would be about any young lady in the age bracket, no matter how great her accomplishments. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Great points. Its just that, being part of our societies, its only natural that the vicious and stupid political correctness momentum is at work here and among us all individually. Fortunately there are still many here, and maybe more to come, who are alert and knowledgeable and willing to push back against that momentum Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

So, of course her full name will be included, if not already. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: well her full name has not been included and it will not be, for obvious reasons MartiniShaw (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I apparently missed those "obvious reasons" and have seen no consensus anywhere on not adding her full name. Where is it? Please explain clearly! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Brussels October 2018

Probably the first international presentation of Greta Thunberg in Brussels in Belgium was just deleted due to missing references. Here are some: photo on FB, Programme of demonstration. Information is also in many other sources, but those are probably citing Wikipedia.Jirka Dl (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks vs informed comment

In the section under Media Comment, a while ago I created a couple of subheadings: Personal attacks and Informed comment. Other editors have changes these to Criticism and Comments. These new headings no longer accurately represent the nature of criticisms directed at GT. There are two main kinds of criticism: a) personal attacks on her characteristics such as her looks, her voice or her mental health issues, and whether she is fit to lead such a crusade; b) comment or criticisms about her message and the likely effectiveness of her activism. I think it is important to highlight in the subheadings that many of the criticisms are actually personal attacks. In order to distinguish comment or criticism about her message, I think the heading Informed comment conveys the content more clearly - although there may be other options.

WP:BLP suggests that the more odious details of some of the personal attacks should not be included in the article. I quote: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Notagainst (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an awesome way to start a discussion, and I look forward to reading enough cites and digesting this part of the article well enough to comment constructively. Just wanted here to commend your process. Thank you! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently all criticism is now referred as ad hominem attacks. Is this the new norm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.81.243 (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

See section 5.2.3 "Criticism of Thunberg's campaign" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

You mean the praise masked as criticism? Don't be silly2001:14BA:1300:0:0:1:4D51:AC9E (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs) I found a particularly odious ad hominem piece at the Washington Examiner by opinion writer Tiana Lowe, of the Washington Examiner, who stated that Thunberg's "fame-seeking," "stage-parents," particularly her "fading opera starlet mother," were "pimp(ing) her out" without regard for Thunberg's mental problems, which "disabilities" included "autism," "obsessive-compulsive disorder," "mutism," "depression" and a "severe eating disorder." By so doing, Lowe wrote, they were subjecting her to "child abuse." This Greta Thunberg thing is child abuse Without having seen the discussion here about her disabilities, I added some of this text to the article, because it demonstrates the depths to which critics lower themselves to obscure Thunberg's message, in the virulent attack on her parents. I also noticed that the prolific Lowe's piece seemed to draw heavily on a similar Spectator (magazine) piece perhaps to the point of plagiarism. Lowe has been criticized extensively by fellow conservative writers for alleged plagiarism. I'll return to the article and self-revert the specifics of the disabilities listed respecting the discussion here. Activist (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Frightened girl?

One of the Swedish news programs commented last night that Ms. Thunberg is beginning to look a bit frightened now. If I had made a more careful note, I might have tried to add it to this article (good luck to me with that!). I'm worried about this young person & I hope she'll be OK. The more she's portrayed as a modern Goddess, the more worried am I. About her future well-being. So if she's starting to look frightened now, am I the only one who's worried? Anything else in reliable media about it, anywhere? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You should not speculate about this on Wikipedia in any way, shape or form, SergeWoodzing, unless you are bringing forth impeccable coverage in reliable sources. Some random unnamed "Swedish news program" is nowhere near sufficient, and without a reliable source, your musings are a BLP violation. Please desist, and consider this a warning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It was on Sveriges Television's Channel 1 or 2 or TV4 (Sweden). I'll try to find out more specifically, if that's what you're asking for.

I am being warned for saying that a major TV channel thought Ms. Thunberg looked frightened, for expressing my own worries about her and for asking others here of they have seen any more coverage of that detail? Or for what, more specifically? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to make it perfectly clear here that my question is to other users to watch for any more reliable coverage that asserts that Ms. Thunberg has begun to look frightened. That is not in any way meant to denigrate her. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

We follow, we don't lead, especially by way of rumor. Personally I think this thread is deletable per BLP NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Response to ad hominem attacks

Sorry, I'm a very infrequent editor of articles, and I'm unable to edit GT's article due to lack of posting experience. The glaring omission I'd like to correct is the beginning of the 'Response to ad hominem attacks' section that starts with the sentence "Banks' comments outraged a number of MPs (Member of Parliament), celebrities and academics."

There is no previous mention of anyone called 'Banks' on the entire page, and the only way I was able to figure out who this Banks person was, is by searching with ctrl + F, which eventually led me to Reference #93: "Arron Banks jokes about Greta Thunberg and 'freak yachting accidents.'" it seems that any previous mention of this was deleted from the article, with that one sentence remaining. More context should be provided either in the 'Ad hominem attacks' section, or in the first sentence where his name is mentioned. e.g.: "Comments about (yachting accidents) made by Aaron Banks outraged a number of MPs (Member of Parliament), celebrities and academics." Jmlavey (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Jmlavey. Someone moved the Aaron Banks to a more prominent section higher up and I deleted it. I do not think we should include Banks' comments at all personally. He has no real status or importance to merit him being quoted, he is only really known to British audiences, and this is an international article in scope. I'll see if anyone else agrees it should be deleted totally before doing anything Jopal22 (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Level-5 vital article

IP rant

This is definitely exaggerated. Instigating students to commit truancy all over the world is not heroic, it's criminal. This is ruining the future of many young people not because of climate change but because of failing crucial exams. All of a sudden, everyone is a well-read expert on this topic. I doubt most of them have ever read a scientific paper. This promotes ecoterrorism, not factual awareness. But of course, having a day off is fun. I've read so many stupid slogans like "Earth is not Mars". Duh, of course, Earth is not Mars. The real danger does lie in space though. Sun-related issues and asteroids will wipe the Earth clean before any human effects become noticeable. However, those kids act like the current generation will die or something. I suggest a reclassification of the importance. --2001:16B8:315A:4500:DD51:8BFE:4418:D41D (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Even if we follow you're reasoning (which I disagree with strongly), she'd still be a level-5 vital article. Cmon, a villain that has millions of followers willing to get themselves into trouble is definitely significant, right? Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"promotes ecoterrorism" pardon me while I choke. Fridays for Future guidelines include "no hate, no violence, no damage...." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreeing with both of you, of course; but a gentle reminder: when they want to turn it into a forum for their personal views, just WP:DENY. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

From where do we get "/ˈtʊnbɜːrɡ/ TUUN-burg" as a feasible pronunciation of her name. It's not accurate as per "Listen". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's potentially contentious and should be deleted unless a citation is added. On the plus side, the Swedish pronunciation is now correct. Tammbeck (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Date of Birth citation needed

In the introduction, Gretas date of birth has a [citation needed] tag, but then in the "Life" section, by her birthday, a citation is given (it's currently Ref 9). Can't the same cite apply? 218.214.220.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It does not need a cite in the lede if it is reliably sourced in the article.Charles (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. In the bigger picture, this is a BLP and of a minor besides. We take privacy seriously, and have a policy that guides us when it is appropriate to reveal personal info like full names and DOBs. See WP:DOB. The source that Charles mentions was in French, and since "widely reported" is a criteria to include the DOB I did a google search for news hits Thunberg "born on (Month Day), 2003)" Of course when I did the search I included in the month and day. I got no hits at all. But when I changed the search to Thunberg "born in 2003)" there were several hundred. Moreover, one of this was from Thunberg's own publisher, under "About the Author". It's reasonable to think the publisher is revealing personal info as authorized by the subject herself, and that only gives her birth year. So we should do the same. As Charles says, lead links aren't mandatory, but sometimes they are wise. See WP:LEADLINK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

There was a citation in place, but you appear to have removed it. There is nothing wrong whatsoever in using a French source as a citation in an English wiki article, though hopefully others can be found. Esowteric+Talk 12:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

(A) True, in clarifying the acceptable use of non-English RSs, WP:NONENG says in part English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided...

(B) Moreover, anyone who wants to use the full DOB needs to show the full DOB is "widely reported", per BLP policy in section WP:DOB. A solitary French-language RS falls very far below that threshold.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right that the full DOB has not been widespread coverage in the larger, mainstream reliable sources (its omission is notable).

Here are a few lesser sources:

Tired Earth

Daily Fail

Daily Kos

Arctic Portal

Mitsubishi

Voice of Fashion

Medium

Symapico

I'll go with whatever you decide. Esowteric+Talk 13:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate your research and consensus building! Many of those sources are blogs and opinion pages of dubious RS quality. Personally, I'd give priority consideration to WP:PRIMARY sources. As a bonus, it's a small and well-defined pool of sources to research and debate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with most of these sources, but in the case of both Daily Kos and Medium, I see little exercise of editorial oversight. Are contributors paid for their edits? Activist (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Visit other languages in Wikipedia to see her full name and birthdate. Some people do not like this information in the article. Even in the discussion sll infos were deleted. --Netpilots (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I added DOB and it was reverted and I was directed here. I added it because of arguments in the press as to whether she was a "child", so I deemed it important. I note both Finnish (GA) and Swedish pages give the same date. On Instagram and Twitter she gives her age as 16. In an interview in the New Yorker, on October 2 2018, she gave her age as 15. That narrows it down somewhat. In an interview on CNN in December 2018, she said she was 15, but on January 26, it was 16. In Rolling Stone in March 2019, she said she was 16. In the Financial Times on February 22 2019, she said she was 16, also NYT February 18.--Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 14:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

There are 8 linked articles a little way up this thread that give the date. However policy seems to be against providing the full date. Also see above for the reasoning behind that. Esowteric+Talk 15:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As I read it, the discussion was about reliability, not the reason why. I seemed to me important to get her age right in discussions. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 15:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As shown above in this section, see NewsAndEventsGuy's reply to me. Specifically: "(B) Moreover, anyone who wants to use the full DOB needs to show the full DOB is "widely reported", per BLP policy in section WP:DOB. A solitary French-language RS falls very far below that threshold." Esowteric+Talk 15:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reading the prior comments! I looked at the 8 sources mentioned... they are of mostly low-quality in terms of RS... most are personal essay and blog things. To elaborate AGAIN Our BLP policy puts emphasis on protecting personal information including full name and DOB. When GT shares this then that's an indication she's ok with it. But she has her own publisher giving her birth monty and year only. So, per BLP policy in section WP:DOB we should do the same NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have read numerous interviews in high quality media (see selection above), all of which show that between the end of December 2018, and mid January 2019, she changed her age from 15 to 16. She also said she had asked her parents not to give her any Christmas or Birthday presents, which puts her birthday close to Christmas. I therefore propose that we state her date of birth as January 20003 and template it. This will solve the age issue, and provide a fact check for media reporting on politicians, such as the one who called her a mentally unstable child today. I think that is a reasonable compromise. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 16:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually we need reliable sources and then we can mention it regardless of what we think Greta thinks, without reliable sources we should simply not mention it. Doing detective work is utterly unacceptable apart from detective work looking for reliable sources. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not detective work, to check that sources are consistent. As mentioned above, her publisher provides month and year. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 16:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I could add GQ and a branch of the United Nations Association. But one can be too pure, since it is on many projects of Wikipedia. Should they all be purged? --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 16:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

GT released her birth month and year via her publisher. But she did not release the day of the month. We should call it good with this edit and let others be careless with privacy of personal information. We don't have to help spread it when GT is not. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't implying it was @Michael Goodyear:, checking consistency of actual sources is perfectly legitimate and goes along with seeking new ones if required. It is the original research suggestion I was commenting on. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Your primary source isn't great @NewsAndEventsGuy: but is acceptable as there are no notability issues. Giving the month without the date is surely fine if that is what the sources say. BLP does not however mean we do what GT wants, that seems irrelevant, what is relevant is sources that are reliable, and ideally we could do with a 3rd-party reliable source, given it is a BLP article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Being her publisher there is a principal-agent legal relationship with terms spelled out in their contract that we are not privvy to. But its law 101 that acts of authorized agent are the same as those done by the principal. I've never said that we do what GT wants. I've said WP:DOB holds private info private unless one of two things happens. Either (A) it must be WIDELY repeat W-I-D-E-L-Y reported in solid RSs or (B) the subject share it. Since A is really really really R-E-A-L-L-Y thin, we should rely on her agents disclosure on her behalf. And if there is a better primary source from GT herself, even better. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

No offence taken, my comment was a general one that "reliable" sources implies making some effort to check reliability. I added a second reliable source. I think we are getting there! --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 18:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Biografie Greta born January 3, 2003 --Netpilots (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Parents should also be included. She is a minor. Father- Svante Thunberg (Swedish Actor, Producer and Author) Mother- Malena Ernman (Swedish Opera Singer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.229.157 (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Skipping the whole year

It should be mentioned that after finishing the 9th grade she decided to skip not only the Fridays, but the whole school year. The current article has 19 pages, and almost nothing about her studies. 91.83.18.85 (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The GWPF is a mudslinging hotbed of climate denialism... they're a front for Heartland aren't they? Anyway, seriously not RS. So count on them to spin her year as "skipping" school. She is on sabbatical. That's a different critter than bumming around NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Working towards good article?

As one of our most-read climate change articles and one of the more difficult to write, would it be an idea to slowly work towards the GA criteria. I think there are almost enough facts (instead of mostly opinions) around her to write a good article. I find writing towards a goal really focuses the mind.

There are often concerns about neutrality for this article, and the GA process is good at snuffing out subtle bias (For the record, I don't think there are any major problems with neutrality here). I won't have time for it, but maybe something to strive to for the regular contributors? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a good idea, in principle NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

While I have only contributed a minor edit or two, I do see it going in that direction if we can LOCK OUT the perpetually disruptive IPs and amateur editors who think this is the article is a Daily Mail comment section. Trillfendi (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course they do. 86.187.226.244 (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Awards and honours

In most good articles about people, the awards and honours section doesn't really have subsections. Any objections if I move from this list-structure (many sections are one line long) to a more prose-like section? Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

FRSGS

When I clicked on FRSGS it linked to Royal Scottish Geographical Society. I wanted to know what the "F" stood for. Then I saw there was an article (a redirect, actually) for FRSGS, but when I examined that article, all it said was FRSGS redirects to Royal Scottish Geographical Society. So I still didn't know what the "F" stood for. I had to go outside of Wikipedia to learn that FRSGS stands for Fellow of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society. I then went to the FRSGS article and tried to add the "Fellow of the" part so somewhere there would be an explanation on Wikipedia for the "F", but when I did that, it messed up the look of the Redirect, so I undid that. Maybe someone who understands more than I could provide an explanation for the "F" somewhere on Wikipedia or, alternatively, they could explain that the "F" is already defined somewhere on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricTN (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed via simple edit to the redirect, easy for any Aspie or "software engineer".PeterWD (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Why is it used as a title for her? Is she using it as a title? It is just one of several different awards that she has been given, don't see why that name should be puffed that way in this article. I suggest it is being removed from her title both in ingress and under her name in the info box. Sijambo (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

On 12 July 2019, Thunberg was awarded the Geddes Environment Medal by the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, which automatically granted her Honorary Fellow status -- that allows the use of FRSGS.Johnrichardhall (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Prose of Section "Gretta's Message"

Not to be over critical, but the prose of this section reads at a 6th grade level. It's not a summary but at times reads more akin to a persuasive essay in its tone which Wiki is not. It also strings together her ideas to try and put them in essay format. Rather the ideas should be broken apart, and each one presented. The persuasive rhetoric should be dropped because Wikipedia is NPOV. This is not to say that Climate Change should be denied but rather that it can be accepted without being argued. Take a look at the article on vaccines and autism for example, it clearly states the facts, addresses the misconceptions but is encyclopaedic in its rhetoric and not persuasive. I propose that that section be deleted, it's covered under speeches and other sections, what's more if not deleted it needs a complete rewrite.2.81.166.210 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with description of problem / Propose alternative solution I concur with the IP's assessment of this section, but I don't think it should be scrapped. I think we should reduce it to the essentials. GT wants leaders to (A) follow the science and Paris AGreement (B) to limit warming to 1.5C (C) to take all the needed actions in remaining 11(?) years since some report said we had 12 years and to (D) treat the problem with full-blast crisis/emergency urgency. We do not need to quotefarm her greatest hits of rhetoric. We should be able to do that in 3-4 sentencs, tops NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Editted it down as suggested by NewsAndEventsGuy Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

List of speeches -> notable speeches

Thunberg is going to have a lot more speeches. Any objections to putting more emphasis on the notable speeches by removing some of the smaller ones? I'm thinking of a criterion like having the speech reported on in bigger media (NYT or Die Zeit vs specialist green media)? Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Thunberg speeches could be progressively transferred to Wikiquote before deletion from this article? (PS Proud septuagenarian aspie) PeterWD (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not that keen on working on that, but can copy them here for others to do that. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I did try, but little response here. The later discussion (splitting proposal) had some people mention the recentism policies, hence me wanted to boldly clean up the section tp help that discussion. Why do you think not only the prize should be mentioned, but also the speech? Will that still be significant in ten years. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Femkemilene, what most concerned me was your edit summary, which read in part "Removed her prix liberte speech, as most reporting was either french (figaro), or specialist media (plantbasednews)" Most reporting is not all reporting, Le Figaro is a major media outlet and a reliable source, and there is absolutely no requirement that coverage by reliable sources must be in English. A complete biography of this person will be as important in ten years as it is today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your point and I agree that in ten years time she'll still be important. I was not trying to argue that figaro is not a reliable source, but just that, if only french media picks up on a local prize, it is probably not that significant it should be not only mentioned, but have a whole subsection devoted to it. I did not see any Dutch, German or Spanish media pick up on it for instance. I don't think we have any evidence that this speech will still hold significance in ten years time. Maybe not even this local prize will hold significance, but I'm okay with keeping it in until more important information about Thunberg emerges. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Use of the term matter-of-fact

Hey there,

Thunberg is known for her blunt, matter-of-fact speaking manner, both in public and to political leaders and assemblies, in which she urges immediate action to address what she describes as the climate crisis.

Not only, "Blunt" & "matter of fact speaking" on one hand are pretty emotional & expressive words that are written on Wikipedia mildly (and not word to word hype as it is written on a news website), the website rather quotes are explicitly questioning politicians, calling it "matter of fact speaking", site doesn't have any content or even WP:CONTEXT for those facts. It's directly an attribute that makes a clear opinion from Wikipedia about her and needs a WP:RS. For now, it's a mere WP:POV-PUSH rather than WP:AGF. It's clearly advertising language.

Meanwhile, @NorthBySouthBaranof: has declared that "any source" is just fine. Means I could add any source not only criticizing her, but judging her on incorrect or false grounds will be "fine". Sources with opinions on multiple sources are conflicting and that's for a reason WP:RS which have clear elaboration and quotes "facts".

For WP:CONCENSUS, as per WP:DR guidelines any edit with conflicts needs concensus to be added first. As there was no WP:RfC done for these particular edits at first place, even the excuse of keeping them before any concensus is flawed. It has to be deleted first, discussed, improvised and then added.

"Matter fact speaking manner" is an ultimate assignment of attribute of credibility to a particular person that even based on a appraisal of a journalist, a nobody source, that has completely destroyed the entire essence of article. Seriously, no other person on Wikipedia has this attribute. This one "doesn't have even a source" which exclusively explains what she speaks is "matter of fact" (See: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS).

If fellow editors are yet unable to understand that all I'm saying is to replace the sentences with some mild and appropriate words and will continue edit wars with me, I will not respond as neither I'm fond of WP:EW and am outnumbered. Some administrator will check it and remove it later. For now, I'm gonna remove it for last time before we start WP:RfC for these sentences on talk page. If people will continue edit warring, I will humbly leave leaving the issue to moderators. Regards Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I don’t understand what you are trying to say. The France 24 citation refers to her “hallmark matter-of-fact manner”, so that seems fine. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I suspect Aman.kumar.goel does not understand the idiom "matter-of-fact", and is convinced it literally refers to fact and truthfulness, rather than her deadpan delivery. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You suspect wrongly. MartiniShaw (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, there seems to be a language barrier thing going on. Geordie (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no "language barrier thing" going on. MartiniShaw (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand it very well. And that's what exactly I have been saying. The idiom literally "declares" her truthful. Wikipedia can't assign someone with an attribute. You simply can't write articles explicitly in favour of your favourite politicians, activists or celebrities according to what you believe about them or what an unreliable source does. Analysis from neutral observers with elaborations to make article comply with WP:NPOV is necessary. Otherwise, a biased article is of no use.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Quote some more sources which will be WP:RS which declare that she speaks matter of fact.@DeCausa:Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Matter-of-fact doesn’t mean truthful. It means “simply”. DeCausa (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You are wrong. Matter-of-fact means "not showing feelings or emotion". See here: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/matter-of-fact

Not showing emotion is just what Thunberg does not do. Therefore "matter-of-fact" should be deleted from descriptions of Thunberg. MartiniShaw (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you should have read the entire matter I wrote first. I'm tired putting same things over & over.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I did, as did the others who have responded, and I think the consensus is that you misunderstand the English idiom. DeCausa (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No you didn't. See there WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I clearly elaborated how the word impacts and needs to be replaced by one with clear meaning. Matter of fact idiom is for simple but for things what they are as it is. In case of this controversial issue, we can't. Moreover, except this article, I never saw Wikipedia using such tempting language on any other article.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The usage here is the second meaning of the term, and native English speakers will almost always intend the figurative sense of the term when they use the hypenated "matter-of-fact" rather than "matter of fact", which is generally a commentary on the extent to which somethign is true or false. GMG^talk 08:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Aman.kumar.goel. Wikipedia should use neutral language, currently this does not adhere to that. You can use a single source for factual references, but if you want to reflect people's interpretation of her style you need to have several references to show that it is a broad consensus opinion, and note alternative interpretations if there are many sources that also cite that Jopal22 (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way. To those of you challenging you one Aman.kumar.goel understanding of English. If you look up "matter of fact" definition in several places it defines it as states the facts without placing their own opinion or conjecture and not using emotional laden language. I would hugely challenge that she doesn't use emotion laden language, and could find several sources for that if required. There is no doubt that the "matter of fact" descriptor used in the reference in the article is a selective reference which does not reflect the general consensus of most references (just see her UN speech!) Jopal22 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's asking to not to improve article and mention about PoV of people on her. But that should be done a quality language that doesn't completely dismiss other opinions (if it does still, it should have a backing of WP:RS). I wouldn't have touched the article if it stated "admirers of Greta" or "France 24" says that she has a matter of fact speaking manner rather than directly writing that she speaks matter of fact. I think I have made my point clear now. This prevents imposition of a view by wikipedia withou while mentioning the one in mainstream. If you can provide WP:RS quoting her speeches saying she speaks "facts" (not statements but facts), I demand it. And yes, I follow all her speeches. Here I strongly disagree that she doesn't use emotional laden language. This is the only thing what makes her different from other activists. Guess, this emotional laden language while bluntly speaking to international leaders is what being written here as "matter of fact". She was at that moment was criticisint world governments, not debating with them.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"Matter of fact" DOES NOT mean factual! Certainly not where I come from. It just means talking without bullshit euphemisms, saying precisely what the speaker means to say. HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If it appears that the term "matter-of-fact" is not fully understood by all non-native speakers, why not use a different word such as "unadorned", "straightforward", or "direct"? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. MartiniShaw (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. DeCausa (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Even "straightforward" way is pretty good. It puts the favour of Greta but doesn't assign her that problematic attribute. Both sides will be fine with it.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't bowdlerise the article because a, this is English Wikipedia, not Simple English Wikipedia, and b, the term in question is found in the source. We can't write for "all non-native speakers." Geordie (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Editors should try to be more, rather than less, informative to all readers, and should "summarize source material in their own words". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it's not Simple English Wikipedia but the word was an exceptional case that could easily be interpreted to other meaning. Anyways, as issue isn't there anymore, better we archive the discussion. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

References

References

Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Name misspelled

Her name is misspelled: "Thunburg", page is protected . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.19.168 (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out! ---Sluzzelin talk 09:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)