Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Her full name should be included

Her full name should be included, "Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg". What is the problem with including it on here? MartiniShaw (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

In articles about living people we have very high standards for the inclusion of information. The source you provided (a Wikipedia page) is not considered of a high quality. In WP:BLP you can read which types of sources are of high enough quality to be used for this article.

Even if we have a reliable source for the information, I'd still argue against inserting it in the article, given the following guideline in WP:BLP: With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. If Thunberg or people around her who she probably gave permission to do so, are using the full name, it's clear they don't consider it a privacy concern. If they don't, they might do so for a reason. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Under what rule is "regarding their full name as private" a bar to the inclusion of the full name on Wikipedia? MartiniShaw (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You can find several more reliable sources if you google her full name, for example this article, but I agree with argument of Femkemilene.Jirka Dl (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Martin,

(A) This is a rehash of a prior discussion

(B) GT has some primary source material out there which (to best of my knowledge) does not use her full name, just Greta Thunberg

(C) See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#There_must_be_sources. I know you can find hits doing a google search but its a lot of work to wade through them to filter the actual RS-compliant ones from the chaffe, and once you do that, its going to be very hard to show us her full name is so "widely reported" as to overcome the spirit of the private personal information rule at WP:DOB. But if you want to try, go for it.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy Thanks MartiniShaw (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Under what rule is "regarding their full name as private" a bar to the inclusion of the full name on Wikipedia? MartiniShaw (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No rule that I can find.

When all one has to do is look at the Swedish article with her full name as supplied by the Swedish Tax Authority's published census, what's the actual point of censuring it here? Her parents chose to name her partly after a popular Belgian cartoon character. Is it English Wikipedia's job to hide that? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The citation has been given (by me) in edit summaries.... and the prior discussion....and this discussion above. All you have to do is read the links I bother to cite. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Good grief, this is an encyclopedia, lets get real, as in real name. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The Eng Wikipedia guidelines on privacy agrees with you provided it's "widely reported" in by-god reliable sources. The poor table has been beaten upon for far too long here. No one is attepting to show widely reported. Alternatively, if the subject herself reports her middle name. Once we're over that hump, then sure. Reliable sources to show "widely reported", please. And let's let the poor table findally start getting trauma counseling or join a survivors group or something NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

What's a poor table? Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I am archiving one p;d thread, but it had some recent name comments added so per WP:MULTI I copied the name comments here since this is the active name thread. I haven't changed any of the content. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:54, 29 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)

The obvious reason is that so far no one has demonstrated the sources that comply with WP:BLPPRIVACY that have her full name. In fact the only source presented seems to be [1]. Well, I also see some pointless mention of the Swedish Tax Authority's public census. (Even ignoring BLPPRIVACY, see WP:BLPPRIMARY.) None of us should give a flying flip what the Swedish wikipedia does when it comes to the English wikipedia, since we have our own policies and guidelines and a strong BLP policy. If the Swedish wikipedia has sourcing that would meet the requirements of BLPPRIVACY then the sources should be presented here. Since I don't speak Swedish and nothing said so far leads me to believe they do have the sources, I'm not going to check myself. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"Honours and awards"

Is there a better title for this section, or should material that falls outside the title be put somewhere else? A mural is not an honour or award, nor is a magazine cover or a Vice documentary. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe each of these are, maybe they aren't. Have to look to the RSs text not editor opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

For the mural, the cited article doesn't list it as a honour explicitly. A vice documentary is also clearly not an honour. We could maybe make a section of 'thunberg in public culture' (bad title).. Or just remove those murals. I see that Joe Biden doesn't have any mention of his image in memes and all, and he is a memelord, so not sure to what extent art and documentaries about here should be mentioned at all.

Overall, I'm in favour of keeping the section called honours and awards, because that's quite a standard way of organizing a biography. Things that fall out of it might not need mention. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

To elaborate on my prior reply, what we need are RSs that report on why these things exist? What was in artist or filmmaker's mind when doing their work? When editors observe the fact these things exist and then interpret them as honors, that's WP:Original research or WP:POV. So to understand those things, look for RSs that answer "so what?" instead of just fact they exist. Such RSs might indeed identify these things as ways the subject is being "honored". On reflection, though, I suppose "honors" is ambiguous. Does it include ad hoc acclaim or only pre-defined "medals" and the sort of thing that can be presented by an organization? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I would elaborate myself that maybe the title is OK because 90% of this is undoubtedly about awards. It's just that it could become bloated with time when there are more magazine covers, more documentaries and more murals. I know that he was around for a lot longer time, but if you take the example of Nelson Mandela, the murals, magazines and documentaries would be nearly uncountable. But I guess there's a time and a place, and when 200 murals are listed here we could revisit the question. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion — cut the murals and documentaries from the “award” section and add an “In popular culture” section to cover art and fiction created about her, assuming that those things were notable enough to include . Michepman (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: this Blp: Is there a reasonable direction of a child discussion to be had?

I'm asking the question because I think it must be addressed. What is concerning to me is that her being too young to be considered legally competent precludes Wikipedia from giving her Blp the same treatment as we would an adult. Since she is not of legal age, virtually all of her activities which are typically handled by adults, e.g. speaking to the U.N., must, perhaps, be seen as having been done under the direction of whatever adults are responsible for her and thus should not be credited to a Blp in her own name. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:OR to me. Legal ages are a statement of the place that children have in society, not an assertion that 16 year olds cannot ever think for themselves. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: -- Touché . . . I could not agree with you more!Johnrichardhall (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Please cite a specific portion of BLP or a policy with legal considerations if you believe that for legal reasons, her article must be treated differently from articles about people above the age of majority in their home country. I'm also unclear on why legal competence is relevant to statements of facts about a person's actions—are we accusing her of a crime somewhere? Note that other child activists e.g. Malala Yousafzai (pre-2015) have their articles compiled in just the same way as adult activists. — Bilorv (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if someone is not old enough to sign a contract or to be party to any binding agreements whether that status should, at the least, call for a somewhat different treatment in an encyclopedia. Especially when we get into the area of personal health; in this case what we describe as "a developmental disorder".

Maybe I'm being too cautious, but after she is grown up she may not choose to tell the world about her personal health situation and regret that she did so when 16.

Many of us did or said things at 16 that we have regretted as adults, and I'm not even getting into the possibility....we must admit there is a possibility, I think, that 1 or more adults are influencing her schedule and public presentations.

I suppose this might be better explored at the Blp noticeboard if this is a widespread custom to treat underage Blp Subjects the same as adults which, imo, is really kind of ridiculous from a human rights standpoint. Children are entitled to special protections, care and attention beyond what adults are, in any civilized society. And I do not want to see anymore absurd extrapolations or distractions about crimes or 16 year olds cannot ever think for themselves. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

She's proud of her Asperger's and has no reason not to be. Plenty of people may later regret the things that are written in their Wikipedia page and this is sometimes but not necessarily a BLP concern. But there's no need for getting bogged down in hypotheticals here. We're not saying anything that hasn't been said in the most trustworthy and responsible newspapers you can name, or discussed on reliable news programmes in almost every country in the world. I suggest you drop the accusations about shadowy adults before you go anywhere near violating BLP with potentially defamatory statements. — Bilorv (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

She is willingly putting herself out there to the world to get her message out and Asperger’s isn’t a disease nor disability. Unless there were unabashedly inappropriate things going on here such as speculating sexuality and what not I don’t see why she should be treated differently just because she’s 2 years off the mark. Trillfendi (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I support User:Bilory - Asperger Syndrome is part of her campaign, she publicly announced it in December 2018 in her presentation for TEDx Stockholm, and I expect, if this would be illegal in Sweden than TEDx would not publish this speech. BTW it seems that in Czech Republic she will help more to parents of children with serious Asperger syndrome than to understanding of Global warming - a few days ago, a very strange psychiatrist, with whom parents of children with severe autism have had a long-standing problem, had written a very bad article against Greta in newspapers - and was forced to resign from his office in the psychiatrist's chamber yesterday.Jirka Dl (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal (list of speeches)

Under normal circumstances I’d do it myself but since this page is so visible, getting more visible by the day at that I’ve brought it to discussion. So anyway... these speeches. Obviously that is what she’s known for besides School Strike for the Climate. Especially her most recent one at the UN, which seems to have gotten the most attention yet. They’re taking up way too much space on the page and should be their own article entitled List of Greta Thunberg speeches or something. Trillfendi (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr has a very long page. And while I am not equating Greta to him, they both are known for speeches and leading protests. Thunberg may turn out to be as influential as MLK Jr. Time will tell. Maybe for now a wait and see approach is best. On Friday, 4 October 2019, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize will be announced. Thurnberg is nominated. If she is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize then there will be a bona fide reason for her page to continue to grow. If not, then creating a List of Greta Thunberg minor speeches would be apropos ... leave only a few major speeches on her page. Johnrichardhall (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s article is what separates a Good Article from C-Class. For Thunberg though, the issue is trying to highlight 13 individual speeches rather where as King’s, rightly, concentrates on the most important one—not just important to his life’s work but its impact on society. Thunberg is still a kid. She’s younger than the movie Ice Age, in all irony. We don’t know which speech is her Gettysburg Address. If she wins the Nobel Prize, perhaps that should be the focus because all she has done up to this point lead to that moment. Trillfendi (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

We do know which speeches got covered by non-specialist media as a speech an sich. Many of her speeches only got a passing mention in mainstream media while reporting on protests, instead of reported on directly, indicating that, at least for now, these speeches should not be giving much space in this article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support Weak oppose (alternatively also support just deleting some speeches). At first glance, I would say that Davos, U.S. Congres and U.N. action summit as definitely notable for this article, while her acceptance speeches are definitely not. The list of speeches also comes close to breaking our policy on excessive quoting, so some work needs to be done anyway. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Convinced by arguments NEAG. What if we first make sure we delete stuff that is a collection of trivia, and then see whether there is enough material left for a separate page? Looking at other pages with list of speeches, those were indeed made for people that were famous speech writers, which she isn't (yet). (I might make some bold edits, please revert and discuss if necessary) Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Opposed and instead convert and merge Right now, this section is part list and part greatest hits soundbite collection. In my view, this presentation crosses the line from encyclopedia to advocacy. The guideline for an embedded list is, well, WP:Embedded Lists. PROPOSE

A. Convert the section to a naked list of time, date, place, title, venue etc. Anyone who wants to get each talks zingers can follow the citations

B. The barest bit of the most important soundbites can be merged to the section "Greta's message"

In support of this alternative, if we create a new article to chronicle the zinger from every public talk we will be deeply afoul of WP:RECENTISM. See especially the WP:10YEARTEST. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support split: quotes from the speeches are clearly notable and there's dozens upon dozens of sources out there for each one. They should be summarised in this article and detailed properly in a standalone list which quotes extracts and includes context and reliable critical commentary. The speeches should also be copied to Wikiquote (with as much detail as is legal... not too sure how copyright applies to the speeches). Happy to do the split if we get consensus for it. — Bilorv (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Thunberg is both the catalyst and figurehead of, arguably, the largest movement in history. Her age is irrelevant, even when being compared to the release date of the movie "Ice Age". School strike for climate has grown from a solitary protester, Thunberg, to a global protest. The back-to-back Friday protests, which were the focus of the September 2019 climate strikes, garnered approximately 6.4 million strikers/protesters. Whatever the outcome of this proposal to split Thunber's speeches, the focal point while seeking a solution ought to acknowledge that, to quote Thunberg, "whether we like it or not," her collection of speeches and her presence are the forces that both ignited and are sustaining the global phenomenon collectively known as "climate strike." In the context of Wikipedia, my only advocacy concerning Thunberg is documenting history. Thunberg, at 16, has--and will continue to--create history. So, let Wikipedia endeavor to memorialize history ... knowing that Thunberg's appearances and speeches are the footprints which the current climate strike movement continues to follow and will always acknowledge.Johnrichardhall (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnrichardhall: you say we should be "documenting history" and you have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to know what will be important years hence. I'm not so prescient, but more to the point, I reject your "document history" goal. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the paragraph labeled "1."; this describes how we treat original works... such as speeches. I'd like to see a lot more about the context, reception, and lasting impact, and a whole lot less of the transcripts, which is already in the citations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Duly noted and equally admonished. Documenting history is a "from this point in time back" endeavor. Predicting the future would, as you so aptly pointed out, require a WP:CRYSTALBALL. That said, I shall now quote Job 40:4: "Behold, I am insignificant. How can I reply to You? I place my hand over my mouth" and will be on my merry way... Johnrichardhall (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

In regards to additional context, reception and commentary on impact, feel free to add what you'd like to see. — Bilorv (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Jesus Fitzgerald Christ, does anyone understand sarcasm? Trillfendi (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I laughed. Which is really rare thing when I edit, so I am much in your debt! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I too laughed ... and only made reference to the witticism/sarcasm of "Ice Age" in case this proposal to split Thunberg's speeches attracts readers and/or editors who suffer from a profound lack of humor--a disorder which may find its way into the next release of the DMS (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Clifford N. Lazarus Ph.D. penned an article titled "Think Sarcasm is Funny? Think Again" for Psychology Today wherein he lays out the case for him to be patient zero of "unable to process witticism/sarcasm disorder." Anyway. . .

• Weak support of split and would nominate Bilorv (talk) to undertake the splitting because, not only did he put forth a persuasive argument, he graciously offered his services within this discussion.Johnrichardhall (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, looking at the article briefly couldn't even find them, so what are we splitting, not a lot for sure. Seems like an unnotable title, we don't do this for Trump so why would we for Greta. She isn't known as a great speech maker in the way Hitler and MLK were. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It’s right here → Greta_Thunberg#List_of_speeches, fam. It even says “list of speeches”. Trillfendi (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

What does Trump have to do with it? And she absolutely is known for her idiosyncratic speech style though I perhaps wouldn't, um, compare her to Hitler (nor Hitler to MLK; their speeches couldn't have served more drastically different purposes). — Bilorv (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom, Greta Thunberg is a 16 year old prodigy and she has been active as a social activist for a quite long time and her works regarding social concern will only increase when years go on. She might deliver more number of speeches in international arena and she is just a young teenager. So her concern on action for climate change will continue forever. So I suggest to create a separate article on the list of speeches made by her. Abishe (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• oppose as per Femke Nijsse , atm the article is not excessively long, so no real need to split atm, but maybe a little surgical trimming and tidying up might help. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The text can be reduced and listified, similar to Malala Yousafzai#Awards and honours. WWGB (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. As has been mentioned, her article is much shorter than MLK's; ditto Frederick Douglass. Her speeches are critical to understanding her importance. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article seems manageable in its current form. I kind of see a separate speech article as being sort of a content fork at this point. IMHO, we don’t need a separate article for each public appearance that Thunberg makes — instead, this article should provide summary detail for her speeches and then go into detail at the ones that have received the most media coverage and analysis. The Dr. King example is a good comp — throughout his life he gave hundreds of speeches, sermons, and addresses but we don’t list each public appearance he made in his entire life.

Instead of forking Thunberg’s speeches we should try to limit their coverage so that they are proportional to how much they actually contribute to her notability as an activist. Michepman (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - agree with Michepman that that in some cases the information about some speeches could be shorter as we have summary of her ideas in "Thunberg's message" part.Jirka Dl (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Milder autism spectrum disorder

Sorry if this has been talked to a consensus, but I still found some editorial usage of "autism" as being her illness, which I think is a mistake. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve reverted your second edit that added the word ”milder” because the cited source for that sentence only references “autism” without qualification. DeCausa (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree because as editors we ought to edit on the side of scientific fact when there are a variety of sources, some that are exact in reference to such fact and some which use abbreviated or quoted references.

Just because a RS is misleading in its definition does not mean we need be if we have a choice. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There is already a much discussed consensus to rely on the subjects own description of her conditions. See talk page archives. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's gotta change. Think about it. Are you going to rely upon a politician's description of their own conditions? If Harvey Weinstein is calling himself a "compulsive sex addict who can't help himself" is that what you will rely upon? Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I hasten to add, I don't mean to be disparaging toward this subject; she seems to be a wonderful person. That was just the best analogy I could think of relating to the relying upon a subject's self description; that is absurd, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The ‘self-description’ point is a bit of a red herring in this instance. The point being made was that a particular commentator had said that being on the autistic spectrum had made her fearless in promoting her views. It actually makes no sense to insert the concept of “mild” into that. The commentator did not say that being on the mild end of the spectrum gave her that fearlessness. That gives an implication that the mildness was relevant to her fearlessness, which is not what’s being said. DeCausa (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Article is definitely NOT NPOV

According to: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/greta-thunberg-climate-change-movement.html

Jimmie Åkesson, leader of the Sweden Democrats has described her as "the creation of her parents and a PR agency, echoing a puppet narrative that has become so firm on the European right that a full-length book has already been published about the family, The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg." He is the leader of a party that has about 1/7 of the legislature in the subject's native country.

And accodring to:

https://www.thegwpf.com/greta-thunberg-pr-puppet-or-climate-figurehead/

The article claims that “their success is largely down to the Swedish PR expert Ingmar Rentzhog, who has good contacts in several propaganda organizations”

Considering the controversial topic, and how well expanded the article is, almost completely missing any criticism of this individual does not allign with wp:NPOV. 205.175.106.54 (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the criticism that is published about her is from unreliable sources such as the GWPF, which we cannot add to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I agree with you that this article has a slight bias in favour of Thunberg, but adding ad hominum attacks of questionable sources is not the way forward. I think the best way forward is to reword and restructure what's already there. We tend to follow the wording from the sources to literally instead of rephrasing them in our neutral WikiVoice. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

NYMag is not a reliable source? 205.175.106.54 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Might be a reliable source for fact some bloke in Sweden is reputed to think X. That's about what we have here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"some bloke in Sweden" is the leader for 13 years of the 3rd (almost 2nd) largest party in the country where this political BLP is a citizen of, and according to this article, IS representing her country in part. Maybe you should go read wp:NPOV again 2601:602:9200:1310:682E:C7A2:A8BE:BBB6 (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)

@205.175.106.54:I've actually read the first article. It says that the Swedish bloke said she was ″the creation of her parents and a PR agency″, so ″[he was] echoing a puppet narrative that has become so firm on the European right″ that they published a book about her. I think that kind of undermines your point. --Yhdwww (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2019

(UTC) This whole article is predicated on the assumption that Ms Thunberg's views on climate change are correct. This in itself is NOT NPOV. What if Thunberg is wrong? 81.141.154.79 (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Progress on this article...at last!

This article has begun to be more balanced, thank Goodness.

It's not quite such a fawning fan page since a few critical points have been allowed to stay put.

Just for how long, remains to be seen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg#Criticism_of_Thunberg_and_her_campaign MartiniShaw (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no substance to the criticism, just the usual ad hominem attacks by climate change denialists. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Rubbish. Critisism had come from all angles, including hundreds of scientists, news networks and celebrities. Greta cannot be immune from critisism, no one should be. ((DarkMithras))

Martin Shaw, I think you will find it's hard to write what you would see as a balanced commentary about criticism of an autistic child by middle aged, right wing, white men. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The above comment is about as bigoted, angry and biased as one can get. Hightly insulting, to be frank. What the claim is, is that critisising Greta is a crime so evil, so horrid that buzzwords have to be created to demonise this appauling bogeyman. Turns out that this bogeyman is a white male (gosh, how dare he be white! How dare he be male!). We never saw that coming. The comment itself can only be conjured in the mind of a rage filled activist - otherwise such things would never have been written.

This, by the way, is one of the largest reasons fewer and fewer people trust in Wiki. The very bias that can be clearly seen in Talk, is evident in the main article. Even written by the same activists who refuse any attempt at balance. Deleting crucial elements, and setting up their gold-clad squeaky clean idol. Then use her as a human shield against critisicm. ((DarkMithras))

This is the same website that editors are dead set on trying to make Donald Trump a good article knowing damn well that article will never be stable. There are many “controversial” figures who have Good or Featured articles—even Adolf Hitler—it just takes patience to sift through the BS that comes through here daily. She has struck a nerve. Trillfendi (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No, she has not struck a nerve. No one cares about the script she reads from, it has been debunked by hundreds of actual experts. However, the radical left don't get the right to push an autistic vulnerable child onto the stage and expect no critisicm. She is not your human shield. This is child abuse, plain and simple. That is the nerve struck. That is why people are angry. If the activists who run this page cannot see that, then god help them. ((?))

Adolf Hitler? What's he got to do with Greta? But while we're there, those People's Cars of Uncle Adi seem to be pretty durable and eco-friendly. (That's a joke - possibly in dubious taste - but still a joke. You may have heard of them. ) MartiniShaw (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s almost as if I said he was an example of a controversial figure whom long-suffering editors somehow fought through years of constant vandalism, disruption, and lack of neutrality to get to a Good Article standard. Trillfendi (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead infobox image

I’m the second editor to have restored the long-standing lead infobox image after several new users experimented with adding different images to the infobox, both of which, IMO, were suboptimal than the current image. I have no objection to a different image, but it should be an improvement. The current image shows her looking off the frame in a somewhat hopeful and optimistic way, with the Flag of Europe in the background. Viriditas (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What has the flag of Europe got to do with anything in this article? And is Thunberg known for appearing hopeful and optimistic? Somehow you have managed to conflate Inappropriate extreme confidence and Euroscepticism/Pro-Europeanism with this article. Not good at all! 81.141.154.79 (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be very confused. I merely described the image I restored so that people would know what image I was referring to in this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

New image in "Life" section

I see no reason to add a second image shortly after the initial image in the lead which is pretty much a duplicate of the lead image. What does it add? IMO, it adds nothing. I think it should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps one of the many images in the subsequent section could be used instead. Viriditas (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do we need more pictures of her? Wikipedia is not a fan website 81.141.154.79 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for help in editing

In my opinion it is very important to write here about the positive results of the climate action summit - the committments etc., and not only the negatives. For 3 reasons:

1. For people will see what was said and will check what was maked.

2. It is important to understand that the strikes all the activity of Greta Thunberg make a difference and the Secretary Genelal said clearly in the summit: “But there is a change in momentum. Largely this change in momentum was due to your [Greta Thunberg’s] initiative, and to the courage with which you have started this movement.”

3. We should be fair to the people in the UNFCCC working day and night to achieve some results and to the leaders that make some serious steps.

I begun to write some results in the page 2019 UN Climate Action Summit I put there some usefull sources. But I will very happy to receive some help in writing how much more concrete information in the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit page and putting the most important results with a link in this page and in related pages like School strike for the climate.

--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Opposed for lack of comprehensibility. Please write some proposed neutral biographical text about this person. Based on what I know of your past editing, you are likely to be tempted to insert some climate activism in what should be neutral biographical text. Please leave the activism to some other venue and focus on Thunbergs by-god biography. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Transatlantic crossing

It should be noted that 2 Europeans took a plane flight across the Atlantic to meet Thunberg's boat and sail it home from the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.177.139.146 (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Not relevant at all. Trillfendi (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

howis it not relevant?? It cost 2x in emissions than if she'd just fly! Can we stop this pathetic argument and just state the facts on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andru nl (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You'll be lucky! This article has been well and truly hijacked. 86.187.226.244 (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Already extensively discussed. Existing consensus can be found in the talk page archvies NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the voyage should be in the article, but it's placing could be improved (not sure how, or I'd do it!). I'd rather see it somehow embedded in the rest of the article. Maybe a new section on her North America trip, with that as the first part, and the UN speech and a mention of Montreal? Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

100% relevant. That flight absolutley nullifies her claim to no carbon emissions. The litterally flew a plane in. This page has been hijacked. Now, like many other wiki articles, it's just a propanganda piece in favour of the activists (who are utterly refusing to back down). (DarkMithras) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:1817:a100:adaf:bb63:5901:67ae (talk • contribs) 17:09, October 9, 2019 (UTC)

For "impacts" one of the important things it has level-headed people thinking about actual ... TOTAL picture.... emissions for different acitivities. So sure, we can report that some crew flew, and they bought carbon offset credits, which themselves are controversial. And we can report on how getting people to think critically about the whole picture is consistent with the science that Thunberg wants people to follow. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Impact section

Why is there a quote from Putin on this page? Commentary from him doesn't contribute knowledge about Thunberg. Criticism sections are discouraged. This article is beginning to fill with too many quotations. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in first voice, summary prose. We don't want to fill these pages with copy and paste quotations from politicians as we must not include propaganda of any kind. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Why should criticism of Thunberg be discouraged, if it is valid and constructive? 81.141.154.79 (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the Putin quote may have now been moved. (Not REmoved.) But that doesn't negate your point. There is far too much totally predictable content that consists of entirely predictable frothings at the mouth from people who want to disparage Thunberg. It's irrelevant to the purpose of a BLP article in Wikipedia, which is to describe a person and their actions. HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the commentary about her has become too lengthy. Could do with a bit of abbreviation and tidying, with WP:CRITS in particular and WP:NOTNEWS in general in mind... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. A major world leader directly criticises a bio subject, and and is widely reported and commented on, ... and it’s not in the subject’s article? That doesn’t make any sort of sense. DeCausa (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense if the editor wants to slant the article in favor of Ms Thunberg. 81.141.154.79 (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The issue in question is not just about quoting Putin's words - it's about keeping within the guidelines (those I've mentioned above, WP:BLP and many others), maintaining encyclopaedic tone and not bloating the article with unnecessary verbatim reports of who said what about her. The content can be summarised, including some of the more notable names and citations so that readers can drill down if interested in the detail. This article is meant to be primarily about Thunberg's life, achievements and activities, not others' opinions of what she does or says. She still has a long life ahead of her, with a lot more media attention in the months and years ahead. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that to a point. The criticism section relies too much on random quotes at the moment. It should be based around themes if it’s to remain - although ideally it should be integrated into the rest of the article. But her notoriety is because she is advancing a campaign. If there is criticism of her campaign then that is highly relevant to her bio. DeCausa (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Why should criticism of Thunberg be discouraged, if it is valid and constructive? 81.141.154.79 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s not the test. Wikipedia is about reflecting reliable sources. See WP:DUE. DeCausa (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Then why should criticism of Thunberg be discouraged, if it is valid and constructive and reliably sourced? 81.141.154.79 (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you read WP:DUE? DeCausa (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes and my comment still stands.81.141.154.79 (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Then you’ll realise why your perception of “valid” and “constructive” is irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

How many individual activists were commented upon by both the president of U.S. and the president of Russia in the same week? This is huge. A 16 year old has enough attention from world leaders that they publicly criticize her. Try arguing against WP:DUE when Reuters, Associated Press, and Agence France Presse all cover the criticism. starship.paint (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The criticism can be noted but we must remain neutral. We need to write in first voice and not include propaganda here. That means quotations from politicians should be discouraged especially if they are critical of a living person. Its not huge, its trivial. We aren't here to document what was said about things. Likewise we don't note on Putin's page that he said something about Thunberg. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

As the person that added the quote in the first place, I disagree with you that this is solely a propaganda. Putin might not be the most loved person but he is a prominent person on the political spectrum and what he said is valid(how climate change activism ignore the developing countries) which has not been mentioned elsewhere. If you are against quotes, we can paraphrase it such that it does relay the whole message but I do not see you advocating to remove other quotes that are supportive of her. But to be frank my personal opinion is you support her(which is nice) but have a bias because of your support to eliminate any criticism from her wikipedia page which is supposed to be an objective source. kamyarg (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"Your support to eliminate any criticism from her wikipedia page"? You hit the nail on the head. Thank you. MartiniShaw (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly support including Putin's comments. IMO both the Trump and Putin wording is presently quite well-done. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that criticism of Thunberg does not necessarily only reflect on her, it also reflects on the criticiser. Also, we are not only here to read how Thunberg treats the world, but also how the world treats Thunberg. starship.paint (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don't see how including entirely predictable criticism from anyone adds anything to an article about Thunberg at all. I don't like Elvis Presley, but that is irrelevant to what he was. Those criticising Thunberg criticise every person pointing out that global warming and climate change are happening. It's not news. It's no surprise. It's completely irrelevant. There is a good reason criticism sections are discouraged. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s an overstatement. Firstly, there’s a criticism section because someone decided to create an Impact section, which contains plaudits. Given that and given that there is criticism out there, the Impact section couldn’t just be praise. Secondly, no one would find your opinion of Elvis Presley notable or of significance. It’s not comparable to the opinion’s of Macron, Putin and Trump. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, the opinions of those three are undeniably significant. Thirdly, it’s not just about the opinions of climate change deniers or whether those opinions are “predictable” to you - See Macron. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the opinions of Macron, Putin and Trump ARE insignificant on this occasion, because the article is about Thunberg, and what they have said is simply a rehash of opinions we already know they hold on the broader issues of global warming and climate change. HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump and Putin were talking about Thunberg (“very happy”, “poorly informed”). This article is about Thunberg. starship.paint (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there any surprise in what Trump and Putin said? HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Does something need to be surprising to be included? Of course not. starship.paint (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

To some extent, yes, otherwise this encyclopaedia would be full of repetitive statements of the bleeding obvious from high profile politicians. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Re the question about to use or not to use quotes, IMO when one is making a critical comment it is usually best to use a quote. BTW, I've been trying to think of how commentary was used for a similar BLP and came up with Edward Snowden - who might be helpful for comparison. Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Given that Trump and Putin are not experts in any relevant field, and have not forwarded any meaningful ad rem criticism, their opinions are irrelevant.

IP: You're repeating yourself. And you seem to imply that the criticism by Trump and Putin is valid and constructive, but it's not. See WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Since Thunberg is part of an activist movement which merely promotes the scientific consensus, which also happens to be Wikipedia's POV, rather than some fringe viewpoint, pseudoscientific bunk, denialist POV or conspiracy theory like David Icke (or, for that matter, AGW denialists), and urges governments to heed the treaties they have themselves signed, valid criticism is naturally limited, and the article seems to favour Thunberg only because Wikipedia always sides with the scientific consensus.

Albert Einstein, for example, doesn't have a criticism section, either (even though he has been criticised for some opinions, mostly outside of his field theoretical physics, by mainstream writers, and attracted a lot of attention from antisemites who deny the validity and importance of his theories altogether; Thunberg is, of course, not a scientist herself, but an activist who might be described as a science populariser), and in fact, Wikipedia:Criticism discourages such sections and treats them as a symptom of a poorly written article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why the criticism by Arron Banks, who is only known because he donated money to a British political party who has never successfully had an MP elected to parliament is considered noteworthy enough for this page, but comments by Trump and Putin, the elected leaders of two of the most powerful countries on earth is not? Jopal22 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: - of course Trump and Putin are not scientific experts. But they are world leaders. Trump is the leader of the #1 power on Earth. Putin's Russia would be in the top 10. When Greta is trying to change the world (she's an activist!), of course what world leaders say is relevant, even if what they say may not neither valid nor constructive. Climate change is not only about science, it's about politics, and Trump and Putin are top-tier in politics. Frankly, criticism by Trump and Putin is an epic endorsement of Greta, in my view. starship.paint (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I also support this view, climate change is a political issue and any prominent political person/entity that responds(either support or criticism, does not matter) to Thunberg should be included. I image in 20 years when some youth is reading about climate change on Wikipedia s/he would want to know what the political leaders were thinking and what their reactions were. kamyarg (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"...climate change is a political issue..." Only to those who refuse to allow it to be seen as the scientific issue it began as. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That literally makes no sense. The point of her campaign is to persuade world leaders to change their ways (hence she addressed the U.N.) How is that not political? The negative response to her campaign (in varying degrees/reasons) of the Presidents of three major powers, three out of the five permanent members of the Security Council, is not relevant? Yeah, right. DeCausa (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I was there around 40 years ago when some extremely apolitical climatologists first identified the issues of global warming and climate change. Large corporations saw that doing anything about it would damage profits, and called on their political mates to stop anything being done. That side of politics created a massive set of lies and deception, thereby aiming to convince their long term supporters the science was wrong. It worked. A whole lot of people with no relevant knowledge now believe that the non-political science is wrong, for totally political reasons. The politics is really only on one side. This is real science versus politics. Greta and friends simply want the truth of the science accepted. Is that really political? Saying it's political allows those disputing climate change to call those who understand and accept the science lefties and assorted other insults. Most are not. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is. Only with most of the general public in support for pro-enviroment policies, politicians will act. That is exactly what Greta does: rising awareness in the general public with ultimate goal to change government policy. Pavlor (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You weren’t the only one around 40 years’ ago. Your objection to the politicians’ comments is that they are plain wrong. Correcting that is not our job: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. ”Greta and friends simply want the truth of the science accepted. Is that really political?” Of course it is. You missed off the implied end of your question: accepted by whom? By those who have the power to make the changes she’s demanding is the answer: Putin, Trump, Macron et al. That’s why their reaction is important to this article. DeCausa (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@HiLo48... science is "nonpartisan" but the decision to have policy based on goat intestine maggots versus science is by definition a political decision. So "follow the science" is indeed political. I think the word you're looking for is partisan.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48 is correct. Its not remarkable in the slightest what Putin said about Thunberg. It is trivial because people say anything. Trivia refers to "bits of information, often of little importance." A country that exports fossil fuels is going to have leaders who use rhetoric against Thunberg. Its not note-worthy. Its propaganda, we don't do that either. Not news. Criticism sections unwelcome. Criticism of something is not knowledge. It is commentary. Summary form in 1st person voice is what we do. We write here, we don't copy paste quotations. This article is not for a debate about climate change. We aren't here to determine the validity of Putin's comments. It is about a living person. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a different question and I agree. This stuff should get reduced to something like "Thundberg has been ridiculed by various world leaders such as Trump and Puting, and regularly turns their criticism into Twitter posts that advocate for her message". Period. That wasn't a serious effort at word smitthing, but that's the gist. we should reduce this stuff to just one sentence along those lines. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. Regurgitating completely predictable dogma from people who aren't the subject adds precisely nothing to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

What’s with the “predictability” issue? It’s irrelevant whether it’s predictable. I don’t however have a problem with getting rid of the quotes - summarising is better. But I do have a problem with NewsAndVentsGuy’s summary: it only applies to Trump. Putin and Macron (and his minister) made specific criticisms. It’s absurd to say that, in almost any bio, criticism from these three isn’t significant or is even “trivial”, but particularly one in which the person is undertaking a campaign to change the policies of world leaders. DeCausa (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be significant, and worth noting here, if Trump, Putin et al DID change their policies. But they haven't yet, so there is no news on that front. Nothing to see (write) here. Yet. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Makes no sense. Only when politicians’ change their minds should it go in the article? The reactions of world leaders, positively or negatively, is fundamental to gauging her campaign’s impact. DeCausa (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Stop writing such simplistic, insulting crap. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody cares what you think, you miserable fucking bellend. 148.64.29.81 (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

My point stands DeCausa (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Greta has certainly attracted some strongly opinionated people to Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure that I noticed pre-Greta editing as any less opinionated! DeCausa (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Sabbatical?

The article falsely asserts that Ms. Thunberg took a "one year sabbatical" from school. I am assuming good faith by suggesting the editor who added that is simply unfamiliar with the meaning of this word, and not just an ideological fanboy/girl. In either case, this sentence must either be removed, or amended to say something along the lines of "took a year off from school", "withdrew from school", "took a break from school". 2601:18F:4101:4830:312A:8D01:CFAB:77EC (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's not the correct term, but it was used in Time magazine [2] so it is reliably sourced. WWGB (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Just goes to show "reliable sources" aren't always correct...MartiniShaw (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

How about "...what Time Magazine described as a one year sabbatical..."? HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed external link to Time magazine, reworded reference of Thunberg's sabbatical from school by quoting Time, and cited Time as source.Johnrichardhall (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC) 81.141.154.79 (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the main point is being missed. Whether or not Time used the word "sabbatical" is an irrelevant justification for inclusion. There appears to be an overwhelming consensus acknowledging the fact that the use of the word "sabbatical" is inaccurate, and therefore inappropriate in this context.

I would humbly suggest that this line must be removed entirely. If Time writes something incorrectly, why is it worthy to include that error in an encyclopedic article?

2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:62 (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Consensus where and for what reason? You've asserted that the usage is wrong with no explanation. The word may have technical meanings in, say, academia, but such meanings are not the only valid ones; the word can be used correctly to refer to a person taking a break from activities which they will return to in the future. — Bilorv (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, words have meanings, and saying that some people sometimes use them inaccurately doesn't justify that usage. This is Wikipedia, not a Reddit discussion. Correct use of language here is important, and "sabbatical" is incorrect. 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:62 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Time said it, everything in this thread is irrelevant WP:Original research. If you want to dispute Time's characterization, then show us other RSs of equal caliber.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy is correct that we should be guides by sources. Bilorv is also correct. English is not a language like French where there is some definitive accepted authority of language changes. Instead, English can evolve and change over time as the way people use it changes. Words can have different meanings in different contexts and while in some contexts using words in ways which can be argued to be wrong or misleading needs to be avoided, in other's it's no big deal. In this case, using a direct quote seems fair enough, as it seems unlikely the usage will significantly mislead or confuse readers about what is happening. I don't know the details of Thunberg's plans but I'd note our article Gap year currently includes sabbatical as an alternative name. It has done so in some form I think since 2011 when added by an IP [3] i.e. when Thunberg was still ~9 years old. It's not sourced from what I can tell, but this source [4] from 2013 does seem to use the terms interchangeably. This source from 1982 talks about tertiary students taking a sabbatical [5] although with quotation marks and only I think in the headline (but I couldn't read the while source). This from 2014 talks about family sabbaticals including their school age children [6] (try [7] if that doesn't work). In other words, how the Time appears to be using the word may be uncommon, but it's definitely not unheard of or something Time invented. In the UK there are apparently sabbatical officers [8] which seems to be sort of a cross-over of a classical academic sabbatical and a gap year. There are also others sources e.g. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] which use sabbatical in ways which don't really fit the classic mold. I'd note that the academic sabbatical is fairly different from the Shmita or sabbatical year in Judaism too. Nil Einne (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

She bunked a year off school. Stop being biased and tell it how it is. It isn't a Sabattical, not is it a gap year. She is too young for either. She made it clear that she refuswed to go in order to promote her protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:1817:A100:ADAF:BB63:5901:67AE (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The word "refused" (or even "refuswed") is pure tabloid language. Says a lot more about you than it helps to make a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

In the Swedish system education is mandatory "from August the year the child turns 7 to June the year the child turns 16" as her break is from July and she is already 16 she is no longer obliged to attend "grundskola" so she is not "bunking off" as she had done the previous years. According to this source [14] she took the year 9 tests and obtained the scores that are necessary to continue her education onto "gymnasieskola" which is necessary to enter Swedish higher education. As she has not decided to go on "gymnasieskola" she has in reality left the educational system. Sabbatical is linguistically incorrect and gives a status to her situation that is not compatible with the reality but sadly Time and others have used it. This source says she is taking a year away from education [15], this source calls it a [16] a "sabbatsår". But just because sources use a term that is linguistically incorrect doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to as well. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are many editors who would prefer bad writing from "reliable sources" to be repeated in the wikipedia article, than to write the article so it is clear and correct. Jopal22 (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that the sources matter in this instance because the word itself has specific connotations on English Wikipedia. 104.162.225.24 (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies

This page is not in line with WP:CSECTION, specifically

"Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section."

In my view, by having separate sections for criticism/controversies, you make the rest of the page seem biased (as it lacks balance), and encourages people to add layer and layer of criticism/controversies because it is just a list rather than trying to fit in with the rest of the page.

Jopal22 (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the Impact section has sub-sections on “Support” and the “Greta effect” and without the criticism sub-section it would be unbalanced. Probably the way forward is to get rid of all sub-sections and weave all the existing text together. DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This thread is kind of irrelevant, because it is based on WP:CSECTION, which is part of a mere WP:ESSAY. And even though this isn't binding on anyone the essay itself is internally contradictory, as a later subsection of the essay says criticism sections are sometimes OK. There is probably wisdom in this essay, but its just some eds' opinion, not a policy or guideline that has been vetted by the community. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a WP:ESSAY with a guide to avoiding WP:CFORK. This page feels like a the intro/body is written by supporters of Greta, and the criticism section is an area for detractors. That seems like a fork to me. For instance look at Malala Yousafzai, there is no seperate section to zone all criticism in there, it is mixed in to the article. There is a perception that editors would never allow sentences like After she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, there was praise, but also some disapproval of the decision.[143][144] A Norwegian jurist, Fredrik Heffermehl, commented on being awarded the Nobel Prize: "This is not for fine people who have done nice things and are glad to receive it. All of that is irrelevant. What Nobel wanted was a prize that promoted global disarmament." on this page. Jopal22 (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh I agree we have problems, I'm just saying essays aren't controlling. Thanks for thinking about goals behind the essay. THAT is what is important but its a lot more work than winning-by-rules. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So your backtracking and saying this thread isn't irrelevant, and we should take action to create a balanced intro/body of the article rather than seperating out critcism/contraversy into a seperate section? Jopal22 (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

To the extent the thread is trying to impose the contents of an essay as though they were policy it is indeed irrelevant. And now we can add silly personalization to the list of irrelevancies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, your talk page shows you discussing the creation of a Wikipedia article "Climate Doom". User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy#Climate_doom.

This invalidates your ability to post on this article about Greta Thunberg from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

You should consider your position and stop contributing to this article.

With best wishes. MartiniShaw (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The place to complain about me is WP:AE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I don't want to complain about you. I am asking you to consider your position and stop contributing to this article. All the best. MartiniShaw (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

OK... considering... Answer, "No". Meanwhile, please re-read Fcous on content.  DoneNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, cheers MartiniShaw (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality of head picture

I have no idea what the rules are on subliminal messages in photography on wikipedia, but is this image of Greta Thunberg with european stars forming a christian aureola behind her, like she's an angel descending from the sky, very neutral ?

Made me think of a [REDACTED-THEGOODUSER] in Verhoeven's Flesh and Blood (1985 film)

78.194.244.179 (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into it. Geordie (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Shit like this is why I had to get the talk page extended confirmed protected. Trillfendi (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Professional photographers use halo lighting effects in artificial studio environments to accentuate portraits as part of their toolkit. In natural environments, they tend to make use of the environment, or in this case, the background. That this happens to coincide with your religious interpretation is both a coincidence and a consequence of contemporary portraiture. I think if you look at celebrity portraits, you’ll find this kind of halo technique widely used. It’s not intended to be religious as much as it is to highlight the subject. The formula for this kind of shot implies a wide aperture and a shallow depth of field, resulting in a blurred background. This is standard practice. 2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:96 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

She's backlit, it's perfectly normal, as noted above. Acroterion (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• A) I personally don't care
• B) Believing I understand Confirmation bias, I can admit that others might see it as the OP described
• C) There are so many other pics to choose from, why use this one?
• D) Bottom line, I would support a pic substitution. It would be interesting for the OP to suggest a few

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with A-D. Not sure the look of this pic is “typical”. Maybe the pic used in the Swedish WP is more “characteristic”. DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• It is a cropped photo where she is standing in front of the European Parliament flag, which is perfectly appropriate unless one can argue that they should change their flag as well because it has some sort of religious emblem on it... Gandydancer (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with you here - her country is a EU member so it is legitimate. It is not caricature. It would be more worthy of criticism if it were a flag of a country or bloc not of her nationality.Cloptonson (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a forum on the picture but since you are talking about the aureola/halo, it is kind of funny. In a way, it's appropriate because of the way Greta is followed by many as a kind of Messiah on Global Warming. The followers probably don't see the irony of it. But perhaps I am wrong there and the halo has been snuck in deliberately! MartiniShaw (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This is NOT a Fan Page!

Unproductive and unrelated to article improvement.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, this has been discussed many times. But this page is still a Fan Page. Complete with a picture of Greta Thunberg with a Halo of EU stars, of all things, for Heaven's sake. This page is written from a Neutral Point Of View? Who are you trying to kid? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a fan website MartiniShaw (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources, and points of view are weighted upon their prevalence in reliable sources. If you have any reliably-sourced points of view you do not believe are properly represented here, you're welcome to add those points of view - based, of course, on cited reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC) This was discussed already and there is no good reason to again start a new discussion about it. This editor is trolling and this discussion should not be allowed to continue. Let's not feed this troll. Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC) I am not a troll. You are accusing me of being a troll because you disagree with my viewpoint. Calling someone a troll is a personal attack like any other, and therefore prohibited under our policy against personal attacks. MartiniShaw (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC) You may not be a troll but you are a single purpose account solely focused on Greta Thunberg. Trillfendi (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC) I am not "a single purpose account solely focused on Greta Thunberg". Look at my contributions section. and even if I were solely focussed on G T (which I am not), of what consequence is that? SO WHAT ? MartiniShaw (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

two Guardian articles

The second article quotes GT about Asperger, but without stating where and when she is supposed to have said it. Then, GT is never quoted about mutism or compulsive obsessive disorder. Please correct. --Saidmann (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

With these changes, is this  Done? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No, not done. The two Guardian refs need to be deleted, because they do not provide information as to when, where, and what GT has said about her health. --Saidmann (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Each one is used five times, for a total of ten citations. Let's go through them one by one. Which one would you like to challenge first? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Both Guardian sources after this sentence, please: "Three years later she became depressed, lethargic, and stopped talking as well as eating, and eventually was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism." --Saidmann (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(A) Decline The March 11 article supports much of this text; that she heard about climate change and inaction at about the age of 8; that this knowledge was a factor in her depression; that she was diagnosed with selective mutism and Asperger's. It's an RS in its own right and supports much of this sentence. I don't see the problem with that one.

(B) Agree, and thanks The Sept 2 article is a fine RS in its own right, but I agree there's not enough connection between the Sept 2 article and this particular sentece, so I will remove that specific use of the citation. Thanks for calling attention to this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you removed the September source elsewhere but not after the sentence that I quoted. And the March source mentions mutism only once: "Her parents were reluctant. Knowing Thunberg had been so reticent that she had previously been diagnosed with selective mutism, they tried to talk her out of it." This is an assumption of the author of what the parents might have been having in mind. This is nothing like quoting what GT or the parents said. Then, compulsive obsessive disorder is not even mentioned in the March source. So please delete that as well. --Saidmann (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

parents lifestyle choices

A citation is required for this or it will be removed. MartiniShaw (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If there is a problem finding a citation this section should be removed and if/when a citation is found, it can be restored. Unreliable statements are not allowed on BLP pages. MartiniShaw (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I restored the statement and added this source as a citation. The Guardian qualifies as WP:RS.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, ta MartiniShaw (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2019

I’d like to suggest adding a Swedish IPA pronunciation to this article: /ˈgreːta ˈtʉːnˌbærj/ Zareksiegel (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s already in the article. Mathglot (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Bad quote translation

There's a quote on this page that is notoriously poorly translated from Swedish. I tried to improve it, but I was referred to this talk page instead. Here's the translation in the article: "I am doing this because you adults are shitting on my future."

Here's the real quote, in Swedish: "We children usually don't do what you tell us to do. We do what you do. And since you adults don't care about my future, I won't either." Greta, 15, skolstrejkar för klimatet – nu ansluter sig fler

Here are word-for-word translations: "We children/kids (usually don't/don't usually) do what/as you tell us to do. We (do what/as you do)/(act like you do). And since you adults (don't (care/give a damn) about)/disregard/neglect my future, I (won't either)/(will too/(as well))."

Here's my proposed translation: "We children usually don't do what you tell us to do. We do what you do. And since you adults don't give a damn about my future, I won't either."

Quaeria (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Quaeria

Thanks for your input! I pinged a couple wiki translators in hopes of getting some qualified 2nd (or 3rd) opinions. To be clear, I have no such skill and I really don't know.... you could be right! Thanks for taking time to share your views here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Vi barn gör ju oftast inte som ni säger åt oss att göra. Vi gör som ni gör. Och eftersom ni vuxna skiter i min framtid så gör jag det med" would be "Us children usually don't do what you tell us to do, we do what you do, so since you adults don't give a sh*te about my future, I won't either". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC) (Bilingual...)

Native Swedish-speaker here. Spent a lot of time in the US as well. Done some translation work.

I know from first-hand experience that "shit" is a much stronger word in English. Overall, Swedish is more informal when it comes to mild cursing and it's very common to use mild expletives in Swedish public settings that would be frowned on in English-speaking settings.

In other words, an English translation of Greta's statement that includes "shit" makes the statement come across as outright vulgar, when it's actually just blunt. I would translate "skiter i" as "don't give a damn".

Peter ^Isotalo 16:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"Not give a sh*t/sh*te" isn't outright vulgar, particularly not in "youth speak", in my experience no more vulgar than "not give a damn", and both phrases are listed as "informal, rude" by Collins Dictionary. They're also not fully equivalent, neither in my experience nor in Collins Dictionary, since "give a sh*t/sh*te" is an expression of feelings, while "give a damn" is an expression of emphasis, emphasising that you really, really, REALLY don't care. Which doesn't match the quote we're translating. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia also isn't censored, so if Greta Thunberg felt that "skiter i" was the best choice of words for what she wanted to express, then we can use "don't give a sh*t/sh*te". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

And according to our own article about shit (yes, we do have such an article...) the phrase "(I don't) give a shit" ... "denotes indifference", which IMHO is an exact match for what Greta Thunberg tried to say when she wrote that adults "skiter i" her future. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

... and Cambridge Dictionary defines "to not give a sh*te" as "to not be interested in or worried about something or someone". It's even used in mainstream media, BTW. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

i'd argue that "give a damn" is the closest match in terms of usage. compare "ge fan i", which is semantically close to "give a damn about", but in certain contexts may be better translated as "give a fuck (shit)". the key point, though, is that "shitting on" isn't a very accurate translation. k kisses 17:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• "We children quite often don't do as you tell us to do. We do as you do. And since you adults care less about my future, so do I." ..Saidmann (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC) (bilingual)

"Care less about" is far from the meaning of "skiter i". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you are mistaken. "Skita i" in current colloquial Swedish is not different from "strunta i". It is not even blunt, just direct. It is as common as skit-bra, skit-glad. or skit-snygg. See Svenska Akademiens Ordlista. --Saidmann (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Not to nitpick but “us children” is grammatically incorrect, so “we children” is best. Trillfendi (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The original phrase is colloquial (spoken) Swedish, so "us children" was intended to convey that feeling. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason to include this sentence in our article, considering all the translation problems. This girl has spoken thousands of words - why on earth do we need to use this particular sentence? Gandydancer (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Gandy, here. She has made many equivalent statements on the same topic, with the same accusatory tone against adults, and the same anger level. Choose one of those, that doesn’t have translation issues. Mathglot (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, GT is not known for her offensiveness; "shitting on" is not appropriate, assuming the Swedish-speakers above are correct. MartiniShaw (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The Swedish-speakers here are correct, "skita i" means "to not give a sh*te", while someone saying "skita på", the direct translation of "sh*tting on", would be interpreted as someone meaning that they intended to literally excrete on something, since there is no direct equivalent to that expression in the Swedish language. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete sentence per Gandydancer NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

OK I've taken the quote off. If you have changed your minds about it being inappropriate, obviously put it back. I don't think GT would use that kind of expletive, but I don't know her like others may do on here. Or maybe put it back with a better translation than the Guardian uses. However, given that the whole climate change issue is already volatile and divisive, language usage is key. MartiniShaw (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is best not to use that comment unless, of course, one wants to imply "Oh! she swore! What does that say about her!!?" And so on and on. Keep in mind that every culture sees different degrees of "dirtiness" to certain words - they are not all the same. I remember years ago reading a Doris Lessing novel where she said that in her culture (at that time) it was worse to say shit than fuck - though I can say for sure that those of us in the U.S. would have certainly said that fuck was much worse. Or for example right here on our very own WP encyclopedia the C word has been discussed and claimed to be less of an insult to the Brits than to those in the U.S. At any rate, in this case there is no need to get into these arguments, so let's not... Gandydancer (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with you. Sometimes the press causes trouble for the sake of causing trouble. Trouble is the press's stock in trade. MartiniShaw (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I just want to say that I really appreciate the thought, research, and care that has gone into this discussion. I grew up in a culture where you never said "shit" in front of your parents, but otherwise, it was considered a very mild expletive (this was in the outer boroughs of NYC in the '60s). So I thought nothing of it being included in the article. But the discussion here has convinced me that it is best to leave it out. Thanks for swaying my opinion, and for your work on making this an article worthy of all the attention it's getting. Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I think the article is more balanced now. The woman (yes, GT is a woman, not a child) obviously means well. Problems arise when her supporters go overboard with their hero-worship. And conversely, her detractors vilify her unduly. MartiniShaw (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Photo

Couldn't we change the photo ? A better one would be from "the American speech" , just when she declared "How dare you ? - We won't forgive you !" And reduce the size of this article. The world is not going down just because this girl is allowed to say so. (Redacted) And I'm ashamed to carry the same national passport as Svante Thunberg. It appears as he would enjoy if all those poor countries that must not go through the same phase as Europe and North America did during the last century. A good example - London, a city I first visited in 1976. Grey weather a whole weak, it smelled smoke everywhere (I was 12 and got a cough for weeks after). In 2017 - sunny and clean air (but much more expensive). Boeing720 (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please be so kind and link your preferred photo. Schwede66 07:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Many of those points you make are correct, Boeing720. Unfortunately. MartiniShaw (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I have redacted personal attacks and commentary about the article subject. This is not a discussion forum for your opinions about Greta Thunberg. Please review WP:BLP and WP:TPG. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. To get back to the photo, it does look like GT is posing as an angel, with a halo of stars. In fact she wan't posing like that, it's just a coincidence the halo is there. Like Boeing720 said, a better picture should be used. MartiniShaw (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof, I have not done anything you accuse me of (at my talk-page). This is a talk-side, not an article. I made a suggestion. And I'm ashame of having the same passport as Greta's dad has. Svante Thunberg. This issue is of if not daily, so weekly discussion, in the news where I live. That includes Public Service Television channels as Swedish SVT and Danish DR as well as France 24 in English. Today it was reported that Svante Thunberg through declined a Danish environment Prize. (About 50.000 Euro) It included a grand statement, but I honestly believe that Svante Thunberg expects to gain much more money than, by declining the award. On shots of his daughter, this one [17] was about what I had in mind. However a NPOV image might be [18]. And I strongly feel the encyclopedic focal point should be more on the dad, as she is not adult. At the very least, we must be allowed to discuss such issues for this article like any other. Boeing720 (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but "And I strongly feel the encyclopedic focal point should be more on the dad" makes no sense, sorry. QueerFilmNerd^talk 04:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Only freely licensed photos of living people can be used in Wikipedia biographies. Any discussion about changing the photo should recommend an alternative freely licensed photo. Random photos from Google searches are highly likely to be limited by broad copyright protection. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)