Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Young Model of the Year?

My English is far from perfect - maybe the my translation is not correct. Model - in Swedish the meaning is "Example for others". Thanks for help. Jirka Dl (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC) I was confused by this also. Changed it to "Rolemodel" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.172.205 (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Solved Jirka Dl (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is this person really worthy of an article? 10:56, 4 December 2018‎ 31.208.27.41

No. Unless you consider that every persona created by the media for political purposes is worthy of an entry. Move to delete. Bougatsa42 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes! If you AfD it, about a dozen keeps will land really fast and it will be snow closed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes! I think it fulfills clearly WP:N criteria. Jirka Dl (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes! Keep it please! Fturco (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You needn't worry. The chance of this article ever, ever, ever being removed from Wikipedia is near zero. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Likewise, any criticism of this gallant climate hero will be excised from the article faster than you can say "climate has always changed."174.0.48.147 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

My, doesn't that statement just bubble with fairness? It is sad to see Wikipedia move into the leftist, One Wold camp--and I would feel identically if the movement were to the opposite side of the spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:C89D:AA62:48B4:5E8F (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this thread has just about run its course. This talk page is not a forum. She's notable because of policies and guidelines, period. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Student strikes for climate

Dear everyone. Considering the vast amount of international news coverage on the student strikes for climate, should we make it as an independent article?
144.85.152.97 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC).

Looking at the numbers of participants in the article, this looks like rather minor event. Pavlor (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, many more school strikes are in preparation - I think that independent article would be useful - not all strikes are so much connected with Greta.Jirka Dl (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Only on Friday 11/1/2019 - School strikes for climate on about 80 places worldwide - documented here.Jirka Dl (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Speech "You are stealing our future"

Hello. Do you know if it is possible to have Greta Thunberg's speech "You are stealing our future" on Wikisource?
144.85.154.189 (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC).

FYI

If there are ongoing problems here see our Page protection policy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-English sources

Guys (Calif., thus lasses are included), although a lot of stuff is available in English, sometimes it isn't. The Yellow Vests to date are a decidedly French movement, so it is hard to find an English source 4 the same stuff. Does that mean it is nowt allowed into the article? What should the Malagasy Wikipedia say: Only Malagasy sources? That would severely limit its usability. Fossa_?! 12:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Existing P&G (policies and guidelines) already provide a way forward. As I suggested in my edit summary when I reverted, please see WP:RSUE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

From those guidelines: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance.". Now Ouest-France is the biggest regional paper in France, en par, with, let's say the San Diego Union-Tribune or the Birmingham Mail: So, what's wrong with it as a source? Fossa_?! 14:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Technically, you did nothing wrong. As the use of this source is disputed, you should provide quote of relevant part (which references text in the article) and English translation. Pavlor (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay:

"On glisse un mot à Greta sur les Gilets jaunes, ce mouvement français irrité par une taxe carbone mal gérée. Elle répond du tac au tac. « Il faut aider les pauvres, ce sont les riches qui consomment et menacent notre existence. Nous les enfants, allons vivre avec le bazar que les générations précédentes ont créé. C'est normal que nous soyons en colère. »"

translates into:

"We had a word with Greta on the (issue of) the Yellow Vests, the French movement that thinks that the carbon tax is badly handled. She fires back: 'We should help the poor, the rich consume and threaten our existence. We, the children, we are going to live with the mess (literally: bazaar) previous generations have created. It's normal that we are angry.'" Fossa_?! 19:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the translation! Now we can discuss. The text you originally wanted to add, and I reverted read as follows

-- Political Positions -- With respect to the Yellow Vests, she claims, that the rich are threatening "our" existence, and the poor should be helped, that's why "us children" are outraged.

In my opinion, the translated text provides a quote where she says stuff about the rich, and the poor, and why kids are pissed. But it doesn't really provide enough context to explain what she thinks of the yellow vests so we shouldn't imply a connection based on such murky passage. Maybe the rest of the french article could provide the context for her thoughts on the yellow vests, but this bit does not, in my view. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, you're BE ("pissed")? I agree, she evades the question and says something very generic. But she says it in response to a question about the Yellow Vests. She skips from the Yellow Vests towards the poor. Notice also my quotation marks. Fossa_?! 00:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we should not center on what she says, but what RSs say about her. The article would look like list of random quotes otherwise. Pavlor (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well said. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Svante Arrhenius is not an ancestor

Gretas father Svante says about their relationship with Svante Arrehenius: "my father was born in 1925. He’s pretty old. And his grandmother’s cousin, I think, is Svante Arrhenius. So, yeah, it runs in the family." https://www.democracynow.org/2018/12/11/meet_the_15_year_old_swedish I will remove the note about the relationship. It feels like unecessary namedropping.81.235.181.245 (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure does, thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

This article looks like it was written by a PR person. I think this might be the result of certain parties trying to manipulate people's perception of this person by curating her Wikipedia article.

My arguments are that this article:

• lists her "ancestor on her father's side" as a notable relative, which is very contrived. While Svante contributed to global warming research, he died in 1927 and him being included feels like someone trying to force him into the article. Global warming knowledge is not transferred genetically;
• was created on 1 Dec 2018 (just over a month ago), and it's already featured as a "Did you know" on the front page where she's described as "inspiration". Someone is influencing how this person is viewed in the public eye;
• is about a person whose parents are successful public figures—ones who could afford hiring PR people to represent their daughter, and who understand the value of publicity;

I am not opposed to the politics this person represents. I am bringing this up because I believe Wikipedia should be impartial, and this article doesn't feel objective. It feels like it was written by a marketer hired to manage this person's public image.

Hi Eseb. I think your fears are completely out of the question. If you will look at history, you will see that this article was created by many Wikipedians adding word by word. I had personally added whole paragraph about Prizes and Awards (from sewiki), and I am totally sure I am not her marketer - I am Czech, researching environmental problems in University. I had never seen her, but I see her as a very important person in the young people climate movement - following her activities some period before. For me is very interesting that this page is quite frequently under different attacks trying to dehonest here etc. Jirka Dl (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I added the ancestor content. No manipulation intended. I just add facts reported in media. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The article having been authored by multiple persons is not an indicator of impartiality. It has been observed that Wikipedia editors who appear impartial have accepted money for create credible-looking articles for people/businesses. We don't know who owns the accounts which authored this article. Alongside that, genuine members of the community such as yourselves add credibility to things which might have been written by PR people by contributing to the article, which makes it difficult to figure out if manipulation is actually taking place.

To me it seems too convenient that this person is described as an inspiration to people on Wikipedia's home page so soon after creation. Having seen what unscrupulous marketers are capable of, I'm worried this article might not be totally legitimate.

I personally believe in this person's mission, but it's important to ensure that all articles on Wikipedia are objective no matter what side you're on. Trust, but verify. Questioning and vetting is an important part of the scientific method. You need to be as critical of people on your side as you are of people on "the other side". User:Eseb (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a bit ludicrous. I just cannot imagine Greta paying Wikipedians or an expensive PR firm to promote herself. I mean, her allowance must be like a buck fifty. Plus, my source, if I remember right, was DemocracyNow.org, not exactly an org involved in profit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying a 16-year-old did this, but rather her family--possibly in an attempt to support her and create the foundation of a public-facing career for her in the near future. Please don't try to twist my words and make them sound ridiculous. All you have to do is give a marketing agency a bunch of money and they'll take care of all the dirty work for you. User:Eseb (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose anything is possible. Do you have any evidence? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eseb: I created (later nominated to DYK) after student protests in Australia which became headlines even in India where I am. Afterwards only I came to know the name Greta Thunberg. The word "inspiration" used by the news articles which covered Australian protests. Thanks. Gfosankar (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: in response to I just cannot imagine Greta paying Wikipedians or an expensive PR firm to promote herself, read this and possibly this post. --Treetear (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Treetear.

The first article is from the seeminly right-wing Sydsvenskan. That story is about someone's opinion, a bit of which translates as: "...Henriksson builds his reasoning on circumstantial evidence...to assumptions and to his professional experience from watching the PR industry...I recognize a PR campaign when I see one, he writes on Facebook..."

The second article is from an utterly, utterly unreliable source and the content appears to be pure conjecture. Did you inspect that source? It is like a blog, with Wordpress at the bottom.

Those pieces are not news, but opinions. So, they have opinions just like User:Eseb has an opinion. Where's the evidence. If I'm missing something in translation, please accept my apologies. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And it looks like all this is coming from Andreas Henriksson. I don't have Facebook and see nothing about him outside of that. Do you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will link here also one opinion - facebook clarification from her mother - of course, this is personal declaration. In addition I have to say once more - look through the history of the page, you will see that the article was written in very small amendments by many many people - this is really no way how PR agencies work.Jirka Dl (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Sydsvenskan is certainly not a right-wing paper, it is one of the most anti-right-wing and liberal dailies in Sweden (and the leading daily newspaper of its region). Also, it's a paper that is normally quite skeptical of anyone questioning the man-made impact on climate change. Their mentioning Henriksson's analysis of the situation around Greta makes a quite significant source, they wouldn't have wanted to touch this stuff if it had been a mere fringe theory. 195.67.149.163 (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

There are two key articles related to this Activism initiative [1] and this response from Greta Thunberg [2][3] aspects of manufacturing consent and controlled opposition and Gatekeepers all figure and the initiative should not be left here un-critically, the pedagogical aspects of Wikipedia should not be ignored to promote activism.[4] I will work up a påaragraph with the first two references as this article is really a trotting out of the PR campaign from [5] RogerGLewis (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong kind of green is an anti-capitalist indigenous peoples group, not a lobbyist group for big oil. That Clive Lord, Founder of the Green Party of England and Wales ais also commenting is of note also RogerGLewis (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Criticism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greta Thonberg responded to concerns of corporate capture of her message which has been expressed by the Wrong Kind of Green , an Indigenous peoples environmental group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• This same paragraph was also added to Extinction Rebellion; my edit removing it was reverted there as it was here, and it should be removed from there, for the same reasons it's been removed here. Levivich 18:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Greta Thonberg responded [1] to concerns of corporate capture of her message which has been expressed by the Wrong Kind of Green [2], an Indigenous peoples environmental group. [3] "We attempt to expose those who undermine the People’s Agreement. One role of the non-profit industrial complex is to undermine, marginalize and make irrelevant, the People’s Agreement. The reason being, to protect corporate interests by which they are funded. As well, the non-profit industrial complex protects the industrialized, capitalist economic system, responsible for the capitalist destruction of our shared environment. Those groups who continue to protect such interests must be considered complicit in crimes against humanity. RogerGLewis (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• This content shouldn't be anywhere: it totally lacks secondary sources and thus fails WP:V spectacularly--not just because of lack of reliability, but the quality of the sourcing indicates this isn't noteworthy. Moreover, it's grammatically challenged: the "which" in "which has been expressed" refers in a very wonky way to "her message", since that is the closest antecedent, but I think it's meant to refer to "concerns", which is a plural and too far away for proper anaphoric reference. Finally, I think you left out a closing quotation mark in this longer comment; at first I thought you, RogerGLewis, were making a statement about complicity. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• It contains WP:SYNTH because Thunberg's words addressing pushback in general does not name the other sources provided here. That means RogerGLewis is doing WP:Original research to connect the dots. It is also a neutrality/BLP problem because the "About us" text from the criticizing blog is being used to imply Thunberg is an example of the those things the criticizing blog exists to do battle against. Another problem is the long quute from the criticizing blog is about the criticizing blog, not about the subject of this article, so it is off topic. And the text fails WP:Verification because none of the sources identify the criticing blog as "an indigenous people's environmental group". If it were not for all the other problems we might be able to say something with inline attribution to the authors of the blog column. Something like, "According to....". Maybe. But what we have here are self publishing people who self-describe their obvious advocacy pieces as "independent jouranlism". Who cares, everyone is entitled to an opinion and Wordpress blogs are free. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC) The concerns section is I think relevant to both articles which Page should we conduct the discussion it is probably easier to find consensus on one page and then discuss any changes to the core point which I think is a general point on most polarised positions in Political economy./* Criticism */ Consensus process nominate talk at extinction rebellion page for this discussion as well? RogerGLewis (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sources supporting this content are too weak for a BLP article (probably also weak for any contentious claim in any article). Without better sourcing, there is no place for this in the article. Pavlor (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Somewhat off topic - Effort to bring sustainability to Wikipedia

Please support the Sustainability Initiative!

If you edit this article, or any article, please consider adding your name as supporter of the sustainability initiative to reduce the impact of all the servers etc that run Wikipedia. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is why I'm a deletionist. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

We Don't Have Time

Greta issued a statement on her facebook page circa 12 February 2019. It clarifies a number of issues. And also indicates that, sadly, rumors and hate about her are rife. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe it's the same op-ed published here, but since our article doesn't cover the rumors, I'm not sure we need to cover the response to the rumors. I looked at including this source somewhere in the article yesterday and couldn't find an appropriate way to do it (I came to the conclusion that I'd first have to write the rumors in before writing in the response to the rumors, and that would be stupid in my opinion). From what I could tell, the other content that could be mined in that source was already in the article, but others may find something useful to include. Leviv ich 16:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This issue is under discussion at Talk:School_strike_for_climate#Suggestion_to_shift_material_on_'We_Don't_Have_Time'_elsewhere. Leviv ich 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC) Renamed this thread to "We Don't Have Time". Leviv ich 21:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• There was consensus at Talk:School_strike_for_climate#Suggestion_to_shift_material_on_'We_Don't_Have_Time'_elsewhere to move a paragraph of text off of that page to this page (subject to consensus over the text itself). I reverted the addition of that text here because of problems with the text not matching what the sources said, as well as concerns about weight and POV. The cited Swedish article made clear that the organization's actions were without Thunberg's knowledge or permission; the prose as written did not make this as clear. I believe this Swedish newspaper is the sole source of this story; the English-language The Local article refers only to that one investigation, so I'm not sure we have multiple secondary sources to support these claims yet. Further, I don't feel the level of detail is warranted; in my view this incident maybe is worth one sentence. Finally, I have concerns it's too recent to include in a neutral, balanced way, particularly given this is a BLP of a minor. I'd ask editors to share their thoughts on whether that paragraph should be included as written or if any changes should be made before this content is added. Thank you. Leviv ich 21:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Just that we all know what we talk about: this correct text

In 2017 Ingmar Rentzhog founded the 10% non-profit, 90% for-profit joint-stock company We Don’t Have Time. The company's aim is to create "the world´s largest social network for climate action" and to create viral environmental content to pull in money via digital adverts. On the same day that Thunberg started her school strike on 20 August 2018, Rentzhog posted content about the School strike on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. The company claims to have played a central role in giving Greta Thunberg's protest great national and international attention. According to Greta Thunberg people from We Don’t Have Time were the first who reacted to her school strike. In November Thunberg started as an advisor for We Don’t Have Time. The same month Rentzhog used Thunberg in the promotional material for a share issue which raised 10 Million Swedish krona in December 2018. According to Greta Thunberg's father, they did not know about it. At the end of January 2019 Thunberg quit her job as advisor of We Don’t Have Time to stay totally independent.

was replaced by that incorrect one.

It has been suggested that Thunberg has profited from her environmental activism, this has been denied by Thunberg herself and family.

Actually there are no suggestions that Greta profited from her environmental activism. But there is proof that Ingmar Rentzhog had great financial benefit from beeing the first to promote Greta Thunberg's protests. I´m also not sure if this is "criticism" but rather adding to the history of Gretas protest. Thus my suggestion for headline is "Relationship to Ingmar Rentzhog and We Don’t Have Time".

There is more coverage in several languages under the headline "Teen climate icon used for fundraising without her knowledge": [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] --Pass3456 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There has been a flurry of edits here. Most recently, I just removed this controversy from the article, where it was posted via text that said

-- Criticism -- It has been suggested that Thunberg has profited from her environmental activism, this has been denied by Thunberg herself and family.

The problem with this is that it does not pass WP:Verification. The RS says that the company made money, but it does not "suggest" Greta saw a dime, errr, I mean Öre. Mind you, I agree this is an RS, and it is appropriate to add something to this article. But we have to comply with BLP so I removed the imputation that she's milking this for moola because we can't write text based on implied anything and still pass Wikirules much less the strict BLP rules specifically NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Strongly agree, but still the correct story is missing in the article. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but remember in that movie, when Mr Miyogi says to the Wiki-arate Kid, "Daniel-san, there are two rules to learn in Wiki-arate. First, begin with the reliable sources. Second, first learn rule number 1!" I have used up all my time (for now) gathering additional sources. Feel free to draft some proposed text here for us to review. I think we are all in agreement that the article should say something about this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

New proposition:

On the same day that Thunberg started her school strike on 20 August 2018, Ingmar Rentzhog began posting content about the School strikes on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. His 90% for-profit joint-stock company We Don’t Have Time claims to have played a central role in giving Greta Thunberg's protest great national and international attention. According to Greta Thunberg people from We Don’t Have Time were the first who reacted to her school strike. In November Thunberg started as an advisor for We Don’t Have Time. The same month Rentzhog used Thunberg in the promotional material for a share issue which raised 10 Million Swedish krona in December 2018. Ingmar Rentzhog has been accused to have used Greta [7], but in a response he stated that it is not money that drives him [8] though he is one of two persons on the companies payroll [9]. Greta Thunberg and also We Don’t Have Time clarified that Greta was not informed in advance that her name was used and that Greta did not receive any money [10]. At the end of January 2019 Thunberg quit her job as advisor of We Don’t Have Time to stay totally independent.

I still think that it is appropriate not to raise accusations. In my opinion it is a background story.

Vice (as I understand it) is referring to an older story about Gretas parents which is of lesser relevance in my opinion. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally I don't think any of the "We Don't Have Time" saga needs to be covered in this article on Greta. I am very mindful that Greta is a minor. There is nothing I have read to suggest that Greta made ill‑advised decisions or reneged on agreements. If someone wants to start a page on "We Don't Have Time" and/or those associated with that entity, then perhaps these events could be recorded there as criticisms. Otherwise a certain level of tact is required when writing about someone who is 15 and 16 years old. HTH. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There are no accusations against Greta so there is nothing to mind. Still Ingmar Rentzhog and We Don’t Have Time initially played a major role in promoting her strikes and thus is a relevant part of the story. --Pass3456 (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pass3456: I believe in your version the primary subject is the company, so it would be offtopic here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion

Controversy over affiliations For about three months starting in November 2018, Thunberg served as a volunteer youth advisor to We Don't Have Time, a for-profit climate-focused social media network. Thunberg and the company both say Thunberg has received no money from the company. At about the same time, the company raised over two million US dollars in venture capital, after releasing an investors' prospectus that included Thunberg's name without her knowledge. According to Politico, Thunberg's "high profile has made her a political target" and "the pig-tailed activist (is) an irresistible draw for green groups looking to raise their profile." According to Vice, some doing climate change denial have sought to "discredit" Thunberg. In response to such controversies, Thunberg terminated her volunteer advisor role with We Don't Have Time and has stated she "is not part of any organization.... am absolutely independent....(and) do what I do completely for free."

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The trouble with denials is they often leave the reader asking why they were necessary in the first place. My reading is that Greta was invited onto the advisory board without full disclosure (misrepresentation under English law), that she was under the age of at which legally binding contracts could be formed (18 years under English law), and that the first motive of "We Don't Have Time" was to promote themselves and their (evidently successful) public share issue. Some of this material could go on an article on "We Don't Have Time" should that page be warranted. I repeat that I am mindful that Greta is a minor and owed great protection and more tactful editing by Wikipedia than say an experienced adult climate campaigner could expect. So no, I don't think the draft passage (above) should be used at all. Interestingly, WP:BLP has no policy on minors. HTH. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reiterating, Robbie. In reply,

(A) As you say, BLP has no minor policy but you would like it to be changed to require us to give minors "great protection and more tactful editing". First, you have not explained the manner in which you think my text fails to give "great protection and more tactful editing". Second, I believe existing BLP P&G already affords everyone "great protection and more tactful editing". If we adopted such a change, we would be implying that people who are not minors can, in comparsion, be trash-talked and treated rudely. OK, maybe not to that extreme, but I think I've made my point. Such a rule would imply some lesser respect and dignity afforded others, and I believe we should extend that to everyone regardless of age. But returning to the matter at hand, you haven't said anything about how this proposed text fails to do that.

(B) I have three things to say Re your observation that The trouble with denials is they often leave the reader asking why they were necessary in the first place. First, I am not yet aware of quality RSs in English that talk about payments, or claims of payments, to Greta. If any are made known to us we can consider adding something. Second, when we do consider that, my support will be withheld unless its excellent proposed text based on high quality sources. This is because WP:UNDUE in general and WP:BLPGOSSIP tell us we should not give a platform to gossip and rumor. Third, there is a reason to say she isn't paid that has nothing to do with WDHT, and that is.... I wondered this myself when I read my first news story about her. And if I did, others have as well.

(C) As for the "first motive" of WDHT, you may have heavenly powers to peer into the principals' souls, but I do not, and we are not allowed to edit on the basis of WP:Original research. If it ever comes up again, it would require some inline attribution (e.g., According to John Doe, blah blah blah).

(D) All that's left is your desire that we should not use it, but I just don't like it is not an important reason for determining consensus.

In closing, apologies if I have gone on at length like I'm talking to a new editor who doesn't yet know the ropes. I have tried to be thorough because we do have some newer editors participating here. If you can articulate how my text fails to afford "great protection and more tactful editing" maybe it can be improved. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy raises quite a number of issues. Let me respond to just two. First, added protection for minors does not imply less protection more generally: such protections are strictly additional. Moreover, child protection is enshrined in European law, which necessarily applies in Sweden: see article 24 of the year 2000 charter of fundamental rights and particularly §1. Greta at ages 15 and 16 would clearly class as a school‑age child and be covered by these provisions. The degree to which these fundamental rights are legally binding on Wikipedia EN is not so clear. Second, on the "first motive" of WDHT. WDHT are a commercial company and their primary duty is to their organization and their shareholders. Nothing inspired about that view, just the concept of fiduciary duty applies to all essentially for‑profit companies. I am not familiar with Swedish corporate law but the principle is widespread. My view is also reinforced by the use of Greta, including images of her, in the WDHT share prospectus. Finally, sarcasm and belittlement (one place each by my count) have no place in this discussion. HTH. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Belittlement? What? I worked long and hard at trying to compose something gentle and easy for all to read. If we have a style and humor mismatch that's hardly a WP:Civility issue. But enough about that, here we should Focus on Content not behavior. If you want to follow up on this please do so at my user talk page. Returning to the article content matter at hand, you have asked whether the proposed text violates Swedish law? We are not qualified to answer such a question. Maybe someone at the Wikimedia Foundation can advise you. Last I would reply to comments about the company but further discussion on this article would be offtopic I think.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy. I am happy to concentrate on content (and will not take up your offer to discuss elsewhere). I did not exactly say your draft text might contravene Swedish law. I said that children have fundamental protection under European law, but that that law might not extend to Wikipedia EN. It would however apply to Wikipedia Svenska. Let me repeat two of those rights (emphasis added):

• (24.1) Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.

• (24.2) In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration.

I argue that those rights should inform this discussion. If others have not respected those rights, then those transgressions should not be repeated here in the interests of coverage or completeness. This is not simply a case of not to my liking, it is a duty of care we Europeans owe children in general and Greta specifically in this instance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, by proposing the text above I am trying to protect Greta by neutrally reporting facts of the controversy as reported in quality reliable sources. The low-quality attack stuff is out there. In this context in my view, our silence would make us complicit and serve only her enemies' interests. I certainly agree with the sentiment in the legal provisions you cite, but you have not shown nor even attempted to explain how they are violated in this case. And if you do try to present that case, I'm not sure this is really something we could tangle with here. Extra care should be taken to ensure no one joining us reads in an implied legal threat (WP:NLT). Just to be crystal clear, I know you're not making such a threat, you're trying to protect a minor. Kudos! Just saying others may show up and read something else into our words. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy. That is a fair comment that I should comment directly on the draft text above. Here are some inaccuracies as I understand them. Greta was not a "volunteer youth advisor to WDHT, a for-profit climate-focused social media network". She was, in her words, "briefly a youth advisor for the board of the non profit foundation 'We don’t have time'". Those are two different legal entities, I take it. Did the company raise "venture capital" or just normal capital? "Thunberg's name" should perhaps be "name and image". "In response to such controversies, .." is not supported by Greta's statements on the matter, indeed she cites no explicit reason for leaving.

That is what I mean when I stress the need for "tactful editing", particularly when sources can be speculative. Personally, I think this WDHT issue so minor as not to warrant mention. Other editors may form a different view. And whether the draft text is protective is also open to debate. I think not. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, now we're getting somewhere! And Thanks for educating me about an important fact that has been largely missing from this discussion, i.e., The for profit company and the nonprofit foundation are different entities. The proposed text needs revision to reflect this. In the RSs so far cited in this thread,

* With respect to how we characterize Thunberg's brief relationship with WDHT

* Local.SE said in the "millions" article, "Ingmar Rentzhog, founder of We Don’t Have Time, asked Thunberg in October if she wanted to sit a Youth Advisory Board for his social media start-up We Don’t Have Time, which she accepted." and in the "hits back" article "Rentzhog said it was "unfortunate" that Saturday's article in the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper had given the impression that he was in a dispute with Greta Thunberg, who formerly served on a youth advisory board for the foundation that is the main owner of the company."

* Politico-EU said "Thunberg had been a youth adviser to the We Don’t Have Time foundation from November to January, the company said in a separate Q&A to address the issue."

* The Vice RS is silent on this fact

* The FAQ from We Don't Have Time says "In October 2018, Greta Thunberg was asked to become youth advisor to the We Don’t Have Timefoundation. The FoundationBoard of Directors and advisors include other prominentpeople from the climate movementsuch as Jamie Margolin,Stuart Scott, Cathy Orlando and Per Espen Stoknes."

So we have identified a weak spot in the proposed text in the grey box. Are there others? (My area has "weather" today, so internet may drop out). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to add that the WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT (ten‑year test) guidelines are relevant. Would this material survive a year on this article? I argue not although that was not my principle concern. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Just to be clear, I think we have discussed your principal concern, and its time to get input from others before attempting a new draft. Is that right, or do you still have more feedback to put in the hopper ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussed yes, resolved, possibly, possibly not? But carry on with the development of the text. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It won't be resolved until there is a new draft to review, but I do thank you for clarifying the issues to be addressed! I'll wait for other's comments before trying again, and in the meantime maybe someone else will do so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal by NewsAndEventsGuy.

I also think the proposal is written in the spirit of "great protection and more tactful editing". Anyway, if we would say that anything that falls short of a straightforeward Hagiography would be a violation of childrens rights we would not be able to write an article of encyclopedic nature. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Pass3456. First, a typo of mine that needs correcting: "great" → "greater", hence my comment should have read and in full: "that Greta is a minor and owed [greater] protection and more tactful editing by Wikipedia than say an experienced adult climate campaigner could expect." I think that is a reasonable proposition and true in every legal jurisdiction I know of. No one is arguing for a hagiography. Second, the current proposal by NewsAndEventsGuy contains at least three factual errors by my count. Lets wait until the next draft before endorsing anything. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Re the current proposal by NewsAndEventsGuy contains at least three factual errors, great! Thanks for identifying them! However to my knowledge you have only told me about one, i.e., that Greta was a volunteer youth advisor to the board of the foundation not the publicly traded company. Before I waste my time repeating the other two errors, please tell me what they are? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy Subject to confirmation, the following. WDHT was not funded by venture capital but rather by public subscription, hence the share prospectus. "In response to such controversies, .." constitutes original research because Greta has never explicitly stated why she left her role as youth advisor. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

In a press release date Feb 10, the company said "We Don’t Have Time has raised venture capital totaling SEK 23 million from more than 500 investors in sixteen countries. A majority of investors have been involved in the project from the start. The most recent new issues in December 2018 raised approximately SEK 13 million. In the period October 2018–January 2019, Greta Thunberg acted as one of several youth advisors to the foundation.She decided to leave because she wishes to be independent from any organization at present." I'm not a finance guy. Is the company conflating "venture capital" and capital received when publicly issuing stock? How would you characterize these sums, based on this and any other RSs? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

We Don’t Have Time raised money via selling new shares at the Stock exchange so technically it is not venture capital. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Above, Robbie pointed out that the original text "in response to these controversies" was WP:Original research. Having carefully reviewed the sources I agree. In my mind its an example of SKYISBLUE original reserach, but no problem, we can revise the text to avoid this altogether. The Politico references (see refs section below) says :"Svante Thunberg said Greta won't take part in any organizations, whether voluntary or otherwise, to ensure her independence. "She does not receive any money and she will not receive any money," he said. / Thunberg had been a youth adviser to the We Don’t Have Time foundation from November to January, the company said in a separate Q&A to address the issue. The company added that she's since "decided to leave because she wishes to be independent from any organization at present." My next draft will rely on this unless someone wants to see a different RS used. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy and Pass3456. Although the press release states "venture capital" I don't believe that to be an accurate use of the term. I have no formal background in finance either. But would rather rely on wikipedia articles on venture capital and venture capital financing. The remainder of the press release describes what I understand to be a public share issue. I cannot tell if the company is indeed listed on a stock exchange or not or any other details related to its incorporation under Swedish commercial law. The share prospectus is written in Swedish, which, I assume, none of us reads. Nonetheless that document will be accurate as there are strict rules governing its contents and tough sanctions for noncompliance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is an Joint-stock company (swedish Aktiebolag (AB)). A investment in the shares is highly spekulative off course since until now the company has not even a working website. Still I would feel more comfortable if we would drop "venture capital" and instead include "social media start-up" and "for a share issue ..." --Pass3456 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting conversation. Initially I thought this was too recent and minor to be included at all; but I'm persuaded that silence does no one any favors, and stating the (verifiable, neutral) truth is the best way to afford the greatest protection to a BLP subject, whether minor or "major" :-). I think the text could be condensed, and some of the factual detail skipped to focus on the main points. (Except I think we should name the individual and company involved.) How about this (sorry for the lazy referencing, but same refs as above can be used): Leviv ich 22:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

After her student climate strikes gained popularity, Thurnberg became a target of efforts to discredit her[Vice] or take advantage of her high profile.[Politico] In late 2018, Ingmar Rentzhog, founder of the non-profit We Don't Have Time Foundation (WDHT), recruited Thurnberg to become an unpaid youth advisor and used Thurnberg's name and image without her knowledge or permission to raise millions for WDHT's for-profit subsidiary We Don't Have Time AB, of which Rentzhog is CEO.[Cites...] Thunberg received no money from the company.[Cite] She terminated her volunteer advisor role with WDHT, stating she "is not part of any organization.... am absolutely independent....(and) do what I do completely for free."[Cite]

Your welcome. One correction: "After her student climate strikes gained popularity" would be unfair since Ingmar Rentzhog claimed (with some credit) that he played a major role in promoting her strikes. The other sentences are well written. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. "After beginning her student climate strikes, ..." or anything like that could work. Leviv ich 23:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Support this is much better than my effort. I would rather leave sentence 1 as is because that's true and in the sources. Instead we might tweak sentence 2 from "In late 2018" to "Early in her school strike, Ingmar Rentzhog...." But I am quibbling here and would not oppose going live, whatever you prefer works for me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

My concern is that the above section is too large, giving too much importance to essentially a smear. Perhaps a shorter version, such as:

Thurnberg became a target of efforts to discredit her[Vice] or take advantage of her high profile.[Politico] She has denied these, stating "Many people love to spread rumours saying that I have people 'behind me' or that I'm being 'paid' or 'used' to do what I’m doing. But there is no one 'behind' me except for myself,"[Cite]

The entries about Thunberg giving high profile and widely reported speeches at TEDx, COP24 and Davos have been cut to a sentence each - I don't think this issue carries as much weight as those speeches BorisAndDoris (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

WDHT <ind>did help introduce Thunberg to the world and high quality RSs have reported on their relationship. When I wonder how neutral I am being I pause to ask myself if I would say (whatever) if I didn't really care about the subject at all. Viewed this way, it seems very strange to me to chop WDHT entirely.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to condensing this text, but I feel more strongly that the entries about the speeches should be expanded, as those are significant portions of what makes her notable. I don't know if RSes support this but my personal understanding is that it's the TEDx speech that went viral and made her internationally-known, and if that's the case, we ought to have a {quote} from it in the article, IMHO. Leviv ich 01:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Strongly agree - If WDHT had a significant role in introducing Thunberg then that can be included in her story earlier. To have a section, that relates to one or two news sources, which is larger than most of the "Other activism" section, with dozens or more news sources, seems rather unbalanced. Before we spend all this effort on a minor news story maybe we should expand the sections that have been more widely reported.BorisAndDoris (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Alternative Suppose we merged Greta Thunberg and School strike for climate into School climate strike movement? For context, see this discussion about BLPs of minors. If no other kids were doing a school strike, Thunberg's WP:Notability would drop to zero or so very close to it that the article would probably be deleted. The articles are both short and the bit about Thunberg could a section of its own in the other article. This approach would have several benefits. First, Thunberg's only claims to notability is she is a climate activist, arguably a single thing. By executing this merge we would no longer have a BLP as much as we'd be describing the movement. WDHT's help getting it started would play well there also. There would be one article to maintain, not two, thus eliminating overlap. Doing the heavy lift to execute this merge, we would also break ground on how we fold in the role of a student leader, so if/when we learn of others we are ready to go without struggling with new BLPs of minors. Finally, consolidating this material also provides a way to use enough words to concisely describe controversies without overwhelmng relativing short text in the rest of an article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reliable secondary source for the claim that WDHT was instrumental in promoting Greta (a theme mentioned several times here)? The Local story, published on 9 February 2019, states 88k views for the WDHT video, but that figure was 44 days after the TEDx talk — and no explicit statement that WDHT was instrumental in Greta's rise to prominence. Also no clear information in the reported viewership figures given the timing. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent question, I looked, I tried. I found no quality secondary RSs that say that. Greta's Feb 2 FB post says she started on Aug 20. A Swedish paper carried a story two days later. Medium had a story one day after that. Maybe I was snookered about the role WDHT played. They helped no doubt. But bragging rights? I'm not so sure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This videoed COP24 panel discussion, released by ScientistsWarning.org, offers some information. Mårten Thorslund, Chief Sustainability Officier, We Don't Have Time.org — who was not present but recites the story as he understands it — states (01:54 onwards) that "It was our CEO, our founder, who was informed about someone was taking action, climate action, doing some sort of strike outside the Swedish parliament." That would indicate that WDHT had prior knowledge of Greta's strike (speculatively via Greta's social media). The remainder of Mårten's story describes the encounter. Greta adds her reaction in response to a question (04:00 onwards): "It was good to have someone to talk with. No one else stopped and talking [sic] to me, so they were the first to stop. So, yeh, that felt good that someone saw me and listened to what I had to say." These transcriptions need verification. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

First to say hello is one thing. Playing a leading role on elevating her action's profile across the globe is something v-e-r-y different. After looking, the only sources I have seen which claim WDHT did play such a large role are the self-published primary materials from WDHT and discrediting sources of dubious quality. The first to say hello is trivia we should not include, per WP:NOTNEWS etc. The other day I think I caused offense with my "soul peering" remark, Robbie. Upon reflection, as I contemplate WDHT's self-published remarks about the role they played and my failure to find any secondary coverage of the role they played, I am personally coming around to sharing your views that the first objective is to make money. But I digress here into FORUM and OR so I'll stop. The serious article content question I am left with (for a possible article about WDHT) is this.... if the nonprofit foundation is really the majority owner and owner of the voting shares, and if 10% of the profits will go to the foundation, where are the other 90% of profits going to go? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

To get it done I also Support the version of Leviv. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Their About Us page says that the Foundation controls the company's voting shares; it doesn't say anything about the non-voting shares; but it does say 10% of the company's profits go to the Foundation. I infer that means the Foundation owns at least 51% of the voting shares and 10% of the non-voting shares. I don't know who owns the rest, but for start-ups it's commonly the officers and outside investors.

FTR I'm good with Boris's version or my version or holding off on any version until other parts of the article are expanded first. Open to the idea of a merger with SSFC but I'd think that would need to be discuss broadly first, and I'd have a couple of questions on that: is "student climate strike movement" a phrase used by RSes, and which is more notable, Thunberg or the school strike movement itself? (I'm not sure on either.) Leviv ich 00:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm also OK with either, though WP:Consensus can change so maybe there will be a reason to revisit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I´m open to the idea of a merger with SSFC too, but I also think that this needs a broader discussion. It might also rely on the further development: will Greta remain the dominating figure of the SSFC movement or will there be others who gain equally or more prominence. --Pass3456 (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - Thunberg is notable in her own right due to the amount of media interest in her seperate to the School strikes. Any merger would see details not connected with the strike movement eventually removed as has been seen already in the diminishment of details about her speeches. Also in these early days of both the movement and her notability the two stories may easily diverge, she is not the head of an organisation rather the inspiration for many independent groups operating around the world who may head in a different direction to Thunberg herself.

However I am in favour of seperating this discussion of proposed merger into a seperate section as we seem to have moved away from WDHT but the comments are inter-twined BorisAndDoris (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI I floated merger and I am not pursuing it, at least at this time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Greta just got headline billing in The Guardian today. Greta is scheduled to talk alongside Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, in Brussels shortly. In my view, events have long gone past the point where two distinct pages are not justified. By all means, split off a merge proposal into a new thread, but I can't see that proposal going anywhere. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I already said my merge idea is dead for now. Is it OK with you if we stop talking about it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy. My previous contribution was the result of a merge conflict and I would not have framed it that way had I seen your withdrawal first. HTH. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks... fyi, our term for it is "edit conflict" sometimes abbreviated e/cNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional refs for this section

You can also list new RSs here, if they are not part of text above.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Teen climate icon used for fundraising without her knowledge (Politco EU)
• Startup founder hits back at 'eco-profeteering' criticism: 'It's not money which is driving me
• Ingmar Rentzhog is the leader of the company and one of two persons on the companies payroll
• Questions and answers about We Don’t Have Time’s relationship with Greta Thunberg (Here, the company states they that no board members (which would include Thunberg) are paid, and denies ever paying Thunberg specifically)
• The Climate Change Deniers Trying to Discredit Greta Thunberg (Vice)
• We do not have time to use Greta Thunberg to attract investors
• pdf short Eng prospectus from WDHT

References

• This section is crazy long, but there's at least one comment that pertains, maybe, to edits that I made. I'll say what I think is the general consensus on Wikipedia for things said and done by notable people: they need to have proper, significant secondary sourcing. At least one editor (yes, you, BorisAndDoris) is WAY too fond of sticking quotes in the article--that also is not how we write articles, because this endangers neutral point of view. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Quotes

The aim of my efforts yesterday was to re-introduce quotes into an article that had been removed, thereby leaving the article somewhat unbalanced as Thunberg was becoming more notable for her speeches but had no quotes in the article. Editors over the last few weeks have removed so much material about her "Other activism" that the section was about to be eclipsed by a section about a not very notable issue raised in only a few publications whilst her speeches have been reported widely in much more credible sources and are being quoted quite widely too - Guardian Weekly cover If any editor has an issue with the way I presented this material, then an edit removing the sentence that created bias and a polite word on the talk page or on my talk page would show that good faith is assumed. Reverting shows a disregard for the original editor, indicating a lack of understanding of why I was trying to put quotes into this article.BorisAndDoris (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I share the opinion presented by Drmies at the end of the "We Don't Have Time" section. Article certainly should not be based on plain quotes of its subject. Pavlor (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that the article should be based on quotes, just that where we are dealing with notable speeches, especially those that are being quoted elsewhere, the article needs some quotes to convey the sense of her speeches.BorisAndDoris (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Robbie, as a friendly, process tip, when you say "more notable", I think you mean "more WP:Weight". Usually the question of WP:Notability is a preliminary test for just having an article, and once it is answered as Yes or No there is no policy based concept of "more" notable. Nor is the WDHT bit a question of "notability" for inclusion here. Rather that is also about "weight" and in partcular the part about "Undue weight".) On a separate issue, for the second time, please stop talking about other ed's behavior at article talk. That's what user talk is for.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Assuming you are talking to me, not @Robbie - I was trying to defuse the potential conflict created by another editor talking about other ed's behavior at the end of the "We Don't Have Time" section. BorisAndDoris (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh indeed I was confused. Thanks Boris and my apologoes, @RobbieIanMorrison:.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Everybody, in case you have not reviewed the "high-impact" essay relevant to this discussion, see WP:QUOTE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Not counting progressively biased ones like CommonDreams and DemocracyNow, which of Greta's speeches was most widely covered by high quality RSs? That would be the best one to find a good quote or two from, in my opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Parking a reference

• Watts, Jonathan (11 March 2019). "Greta Thunberg, schoolgirl climate change warrior: 'Some people can let things go. I can't'". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 March 2019. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Factcheck of Greta's speech in Brussels - Toimitus (2019-03-15). "Greta Thunberg has done her science homework". Faktabaari. Retrieved 2019-03-22.Jirka Dl (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Autism, Asperger's or both?

There are discrepancies among sources regarding Thunberg's diagnosis of Asperger's and/or Autism. e.g.

• From The New Yorker: "both Greta and her younger sister, Beata, have been diagnosed with autism, A.D.H.D., and other conditions..." [11]
• From Heavy.com: "Thunberg is 15 and autistic.... "Greta says on her Twitter profile she has Aspergers and told a journalist from The New Yorker that she sees “the world a bit different, from another perspective. I have a special interest. It’s very common that people on the autism spectrum have a special interest.” [12]
• From The Guardian: "Greta has Asperger’s syndrome, which in the past has affected her health, [her father] says." [13]
• Grist.org confusingly states: "Diagnosed with Asperger's and ADHD...", while linking to the New Yorker article above which does not specify Asperger's. [14]

Now, when reliable sources contradict each other, what do we do? Realizing that Asperger's is on the Autism spectrum, simply stating "autism" may misrepresent reality, but self-reported claims of a minor may also be misleading, inaccurate, or unreliable. We should look to the highest quality sources with the most accurate information, and attribute when claims differ. Sometimes journalists are simply sloppy or unclear. If enough sources corroborate each other, it might be more appropriate and precise to state something like "Thunberg has been diagnosed as on the Autism spectrum, and claims to have Asperger's" or some such qualification, of course respecting WP:BLP, WP:PROPORTION, etc. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Animalparty. I do not agree with "but self-reported claims of a minor may also be misleading" - but I agree with rest of your proposal. Autism spectrum is covering, according to me, the problem.Jirka Dl (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable how prominent her diagnoses (reliability aside) are on the page; she is a minor. It now states: Thunberg has been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder, selective mutism,[5] and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.[6] She insisted that her family become vegan and give up flying.[7] She has herself linked her activism to selective mutism and autism, and as such it can be seen as relevant. I however don't really see the relevance of obsessive-compulsive disorder in this list and have removed it till somebody shows its relevance. Femkemilene (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear.... the prior text was a quote from her own talk where she said she had been diagnosed with "Asperger syndrome, OCD, and selective mutism". So as far as reliability goes, this is easily resolved by saying "She has described herself as having been diagnosed with..." and then linking the video of her own speech when she said this. As for the relevance of OCD, well I agree its not topically relevant. However, it is right in the middle of the quote now being used so its a little weird to trim that little bit out. Does it hurt anything to leave it there? Given that this is her own words in front of a big group of people and the world youtube ted talks stage? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

We are only talking about a tiny part of her speech, so leaving out some irrelevant bit shouldn't pose a problem. We are not quoting directly either. I think your wording is a large improvement. The previous wording come across as belittling to me. Femkemilene (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, in this case I do think its best to let her own words do the talk, and she said it just last month. I have made further tweaks (see edit sum) but took out the third party and older bit about ADHD. Diagnoses change and unless there is a genuine controversy that's important enough to include the best plan is to report her own words only. Given that she said it herself, is there a problem with including "OCD"? I suppose detractors will might try to use that as a weapon to dismiss her efforts, and advocates might want to protect her from this manuever, but neutral editing doesn't really care about any of that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above author that this biographical detail (even if self-reported) is hugely irrelevant to the overall Wikipedia article about a currently prominent person. As such, the article should only detail the aspects of her life and her activities which have made her prominent and it is unnecessary to list every available detail. Concerns raised about article neutrality are also at stake. Rivelle (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivelle (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

On Neutrality, this might be an example of confirmation bias. One who wants aggressive climate change mitigation might push for Greta's quote because they hear in Greta's quote an emphasis on the fact that, despite her diagnoses, she is up on stages in front of people speaking in public.....and anyone in their right mind should be able to see her actions and understand what a big friggin' deal it is. But wait! A climate change denier might push for Greta's quote because they hear in Greta's quote an invalidation because, despite her appearance of dogged determination, she herself says she has "OCD".... so noone in their right mind should see her activism as anything other than a manifestation of obssessive-compulsive disorder. And so the reader brings their pre-existing bias to the article, and can easily spin the same text in very different ways. Personally, I've always been a little proud of text that is capable of this, because it stuggests that our task of adding WP:NEUTRAL text has been done well. Another option, of course, is to just delete this part altogether. But that would not change Greta's reality, or Greta's own forthright speech about her reality, or what our reader will see in RS after RS after RS. I'm willing to change my mind with a good reason, but personal opinion about "it's better this way (or that)" without an explanation that connects some logical dots is unlikely to move the needle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Your own point about confirmation bias actually seems to count against the neutrality of this point. And the neutrality must be maintained due to the tragic fact that climate change and climate science is still not universally accepted. For real climate scientists, there is no such "debate".

As the article stands, the "LIFE" section only has two paragraphs. The first which details her parents and their occupations should be included as information about a currently prominent person. It is of interest as it gives hints as to her possible socio-economic background, the place of her family within Swedish society, her cultural and educational family background etc. The problem is that then there is only one other paragraph which is a list of (possible) diagnoses of OCD etc. As if these biographical aspects are the only two aspects of her life worth mentioning. I apologize for indulging in mere surmise or guesswork but her mentioning of her conditions in her speeches sounds as if it is because her other experiences in giving speeches may have been addressing school assemblies or something similar(??) At her young age, the "LIFE" section will necessarily be a short section. Information (if can be found) about her city of residence etc would be of greater relevance to the overall article. Rivelle (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(A) "Your own point about confirmation bias actually seems to count against the neutrality of this point." That is an opinion. You have not attempted to explain why you believe it, or how that works.

(B) " The problem is that then there is only one other paragraph which is a list of (possible) diagnoses of OCD etc." That is an observation. Aside from it being incomplete, since that paragraph also mentions non-health aspects of her life, you have not attempted to explain why that is a problem.

(C) If we take it out based on your personal preferences, a day or three from now someone else with different preferences will want to put it back in. What we need to establish a lasting ccommunity consensus are reasons that apply policy to WP:reliable sources. I appreciate your interest on this point, and yet I am not yet convinced because all I'm hearing above are unpersuasive statements of personal preference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(A) My explanation was "For real climate scientists, there is no such "debate"". N.B. Debates which are true dialectical exchanges upon the path to the Truth (e.g. amongst real climate scientists) are free of any necessity to speak of "confirmation bias". Please see Jurgen Habermas on "ideal speech situations"

(B) I explained that it is a problem as it makes the section look as if these are the only two "biographical aspects (…) of her life worth mentioning" (from the above) And hence gives this aspect of her selfhood a very great prominence. None of us can be in any position to judge how much prominence or otherwise it should be given. Safest and least judgemental action would be to remove the paragraph.

(C) I hope I have explained why (A) and (B) are not "personal preferences" but are serious concerns regarding objectivity. Rivelle (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivelle (talk • contribs) 03:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

(A) A vague wave at the Scientific opinion on climate change doesn't explain how that relates to neutrality of this disputed text, and (B) since there are other biographical points in this section, the factual basis of B is simply incorrect. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

(A) On this point I was referring specifically to your previous points. Above you introduced the notion of "confirmation bias". I note you wrote "Scientific *Opinion* on climate change". Climate change is a *fact*! What is disputable is the technical climate *science* as the debate is conducted by real climate scientists.

On (B), none of us can possibly be in any position to judge the *prominence* of this biographical aspect of her life in her overall (young) selfhood. I refer you to the theoretical literature on the writing of biographies and other forms of life-writing. As the section stands, there are two short paragraphs and the reader is given the impression that these neurological aspects of her selfhood are so defining that they must be mentioned. None of us can possibly make this judgement call. And yet the previous authors of this article did. Irresponsibly, in my view. Again, the problem is not only factual accuracy in the strictly medical sense of the term "factual *accuracy*" (none of us have consulted her doctors who would in turn respect patient confidentiality), it is also a problem of *objectivity*. None of us can possibly adopt the necessary objective standpoint.

May I be allowed to put a question to you? What is the case for leaving this paragraph in the section? There are innumerable wiki entries on individuals, both living and historical. Only a small minority of them detail that individual's illnesses or disability. They should do so only if they are biographically definitive as in the cases of Helen Keller or Steven Hawking. If it is a well-established fact that Goethe had a rather bad cold in the year 1761 as recorded in his diaries, then this is hardly worthy of mention is it? So can you please put the case as to why this paragraph must stay in? Rivelle (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

(A) and (B)... it's just us and I'm not sure we're communicating (especially on (A)) so I'm going to just stop with the (A) and (B). Moving on to (C) and the question why include it? The subject of this article has made frequent references to herself in this way and a google search for Great Thunberg autism OR aspergers and restricted to news for just the last week returns LOTS of hits. So sources are STILL talking about this long after her speech in December that we quote in the reference. If we selectively leave out what the subject and many RSs talk about, then in a pretty short time some other editor is going to put it right back in again, and we'll never be done arguing. So the most WP:Neutral and least disruptive thing to do is to include a neutral statement, based on the subjects own public words, and move on. We have the neutral statement and now its time to move on or do a WP:RFC NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

A short note to thank you for taking the time to have this discussion. And to thank you for helping me to agreement with your position. Rivelle (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

What about making the list of her disorders (!not diseases) much shorter and write for example only "...diagnosed with developmental and mental disorder." and add what she explains "this is the way how she explains her deep interest in climate change and her "black and white" way how she looks on this problem." More explanation about disorders can be in reference. By the way in this short section could be mentioned also her younger sister. Jirka Dl (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ouch. Apart from the increased inaccuracy, I wouldn't want labeling as having an unspecified "mental disorder". Esowteric+Talk 10:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternatives to consider are always welcome. Personally, I think we will be hard pressed to do anything other than quote Greta with enough of the quote to set the context. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Archetype / Joan of Arc comparision

"As a collective archetype, Thunberg has been compared both to French medieval maiden warrior Joan of Arc;[15][16] and to Swedish fictional character Pippi Longstocking.[17][18]"

is this sentence suitable to be in the article? It seems a bit opinion based/subjective rather than something encyclopaedic... I saw someone on twitter compare her to a doomsday cult member, but that would inappropriate to put in the article... Swil999 (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably a question of WP:DUE. I think the article would greatly improve by trimming such parts. We certainly should not include every bit every newspaper in the world wrote about her, but this is up to others to decide (I´m only watching this page). Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

/facepalm... The comparison appears to have been made by a couple of journalists with an apparent lack of knowledge of appropriate female role models or archetypes, seeking to lazily hang an article off a metaphor. If it were a scholarly comparison, then in time, it might be appropriate for inclusion. If it's just a couple of news articles, then absolutely not, this is WP:UNDUE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Multiple disabilities?

The phrase "multiple disabilities" is used in the Controversy section. Given that the Wikipedia article Disability contains much ambiguity about its use and meaning, perhaps "perceived disabilities" might be more appropriate. This week, another activist and 'Aspie' (Chris Packham) has been in the UK news, and I doubt that he is properly described as having a 'disability'.PeterWD (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Neurodiversity, anyone? Esowteric+Talk 16:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Please note that this article is now under Discretionary sanctions

See the top of this page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Speech to UK MPs

So far, no mention or quotes in the article from a speech at a meeting with UK MPs on 23 April 2019, eg here: [15]. Perhaps more experienced editors might offer appropriate edits to reflect that? MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, mention of "creative accounting" is in here (and a subsequent BBC article looks at that issue) Esowteric+Talk 09:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Quotations in italic

The many quotations in the Subsequent speeches section are in italic. Notagainst (talk)'s edit summary reverting their removal: "Three reasons for italics: 1) It makes what she said more visible. 2) She is prominent for what she says. 3) What she says is important." is wrong for a number of reasons, not least that it is not up to us to editorialize or assign weight to the content based on our opinion of its importance, and to maintain neutrality. That goes for the sources as well as Greta Thunberg's quotes.

The WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Quotations says "It is normally incorrect to put quotations in italics. They should only be used if the material would otherwise call for italics, such as for emphasis or to indicate use of non-English words." By "emphasis", I take it that they mean emphasis in the original text. Esowteric+Talk 08:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Follow MOS here, that is my stance. Note I´m not against few quotes in the article, but less is better in this case. Pavlor (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

In defence against the attacks on Greta Thunberg as a person

There's a piece in The Huffington Post which defends against the attacks on Greta Thunberg as a person, if it is of any interest and use to you.

I do hope that the piece in Spiked! (and similar) will not be used in the article. I know that Rational Wiki is an unreliable, biased, and user-generated source, but there's some truth in their assessment of Spiked!. Esowteric+Talk 11:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Spiked!, see:

• How US billionaires are fuelling the hard-right cause in Britain
• Media Bias/Fact Check
• Spiked: The cult of Greta Thunberg: This young woman sounds increasingly like a millenarian weirdo.

Quillette, too, leans to the right and the alt-right, though there's no consensus about its reliability at Wikipedia. Esowteric+Talk 12:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Spiked is an unreliable source. I have removed the reference. Notagainst (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

A friendly reminder: We do not do political editing, whether it's from the left or right or elsewhere. If a Wikipedian does not like any source for personal political reasons that in itself does not make the source unreliable. Please keep that in mind. There is more and more criticism of Thunberg and her media exposure. We cannot delete or soften all of it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Removing a statement that the world is flat in an article about the earth is not political editing. It is simply the removal of nonsense that is not true.Notagainst (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I was more concerned about the Spiked article (and others that are emerging) that use words like "weirdo" and worse epithets which I won't list here, rather than reasoned arguments. Esowteric+Talk 11:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The article is about Greta, not about climate change so all that matters, if we consider Spike overall as a reliable source, is what the article says about her - what it says about climate change isn't relevant. And we aren't here to defend Greta or her beliefs, we are Wikipedia not XR. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)