Talk:Greta Thunberg: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greta Thunberg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:Vital article

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

A fact from Greta Thunberg appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 January 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that 16-year-old Greta Thunberg (pictured) of Sweden has inspired 20,000 students around the world to strike for climate change activism? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Greta Thunberg.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment B‑class High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Climate change B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sweden Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Autism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by EggOfReason, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 15 December 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

This article contains a translation of Greta Thunberg from sv.wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greta Thunberg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Her full name should be put in the lede. Everyone else's bio page does this. Including the lovely Tony Blair, for instance. And the handsome Charles Clarke. And Paul McCartney. And Paul's daughter, Stella McCartney. MartiniShaw (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why certain editors keep deleting it from the opening on the English wikipeida. Not acceptable given we can source it and it is her name. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Mussolini has it. Hitler too, though Adolf (born Adolphus) only had one first name. I can't find anyone else who does not have their full name in the lede, and I have looked all over the place. As you say, not acceptable. MartiniShaw (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You already brought this up for discussion on 31 August 2019. See the existing thread in the archives. As for me, I'm concerned that the inclusion of her full name would cause unwanted titillation among those who are biased against the subject. Esowteric+Talk 17:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that is, itself a rehashed discussion from 4 June 2019. Esowteric+Talk 17:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:BIRTHNAME. I don't see the risk of "unwanted titillation among those who are biased against the subject" being a factor in that guidance. It's her name (as included in the infobox), so - if it's reliably sourced - it should be included in the opening sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full names, especially of BLPs that get a high level of attention, require a reliable source. If not it’s best left in the infobox. For example, for YEARS people thought Emilia Clarke’s middle names were Isabelle Euphemia Rose based on shotty sourcing from some British business database; but in her op-ed she said her full name was Emilia Isobel Euphemia Rose Clarke. Same name, different variation. Err on the side of caution until then. Trillfendi (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence". No mention of any "caution" in the Manual Of Style on Wikipedia. And her full name is given in the info box so your argument is without any merit whatsoever. At the risk of repetition of the MOS, "the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence". MartiniShaw (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caution comes from the Biography of Living Persons policy, not the manual of style. The first word is literally caution! Is it that hard? Trillfendi (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a reliable source giving her full name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi, is what hard? The BLP rules you are referring to do indeed have "Caution" as literally the first word. BUT...the sentence is "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event."

Is Greta Thunberg discussed in terms of a single event? Obviously not. Don't flog dead horses. Thanks! MartiniShaw (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policy doesn’t discriminate against notoriety. Trillfendi (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or against puppets on strings. MartiniShaw (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify who and what you mean by "puppets on strings"? Esowteric+Talk 15:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What did I mean by that phrase? I was referring to some editors on here who seem to be easily influenced by those who should know better. I won't name names in order not to miff anyone. I hope that explains things a little, and nobody in particular was troubled. Cheers! MartiniShaw (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked MartiniShaw for a continuing pattern of boundary-pushing on this subject. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an excellent source. Well done. Thank you for your thoughtful, hard work! MartiniShaw (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VERIFY: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source ..."

WP:BLPPRIVACY: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public ..." Esowteric+Talk 18:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her full name is already in the article. The article breaches the Wikipedia's Manual Of Style by not putting the full name in the lead sentence. MartiniShaw (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Makwan Prize referenced in this article, which quotes her full name, has been presented to her. If her name was given wrongly, or if she objected to its publication on that site, it is reasonable to assume that the organisers of the prize would have removed or corrected it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MartiniShaw, you write "Do not add irrelevant claptrap about privacy. Her full name is already on the page. It should be in the correct place!". MOS contains guidelines; BLP contains policy. Policy trumps guidelines, and guidelines trump essays. Esowteric+Talk 18:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other good examples of living people (notable, by definition) where we withhold mention of publicly and reliably known full names on the grounds of privacy concerns? If not, it seems that the only factor in this case is that some editors think that publication of her full name in the lede would in some way fuel opposition to what she says - which is an irrelevant consideration. If this disagreement is not going to be resolved on this page, it should be put into a wider forum for discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps take it to an RfC, Ghmyrtle? Is there precedent, or do two RSs fulfill the policy "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". The word "widely" looks deliberate on the part of the policy-makers. Esowteric+Talk 18:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Esowteric: You have no evidence it would cause titillation among our readers, and your comment about readers biased against the subject seems completely off-topic, we can't anticipate the reactions of our readers and nor should we. If you want to include your assertion in our BLP policy go ahead and try, otherwise your comment has no value here, what matters is sourced material not original research editors causing titillation among so-called prejudiced readers. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Esowteric: Two previous discussions strongly indicates no consensus to not include. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RichardWeiss: That was just an aside. I am actually concerned that including GT's full name may contravene existing WP BLP policy, though I may be mistaken, and I'm willing to stand corrected. This has already been discussed at length twice (see archives), so maybe it's not such a clear-cut issue? Esowteric+Talk 19:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also aware that we're into a second recent full page protection for partisan content disputes, so it would be good to hear from uninvolved editors. Esowteric+Talk 19:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm concerned that the inclusion of her full name would cause unwanted titillation among those who are biased against the subject
• tit·il·la·tion - the arousal of interest or excitement, especially through sexually suggestive images or words

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. GMG^talk 19:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through that comment. There have been so many content disputes and quibbles here recently, finding any way to nibble away at the article and demote the subject's standing or, as her opponents would say, "deify" her – that I gave way to momentary exasperation. Esowteric+Talk 20:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some good examples include Salvador Dali, Kiefer Sutherland and Mobutu Sese Seko, Sutherland still alive. So what is different about Greta? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 20:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If we have a reliable source, I'm not sure I understand how including her full name says anything one way or another, for or against. Seems like a pretty mundane fact. GMG^talk 20:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg's full name is already there so any special considerations for privacy (or whatever the no-full-name people are coming up with) are without any merit whatsoever. The issue here is that her full name Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg should be in the leading sentence like every other BLP on Wikipedia. If it is a mundane fact then let's just do it. Cheers! MartiniShaw (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the full name to the lede. As noted in the RfC section below, I think the two reliably-sourced citations should be provided (whether the full name occurs in the lede or the infobox) to meet policy on WP:VERIFY and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Esowteric+Talk 06:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to this, the infobox entry should have been cited. Esowteric+Talk 07:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys should edit the official page to show her full name. I read all the talks here and it's nonsense that the US and BR version does not show up her full name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.216.145.7 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Totally agree. Relevant sources must be provided tho. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 09:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Japanese TV she is referred to as グレタ・トゥーンベリ as if the surname is pronounced "toon-berry". I am a bit curious as to whether this is correct. Can we get a native pronunciation of the surname in the article? Thanks. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @PeepleLikeYou: Here's an interview wherein at thirteen minutes and seven seconds into the the interview Greta addresses the many pronunciations of her name. Click and go to 13:07 of the interview where Greta pronounces her name.Johnrichardhall (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article. I think it would be an improvement to the article to add the pronunciation to it. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think an audio clip would be an excellent addition. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @PeepleLikeYou and @Paulmlieberman. I just found that there is an audio clip of the correct pronunciation of Thunberg's name within her bio. It is found as "cite 2a (note a)" of the opening sentence on her bio, right after her printed name. It can also be accessed here:

Thank you very much for your contribution. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is such a note in place and has been for some time. The surname in normal English (standard English phonetics) is Thun (starts with vocal 'th' as in them, those & rhymes with gun) plus -berg which rhymes with the first syllable in Ferguson or in the surname of Peter Bergman and many other Americans. People interested in learning and practicing Swedish phonetics can see that note. However the long 'u' in Swedish is practically impossible for speakers of English to say 100% right. If I were trying to teach it I would suggest Tibnberry. "Toon-" is way off the mark. Mispronouncing any name - trying but not succeeding (like when CNN makes an incomprehensible mess of Göteborg) - is not considered courteous when it comes to personal names and is thus always inappropriate. We know Greta in English from Greta Garbo and I recommend, there too, to stick to standard English phonetics. When getting into its Swedish pronunciation we run into standard Swedish versus Stockholm dialect, etc. - it's complicated - which thanks to Ms. Garbo is not needed here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interesting discussion of pronunciations. It seems to me that it would be kinder to readers to put the pronunciation somewhere easier to find than buried at the end of a list of references with nothing but the letter "a" to indicate its presence. But I am sure the authors of this article know what is best. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered an reading encumberment to have foreign language notes in the lead. In my opinion, the footnote procedure is an excellent solution and very easy to use for any reader. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now restored the best solution. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the "best solution" in your opinion, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been quite a discussion about this somewhere, where someone who is very good at adding pronunciations agreed with sevenral others that it is much smoother for lead reading to have them as footnotes. Can't find it right now, but we can do an RfC here if you are very dissatisfied. Can't quite understand why you would be. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cant find it? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that although we may not agree on the details, the central interest of all the participants here is in trying to make the article as good as possible, so let's keep an open mind about the possibilities. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we simply add a pronunciation already? 205.189.94.12 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SergeWoodzing considers that the current solution of putting the pronunciation under the letter "a" after references in the lead is "an excellent solution and very easy to use for any reader". PeepleLikeYou (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE it was referenced like that (with the letter "a" linking to it) before the current brouhaha. Johnrichardhall (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention whatsoever to her political affiliation or those of her close advisors, despite her co-signing far-left extremist manifesto.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-strikes-un-conference-madrid-by-greta-thunberg-et-al-2019-11

"After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities."

The literal call to dismantle "Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems" is a common far left objective in the western world, uncorrelated to ecology outside o`f ecology being a mean to an end.

Omitting such an important political bias held by Greta would is against Wikipedia policy of factual neutrality, ESPECIALLY on a currently controversial personality.

This is bad in these days and age, as it will lead to more and more people considering wikipedia "biased and unreliable". There is nothing wrong with being far left, however there is something wrong about being a "neutral" encyclopedia omitting acknowledged fact about someone because it look bad for their image/cause.

Suggestion : I'm against adding quote in general, as they can be taken out of context. Howvever, adding a line paraphrasing the above quote in the "Message" section and adding a link to the manifesto in the footer seem apropriate, as it is factual, does not quote out of context, and allow readers to see that Greta is not limited to ecology in her political scope.

Edit : Someone asked for source. Source is Greta herself. Provided link is to the original publication she made. Mirrors exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.132.20 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By policy we are primarily influenced by what independent, reliable secondary sources say. Do we have any on this point? Also, making the link between the terms one figure uses and the labels attributed to other figures is SYNTH and OR, which are forbidden by policy. Newimpartial (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If by "far left", you mean anyone who isn't "far right", then sure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If by "far left", you mean anyone who isn't "far right", then sure." Johnrichardhall (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not remarkable. Forget about documenting commentary. What people utter is called trivia. Wikipedia is not for listing what was said about people. That is not Wikipedia's role. This is not the news. This is an encyclopedia. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? --Yhdwww (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's wrong to include what people say about people in our BLPs we're sure doing it wrong in a lot of our good BLPs. Gandydancer (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "we're sure doing it wrong in a lot of our good BLPs" is no argument for saying it is not wrong. 86.187.165.129 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the reinstatement. The comments by people and Greta's responses are relevant and of value. However, the section might improve if more concise. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant? How? What knowledge do those sentences provide? When we include commentary, that is, when people speak of things and we parrot that here it tells me about the speaker only. It is a statement about a statement, not a statement about Thunberg. Reason 1 to omit: Offtopic. If it was so valuable to include on Thunberg's page then why isn't it more valuable to place it on Putin or Trump's page? When we include speech of a political nature we must not include propaganda. Reason 2 to omit: WP:SOAPBOX. The over-use of quotations in Wikipedia is called a cascading failure. We are supposed to summarise in Wikipedia's first voice. What is said about things is trivia. Inserting third party speech is not presenting knowledge. Reason 3 to omit WP:TRIVIA. No encyclopedia needs to include a single quotation to be complete. The editing system is failing to deliver appropriate content. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An assertion that "no encyclopedia needs to include a single quotation to be complete" is mildly interesting but completely unsupported by the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. The talk page of the biography of this young woman is certainly not the proper place to discuss a radical change in how this encyclopedia uses quotations. You must take that policy discussion to a broader and more appropriate venue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a policy on that. It states No propaganda of any kind. Propaganda is information that is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. So our rule is to "not include information which may not be objective". All these quotes are subjective. Cascading systemic failure to be encyclopedia is demonstrated by including quotations. The fact that Trump tweeted a video is not remarkable, it is off-topic, propaganda, trivial and lazy to include quotes like this. When we insert quotations we are not following our policy that "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." - Shiftchange (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:QUOTATION: Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only when we can't use Wikipedia's own voice, when its not propaganda, when its not off-topic and when its not trivia should we include quotations. That is what we have decided. This is for knowledge on Thunberg only, not for the discussion of her. Not forum also applies. Use quotes in cultural works only would be a good reform. I am not going to have an edit war on this page. I can see many people will keep an eye on this article and that this page is not appropriate for more discussion on this topic. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but it also says Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. I feel that some people fall into the trap of dropping excessive quotations into an article just because they want to present every possible argument for a particular POV. That's not really appropriate and turns sections or even entire articles into a WP:QUOTEFARM. Quotes have to be WP:DUE for inclusion, which usually means there ought to be secondary coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do need to done down on the less-significant op-eds and more minor voices; summarizing the broad statements (ideally stuff discussed in-depth in secondary sources) is worthwhile, but part of the reason criticism sections are a bad idea per WP:CSECTION is because they tend to become dumping grounds for random op-eds out of a desire to fill them out. I'm particularly baffled at the heavy attention given to relatively inconsequential comments by Madeline Grant and Guillaume Larrive - does it really make sense to weigh these equal to commentary from major world leaders? In cases where there aren't very many people commenting, it might make sense to include op-eds, but as it is I feel we can safely remove them and still have every noteworthy strain of commentary about her represented. --Aquillion (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you are identifying is that quotes are cherry picked arbitrarily. If it is not worth including on Donald Trump's page that he tweeted about Thunberg with a video how could it be relevant to include his actions or words here? - Shiftchange (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, secondary coverage is a reasonable way to decide what's included. And what's included depends on how it relates to that person's notability - that is, relative to other coverage of them. So the standard to put something on Trump's page (given that he's president of the US) is higher than putting something on Thunberg's page. But at the very least we can remove stuff with no secondary coverage, given how much coverage Thunberg has gotten, yeah. --Aquillion (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly relating to Donald Trump, and his mocking of her.161.97.25.40 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 81.146.44.26 (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really merit its own section? Why does it not belong in one of the criticism sections already in existence? Nightenbelle (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOPE. Johnrichardhall (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:POSTNOM "When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in the lead section." Royal Scottish Geographical Society is from Scotland, Greta Thunberg is from Sweden, and she is not regularly associated with FRSGS. Jerry Stockton (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems they are not justified there, at least not at the moment. They're still allowed in the infobox though. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Thunberg is not from Scotland, and she is not regularly associated with FRSGS, I have again removed the post-nominal letters from the lead. Jerry Stockton (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For post-nominal letters to be included in the lead section the honor must come from the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or the subject must be regularly associated with the organization. 1) Thunberg was not born in Scotland and is not a resident or citizen of Scotland. 2) Thunberg is not regularly associated with the Royal Scottish Geographical Society. The post-nominal letters FRSGS do not belong in Thunberg's lead. Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thunberg's photograph in the infobox is captioned with FRSGS. She was also awarded Time Person of the Year (2019), Ambassador of Conscience Award (2019), International Children's Peace Prize (2019), and several others. Suggest that except for her name, no caption is needed, but if one is going to be added, "Time" Person of the Year (2019) would be more appropriate than FRSGS. Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's not the photo caption, that's a normal infobox name post-nominal? This guy's also got one. Don't think he's Scottish either, is he? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, David Attenborough is not Scottish and he is not regularly associated with FRSGS, so should the post-nominal letters in his lead also be removed? Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The advice for honorific_suffix at Template:Infobox person just says this:

To appear on the line below the person's name. This is for things like |honorific_suffix=[[Officer of the Order of the British Empire|OBE]] – honorifics of serious significance that are attached to the name in formal address, such as national orders and non-honorary doctorates; do not use it for routine things like "BA". It is permissible but not required to use the {{post-nominals}} template inside this parameter; doing so requires {{post-nominals|size=100%|...}}.

So I'm not sure it needs to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alongside Sir David, Joanna Lumley and Michael Palin are lurking as well. Thincat (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Lumley has a residence in Scotland, so there is no problem with the inclusion of FRSGS in her lead. Thunberg was not born in Scotland nor does she reside in Scotland. She is also is not regularly associated FRSGS, so there is a problem with FRSGS post-nominal letters in her lead. It keeps being added to her lead with the claim it was added by consensus. That consensus has not been found. Jerry Stockton (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Lumley is also known for playing Purdey in the New Avengers, alongside Gambit and Steed. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's silly to include any honorifics after her name. I doubt she would want it, and being an FRSGS is not relevant to her activism. If Oxford decided to give her an honorary degree, I doubt she would change the way she introduces herself. I think Greta is just Greta. Paulmlieberman (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that most people who have honorary titles tend not to "introduce themselves" using their post-nominal letters. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"People who have honorary titles tend not to "introduce themselves" using their post-nominal letters"; Nor do Academy Award winners, nor do Super Bowl winners, nor do World Series winners, nor do ad infinitum . . . "introduce themselves" as such, but they are referenced as such. Johnrichardhall (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John! That's what I was getting at. I doubt Paul McCartney insists on being announced as "Sir James Paul McCartney". Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User: Paulmlieberman: You missed my point. While I assume neither McCartney nor Thunberg would demand to be introduced by honorary citations, neither would either of them (I assume further) demand to be reintroduced if their honorary citations were mentioned/used. This fixation on Thunberg's FRSGS MOS:POSTNOM is worthy of a Shakespearean comedy: "Much Ado About Nothing." Surely there is better use of editor's time and effort to improving Thunberg's Wikibio. But then again, maybe not, since I am yet again wasting fleeting time on five letters of which Thunberg was honored with and bestowed: FRSGS. Johnrichardhall (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Let's move on to more important issues. Paulmlieberman (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When Greta Thunberg has larger size article in Wikipedia than some Presidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VaioSun (talk • contribs) 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does size matter? PeepleLikeYou (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really, is the size of Thunberg's Wiki bio going to be a point of contention? Johnrichardhall (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly reasonable to discuss the length of the article as a way of improving the article. If the article becomes very long, it can be broken into different pieces. For example there are very many articles on Adolf Hitler, such as Paintings by Adolf Hitler or Hitler family. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”Does size matter?” To the extent that it can indicate undue emphasis, yes. The article could do without so much attention to her social media accounts. --72.191.9.157 (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article contains ephemeral material regarding her status updates on social media which could be removed. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since RT News has been cited as a source herein Thunberg's "talk", it should be discussed if it is a reliable source worthy of quoting/citing. See The New York Times article "Russia’s RT Network: Is It More BBC or K.G.B.?"^[1] Johnrichardhall (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RT may be useble for the POV of the Russian government (with proper attribution), but this is not the kind of source I would like to see in a BLP article. Pavlor (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is widely known and common knowledge that RT is the Kremlins propaganda bullhorn.

--72.191.9.157 (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a reliable source for "It is widely known and common knowledge that RT is the Kremlins propaganda bullhorn." 81.146.44.26 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:RSP Jopal22 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• RT is less than an unreliable source; it actively spreads disinformation. It should ideally not be used for anything anywhere. If the opinion of Russian state propaganda is worth mentioning, it will be covered in other sources. GMG^talk 12:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a reliable source for "RT is less than an unreliable source". 81.146.44.26 (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says the following at the top of this page:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greta Thunberg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

There are way too many forum shoppers posting here. I suggest that we delete all contributions that do not have the aim to improve this article. One should not feed the trolls. Schwede66 06:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - who is to decide what does and what does not "have the aim to improve this article"? We have enough arbitrary judgements passed here by both her fan club and her detractors. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Heavy-weight apporach is not a good idea. Last thing we need right now is an edit-war on this very talk page. General-forum-like posts may be removed on per case basis (per WP:TPO Off-topic posts). Pavlor (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The description of the removed posts as forum-like is the arbitrary opinion of one user, arbitrarily imposed. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - For the well-stated reasons above. Johnrichardhall (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There is already too much suppression of opinion on this person and the subject of climate change in general. 81.146.44.26 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: opinion on this person and the subject of climate change in general is exactly that kind of content not suitable for a Wikipedia article talk page. Pavlor (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But we are discussing the removal of a discussion about the size of the article, not removal of a discussion about Greta or the subject of climate change. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When seeking facts it behooves one to not only suppress——but to ignore——opinion. Johnrichardhall (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is obviously how we do things and is not subject to local consensus. Per WP:TALK, The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. When talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces are used for discussion and communication between users, discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. That general principle isn't subject to change per WP:CONLOCAL. We can of course disagree over whether a particular discussion falls under WP:FORUM, but any discussion unambiguously not related to improving the article must be removed and we cannot change that via discussions here, so the opposition above has no weight. --Aquillion (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is exactly why I removed the contribution "Size" above as it was clearly not aimed at improving this article. My removal was reverted by User:PeepleLikeYou. Schwede66 22:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I looked at that section--I'd have removed it if I didn't see any point to it, but even though it's sort of a throwaway comment, it's not a FORUM post. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has taken a turn for the worse, it is starting to look like an episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus on this talk page. The claims as to why the discussion were removed are absurd. The removed content is very clearly not a discussion of Greta Thunberg or climate change, it's about the size of the article itself, which is obviously quite an appropriate topic for the talk page about how to improve the article, e.g. by reducing the size, or even questioning whether the size is important. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. Please see Talk Page Guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.9.157 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations are not made public for many years. She may have been a "favourite", but this is not the same as being formally nominated.

The entry in the introduction along with the misleading references should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.203.16 (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 2#Nobel Peace Prize and awards Jopal22 (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A wholistic reading of the article indicates that it relies too heavily on Ms. Thunberg herself. For example, her social media accounts are cited frequently. For example, media articles that essentially say “Ms. Thunberg said” or are interviews with Thunberg, and books written by Thunberg’s mother. The overall effect is that a majority of the article was indirectly written or heavily influenced by Ms. Thunberg, resulting in an article that lacks a neutral point of view. Better care should be taken to find and cite sources that don’t have overt or unconscious biases toward a flattering viewpoint of the subject of the article. --72.191.9.157 (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to recommend some sources. HiLo48 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good starting point would be to clean the article, getting rid of social media and quotes from the subject of the article or one of her relatives and admirers. We could use Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight as a guide. —72.191.9.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good point if your goal was to discredit and disparage the subject of the article. A more good faith starting point would be to see if better sources can be found for the content already there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]