Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 7

Agent/Manager?
The article should include a section on the management of her activism. I’m not sure what to call it that would bring neutral context. Campaign Manager? Publicist? Agent? PR Guy? I feel like those could be misread as loaded words. Regardless of what it’s called, the article should include a section on who helps her write and translate her speeches. Who provides financial support? How is she educated when she’s frequently traveling (private? If so how is it financed?) Etc. --72.191.9.157 (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not investigative journalists, here to put forward our own WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, we're here to record what is to be found in WP:RELIABLESOURCES.  Esowteric + Talk  15:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * hi, thanks for your reply. I don’t think I implied that this should be an investigation or that we should ignore the need for reliable sources. --72.191.9.157 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes her agents/campaign manager/publicist should be named. You are right. 81.146.44.26 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can either of you brand new, anonymous, IP editors tell us exactly what it is you want to see in the article, and provide us with a reliable source that supports that content? HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith HiLo48 (talk). I am merely making suggestions to improve the article. An article’s talk page seems like an appropriate venue for that. --72.191.9.157 (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Can either of you brand new, anonymous, IP editors" sounds like Harassment. 81.146.44.26 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, so an unregistered IP editor posting on a controversial matter here knows precisely where to go for that Wikilink. If you can do that well, you can follow other policies and find your own sources. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you know that? You don't and I can't. 81.146.44.26 (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you can't find any such sources? If that's the case, there's no further point to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Simply find the sources for her (at this time imagined) management team. The only references to a management team I've seen thus far come from Thunberg herself where she has stated that she does what she does on her own, and that she writes her own speeches but checks scientific data contained within her speeches with scientists. Obviously it takes money to travel, and it is common knowledge that her transatlantic voyages were provided from two different amphibious vessels, and while traveling in North America an electric car was provided to her by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Thunberg has stated: “I am not part of any organization. I sometimes support and cooperate with several NGOs that work with the climate and environment. But I am absolutely independent and I only represent myself. And I do what I do completely for free, I have not received any money or any promise of future payments in any form at all. And nor has anyone linked to me or my family done so.” "“Many people love to spread rumors 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. My parents were as far from climate activists as possible before I made them aware of the situation.”——→
 * "Indeed there have been false stories about her and her financial situation. A hoax magazine cover claimed she was the “highest paid activist.” A number of sources have discredited a false image of Thunberg with the American financier George Soros. (That was a particularly clever hoax as he would be a likely suspect.) Some people feel she is being used as a puppet for shadowy adults. I don’t know. She may be the Doogie Howser of the global crisis set, wise and independent beyond her years. She seems quite intelligent. Or maybe she is actually the Mother Teresa of the movement, doing the right thing, always and with no compromise, and asking no reward. But no one gets from New York to Montreal to Edmonton and on to [Spain] for free. Is it just her parents? Anyone speaking against any aspect of climate change gets accused of being in the pocket of Big Oil, so if she gets to scold the planet, she needs to be more transparent than a mere Facebook posting" (all quotes are from the Toronto Sun ).——→
 * I would like to know more about her travels: for example, how is shelter and sustenance secured while she is away from Stockholm. I am sure that reliable sources on this subject matter will be forthcoming. As I tweeted, "Climate activist Greta Thunberg has driven her critics so insane that they would accuse her of hypocrisy and blame her for global warming if they caught her flatulating; passing gas / farting." Johnrichardhall (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "I am sure that reliable sources on this subject matter will be forthcoming." They may well exist, but Wikipedia depends on its multitude of editors to go looking for such sources themselves if they want new content in article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that and was gentling suggesting that the IP editors be on the lookout for them and then return to edit the article . . . but I doubt that that will occur; most likely, they've stirred the pot and have moved on.Johnrichardhall (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is Nathan Grossman a sponsor here? "The film, tentatively titled ‘Greta,’ was announced by Deadline on Monday for a 2020 Hulu premiere. Director Nathan Grossman has followed the young climate prodigy to the ends of the Earth, from her school-striking on the sidewalk in front of the Swedish Parliament, to the high seas aboard the $4mn racing yacht Malizia II." ArcticGravyTrain (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Beats me, but if I were you I'd find a more reputable source than RT News.Johnrichardhall (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Forbes then? "The documentary, tentatively titled Greta, is being produced by Cecilia Nessen and Fredrik Heinig of B-Reel Films and is directed by Nathan Grossman..." and "Deadline reported that Hulu has been involved with the project for quite some time and has been operating behind the scenes while deals were being negotiated.". Sorry, forgot the signature.ArcticGravyTrain (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What source describes any of this as being Thunberg's "agent" or "manager"? Because if you don't have such a source, we shouldn't be talking about hypotheticals. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * pinging @User: ArcticGravyTrain. Forbes is a reliable source. But the material referenced only deals with a documentary being produced and its timeline . . . not a management team and/or an agent initiating or propelling Thunberg's activism activities. Johnrichardhall (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They started to film that documentary (working title Kids vs Climate(Kids vs klimmatet)?/Greta?) and published a book (Scenes from the Heart) when School strike for the climate -movement started. B-Reel Films has one of it's headquarters at Greta's hometown. B-Reel Films got 350 000 SEK (about 389 075,75 dollars) for that documentary from Swedish Film Institute. Now my guess is that documentary contacts came from Greta's dad Svante Thunberg side. So my guess parents are the management team because this has to predate School strike for the climate -movement. Swedish people are great for selling stories. ArcticGravyTrain (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Guesses aren't acceptable sources for inclusion of anything in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think or believe or guess is akin to assume; none of them stem from fact. Guessing would be apropos when purchasing a lottery ticket, or when deciding whether or not to have faith in a deity. Guessing should have no place or space in encyclopedic endeavors. Johnrichardhall (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't Greta still an underage/a minor child? Therefore parents are responsible unless otherwise stated? It's common sense. ArcticGravyTrain (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's just more original research and synthesis. We need reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe this will help @ArcticGravyTrain: Simply find a reliable source wherein something along these lines exist: "Thunberg's management team consists of XXXXX." Or, "Thunberg's agent is XXXXX." Or, "Thunberg is represented by XXXXX." Johnrichardhall (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Purpose of this talk page
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.  Schwede 66  06:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose - For the well-stated reasons above. Johnrichardhall (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * When seeking facts it behooves one to not only suppress——but to ignore——opinion. Johnrichardhall (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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.  Schwede 66  22:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * oppose. Please see Talk Page Guidelines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.9.157 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Poor Sources
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)
 * Feel free to recommend some sources. HiLo48 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 Reliable sources and undue weight as a guide. —72.191.9.157 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * why would anyone consider it disparaging to suggest we should follow wikipedia guidelines? I’m confused. --72.191.9.157 (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith refers to other editors, not the subject of an article. It is not possible to assume that any person's social media account is impartial or a good source for anything, let alone for Wikipedia. 81.146.44.26 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific about which sections and cites you object to? We're only citing her social media section in a single place, for one aspect of her opinions, and even there we also have a secondary source.  The other sources you seem to be referencing (eg. media sources quoting or citing her) are WP:SECONDARY - that's the appropriate way to cover someone's opinions; if her tweets or comments have extensive coverage (and the ones we reference here do), then they're WP:DUE for the article even if you personally feel that reliable sources ought not to have covered that in so much depth. --Aquillion (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg was NOT nominated for the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize
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)
 * Please see Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 2 Jopal22 (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg WAS nominated for the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize
"Thunberg, one of few people whose nomination has become known before the awards ceremony," "was nominated by three Norwegian MPs." "Greta Thunberg, the founder of the Youth Strike for Climate movement, has been nominated for the Nobel peace prize. 'We have proposed Greta Thunberg because if we do nothing to halt climate change it will be the cause of wars, conflict and refugees,' said Norwegian Socialist MP Freddy André Øvstegård.” Johnrichardhall (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure how that fits in very well at all with our Nobel prize article which says "The deadline for the return of the nomination forms is 31 January of the year of the award. The Nobel Committee nominates about 300 potential laureates from these forms and additional names. The nominees are not publicly named, nor are they told that they are being considered for the prize. All nomination records for a prize are sealed for 50 years from the awarding of the prize." HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It does not fit well ... but the nominators of Thunberg went public with their nomination of Thunberg; hence the nomination is part of the public record. "According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation a nomination is considered valid if submitted by a person falling within one of the categories listed below:


 * Members of national assemblies and national governments (cabinet: Members/ministers) of sovereign states as well as current heads of state
 * Members of The International Court of Justice in The Hague and The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague
 * Members of Institut de Droit International
 * Members of the Executive Committee of the international board of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
 * University professors, professors emeriti and associate professors of history, social sciences, law, philosophy, theology, and religion; university rectors and university directors (or their equivalents); directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes
 * Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
 * Members of the main board of directors or its equivalent of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
 * Current and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee (proposals by current members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after 1 February)
 * Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee


 * Unless otherwise stated the term "members" shall be understood as current (sitting) members."


 * In the end, I could not care less if Thunberg was or was not nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. That notwithstanding, I do care how Wikipedia is perceived by academia. By not acknowledging what is common knowledge and has been reported by every reputable newsroom in the world--that Thunberg was in fact nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize--I feel is a disservice to Wikipedia. Johnrichardhall (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I was more concerned about the date in "The deadline...is 31 January of the year of the award." Did they nominate her very early this year? HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * According to The Straits Times: "Three MPs for the opposition Socialist Left nominated Greta for the prize before the Jan 31 deadline, Mr Ovstegard [one of three MPs from Norwegian Socialist Party] said, meaning her nomination is valid for the 2019 prize which will be announced on Oct 11." Johnrichardhall (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * So they did get in early. Interesting. Not questioning it at all, but that a fascinating source. It probably further indicates her global influence. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed that The Straits Times is a "fascinating" source, but it is actually quoting reporting by Agence France-Presse (AFP). Furthermore, it seems usual that the fact (if the quote from The Straits Times is to be accepted) that the Thunberg nomination was entered before the deadline was something nearly every media source did not deem worthy of reporting. On the other hand, if it were a point of contention (that Thunberg's nomination missed the deadline), the Internet might have actually imploded from all the brouhaha that surely would have been forthcoming if it were creditable that Thunberg's nomination missed the 31 January 2019 deadline for consideration of the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize. Johnrichardhall (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Is RT NEWS a reliable source? YES or NO
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.?" Johnrichardhall (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


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


 * 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.  G M G  talk  12:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Give us a reliable source for "RT is less than an unreliable source". 81.146.44.26 (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally i can not trust 99% of the 'Western Press', the is political bias everywhere. Regards RT, have a look at the two entries on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page ... the is a difference between how trustworthy RT is considered regards covering General topics against its reporting of controversial topics, international politics subjects. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Size
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)
 * Does size matter? PeepleLikeYou (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Really, is the size of Thunberg's Wiki bio going to be a point of contention? Johnrichardhall (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ”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)
 * 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)
 * "The article could do without so much attention to her social media accounts". You can say that again, and how! In fact, references to her social media accounts should be removed completely and immediately. Particularly her Facebook account. This totally unacceptable. 81.146.44.26 (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Come off it, it's mildly overdone rather than totally unacceptable. Wikipedia has longer articles on individual episodes of defunct television series from the 2010s and Pokemon characters. Regardless of what we all might think of her, Greta Thunberg is more significant than these. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Name sources
No-one calls her Tintin. This is surely vandalism? Sources, please Icairns 2 (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not vandalism. See talk page archive. I've restored the two citations somehow deleted, that are required to comply with BLP and privacy policies.  Esowteric + Talk  13:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

This actually tells us nothing about Thunberg
Emotet malware attacks

Luring emails sent suggesting they support Thunberg (and requesting support for Thunberg) instead contained the Emotet malware which is a banking trojan malware program which obtains financial information by injecting computer code into the networking stack of an infected Microsoft Windows computer, allowing sensitive data to be stolen via transmission.[114] "Cybersecurity researchers at Proofpoint have warned that there is an active campaign [circa late 2019] that is using interest in the environmental campaigner to spread a malicious strain of malware that threatens to put recipients at risk."[115] "The copy within the email includes a few different themes, including Thunberg’s Time nomination, the Christmas holidays, and general environmental awareness and activism. Researchers noted that the emails contain an attached Microsoft Word document named “Support Greta Thunberg.doc”. When the recipient opens it, the Emotet malware is installed."[116] None of this tells us anything about the subject of the article. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose a preamble could be: "Due to Thunberg's global reach and presence, cybercriminals have been preying on her supporters and potential supporters by sending "luring emails...." Johnrichardhall (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They could be using Donny Osmond or something and it wouldn't make any difference to that paragraph. I think this kind of thing is what people were complaining about when they talked about the size of the article. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, to protect the complainers' physiological well-being, delete it ... posthaste then, before they suffer irreversible psychological damage. Johnrichardhall (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're being silly. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Guilty, as charged. Johnrichardhall (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section, it clearly is completely unrelated to Greta Thunberg. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @PeepleLikeYou -- Hopefully, by deleting it you'll be able to "chill and watch an old fashion movie with a friend"; and Have a Happy New Year.Johnrichardhall (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I promise you I am not at all angry, but thanks for the well-wishes and the same to you. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ;-)   Johnrichardhall (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Full name revisited
I've restored the two citations immediately after GT's full name.

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 ..."

Hence two citations to sort of satisfy "widely published", or at least to show that the publication was not isolated to one source.

See talk page archive.  Esowteric + Talk  14:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Topmost image revisited
We've had huge discussions about the lead image. Such as here. I still think the "Image B" at that discussion would be a better choice than the "Image A" that is presently in the article. I bring this up because I stumbled upon a 10 minute YouTube video that explains something relevant. Check out "When bad photos are better". Bus stop (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it very irritating that you expect editors to watch a video that you have found interesting if they want to take part in this issue that has already been discussed at length. Gandydancer (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are going to have to change the image pretty soon because this woman is changing in appearance. She is fast maturing physically. 81.141.154.23 (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow ... the photo issue again? Unreal!  Johnrichardhall (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well yes . Do you have a counter-opinion? My opinion is that in the present image she looks more like an angelic child and less like a serious-minded adult. Bus stop (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion, @Bus stop, remains: Wow, the photo issue again. But if it has to be the never ending discussion, then why not have a dozen photos to choose from? No matter, since she's a youth, soon the photo will have to be updated with option C or D (forthcoming) because photo A or B will be obsolete due to being outdated. Johnrichardhall (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * —why would you prefer Image A over Image B? Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I could not care less which photo of Thunberg is used (so long as it is not demeaning or pornographic). So I prefer the forthcoming photo "Y" (until photo "Z" arrives), after which, I'd then prefer whatever photo comes next. This never-ending photo issue is worthy of a Shakespearean play: Much Ado About Nothing. Johnrichardhall (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * —you are wasting everyone's time. This Talk page isn't for your musings on Shakespeare. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How ironic that you accuse me of wasting time after you ask for my opinion which I unequivocally stated: that the ongoing, never ending, brouhaha over Thunberg's infobox picture is indubitably moot because it will soon need to be updated with other photos as she matures which makes this "revisited" subject matter not only a colossal waste of time—but also a waste of energy. Johnrichardhall (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * —why would you weigh in to a discussion that you are saying you are not interested in? Bus stop (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see my talk page for your edification. Johnrichardhall (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think "portray the subject as a serious-minded adult" is really what matters for the lead image. Per MOS:IMAGES, the most important criteria for the lead image is that they should be what readers expect to see - it's a visual "this is the right article" confirmation.  The image currently there is probably her most iconic and well-known image, so it's the best for that purpose; furthermore, it dates only to April 2019, so it isn't too far out of date or anything.  We will probably have to update it eventually, assuming she doesn't totally vanish from the public eye (in which case that image will forever remain how she's best known), but I don't think perceptions of her have changed yet, so that's still her best-known image (and the video / "serious-minded adult" argument reads to me like 'this is how people should see her', which IMHO is a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS argument, ie. we ought to reflect how she's seen in reliable sources and not how we feel she ought to be seen - with a few limited exceptions from WP:MUG where an image is outright false or disparaging, but I don't think that's the case here.) -Aquillion (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Greta Thunberg is quintessentially a young and living person. There is no "iconic" image of her. "Image A" is the "plain vanilla" version of the person we are writing about. "Plain vanilla" describes "the simplest version of something". Are you saying that "Image B" seen here would not serve as "confirmation" the reader has arrived at the right article? Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Can we table the image discussion and do something else productive instead? It honestly doesn't really matter all that much, and has been absolutely talked to death. Many of the images suggested are fine, the current image is fine too. None of the are doing active harm to the project. Continuing to spend more time beating this dead horse into a pulp on the other hand...  G M G  talk  16:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DITTO! Johnrichardhall (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I (User:Johnrichardhall) have reverted the following statement by @ which was deleted by @ before he posted the below. This is @'s deletion: "Can we table the image discussion" GreenMeansGo—it was "tabled". If you look at the sequence of posts that should be obvious." Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)  —— Johnrichardhall (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thunberg happens to be a powerful speaker yet she does not appear to be speaking in Image A. Additionally Image A is simplified—it doesn't depict the complexities included in Image B, which for instance includes a complex background, in contrast to the simplistic ring of stars from the Flag of the European Union. The apparent silence of the depicted face against a background of the iconography of the flag of the European Union makes Image A an inferior choice to Image B, which shows her speaking. Is she known for her silence or her outspokenness? Image B captures her mid-sentence articulating a thought. Why would we opt for a nonspeaking image when she is known for her ability to articulate ideas by means of speech? Incidentally Image A is cropped from File:Greta Thunberg at the Parliament (33744056508).jpg, which is not even an example of Thunberg addressing a group of people. To me it looks like one person is taking her photograph with the European Union flag contrived to be a backdrop. It is a posed picture as opposed to her in the midst of addressing others on the issue of climate change. There is an argument to be made for posed photography but there is at least as good an argument to be made for candid photography. An encyclopedia is not for promoting ideas. An encyclopedia should be more interested in accurate depiction of subjects addressed, in this case a young woman who happens to be a powerful speaker. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @: (FYI:@ G M G  talk ) QUESTION for @: Why did you post the below as a statement of agreement that this matter was tabled (per   G M G  talk  post), then return to delete your statement of agreement?? And then start all over by posting the above? —→
 * @ this is your self-deleted post of agreement: "Can we table the image discussion" —it was "tabled". If you look at the sequence of posts that should be obvious." Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC) —→
 * I am not trying to be flippant--but are you alright?Johnrichardhall (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the people who suggest that this discussion could well come to a close without any loss to this online encyclopedia. There is nothing significantly wrong with the current image which merits these extended discussions. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

How to make honours and awards in balance
As I indicated before, I'd like to help get this article to GA status when it's sufficiently stable which should be soon. One of the sections that is now very far away from balance (in terms of weight with respect to rest page, not NPOV), is the honours and awards. It's full of details, but I seem to be disagreeing with about how to get this section summarized. I'm looking to other GA articles and there seem to be two options here: All of the examples I found had significantly less space dedicated to the sections, even if the articles were sometimes longer than Thunbergs article. I'd like to make a quite a few changes to the section, and like to get input about (A) which further ones I forgot and (B) which information is considered vital.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Make it a list without details. f.i. Malala, Che Guevara,
 * 2) Make it into proper prose, focus only on the top awards and completely omitting any thanks. Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Jane Fonda
 * 1) Deletion of day of month. Needless information that at least distracts me.
 * 2) Deletion of most if not all of Thunbergs 'thank you'
 * 3) Summary of nomination deadline to two words: before deadline. Caveats of reporting on two newspapers seems overly wordy.
 * 4) Maybe move murals and all to section "In popular culture" and move that section directly above awards and honours.
 * 5) Remove information about march in Montreal from section as off-topic
 * 6) Delete all information of her not being able to make it to ceremonies. If we have a RS, we could bundle this in one statement about how she refuses to fly and often misses ceremonies.
 * 7) Remove speech by Jane Fonda
 * 8) Remove quote by  Sonia Seneviratne.


 * Could it perhaps be advantageous use both? Could prose be used to supplement a list? A list is orderly and compact. A list can contain all awards and honors. In proximity to a list, prose can be used to expand only on those points warranting further commentary. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen examples of both as well, yes. In those cases, the awards would be in a list, and the honours described or something: a clear distinction was made between categories of recognition. Do you see a logical distinction here? I think it'll be easier to make the decision once we've removed some details. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the direction you two are heading with this. I find that many Wikipedia articles that are about people, works of art and events that have a great deal of media coverage (as opposed to, e.g., Frederick Douglass) tend to have too much easily-cited material, as opposed to content that takes serious thought and crafting, careful word choices, and help lead to a deeper understanding of the topic of the article. I find this tendency at its worst in articles on popular music, which tend to be full of charting, statistics and money, with little attention to the art (there are exceptions, such as the article on Yesterday). I want the article on Greta to be primarily about Greta, and the great work she's doing, and, to the extent possible, to make the article a gateway for readers to gain greater understanding of the climate crisis and the worldwide young persons' movement she represents. Let's make it a good article, and a great resource! Paulmlieberman (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The people writing the article want to make a very exact record of all the things which happened, but the person reading the article probably doesn't care about most of it, they just want a basic picture. I think that it's better to remove a lot of the details from this article, and focus on the reader. We can always make a more detailed article containing all the facts about all the awards she got, if necessary. PeepleLikeYou (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Back on 19 November 2019, @ started a discussion concerning the length of Thunberg's "Honours and awards" section by stating: "The Honours and awards section, as it gets lengthier (and it will get lengthier still), is becoming hard to read. It is now hard to locate a specific award; many of the entries are rather garbled; names of the awards may be incorrect; it is often unclear what the award is given for generally or what it is being given for in this instance." —→


 * The initial post included more observations and went on to offer sound suggestions for formatting the "Honours and awards" section. Persons weighing in on this current discussion on Thunberg's "Honours and awards" section would be well-served by reading Ex_nihil's post by clicking here.    Johnrichardhall (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC) 07:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that while the previous discussion pointed towards some important changes in the structure in the article, we should first try to get rid of some content. What about the eight points I proposed above? Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * All good points @. I would suggest: 1) in conjunction with any edit of the section, a standardize format (such as suggested by @) should be agreed to and implemented. 2) I would highlight that Thunberg misses ceremonies due to refusing to fly and/or outright declines awards--including accompanying monetary award--due to the honoring source and/or her stance that the climate does not need awards but rather action. That she donates monetary awards to charities (there are many RSs). This is relevant due to the constant questioning/attacks by her critics of her actions and motives. 3) Relocate Montreal march entry to "2019 visit to North America." (Johnrichardhall) (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Since my suggestion, now archived, seems to have been invoked here I thought I would resurrect it below: Suggested entry order: Name of award Giver of the award. Date of award. Whether shared. Description of award. Notes. Linking throughout to Wiki pages where they exist. Citeref. I believe that it is still useful to keep it in its chronological order because this in itself tells a story. Bolding the award is maybe not Wiki policy but it does read better. This would then render the current entry: ''On 12 April 2019, Thunberg shared the Norwegian Fritt Ords Prize, which celebrates freedom of speech, with the Nature and Youth organisation. The conferring organisation, Fritt Ord noted their determined committed activism even in the face of pervasive online and media harassment. Thunberg donated her share of the prize money to a lawsuit which seeks to halt Norwegian oil exploration in the Arctic.'' As: Fritt Ord Award by the Fritt Ord Foundation, Norway (Stiftelsen Fritt Ord'') on 12 April 2019. Sharedwith Natur og Ungdom. One of two annual awards to one or more persons or organizations that have contributed in the organization's areas of interest, especially freedom of expression. The award inludes a monetary component and a statue by sculptor Nils Aas. Thunberg donated her share of the prize money to a lawsuit seeking to halt Norwegian oil exploration in the Arctic.''

Quite a bit of work, I would have done it already but I got busy. Still could if agreed. E x nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @ And I'm still willin' to to help; maybe the two of us can constitute a consensus . . . and we can get busy. Johnrichardhall (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! If we want to move to GA, maybe we shouldn't bold it, but go for the more conventional bullet points. Also, I really think we should keep the information to a minimum and focused on Thunberg. My ideal would be one of those.
 * April 2019: Fritt Ord Award shared with Natur og Ungdom. Thunberg donated her share of the prize money to a lawsuit seeking to halt Norwegian oil exploration in the Arctic.
 * April 2019: Fritt Ord Award shared with Natur og Ungdom for committed activism even in the face of pervasive online and media harassment. Thunberg donated her share of the prize money to a lawsuit seeking to halt Norwegian oil exploration in the Arctic.
 * I think that the organisation here can be left out as the name is the same as the prize. Another example where the 'acceptance speech' can be left out as far as I'm concerned, but not the organization:
 * June 2019: Amnesty International's most prestigious award: Ambassador of Conscience Award.
 * June 2019: Amnesty International's Ambassador of Conscience Award.
 * This will maybe go a bit further than the proposals here, but I feel those are an improvement on the current situation. The German article is quite like this, and to me the information seems very clear. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that highlighting what the award is for is critical data and should not be omitted. What the Norwegian Fritt Ords Prize is for is not common knowledge in the US (and elsewhere); having "which celebrates freedom of speech" is necessary information for the reader, saving the reader from having to research the award and providing just enough information so that the awarding of the award to the recipient seems apropos. So, I remain in support of @'s suggested format—and not a truncated version. Johnrichardhall (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I can live with any format that decreases the size of the section & makes it clearer. I think a bulleted form of Ex nihil would be an improvement on the current situation.
 * However, I feel like giving a overview of what all these prizes mean in general is not what people are looking for, and that the true prize enthusiasts can click the internal link. To me, the information of why Thunberg got the award is more valuable. Both information is too much, and will often overlap. As a compromise (length vs content), your five word description (compared to ex nihil more elaborate description) seems okay to me, so that the bullet point would become:
 * April 2019: Fritt Ord Award shared with Natur og Ungdom, which 'celebrates freedom of speech'. Thunberg donated her share of the prize money to a lawsuit seeking to halt Norwegian oil exploration in the Arctic.
 * Would that work for you two? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would that work for you two? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Fine by me. Ive got my day job to do first but will give it a go before long. If anybody wants to start in, go for it. I'm cool with the date going before the award name but I suspect that what people will be scanning the list for is the award itself, which would be easier to find if it came first, but no worries. Anything consistent. E x nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ex nihil on having the name of the award first, but, as Ex says, anything consistent. The German list isn't pretty, but it does the job. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, in agreement and looking forward to a more succinct structure in the honours and awards section. Thank you to @ for 1) suggesting the format change back in November and for 2) tackling the task at hand--kudos, sir! Johnrichardhall (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good! And wow, that was done fast. Thanks a lot. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Femke. Done for now, off for dinner. Johnrichardhall, see if you can make it better. I do like the award name first, makes them so easy to find. E x nihil  (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @, it looks good. Thank you! Johnrichardhall (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

"Sharon"
Be mindful of this story just in case anyone tries to change her name. It seems a minor UK actress appeared on a Celebrity edition of Mastermind where she was asked to name the teenage climate change activist, and she answered "Sharon". Thunberg has apparently changed her Twitter account name to Sharon in response according to the article. This is Paul (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Poor Amanda Henderson.Ooh, the perils of the black chair. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not a serious answer. Amanda Henderson was not indicating that she thought the name was "Sharon". A name—any female name—was spoken by Amanda Henderson. She was indicating that she didn't have any idea who the referenced "Swedish climate-change activist" might be. Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, everyone who saw the video knew that ... that she was just uttering a name; otherwise, just turn out the lights because there's no hope for humanity. But what makes it notable and amusing is Thunberg's response: changing her Twitter bio to "Sharon" thereby making the actress momentarily correct with her guess. Johnrichardhall (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that caption betrays a certain level of "journalistic licence" that WP has come to expect from the Daily Mail: "Amanda Henderson calls Greta Thunberg 'Sharron' on BBC show".... This shows the hilarious moment Amanda Henderson gets Greta Thunberg's name wrong on Celebrity Mastermind." Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not just The Daily Beast. The BBC writes "Greta Thunberg changes Twitter name to 'Sharon' after game show error" and The Guardian writes "Greta Thunberg changes Twitter name to Sharon after quizshow error", both misconstruing Amanda Henderson's response as an "error". No, it was not. Amanda Henderson did not know who the referenced "Swedish climate-change activist" might be. The name "Sharon" was spoken as just an example of a female name. It was a guess and of course it was an incorrect guess. This is merely a manner of speaking. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mastermind is a time-limited quiz: you get two rounds, each typically of two minutes, to correctly answer as many questions as possible. One way that it differs from other quiz shows is that if you don't know the answer, you can either "Pass" or guess an answer. If you guess and get it right, you score a point just as if you knowingly gave the correct answer; if you guess and get it wrong, you score nothing and the presenter will provide the correct answer; if you "Pass", you also score nothing but the presenter will move straight on to the next question (deferring the disclosure of the correct answer until after the two minutes are up). This means that a "Pass" uses up less of your two minutes than an incorrect guess does, but there is a downside: in the event that two or more contenders tie on points, the number of passes is taken into account and the contender having fewer or fewest passes is considered the winner. So if you don't know the answer but think that it might be long, it's better to "Pass"; if you think that it might be short, it's better to guess. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Sharon" is a short response, providing an incentive to guess "Sharon", especially if "Sharon" seems a likely name for a "Swedish climate-change activist". Smile.png Bus stop (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. As per the normal show, they all got 90 seconds on their Specialised Subject and 2 minutes on General Knowledge. To save time maybe she would have been better with a single syllable like Sue?! But I recall reading a pop-psychology article somewhere, about quizzes, a few years ago, that suggested that on Mastermind it was always better to guess in the Specialised Subject, because hearing the right answer would facilitate a correct answer of the next question, whereas with General Knowledge there was less point, since all questions were deliberately unrelated. By the way, she tied in second place with Levi Roots. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Question: How is this discussion going to improve Thunberg's article? I apologize for also getting caught up in the humor of the moment, but this topic has now turned into a defense of Amanda Henderson. I think defending her should be moved to her Wiki Bio and that this topic be closed, posthaste.  Johnrichardhall (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think This is Paul intended his original post to just sound a note of caution. So job done. Agree, it would be more relevant to the Amanda Henderson article, where the episode has been added. It's not clear to me how long Thunberg's "name change" was in effect. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it a "defense of Amanda Henderson" to point out that the BBC and The Guardian, not to mention The Daily Beast, don't mind throwing Amanda Henderson under a bus? What really happened was that Amanda Henderson did not know who the referenced "Swedish climate-change activist" might be. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Issues regarding the BBC, The Guardian and/or The Daily Beast should be dealt with on their respective Wiki-pages—--not here.Johnrichardhall (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out there were no actual buses in the 1832 June Rebellion. She was very good. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * These would be the metaphorical busses of history. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, not one of Greta's. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can fault Amanda Henderson only for not being a Greta Thunberg aficionado. And it is a little-known fact that the Electric bus pre-dated the Cambrian. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I was sounding a cautionary note in my original post because I thought the chances were that someone would attempt to either change her name in the lede or even move the page. I don't watch Casualty or Holby City so wasn't familiar with Amanda Henderson until I saw Mastermind the other evening, but I thought she was probably notable enough for an article because she's been in both soaps for a number of years. I'm pleased the article's been expanded. For what it's worth I think the answer was probably strategic since passing on the question could have gone against Henderson as the number of passes are taken into account at the end of the game, whereas giving a wrong answer isn't. She chose the name Sharon, but could just as easily have answered with Julie or Laura or Sarah or Cheryl or Helen, or hundreds of other female names. It's no big deal folks. This is Paul (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a good guess. Possibly a "Swedish climate-change activist" could be named "Sharon". Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess we're lucky to escape with just a bus, and not get an aircraft crashing into a train. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Some people just have preconceptions about the names of "Swedish climate-change activists". Amanda Henderson should be given credit for Thinking outside the box and providing the name "Sharon". I applaud her courageousness and perspicacity. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)