Talk:Greta Thunberg/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Agent/Manager?

I am closing this as a BLP violation that has gone on for long enough: what we have here is speculation and, worse, innuendo, with the suggestion that this young woman is not capable of making her own decisions. Editing and writing for Wikipedia is easy: it starts with reliable sources. If you don't have that, please find a subreddit. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Wikipedia: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) References

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. Schwede66 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. Schwede66 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 Wikipedia: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#Nobel Peace Prize and awards 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)

References