Talk:School Strike for Climate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article evaluation

The article on "School strike for climate" starts with a confusing description because the first sentence includes multiple movements that are related and are represented in the same way instead of emphasizing the specific school strike for climate the article is supposed to be about. A better way to introduce the explanation of what the school strike for climate is would be to describe it on the basis of other related and similar movements but don't set all of the movements equal or if so, make sure the reader understands it. The description of what the school strike is too complicated. It says that students are "leaving their school to take part in demonstrations for climate action." It sounds like the students are dropping out of school to demonstrate for climate. Instead they are refusing to go to school to show the importance of climate justice and they'll keep striking until the politicians change something. Additionally, it is missing why Greta Thunberg started the strike. She got inspired by the school shooting strikes in the U.S. It is very good that a list of all the related school strikes is included. It shows the importance of the topic. All the links work and several article from different countries and in different languages are included what is very good because it makes the topic accessible to an international audience. BSII0IX (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

New sources from the United Kingdom

Two new sources for the United Kingdom that could be worked in. Upcoming climate action planned. And a story on Holly Gillibrand in Scotland. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Friday Feb 8, no information from Germany

There were strikes in Germany in many cities on Friday February 8, is there some summarizing source about it? Jirka Dl (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to shift material on 'We Don't Have Time' elsewhere

In my view, the paragraph starting "In 2017 Ingmar Rentzhog founded the 10% non-profit .." should be shifted in its entirety to the article on Greta Thunberg. The material should also be edited down, should focus on Greta, and should place less emphasis on 'We Don’t Have Time' and Ingmar Rentzhog. I read the english news article and watched the COP24 video (18:22). Both are credible secondary sources. Thoughts? HTH. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This from Greta's facebook page is also relevant to the matter: RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ps I was briefly a youth advisor for the board of the non profit foundation "We don’t have time". It turns out they used my name as part of another branch of their organisation that is a start up business. They have admitted clearly that they did so without the knowledge of me or my family. I no longer have any connection to “We don’t have time”. Nor does anyone in my family. They have deeply apologised for what has happened and I have accepted their apology.

Strongly agree - this section does not belong here but a suitable mention in the Greta Thunberg article perhaps under a new section "Controversies" or "Criticism" to reflect the issue being raised (Talk:Extinction Rebellion) about related environmental pages having a lack of balance BorisAndDoris (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Since this passage needs moving:

2017 Ingmar Rentzhog founded the 10% non-profit, 90% for-profit joint-stock company We Don’t Have Time. The companies aim is to create "the world´s largest social network for climate action" and to creat viral environmental content to pull in money via digital adverts. On the same day that Thunberg started her school strike on 20 August 2018, Rentzhog postet content about the School strike on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. The company claims to have played a central role in giving Greta Thunberg's protest great national and international attention.[7][8] According to Greta Thunberg people from We Don’t Have Time were the first who reacted to her school strike.[9] In November Thunberg started as an advisor for We Don’t Have Time. The same month Rentzhog used Thunberg in the promotional material for a share issue which raised 10 Million Swedish krona in December 2018. According to Greta Thunbergs father they did not know about it. At the end of January 2019 Thunberg quit her job as advisor of We Don’t Have Time to stay totally independend.[10][11]

It can be parked here until consensus is reached BorisAndDoris (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree partly and moved it. But the following is relevant for the history of the schoostrike movement "2017 Ingmar Rentzhog founded the 10% non-profit, 90% for-profit joint-stock company We Don’t Have Time. The companies aim is to create "the world´s largest social network for climate action" and to creat viral environmental content to pull in money via digital adverts. On the same day that Thunberg started her school strike on 20 August 2018, Rentzhog postet content about the School strike on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. The company claims to have played a central role in giving Greta Thunberg's protest great national and international attention.[7][8] According to Greta Thunberg people from We Don’t Have Time were the first who reacted to her school strike [1], [2]. According to Greta Thunberg people from We Don’t Have Time were the first who reacted to her school strike [3]." --Pass3456 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I only just discovered this article and its talk page, and just want to say THANKS for having a constructive discussion on a controversial subject. How refreshing! Carry on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

FridaysForFuture ???

I have small problem with last anonymous edit as in Belgium and Netherlands strikes are not on Fridays, but on Thursdays. But this is only minor question, nothing serious. :-) Jirka Dl (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I took a crack at cleaning that up, the result is here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I additionally changed main title and subtitle in infobox. Jirka Dl (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Non English sources

Because this is the English Wikipedia we require English language sources to comply with the WP:Verification policy.

I'm not an "English only" snob... I have forgotten most of my German and if I try to speak it today out comes a mixture of German and the other languages I learned to speak just a little. So with apologies, please

do not add non-English sources unless you provide a translation.

For help see WP:NONENG and our list of editors willing to help with translation.

Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but this cannot be left uncommented, as it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our policy on verifiabilty (WP:V). While it is always good to have references in English (and I would like to encourage everyone to provide them if you can), reliable references (per WP:RS) in any other language are just as valid to support statements in articles. No thereby supported fact is at risk of being deleted, regardless if English-language references are provided (or even exist) or not - and, of course, also regardless if a direct quote or even a translation is provided or not.

Further, our policy on verifiability does not even require that references are provided at all, only that they exist somewhere on this planet. Of course, without references, statements are at risk of being challenged.

Finally, Wikipedia is an international project and therefore has no focus on any specific language or locale. The various language entities of the project exist only because the accumulated knowledge should be accessible to anyone on this planet, and it is one of the goals of the project to overcome language-barriers, because they only narrow perspectives and keep people in local information bubbles, that is dumb.

Based on these goals it is desirable to have many reliable references, and in the English edition, they should ideally, but not necessarily, be in English language. Don't hesitate to provide references in other languages, though.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Foreign language sources for extraordinary claims will have a hard time. Policy has a technical reading (above) and then there is the practical world in which we live, where people understand the value of preventing controversy and drama. If you have the skill to add text to the EN wikipeda, please use that skill to find an English source or provide a translation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I'm more likely to make an issue over text. Just adding a nation/location/date/count to the table, no big deal. Adding additional comments to the table? If it's important enough to add, it's important enough to provide a translation, at least on the talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The requirement for an RS citation

In the opening section, Matthaispaul wrote our policy on verifiability does not even require that references are provided at all, only that they exist somewhere on this planet. In contrast the lead at WP:Verifiability says

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.

Experienced editors, at least on the English Wikipedia, know that everything is likely to be challenged. And I should know, because I am one of the editors who adds Template:CN or simply reverts unsourced statements, and then its on the original editor to initiate discussion under WP:BRD where I will say "What's your source for this statement?" So please add sources to everything. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

New material

Two new references that could be worked in:

• Youth-led climate strike movement open letter
• Carrington (2019) on the school strikes

With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Some links here, with views both prasing and critizing the 'school strikes'. Can someone please advise me if these are 'reputable sources'

https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/12-03-2019/students-should-strike-on-friday-and-they-should-be-punished-for-it/

https://www.4bc.com.au/podcast/school-climate-strike-teaching-kids-the-wrong-lesson/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/28/mps-debate-climate-after-school-strike-but-only-a-handful-turn-up (this latter one could go under a new heading of 'political response/responses).

http://theconversation.com/school-climate-strikes-why-adults-no-longer-have-the-right-to-object-to-their-children-taking-radical-action-111851

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/comment/school-climate-strikes-have-taught-us-kids-are-all-right-and-adults-have-it-allLondon5432112345 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

List of countries and UK

The list includes UK and Ireland and England, etc. Pls sort it out. :) Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

list of countries removed

I just removed the list of countries because that was duplicating the table. Yes, adding strikes to the table is harder than just listing nations. So be it. In the list of coutries were the following RSs which I am listing here for possible use in the remaining text, if they have not been used yet.

• https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-03-15/worse-voldemort-global-students-strike-targets-climate-change
• https://www.icelandreview.com/news/students-start-weekly-strike-for-climate/
• https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/global-climate-strike-students-protest-climate-inaction-intl/index.html
• https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_society/2019/02/19/icelandic_students_to_go_on_climate_strike_on_frida/
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/youth-climate-strike-students-skip-class-demand-tough-action-on-climate-change/

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Both are useful and needed. I came to the page yesterday looking for a specific country. I wanted to look it up on a list. I saw nothing. This new list is not a duplicate. It shows how many and what countries and is useful to visitors. Lots of people come to this article to see if their country is on the list. This section is needed. Nobody wants to sift through the other chronologically sorted table. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The List

Usually, lists should be preceded by the criteria for being included. See WP:Manual of Style/Lists. When I looked just now, the list was titled "List of notable school strikes". Well, what the devil is "notable"? We have a policy on WP:Notability. It is a yes/no black/white litmus test for whether a specific subject should have a Wikipedia article. To see how this has been applied to one list, see List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. There, by long standing agreement, the list criteria specify that we will only include scientists who, all by themselves, are so notable they get their own article. I'm not suggesting we have to do the same thing here for each individual strike. I'm just saying we should decide, and say what we're going to do. So I'm just raising the question here.... what are the criteria for being included on this list of school strikes?
Having thrown that rock in the pond, my answer is "Editors can list any school strike, of even one student, that are reported in a quality (1) reliable and (2) secondary or tertiary source. What do you think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree - the list does need a definition but essentially we are saying that it is a list of notable school strikes - the term is used very freqently in other articles - see "list of notable" search on Wikipedia BorisAndDoris (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a useful link but it illustrates my point about "notable" very well..... I looked at a random six articles on the list of lists that use "notable". Every single entry on each list is for someone or something that is so WP:Notable it has its own wikipedia article. If we keep using "notable" the only way to avoid WP:POV editing is to apply a nonsubjective measure. So either we can include any that are in the reliable secondary sources, or we include notable ones that get their own article, or ..... something else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, my generic use of notable is easily confused with the WP term. Looking ahead at the way this movement is growing almost exponentially this list could very quickly become too long and confusing to be useful. Perhaps 'List of significant school strikes' with a criteria, alongside the RS criteria, of some significant difference - a new region, dramatic change in numbers, new or different tactics, other novel or noteworthy detail. While the media coverage may diminish as the novelty wears off, if it doesn't there could be a lot of RS entries. Once a strike is established as a weekly event adding a new entry each week for essentially the same event will become quite repetetive just to add numbers to the list. BorisAndDoris (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, and "significant" has the same issues as "notable". We need to decide how to measure it. My idea could easily run into WP:NOTNEWS problems. Another way is to find RSs that provide national estimates and just list those, e.g.,

• Feb 15 UK about ______ students at least ___ locations Cite ThisStupidExample.com
• Feb 15 EU about ______ students at least ___ locations Cite OtherStupidExample.com

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

What about a graph with the number of strikers per country over time? And if you want more details a collapsible list of strikes?--PJ Geest (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if we can peer review the contributions to the list, and add more sources to them? Some of them have no references, and some of the references may need..... supplementing. Nauseous Man (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can add an inline template to questionable stuff NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Further to the list, Anatartica is on there. It's not a country.... Nauseous Man (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Formatting of table

I tried to edit the table so that it would also show the day of the week (Friday, Saturday) since not all of the strikes/protests are on a Friday. This would be useful to note, since strikes on a Saturday would not technically be a 'school strike'. However, it seems to have messed the formatting up. Can someone who knows more about Wikipedia please correct this for me?37.152.193.37 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting distinction. Seems odd not to include such events, but then again do they really fit under the article title, as we have currently defined the scope of this article? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I had noticed that some of the Swiss strikes occurred on a Saturday, however we don't know if that is a school day/half day there. Adding a new column now would require a lot of remedial work and the references may not be clear about which day the strike happened. In general if the action/rally identifies itself with the school strikes movement and the media recognise it as such, then it should be included here. If an event is not specifically a strike but only a rally it can be mentioned in the comments column. BorisAndDoris (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If the events are on a Saturday they could still be part of 'Youth for Climate'. Put them under a separate section? Rename page as 'Youth For Climate', with 'school strikes' as a separate heading.37.152.193.37 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If those actions that are identified as not being a strike, or appear to be a separate movement, are mentioned in the comments with references, then we would have a clearer idea of wether to create a new section or a new page. BorisAndDoris (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It's basically the same movement ('Fridays for Future'), except for that it also happens on Saturdays in Switzerland (named 'Klimastreik' / 'Grève du climat' there, at least since 2019-02-02) and France (named 'Saturdays for Future', at least since 2019-03-16) as well as on Thursdays in Belgium (named 'Youth for Climate', since 2019-01-10). As the movement grows it also includes student strikes.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Civil conflict

Isn't there a better infobox template for this? Like, "civil conflict", seriously? Juxlos (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

See number 15, "confrontational questions". The usual implication is that only a dunderhead would say "no" but if one takes offense the person who posed the confrontational question quickly protests saying "gosh you've got thin skin I was only asking!" Instead, if you have not already studied the how-to page for Template:Infobox_civil_conflict, please do so. Then, if you still don't like its use here, please explain your reasons. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Alaska

On the world map, the continental U.S. is shaded but Alaska is not. 51.7.45.88 (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to include Alaska, as it is part of the United States. In the future, anyone who wants can update this map. Here is some explanation: c:File_talk:Maximum_school_strikers_per_country.svg#How to update this image --PJ Geest (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge List of Nations into Existing Table

Proposal - Merge naked list of countries into the table
The table has been part of this article since it was split from Greta Thunberg on Jan 18. In contrast, the naked list was added by Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just 14-15 hours ago. I attempted to revert the table, but was re-reverted without discussion and dubious claims about stability over article versions less than 24 hours old. Anyway, enough griping, let's just analyze matters.

(A) MERGE BECAUSE IT DUPLICATES WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING

As I write the current version is 888033746

Compare

• List of school climate strikes by country, which is sortable on any of the columns, including nation and has much additional useful information.
• In contrast, the new naked List of countries is just a naked list of countries. It duplicates the nation-sortable table, but provides no other useful information.
  

(B) MERGE TO AVOID INADVERTENT POV

At this article I'm usually challenging POV that seeks to undermine the strike movement. I'm sure it was unintentional, but the naked list of countries might be seen by some to imply a firestorm of momentum for this movement, and so hope that others seeing this will climb on board. There is no context (i.e., cities, dates, numbers) for the naked list of countries, it just nearly blankets the world. And so it should also be merged to avoid unintended POV.

For both reasons, the 15 hour old naked list of countries should be merged into the existing table.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree - The table is sortable and might be made clearer if the first time a country appears it is wiki-linked. BorisAndDoris (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - First, merging? So, you are talking about adding all country names into the event table and sorting the table alphabetically? Please say what this merge would look like. You are proposing something without describing it. Second, the table is not redundant. The event table contains some of the countries. The basic list contains all of the countries and shows the total. A complete list of countries and a total are needed. Nobody wants to sift through the event table for a particular country. And if they do, they may find find nothing because that table is not complete and will not be. The visitor concludes that the country did not have a protest. The article has failed them. The basic list is essential in solving that problem. So, describe the merge you propose and how it solves this, and I and the visitors will get all of the information they came for. Third, And it was a stable version you reverted. More than 60 edits had been made since that table was added. With such a busy article, 24 hrs means nothing. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'm doing my best to AGF but I can't fathom what's confusing. To be in either table, there must be a nation, date, and RS. If you have the necessary data for the naked table, you've got what you need to add to the pre-existing one. "Merge" simply means to make sure each entry from the naked table is properly added to the other. As for sorting.... asking me to get all detailed about proposed sorting really off the mark because the pre-existing table is interactive. The reader can sort it any way they want, alpha by nation, or by date, or by number of participants... in ascending or descending order. A few specific comments... in re "the table is not complete and will not be, if editors seek an easy way out by nakedly listing instead of taking time to add their info to the pre-existing table then you're right, their failure to use the existing table will tend to leave it in an incomplete state. Nobody wants to sift through the event table for a particular country well that's true, include me. Which is why I use the arrows in the top of the columns to sort the table for whichever data point I care about, and then just go to that row in the table wham bam shazam.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  I am busy for a while and will respond here soon.

I encourage others to give their views on the value of this basic list. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

TompaDompa, I've restored the section. It did not resolved the duplication issue at all. The new version you created omitted lots of countries that were in the removed list. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the naked list should be merged into the sortable list (or just removed). It is double information. You can sort the detailed table if you want to look up your country. The naked list is not well sourced. If a country is missing, you can still add it yourself to the detailed list. + There is a map if you want to see the countries with relatively high participation quickly (although 100+ is not that much), for the details you can consult the detailed list. PJ Geest (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, it is clear you stand alone in you view, so I will remove the naked list. PJ Geest (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Anna, it would be better, in my view, to spend your limited time adding individual nations to the detailed table rather than putting the rest of us through the ringers. It strikes me as "just plain wrong" for an admin to re-revert twice in the face of pushback and then say "Oh I have a good reason, I just don't have time to explain it now." Is this really the best way to achieve our mutual goal of thorough reporting? If you have a reason, let's hear it. Otherwise, please help us complete the detailed table. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This had nothing to do with my being an admin. I am at this article as an ordinary editor following ordinary protocol. WP:BRD is the way we do things here. I think 63 edits happening after content being added makes that content stable. It was upon that basis that I reverted you. Then, while the discussion over that content was taking place, another editor removed it. That is against protocol, so I restored it. Your "Oh I have a good reason, I just don't have time to explain it now." should be applied to others, not me. Please read BRD again. I was following long-standing Wikipedia conventional procedure here. In fact, if I were just an observer and you wanted the naked list, and you were in my shoes, I would have reverted to your version and stuck up for you. So would all good editors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A good time to either explain your reasons for why you want what I dubbed (for lack of better name) "the naked list" or WP:DROPTHESTICK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Posting "I will leave it to you and others to carry on from here." twice, days ago, indicates that I wished to leave it to you and others to carry on from here. I was just responding to your post here. Nothing to do with wishing to change the article. This was never about me fighting for article content. It was about ignoring process. Anyhow, let's both drop this and disengage. No hard feelings, I hope. We both have better things to do here. Best wishes and sorry for all the wasted keystrokes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Community: Article visitors are now kept in the dark, and are being mislead. The article now makes no mention of the fact that there were protests in Iceland, Kenya, North Macedonia, South Africa, and by now, possibly other countries. Also, the map at the top shows the entire country of China coloured green. The protests were only in Hong Kong.
• User:TompaDompa: Please read WP:BRD.
• User:NewsAndEventsGuy: You and two editors think the naked list is not needed. The community has not spoken up in favour of the list. I trust the community, so I must have been wrong. Personally, I still think listing all the countries would be good.

I will leave it to you and others to carry on from here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Anna complained The article now makes no mention of the fact that there were protests in Iceland, Kenya, North Macedonia, South Africa... Dear Anna, please see WP:SOFIXIT. If you have RSs supporting your contention that there were events in those places, you can add those to the detailed table and your appropriate concern about thoroughness will be solved. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That's okay. I will leave it to you and others to carry on from here. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And User:PJ Geest: Please read WP:BRD too. When there is a discussion in progress about content, it is best to wait until that discussion is concluded and not revert. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Antarctica

Should Antarctica really be on the list? I mean, the source is just a picture on social media which shows an older scientist protesting. It also means the article is contradicting itself: An estimated 1.4 million pupils, from every continent except Antarctica, participated in the events. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Antarctica entry was removed with this entry [4]. I'm not happy with the removal because I do consider this event at the Neumayer-Station III of the Alfred Wegener Institute as quite important in an article related to climate change. Guess what they are researching over there? Also it was a first on the whole continent (and in the table we try to include the firsts in each country even if later number of protesters were much larger). While the protester was a scientist and not a pupil, the event was directly inspired by the school protests and it was carried out in solidarity with them. Further, we also discuss Scientists 4 Future in this article, so this isn't off-topic here at all. I agree that the provided source is not particularly good, but I think it is good enough to support the very fact that the event happened as is. Also, we might find better sources, if necessary. Therefore I would prefer if the entry would be restored. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to include after-class and weekend events and leave out Antarctica, provided there is an acceptable secondary RS. And there is. If Antarctica must bet taken out for some reason, (because it was not classtime or because they were not students) then every other attendee who was not skipping class or was not a student must also be taken out. And we've already talked about that and decided not to go that route. So I'm going to put it back in, with the better RS. However, the lead text will have to note that this was a supportive event, not technically a school strike. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC) And here it is. The paragraph still needs to be worked into the flow in this section, and any redundancy eliminated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This definitely looks better, thanks. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

List of school climate strikes by country

Is it time to rework "List of school climate strikes by country"? As the movement grows the list is inevitably incomplete and out of date, and not terribly useful William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, people of Wikipedia. I joined the editing community last July to contribute to pages on nationwide/global protests in the Trump era, and this is my first venture into a talk space. For some time I have made a few contributions to the list of school climate strikes, particularly those that took place on March 15, 2019. I, too, feel that the list format leaves something to be desired, like the fact that, by default, it's actually listed in chronological order, not by country. Hence, the date column should be on the far left of the table, not in between other columns. I tried that method out, but someone disagreed with me; they were even less in favor of combining rows of countries on concurrent dates, arguing that it would make the table "unsortable." Well, if you've ever checked out other Wikipedia pages that list protests (e.g. Women's Marches), you'll see that happening with cities within US states and countries without such trouble (at least I have). Furthermore, I find it inconsistent that while some countries' largest rallies (e.g. Italy) are mentioned by tally in the comments section, those of other countries (like Germany) can't be shown except through lengthy bilingual quoting in reference citation.Jmaxfield18 (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, if you refer to my change back to the old table style, I am not against changing the order of columns, but the use of rowspan, as it will inhibit sorting for other properties.

Regarding the quotes and translations. Those were specifically asked for by other editors in order to make it easier for them to verify the information once the original links might become bad in the future. However, this does not affect the text in the article body. There are definitely inconsistencies in the amount of information provided, feel free to improve this by adding more details.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Schoolstrikes4Climate Ireland listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Schoolstrikes4Climate Ireland. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

FFFD listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect FFFD. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Fridays for Future Deutschland listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fridays for Future Deutschland. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Fridays for Future Germany listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fridays for Future Germany. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Fridays for Future Ireland listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fridays for Future Ireland. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Schools Climate Action Ireland listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Schools Climate Action Ireland. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• School strike.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

New page for March 15

The list of strikes became really long now, what about to create new special page for Global school strike March 15 and move the events of that day there? Jirka Dl (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The table is getting harder to justify per WP:NOTNEWS, see also prior thread titled "List of school climate strikes by country". We might need to implement a notability threshold, e.g., say only list events of 1000+ people. While the ongoing collective phenomenna is definitely worth reporting, listing individual events of a just a few people has really questionable encyclopedic value, especially imagining this being read 10 years down the road. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why this discussion was closed - I'd fully support the move of the table to a "List of school climate strikes" page and only include details of the most notable strikes on this article. I reckon this would hugely reduce clutter and increase the readability of this article. - OliverEastwood (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I apologize for not replying sooner: I hadn't noticed the discussion here until now (but hey, better late than never). Creating a new page to list the strikes there actually seems like a good idea to me, and not just for the international strike in March. The list is getting a bit long. We should also keep in mind that there will be a second international strike on 24 May this year. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Christian Linder in "Lead figures"

Hi there, just saw an edit reversion re. the deletion of Christian Lindner from the "Lead figures" section. The inclusion of this person should be discussed, as Christian Lindner isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. If Linder was discussed as a key figure of the strikes, then I would understand the debate over his inclusion, however as it stands he isn't mentioned in the article, and other key figures of the strikes aren't mentioned in the "Lead figures" section.

My suggestion is that this "Lead figures" box be rewritten to reflect not only the key figures of the strikes, but the key figures as discussed in this article. Any thoughts on this? - OliverEastwood (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed the edits + reverts too and I'm glad somebody took the time to open a discussion about it. First of all: yes, the inclusion of Lindner should indeed be discussed, and I reckon we should remove him from the infobox. As far as I know, Lindner is not what most would consider a "lead figure". He's just a politician who disagrees with the strikers and climate movement in general.

Secondly, I agree with rewriting the "lead figures" box in a way that it reflects what is also being said/mentioned in the article itself. Do you suggest just mentioning these figures, or do you mean we should actually write about them? Besides, I wonder who we consider lead figures of the movement. National lead figures that come to mind are Alexandria Villaseñor (New York), Lilly Platt (Netherlands, nl), Anuna De Wever (Belgium, nl) and Kyra Gantois (Belgium), while Greta Thunberg is, as far as I know, the only international lead figure. Most of them are already mentioned in the article. AnarchistiCookie (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Re "I wonder who we consider lead figures" no one should care. What we should care about is who is reported to be the lead figures by WP:Reliable sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Section on future actions

I have removed the following text from the article to the talk page for discussion, under our WP:PG

Future actions

Main article: Earth Strike

Between August 5 and August 9, the first european summit will be held in Lausanne (Switzerland) gathering around 450 strikers from 37 countries. Under the code name of SMILE for Future, participants will meet for one week of conferences, debates and decisions about the future of our movement. The University of Lausanne generously offered their buildings to host conferences and workshops.

A new strike has been called for 20–27 September 2019, which is to expand beyond school children and is to be followed by a global week of action.

In my view, this section is pushing the line on WP:Neutrality and WP:PROMO. See also WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:ARBCC#Neutrality and conflicts of interest. If good WP:SECONDARY and WP:Reliable sources start reporting on plans, as opposed to advocating and recruiting in WP:SELFPUB blogs and the like, then we can think about including something, as approrpiate, based on the perspective reported in those sources. But we can not and must not sound the trumpet call. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that we must be careful with these kinds of things, I don't see any problem with the current wording. These future events have been announced, and this can be reported. The current wording is purely describing these facts, it does not contain puffery, is not pushing some opinion and not actively trying to recruit people. The Guardian source is fine as well, while the smile-fff source might be problematic.

I always try to decide such cases by answering the question if we are doing our readers (of an encyclopedia) a service by providing or removing the information or the sources. Likewise, can it cause any harm to provide some info or not? And specifically in cases about a near but already determinable future, does it make sense to remove something that will (have) to be added later on again (although with slightly different wording).

In this case, my answer would be: Yes, we are servicing our readers. No, the info does not cause any harm. And, yes, later on, it will be rightfully added anyway, so long debates over it are just a wasting time which could be better spent on work elsewhere.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

However much one might (or might not) admire GT and the strikers, her clarion call for a mass action in her op-ed in the Guardian seems a rootin' tootin' example of a WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion problem. But you do have a point that eventually we'll have genuine RSs and something NPOV to say. But this isn't it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

references of this section

References

"Thunbergjugend" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thunbergjugend. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

paragraph on Irsa Hirsi

I reverted new text here and here because

• A. This is just an aside... not the reason for the revert....I'm uncertain what we say these days about "correcting" British English... I thought we usually let such spellings stand because we don't want to be US-centric. But I admit I don't remember what the WP:MOS says about this
• B. Speaking of US-centric, this is why I reverted.... I think we should keep the section about early strikers as its own thing, but we should maybe add a new section on "Participating organizations", and at most include just one sentence about them. So the bit about Irsa Hirsi might fit under that section, pared way back so it sounds less resume-ish in this article. I didn't look... is there an article about her organization or a BLP about her? Those would be better places to expand on Hirsi directly. There a lot of people involved with the strike movement and my view is we shouldn't give a whole paragraph to all of them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes to edits by NewsAndEventsGuy. Per WP:ENGVAR, the British English spelling is appropriate for a worldwide article, and if it ain't broke, there's no reason for edit warring. The addition on Hirsi had a promotional bent, but she can be noted briefly. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"S4Y" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect S4Y. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Legality

There should be a section added on the legality of these demonstrations. Are these considered 'truancy' or officially sanctioned by the school. If it continues, then in the UK at least could the parents be charged with 'failing to ensure a child attends compulsory education'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.53.5 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:Tendentious editing. I have already tried to educate you how Wikipedia works, by letting you know that we must follow WP:VERIFICATION and must avoid WP:Original research but must instead cite what Wikipedia calls a WP:Reliable source. (See the talk pages for the various IPs you ahve used for this month's editing sessions.) In the case of legality of the school strikes, sure we can talk about potential consequences......provided reliable sources talk about potential consequences. And if we talk about them, then we must cite the sources on which we are basing our text. But you know this already, because I have already told you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

- Wildcat strike action article might be useful to consider this with. If there is no school pupil union - then it is a wildcat strike. In the past there have been school pupil unions, some schools have councils and even mayors - if they organise a ballot and children then strike that is legal?? Also what about those arrested - what happened in any cases were they charged? Are there papers saying this was legal.

- In some countries children were told they could strike, as long as the school was informed before - making a lawful absence. In Finland some children (my daughter) was told by her school she had a constitutional right to strike. I do not know if this was said in a way that was verifiable sources for wikipedia's purposes- Maybe if these can be verified e.g. a newspaper report or court record for any countries they can be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thunbergjugend

I have added alternative name of the movement - Thunbergjugend - using the article as a reliable source. But Mercy cancelled my edit. I would like to know opinions of other editors about it. Раммон (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"Thunbergjugend" is a slur term based on "Hitlerjugend", and based on Google Translate, that source is an unnecessarily biased opinion piece. An RfC is not necessary at all for this straightforward matter. Benny White (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We need a much stronger set of multiple sources for a non-neutral term, and even then unless it's one of the most common names we'd want to put it in quotes and say "sometimes known as ..." — Bilorv (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It is rather widespread name of the movement that is used by its critics. In accordance with WP:NPV this name must be present in the article. The source that I used met the requirements of the WP:NEWSORG. Раммон (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"published by the Estonian Conservative People's Party". See WP:GEVAL on WP:NPV. As mentioned, we'd need multiple, strong sources (probably those on WP:RSP), and would have to attribute the slur to them. Benny White (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Climate Strike of November 2015

The article states that "In late-November 2015, an independent group of students invited other students around the world to skip school." I was curious what this group is, and if more details could be added here. Adamash981 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved — although there's some disagreement about the ideal title, there is consensus that the article should be moved from the previous title. (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

---

School strike for the climate → School strike for climate – In general, the word "climate" (like "nature") is usually used without an article ("the"). For this page specifically, the most common (used) name appear to be "School strike for climate". 144.85.135.241 (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This statement looks right in practice. "school strike for the climate" vs "school strike for climate" gets 96k vs 239k google hits. On the other hand, I don't know what it usually looks like in the RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlevi (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: consistently, the related page List of school climate strikes could be renamed List of school strikes for climate. Thanks!
  144.85.158.123 (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC).
• Comment: I suggest either School climate strike or just Climate strike. Climate strike is now the more common term, it has many mentions in the article, and we have "Global climate strike"-related articles in WP. Plenty in the literature, such as Collins word of the year, global climate strike, etc. Not sure whether we need one article focussing on the early strikes by schoolchildren, separate from another on the bigger, global movement with people of all ages, but this may be determined by the size of the article(s). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  I would argue that specifying "school strike", as in "school strike for climate", is useful to distinguish from the usual sense of the work strike (related to workers).
  144.85.243.136 (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Although "climate strike" appears to be the more popular term than "strike for climate", adding "school" to both terms seems to reverse the popularity in both regular Google searches as well as in Google News. I'd ultimately be okay with either, but both are preferable to the current title with the strange "the" in the middle. CThomas³ (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support more grammatical. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 6 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to School Strike for Climate. No such user (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

---

School strike for climate → School Strike for Climate – The title should be capitalized as it is a proper name. It would be one thing if the article were referring to just any school strike for climate, but this article refers to a specific movement roughly from 2018 to 2020. The phrase was coined by Thunberg and used as a name for the movement-- therefore, it should be capitalized. (Not to mention all names of the movement are already capitalized in the lead) ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 06:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support per the nominator. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. It's almost meaningless as a generic phrase. The alternative would something like School strikes protesting climate change. Station1 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, precisely because it is the name of a movement rather than an organisation. The "official" name is "Fridays for Future". StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Station1: this is a proper noun phrase and not simply a descriptor of the subject where the wording is arbitrary. — Bilorv (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no evidence that it is a proper name. The Guardian and the BBC use "School strike for climate". Havelock Jones (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  The Guardian uses "School Strike 4 Climate" and the BBC uses "School Strike for Climate". Station1 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Amend to support per Station1's comment above. Apparently I can't read past headlines! Havelock Jones (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Analysis on social tipping points and Fridays for Future

I am simply flagging two interesting references regarding social tipping points and Fridays for Future. If I get the chance, I will process this information. But someone else might like to look at it first? Here is the material in question in any case:

• Winkelmann et al (2022) on social tipping points (mentions FFF multiple times) 
• Monbiot (2021) on social tipping points (also covers Winkelmann et al 2022) 

RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

References

WikiTribune article on first school strike in Berlin, Germany

WikiTribune ran an article on the first school strike in Berlin, Germany. I shouldn't really add this material myself because I initiated the story. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done.[ [User:Jirka Dl|Jirka Dl]] (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that WikiTribune folded but a PDF capture is available on zotero thus. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

References

misleading use of The Internet

Under School_Strike_for_Climate#Digital_climate_strike we read that Greta suggested that people should "post the image on the Internet". This doesn't make a lot of sense. One could post the image on Usenet. One could post the image on a phpBB forum on the world wide web. One could upload the image to an FTP host. One could use webDAV to copy it up to a website. In all of these cases and more, the data pass through the Internet using one protocol or another until they reach the server where they are to be stored. But there is no means to just post content to "the Internet" itself in some sort of protocol-agnostic medium. One could board a cruise ship (analogous to the world wide web) or one could board a jetski or one could board a raft made of grass but one cannot "board the Mediterranean Ocean" itself, even if all the craft you can board travel across the Mediterranean Ocean (just like www traffic travels across the Internet). Writing as if it is possible to post "to the Internet" is not a formal, accurate, factual representation of reality... if anything it reveals that the author didn't (bother to) understand what the Internet is. 49.186.54.240 (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so improve the wording yourself, or at least provide a suggestion. — Bilorv (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability of all participants

It should be discussed whether the 36 activists listed in Template:School strike for climate are independently notable. cookie monster 755 19:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Academic coverage

Two academic references and the IPCC WG III report that cover Fridays for Future and might be useful. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

And. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

These sources look like the sort of thing we should be using as much as possible, to avoid recentism or NOTNEWS violations, but the IPCC document doesn't appear to mention FFF in much more than passing detail (if my search function worked correctly on a PDF of 3000 pages!). — Bilorv (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Info box

I deleted the countries from the info box, and while doing that inadvertantly also deleting the world map, so that is why it now only shows the colors and different grouped numbers. Can someone fix that and make the map again? LivingOrchid (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Why was it fully restored? The supposed list of opponents in this "conflict" seems arbitrary, that is why I removed it. Can I get a fact-based reasoning why it should remain that way? LivingOrchid (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Considering how arbitrary and absurd the list is, I wouldn't expect this to be a good-faith attempt that could be given a fact-based reasoning. We're probably witnessing some kind of organised trolling campaign. It'd be good to get a mod/admin involved so they can IP-ban those that keep vandalising the page. Sir. Paulord (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The whole "lead figures" thing in the infobox has to go. It's not in the least bit helpful. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The same list from the same anonymous editor has been removed from the September 2019 climate strikes article for being unsourced material. I see no justifiable reason for keeping it here. Alexius08 (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what this vandalism is about, but I've semi-protected the page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Twitter trolls are at it again: they love to vandalise Wikipedia infoboxes for fun, and I don't even understand why is it so much fun that gets them so many likes. See the thread and that's pretty much it is. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I am glad we're having this discussion now. Since there seems to be consensus that the arbitrary list of opponents does not hold any merit, could someone remove that bit?LivingOrchid (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)LivingOrchid I see now that the info box has been edited, thank you so much. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• Now let's discuss the gross inappropriateness of the infobox itself. "Infobox civil conflict"? It's kids cutting class to protest a great injustice. It's not a civil conflict. These children are not taking up arms against their opponents; they are peacefully protesting (and doing a damned good job of it.) The infobox should not be there at all. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  The articles for the Velvet Revolution, Arab Spring, March for Science, Canada convoy protest, and Yellow vests protests all use the Infobox civil conflict template. The School Strike for Climate article, another article about a protest, is no different in this regard. However, should we bother listing their allies and opponents under "Parties to the civil conflict", or can we omit it altogether? For instance, the article for the 2016–2017 South Korean protests don't include the involved parties and the lead figures, but omitting in the infobox Greta Thunberg's key role for the School Strike for Climate protests would be inaccurate as well. Alexius08 (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the info bix in itself is not the issue, as it adds information about this movement - such as how active it is in different countries. I am against keeping a list of opponents and allies as then every country in the world would have to be in the opponent section, as they are not fulfilling their 1,5° pathways, if they have any. But the other information is useful. I see the box as a template, that can be adapted for different situations. And it is a civil conflict in some respects, albeit not a military/violent one. LivingOrchid (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)