Talk:September 2019 climate strikes

Graph

The protests by country section ought to be a graph which mentions location, number of attendees, notes and image. Victor Grigas (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Berlin numbers

Fridays for Future report 270 000 for Berlin, not 100 000 as currently written. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I've found a secondary source which reports this; thanks. — Bilorv (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Interactive map

Any chance someone with experience can add the interactive OpenStreets map at [1]? {{ping|waddie96}} {talk} 10:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

For protests that were described with 1-2 sentences I propose following:

• They can be united in one title "Other places":
• Or can be added to sections like "Protests in Far East" or "Protests in Sub-saharan Africa".--Abutalub (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this too. I think this would make sense eventually, but while we're still collecting information and new sources are coming out, and many strikes are still due to take place (particularly on the 27th) I think it makes sense to leave it as it is. Once the article is relatively stable, then reorganising the information like that would be sensible. — Bilorv (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Epic Propaganda Fail

A criticism section is badly needed. Being a boutique issue that blends in to the protestverse of the random grievance culture, most people never heard of this and are unaware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.146.36 (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please provide reliable secondary sources for the content that you believe should be included. — Bilorv (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. --分液漏斗 (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

In Australia this protest was only notable for it being astroturfed, it was a fake grass roots protest that was mandatory for students to attend, organised by teachers, and had logistical charter coach support from professional protest groups. It will never be included though. And it's this bias and dishonesty that gives us a bad reputation. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Please provide reliable secondary sources for the content that you believe should be included. — Bilorv (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Кліматичний марш Київ 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Map based on fraction of population?

The current map has colors based on protest attendence on a country-by-country basis, without any respect to population size. Any chance of a version with attendee numbers per 100,000 country population or similar? That would make much more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twirlip (talk • contribs) 19:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I second this request. Different countries have different population sizes. Nerd271 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Second this! Anonymoususername (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to write about the results

it is important to write the positive results of the strike - what was decided in the summit. (and the negative also of course - what was not decided). I heard a lot about the bad tradition of "the looser left" what mean always crying and saying that all is bad and did not loock at all about positive results. I am afraid that this tradition is try to enter into the environmental organizations also. Of course we need to write about what is steel need to be done! But even before we should write about what have already been done. Because if we did not do it, it is firstly cause a moral depression to the activists - it loock like their work did not make a difference and secondly it is very un just to all those in the UNFCCC who worked very very hurd to achieve it. It is not their fault that the 1.5 target is steel not achieved, it is the fault of trump ant his company. But at least as sign of respect to those who make what they can and to make people understand that they can influence we should firstly write about what was achieved - and then write about what was not, and should be achieved later.

You can se what was done in the article 2019 UN Climate Action Summit. I write this in te talk page there also.

--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

We need to maintain a neutral point of view and reflect what reliable sources say about the subject, rather than including our own opinions. I expect there are plenty of sources about the results of the strike, with particular reference to the summit, and I think such content would fit well in a new section called "Impact of the strikes". — Bilorv (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Puerto Rico strikes on the map

Any chance the map could be updated to reflect the attendance in Puerto Rico? 700 people attended an event in San Juan on the 20th. Anonymoususername (talk) 20:48, 10 November 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:

• 2019 Fridays for Future Roma.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Australian numbers.

"An estimated 300,000 protesters took part in Australian strikes"

It should be pointed out this was organised by teachers and mandated as a requirement with numerous students photographing instructions that they must attend and leaking it to the press. It was also organised by professional protest organisers and had logistics and support of chartered coaches. It was the very definition of astroturfing and is famous here as an example of such. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)