Talk:Naomi Seibt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bipartisanship

This article is very critical of Seibet’s views and associations. An article must be informative and unbiased. Also, why is this article locked from being edited? Mainerr1941 (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The word "bipartisanship" refers to a two-party system. Seibt lives in Germany, where there are six parties big enough to influence national politics. Only one of them, Alternative for Germany, denies climate change, and Seibt cooperates with them. In the US, it is one of two, which is probably the reason why you think this has to do with "bipartisanship". (The denial industry has not been as successful over here in Europe.)

Seibt's opinions fall under WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia follows the science. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If an unqualified person says cancer is caused by microscopic elephants dancing the fandango, and the bulk of Doctors say they are wrong, we go with the experts.Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Mainerr1941, do you think we should represent flat earther views as equivalent to those of spherical earth proponents? Guy (help!) 23:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I want give a friendly reminder to everyone that assuming good faith of users is important to Wikipedia. I personally think a simple answer of this user's question or statement will do, since this talk page is for discussion. I mean this in the most respectful way.

@Mainerr1941: To answer your question, the article is under Extended Confirmed Protection (see WP:ECP), because this article has been subjected to edit wars and vandalism -- that's why it can't be edited except by certain longer-term users. Also, the article is critical because Wikipedia articles reflect published, reliable sources. Many of the sources out there are very critical of Seibt. If you find any reliable, independent sources that contain info you think is missing from the article, you are welcome to recommend it here on the talk page for further discussion. But I would first recommend reading both WP:UNDUE and then WP:FRINGE, since climate denialism is considered a fringe theory. - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Whisperjanes, the idea that the article is biased, is based on the premise that climate change science and climate change denialism are equivalent. They are not. Politically it may be a partisan issue, but scientifically it is not: there is only one objective truth, and that is that the climate is changing at a rate unprecedented since at least the K-T event, it's happening because Earth is warming, and that is in turn primarily due to human influence, of which the dominant part is CO₂ emissions. The entire denial industry exists only because the inevitable conclusion from these facts is economically inconvenient to the industry which bankrolls one US poltiical party. You'll note than denialism is vastly less prevalent in Europe, for example. Guy (help!) 09:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I personally think everyone should be concerned/informed about climate change, so I appreciate how passionate you are about all of this. However, I'm not really sure what you're replying to or why you're saying this to me? I already know that climate change science and climate change denialism aren't equivalent. I'm not sure what part of my answer made it seem like I said something otherwise.

If you're looking for an explanation, I was treating my answer as a way to be polite to someone who seemed disgruntled and asking a question, and also as a learning opportunity for a new user who felt the article was unfair. The learning part being that Wikipedia follows reliable sources, is a place for discussion, and that WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are important topics to read. - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Whisperjanes, what I am saying is that describing climate change denialists as denialists is not an issue of partisanship, it's an issue of fact versus fiction. Guy (help!) 18:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy, Sorry, I'm still a bit confused? I understood what you said, I just didn't understand why you were pinging me or what it had to do with my original comment, that's all. If it was just a general ping, I get it, I just thought what you said was in reply to something I said. Whisperjanes (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Whisperjanes, simply that there is no point encouraging Mainerr1941 because he approaches this from the basis of Truth™ not fact. Guy (help!) 21:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?

See title. AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Because users are free to create biographies of notable, living people at Wikipedia. The page title you mention is the subject's name. Esowteric+Talk 12:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is intended to be an online encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. It’s that simple. Boscaswell talk 02:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a matter of concern that this article describes Naomi Seibt as a "climate denier". That is a loaded term that an impartial and authoritative encyclopedia would not use. The fact that the term is used casts doubt upon the reliability of the article and the good faith of those who compiled it. It would be preferable to state that Naomi Seibt questions some aspects of what is presented as the official position on climate change.

In this context, the word "consensus" should be avoided, for science is not established by consensus. As Aristotle pointed out 2400 years ago in the Refutations of the Sophists, argument from consensus conflates two fundamental logical fallacies: the fallacy of deference to the reputation of experts (argumentum ad verecundiam) and the fallacy of headcount (argumentum ad populum). Argument from consensus, therefore, is an indication that whatever scientific propositions the "consensus" is said to adhere to are suspect.

Frau Seibt, in her videos, asks a number of pertinent questions that ought not to be cursorily dismissed. She asks, reasonably, what is the ideal global mean surface temperature? She points out that, without knowing the answer to that question, we cannot say that global warming is or will prove to be net-harmful, let alone dangerous or catastrophic. She points out, correctly, that the rate of global warming since IPCC's first assessment report in 1990 is half of what was then predicted, and yet that IPCC has increased its longer-term or equilibrium predictions of global warming compared with its 1990 prediction, when on the evidence it should have halved those predictions.

To describe someone who raises reasonable concerns such as these as a "climate denier" casts grave doubt upon the reliability of Wikipedia, which one of its founders has now said is valueless because it only reflects one side - the far Left side - of political debates such as the climate debate.Leonidas Macdui (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As the rest of this talk page demonstrates, this has already been discussed. "Climate denier" was found by consensus to be appropriate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a good deal of 'ink' was spilled on the matter. Leonidas, one might well ask what you are doing here. You have next to no contributions aside from your talk piece above. I refer you to WP:NOT. This is not the place for you to discuss the merits of Seibt's views. We are however happy to write what she has to say about given matters. Knucmo2 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Further Leonidas, (for I note you have not replied) I would wager that you have been watching Lord Monckton (with Naomi Seibt) opine about why he thinks climate change science is fraudulent. I would say that, indeed, it is a fallacy to conclude that because a lot of people happen to agree on something that it must be true. However, this is a misapplication of the fallacy. If you have data that matches what another person has come up with, the consensus results from the data itself, not some desire to make it fit your conclusions. The consensus emerges from disparate sources, in other words. Of course, if the scientists were all making definitive judgments by ignoring anomalies or having unexplained methodological gaps, then the fallacy would hold. You will also note that the IPCC usually makes probabilistic judgments, which themselves have a margin of error and confidence interval. This is a bit different to ancient premise-conclusion type logic (for which nevertheless I have a lot of respect and it underpins all of our rational inquiry). --Knucmo2 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

"I would wager that you have been watching Lord Monckton (with Naomi Seibt) opine about why he thinks climate change science is fraudulent." Your assertion here appears to be part of your own subjective opinion regarding climate change science (sic) and is not objective fact.

In fact, I wholly agree with the first poster here. Describing Seibt as a "climate change denier" is indeed a loaded term in which "climate change" is presumed to be correct. It may or may not be, but the subject is still controversial, whether that is right or wrong and whether you like that or not. Describing her in this way is not being objective and shames wikipedia. I suggest finding a more neutral and respectful way of describing Ms Seibt. John2o2o2o (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Climate change, a spherical Earth, HIV causing AIDS, evolution, NASA landing astronauts on the Moon, etc. are all indeed "controversial" with small pockets of people. Independent reliable sources state all of them are correct, so Wikipedia neutrally and verifiably reports that they are correct. Similarly, Seibt is neutrally and verifiably a climate change denier. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

No. "Climate change denier" is a slur. It is not an occupation. And Ms Sebt does not identify in this way. Why are you so keen to damage her reputation with this? I will (again) alter the main page to remove this. John2o2o2o (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Its what RS say about her, its what RS call her. Nor does it matter how she identifies herself.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

And to add. Wikipedia - as an online encyclopedia MUST be ENTIRELY OBJECTIVE AND NEUTRAL in describing public figures. It is not the job of sites such as this to take sides and to slur people. Just because political activists in the media slur someone does not make it acceptable to repeat those slurs here. I am disgusted by the way that some people are treated in this site.

This is not the place for climate activism, whichever side of that debate you are on! John2o2o2o (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What is "RS" and why are the views of "RS" considered to be appropriate? Ms Seibt does not identify as a "climate change denier". THAT IS A SLUR. John2o2o2o (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

And to add further. How a person self identifies is the most important identification. For example, a trans person may identify as female. Do you have the right to challenge that? John2o2o2o (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Mmm! Whataboutism is not going to work. If RS say X we say X, we can say "but she denies it".Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Mixed date format

The article has a "Use dmy" tag dated February 2020, but contains a mixture of "dmy" and "md,y" dates. Can we reach a consensus on this? Esowteric+Talk 11:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Change. "climate. Change. Denier". To. "climate. Change. Realist". Naomi. Seibt.Categorically. states. She. Is. Not. A. Climate. Change. Denier. And. That. Term. Is. Emotive. And. Petty. It. Is. An. Attack. On. Free. Thought. And. Unlikely. To. Be. Applied. By. Scientists. Who. Are. Expected. To. Consider. All. Arguments. Jcdownes (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

See the RFC above.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Jcdownes, I think you'll find that they do. Guy (help!) 14:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that both "denier" and "realist" are too loaded. I suggest "skeptic" as it reflects the truth without shoehorning in loaded language. EricSeesMarshmellows (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Both "realist" and "skeptic" are self-designations. "Denier" is the correct denomination for these people, because their reasoning is transparent bullshit and their motives have nothing to do with searching for truth. We follow the science, which calls them deniers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, read Talk:Naomi_Seibt#RfC. What you fight against is the consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

EricSeesMarshmellows, we don't use Orwellian marketing terms. Guy (help!) 10:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a whole lot of personal opinion for a wiki article. Sounds like you just really hate the term and are using obscure rules to get your edit to the front of the article. But calling skepticism "transparent bullshit" sounds super civil and cool and good and great. EricSeesMarshmellows (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

OK point to one thing we say (in the article) that is not sourced to an RS, but is just our personal opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

""Denier" is the correct denomination for these people, because their reasoning is transparent bullshit and their motives have nothing to do with searching for truth." That's one very personal opinion. A really bad and garbage opinion that's not sourced at all. Just a big pile of festering trash opinion. EricSeesMarshmellows (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Our article does not include that line.Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's what I wrote a few lines above this,and it's true.

Also, the next sentence was "We follow the science, which calls them deniers." Anything to say against that?

@Eric: Go find one piece of denialist reasoning that is not worthless. You won't succeed.

But of course you can't tell, because you lack the skills to tell science from pseudoscience. You just repeat what the denial industry tells you. So, it's better if you read "Merchants of Doubt" or other books about denialism to find out about the motives of deniers. And maybe something written by real skeptics. Maybe you can find the difference. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, "transparent" is wrong. For ignorant people who, as I said above, "lack the skills to tell science from pseudoscience", it is not transparent. So I struck the word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, so it was on the talk page, its not in the article. As I said below, politeness costs nothing and we gain nothing by throwing insults around. And please comment on content not users.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You are right.

So, @Eric: the gist is: There is consensus on that question. Please read the discussion above. Your reasoning adds nothing new and has already been taken into account. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hob: I didn't realize I was dealing with someone who lacked the skills to interpret nuance and an outside opinion on an NPOV-violating article. EricSeesMarshmellows (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you trying to achieve with that edit? Provoke me? Please read WP:TALK to find out how you should behave in Talk pages. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "There is consensus on that question", what question?Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I corrected Eric's wrong indentation so it is more obvious that it was me who said "There is consensus on that question". By "that question" I meant Talk:Naomi_Seibt#RfC. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

EricSeesMarshmellows has been indefinately blocked as a sock of AntiCom88. ` SummerPhD^v2.0 23:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2020

Take out line "She and three others shared a perfect 1.0 Arbiiter score." See discussion under "Taking out parts of Early Life section?" section above. Whisperjanes (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

We are already discussing this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is still on-going. Esowteric+Talk 13:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

My apologies - How long is a discussion usually supposed to go on before an edit request can be made / when is a discussion no longer considered on-going? I couldn't find anything specific in the guidelines, but I might have missed something. Whisperjanes (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no fixed time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

'Naomi Seibt is a German climate change denier' CHANGE TO 'Naomi Seibt is a German climate change realist' OR 'Naomi Seibt is a German climate change skeptic' 2A00:23C8:5482:9B00:D963:9ACE:5826:CF37 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This has already been extensively discussed. See "Climate change denialist or self-proclaimed "Climate Realist"?" and "RfC" on this talk page, above. Esowteric+Talk 11:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done. Please obtain consensus before requesting changes. Guy (help!) 12:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Climate change denial is a defining characteristic

Its really all she has done, been an activist.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue about removing this category from articles is now being discussed here at the BLP noticeboard. Esowteric+Talk 16:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion is also ongoing in two threads across at Category talk:Climate change denial. Esowteric+Talk 16:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop trying to play the race card

Sorry but calling someone a denier is not the analogous to calling them a holocaust denier.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hear hear Knucmo2 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Taking out parts of Early Life section?

The following discussion 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.

---

Part of the Early Life section doesn't seem the most neutral:

"She graduated in September 2017 at 16-years-old from the elite St. Mauritz Catholic High School. She and three others shared a perfect 1.0 Arbiiter score."

I think the word "elite" should be taken out per WP:PUFFERY. I think the second sentence should be deleted per WP:PROPORTION, since it's WP:UNDUE weight added to an exam score, and is not needed when the sentence after already mentions her doing well in an academic competition that seems actually notable.

I would like to get some consensus on if the word "elite" and/or the 2nd sentence should be taken out before I make an edit request. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems a valid objection.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a valid objection. That she got the first in physics in some sort of European exam that involves the whole country or the whole continent and that was reported by the media is definitely noteworthy.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it was not an exam, but a grade. Nor is the Jugend forscht a school exam, its a competition.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Media has noted that competition. It's definitely notable since even the competition has its own article and it was reported by the media.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Just because not is notable does not mean its relevant, the fact its not an exam (despite the claim it was) tells me this is just puffery to make her seem more "scientific" then she is. Lots of low end awards get some coverage, that does not make them major awards.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I feel like maybe there's a misunderstanding. The Jugend forscht competition and the Abitur exam/grade are two different things. I wasn't objecting to the Jugend forscht competition (in which she got "first in physics"). I was talking about the Abitur exam (see my quote above). In the Abitur exam/grade, she did not get "first" place, she just got the highest score, which 3 others at her school got as well. Including it seems like unnecessary promotion of the school and/or her, and I don't see why it should be included. (it seems similar to a wiki biography on an American including their high school SAT score... which I don't think is/should be done) Whisperjanes (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The Abiturzeugnis is roughly the equivalent of a high school diploma, though it contains the grades of the student, and obtaining one is considered a basic requirement for enrolling in university; it therefore serves as a de facto entrance exam. The statement in this article thus sounds a bit ridiculous. It’s essentially saying “she got an A+”. Or rather, “straight A’s”. It’s obviously being used as a talking point to inflate her public profile, because the Americans she’s being hired to speak to are unlikely to know what it means. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, “elite” is puffery, period. Even if it is a good school, we don’t use puff words like that in the prose; if an educational institution is particularly esteemed, we note it separately, using reliable sources to back that claim. As far as I can tell, they’re talking about the Gymnasium St. Mauritz Bischöfl. I honestly couldn’t find any reliable sources in either English or German talking about any “elite” status after several good-faith searches. As far as I can tell, it’s just a private high school.

I’m starting to have the suspicion that this is part of what’s contained on the Heartland’s website, and/or press packet, which is why sources are noting it. Journalists will want to flesh out a subject for a piece, and since she’s a YouTuber with no background aside from being in school, they’ve seized on this without really confirming it. It’s pretty apparent that whomever added this information isn’t familiar with what they edited, as Abitur is misspelled. Now, that is a good score for the Abiturzeugnis, but as I said before, it’s not like the SATs. It just means she got really good grades in high school. The fact that it was reported isn’t surprising, as they do the same thing in local papers almost everywhere in the Western world.

Remove the puffery, keep the information about where she attended, and remove the score, as it’s not remotely encyclopedic. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell none of the three sources for this are talking about Ms Seibt or her career. They are all about the school or the "science fair". None even mention her political advocacy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether we are "for" or "against" Naomi Seibt or her right-wing brand of activism (something we need to set aside as Wikipedians), the fact that she has excelled in her studies is significant and noteworthy and adds context to her later "career". Esowteric+Talk 13:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Like it or not, she is a "bright star" and has been hired in part for that. I'm sure we can find numerous wiki biographies that make a point of noting that Famous Subjects X, Y and Z performed abysmally at school or dropped-out. Esowteric+Talk 13:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Then would not her actual exam results be of more relevance then winning a science fair competition?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the two together "say something" significant (as well as: "clearly academic success isn't everything, is it?") Esowteric+Talk 13:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It depends on is this a national notable achievement, rather then a local one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I'm right here; it's just that she falls within the remit of WP:FRINGE, and I'm hoping that we won't see the sort of hard-line approach that some take (refusing, for example, to allow heretic Rupert Sheldrake to also be described as a biologist, despite the fact that that's how he began his career; or conversely, chipping away at Greta Thunberg). Esowteric+Talk 14:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea that Fringe has to do with this. Fringe says we do not give Fringe subjects undue coverage, if anything Fringe would say we should not give undue coverage to really not notable academic achievements.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A question do German high schools not have exams?Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

They have regular examinations in their classes, just as in most schools. The Abitur is a “school leaving” exam (the term is derived from the Latin accusative verb “to leave”), or for clarification, it’s essentially their final exams. See my reply to your question below. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Another question what percentage of German students achieve a perfect 1.0 Arbiiter score each year?Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The Abitur wiki page has an outdated stat (from 2007) that says 0.2%–3% of people who take the exam get a 1.0. This source seems to say that the amount of 1.0 scores has more than doubled from 2006 to 2017. With this info, I would estimate around 0.4-6% of Abitur test-takers get a 1.0 score, but I don't know how reliable the sources really are (and that's just an estimate). Whisperjanes (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

If it helps for context with the Abitur too, the type of exam (but not the difficulty of it) has been compared to United Kingdom’s A-levels or France’s baccalaureate [1]. Whisperjanes (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The German System is quite different from other systems. Only those students who attend a Gymnasium-style school take the Abitur, which amounts to only about 30% of the country. There are equivalents in the other German schools, such as vocational high schools. As far as the function of the Abitur, one could consider it like the AP (advanced placement) scores in the United States, or the “A Levels” in the United Kingdom. In reality, it’s just the final exams in a Gymnasium, and doesn’t denote advanced placement. If I remember correctly, about 25% of those taking the exam get between a 1.9 and 1.0 (the equivalent of a B+ to A+). About 1% of those taking the exam get a 1.0 (A+ in all their classes).

I’m not intimately familiar with their educational system, but people are really overthinking this. Noting this in an encyclopedia entry is like noting AP high school scores, a students grades, and/or an ACT score. It’s not encyclopedic. It has no lasted impact, and is not the subject of discussion amongst multiple sources.

This is like the equivalent of putting someone’s high school grades or ACT score in an encyclopedia article. I can’t think of a single example across Wikipedia where we do this. It’s also not something she’s notable for; she’s notable for being a right-wing YouTuber. And related to that, a climate change denier who has been hired by political lobbying groups to essentially shill for them, as an “Anti-Greta”. She barely passes the general notability guideline. Now that she does, I think we should do our best to keep information relevant and encyclopedic. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whisperjanes, I think the stats I saw from 2012 gave the number at about 0.6%, which means your estimate was pretty spot on. The number of students taking (and passing) the Abitur rises every year, and now (as of 2019) I think I had read that it’s somewhere near 1% of those taking the exams achieve a 1.0, which is roughly 1 out of 100. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Odd comparison as the A-levels are in fact a series of exams rather than one certificate. This is why I asked, as in the UK there is (as far as I know) no single leaving "qualification" rather you need X number of A -levels to get into a uni. Thus its hard to judge just how significant this might be. Nor do I overly recall us listing A-levels anyway in a bio.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

On German Wikipedia, somebody found out that her "Jugend forscht" success was not on a national level, but on a regional one; also just in a lower age bracket. See [2]

The national "Jugend forscht" winners are regularly interviewed by the national press. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It gets to look even less keepworthy. So what is the consensus., keep or remove?Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, remove. The fact that she's doing obnoxious things for an obnoxious group doesn't give us the right to go full stalker on her private life. Guy (help!) 17:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with your reasoning. As such I cannot in all good conscience remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove Abitur score. Not sure on the Jugend forscht competition. Specific high school grades are not usually included in encyclopedia articles, and it isn't commonly done on Wikipedia either, from what I've seen. I'm also leaning more toward remove on the Jugend forscht because I don't think high school science fair competitions are usually included in wiki articles, but I'm unsure on that because I don't have a good sense of how notable that competition really is in Germany. Whisperjanes (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm easy either way, though – putting aside "the fact that she's doing obnoxious things for an obnoxious group" – I do note that these brief items of information are about the only positive thing to say about her, as a fellow human being, in the whole article. Esowteric+Talk 19:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Would I be right in saying this is lots to one, thus we have consensus?Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I think so, but just for the Abitur score, since the Jugend forscht competition wasn't discussed fully (since it wasn't the focus of this question). It looks like almost all either say don't keep the Abitur info or that they're okay either way. At the very least, we're unlikely to get more input right now, since the conversation seems to have slowed down. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I’ve made the necessary changes, as well as specifying the regional nature of the Jugend forscht in which she placed, per the information brought to light by Hob Gadling. I also corrected the name of her high school, as it was bugging me (in addition to being inaccurate). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2020 (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.