Jump to content

Talk:Plandemic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"Disgraced" violates WP:NPOV and is a subjective opinion

RFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternal Father (talk • contribs) 09:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Father, it's a statement of fact (https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-cb-coronavirus-plandemic-judy-mikovits-conspiracy-theories-20200507-rmcmcjkfvnfbzp3swvvnl22iye-story.html). She was sacked for cause. Guy (help!) 11:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, Discredited: https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-cb-coronavirus-plandemic-judy-mikovits-conspiracy-theories-20200507-rmcmcjkfvnfbzp3swvvnl22iye-story.html (actually "long-ago discredited") Guy (help!) 13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed discredited, for absolute certain. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 13:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A problem? Not huge.

As a veteran editor with huge and varied experience of wiki editing, I cannot fix what I believe is a mistake in the first reference, making it look very strange. I would pay the usual fee to anybody who can fix it, or tell me why it doesn't need fixing. Thanks. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 13:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, it's ProveIt. It is surprisingly good at decoding metadata but, in the absence of any consistent format among sources, not infallible. Guy (help!) 13:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The fee is in the place that Big Pharma leave all your cheques. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 14:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Roxy the dog, curses, can't get to the secret drop box due to lockdown. It's all a conspiracy I tell you! Guy (help!) 14:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

NPR source

[1] Excellent source that we can use in this article, potentially. jps (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Contents vs. Reception

I have added a reception section; it might be an idea to relocate most of the contents section to reception since it's not a straightforward description of contents but rather analytical highlights of criticism. A short "Synopsis" would be more appropriate there. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Someone (or something) seems to be deleting my signature. Restored. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Reporter Claire Spellberg suggests Zubin Damania's three-minute video. Science journalist Tara Haelle described the film as propaganda

OP BLOCKED
OP blocked for WP:BLP violations at a different article, which saves considering the WP:NOTHERE issue.

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.


Damania's 3 minute video is a contentless splutter by a "Internet Personality" who happens to have a medical practice. His only scientific citation is to a skeptic blogger surgeon called Orac. Neither of them, nor reporter Claire Spellberg, are authorities on this topic. Are you really trying to appear this amateur? This Plandemic article is quite simply dreadful: it is illogical, smearing, unfactual, unbalanced and cites journalists and personalities who are not qualified to judge Dr Mikovits' work. Are you TRYING to appear this amateur? - Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the Damania material because the sourcing was poor, and it seems WP:UNDUE. The Haelle material should probably be removed in favor of something with a better source. That said, the film is propaganda and worse. - MrX 🖋 00:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Wikipedia article in its current state IS propoganda. The film, on the other hand, contains a number of scientific assertions that are contestable but serious. Many of them have not been definitively determined one way or another. And Mikovits is highly qualified to offer her opinions up, unlike the writers of this article, or the reporters and "internet personalities" that they cite as backup for their cheap smears. Shameful. - Tony

We go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you do not. See my comment in the section below. I strongly suggest to remove the section "Reception" until you have found some scientists who can be quoted on the movie. You will probably find a spectrum of reactions. The opinions of amateurs and non-scientist debunkers are not relevant here. This is not "movie criticism", when we are under lock-down facing mandatory vaccination. Get your RS right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Err why would we need scientist quoted in the movie when we have them commenting about the movie? What scientist do you refer to?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. It's curious that I have to spell this out repeatedly. You have a section called "Reception" in which you claim that "Scientists and public health experts condemned the film". You do not cite any scientists and public health experts, but 2 journalists and a meteorologist blogger who write about why people believe disinformation, and what the social media giants say about why they censor Mikovits. Therefore you have no backup for your claim that "Scientists and public health experts condemned the film", so you must remove this claim.

Can we discus this in one thread?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you want. My motivation is to reach a resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:35, 9 May 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.

Scientists and public health experts condemned the film for promoting misinformation and "a hodgepodge of conspiracy theories". [6][22][23]

WP:NOTFORUM
OP blocked for WP:BLP violations on a different article. Repudiating WP:RS is also not a good look. Guy (help!) 16:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

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.


I checked the 3 citations given for this claim and found (1) A CNBC article quoting Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and Vimeo executives (2) An NBC article quoting a professor who studies weaponized health communication and an academic who studies disinformation (3) A Forbes article by a climatologist musing on conspiracy theories. No biologist or public health expert was quoted and no scientific point was made in any of the 3 articles. It was all theorizing about why people believe conspiracy theories. It is shocking that you would claim from these non-experts that "scientists and public health experts condemned the film". Therefore this claim is, so far, not verified and it should be removed. It seems, that apart from Mikovits herself, there is only one biologist involved in this "effort" and it is me, so I shall continue to push you. - Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There are more than 3 cites in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

??? I refer to the 3 citations listed at the claim quoted here above. None of them is from RS, but are as I detailed above: these are journalists and "conspiracy theory theorists", not scientists. Find some scientists and public health officials who have condemned the film and cite them here or remove this claim.

Read wp:lead.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I read it. What's your point? Cite "scientists and public health officials who have condemned the film", or at least someone who cites them, or else remove this section. You are citing "disinformation theorists" and social media censors. Apparently you don't you see how ridiculous and circular your position here is.

Sorry its not in the lead, my mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's OK. We all make mistakes. Just to be clear: I want this article to be good and fair, and that is my motivation. Right now this is important for people. I am unable to change it directly, so I rely on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

However my point still stands, we have a tone of sources in this article, all condemning this video, we cannot add them all to support one line.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You make a claim. You cite 3 non-RS to back it up. Remove the claim or back it up with RS. If you have have a "tone" (sic) of RS in the article which back up this claim, then list some of them after the claim. Or remove the claim.

So a doctor is not a health expert?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No medical doctor was cited in your 3 RS. Try reading your own RS. And even you find a medical doctor than believes something, that does not back up your claim that "scientists and public health experts condemned the film" as "scientist" would refer to a research virologist and "public health expert" is different from "medical doctor". Find some valid RS or remove your claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

They are not my RS, and there are now more than 3. And again, we do not have every damn source in the article added to one sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I trust Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd is medical enough for you?Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you are simply not listening to me or checking your own RS. Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd is a doctor yes. But he is a "expert in weather and climate, a meteorologist, who makes no medical claim in this so-called RS. Are you unable to distinguish between a "medical doctor" and someone with a PhD in something else? Is that really the legacy you wish to leave on this page for all to see forever? Read what I have written and provide proper RS, or remove the claim. I am checking the new citation from the Harvard Gazette to see if it meets your RS criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This IP has started the last four sections here. "I want this article to be good and fair, and that is my motivation", they say. BLP violation NPA NPA + MSM are unreliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That is correct Black Kite. The article is a biased atrociously sourced shambles. I am trying to improve it. Your point is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite. Are you responsible for simply removing my "Talk" from the Judy Mikovits page you quote above. If so, either justify this action or reinstate the deleted text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  • As far as I can see your comments are still there, followed by a number of people saying how ridiculous they are. I can tell you, however, that if you do continue to attack other editors or commit further BLP violations, I will remove your ability to post here at all. Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Black Kite. A large body of text by me was deleted from the end of the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judy_Mikovits&diff=prev&oldid=955599835 section "This is a hastily assembled hit-job". Did you do that? How can I retrieve this text? How can I find out who has deleted it? In addition, I can no longer edit the Talk page there. Who has made this so, and how can I retrieve my ability to edit talk pages and, indeed, Wikipedia pages? I am not attacking editors. I am pointing our the inadequacy of their arguments, and of these two pages on Judy Mikovits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 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.

Vaccines are "a money-making enterprise that causes medical harm"

This is presented as a "conspiracist claim". But it is a fact that companies make a lot of money from vaccines. And there are many documented cases of vaccines causing harm. So I suggest to change "conspiracist claim" to "fact". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually they claim both, and there is a lot of evidence to support both. Companies make a lot of money. A lot of kids got sick from vaccines, especially in uncontrolled tests. You are just using the word "conspiracist" to try to close down debate. We know this technique was developed by the CIA in their CointelPro work. It is not worthy of Wikipedia to use such a defaming/propagandist slur. Remove the word "conspiracist" please, since I cannot edit the article myself. For the same reason, the slur should be removed from the first sentence of the article. Do it. We are sick of this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk • contribs) 00:21, May 9, 2020 (UTC)
The reason why you cannot edit the article is that if you could, you would add your above opinion to it instead of sourced information. The meaning of the edit restriction is that only those people can edit who have demonstrated that they know the basics of what belongs in articles and what doesn't. Someone like that will not add your opinion for you because it doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Translation: people who can back up their cheap smears with citations of journalists and internet personalities have shown they are qualified to write wikipedia articles. And someone who offers actual scientific advice based on 30 years in academic biosciences cannot.
Almost. "Journalists and internet personalities" should be replaced by "sources which have earned a reputation of fact-checking". And "someone who offers actual scientific advice based on 30 years in academic biosciences" can convince those reliable sources to publish their views, if they have any merit. (Thousands of people can offer such advice, and there is bound to be a bell curve of better and worse advice, so "I have spent 30 years in academia" is not a valid justification for "I am right". See argumentum ad verecundiam.) Then, we can quote that. We just summarize what the reliable sources say.


You will not change the way Wikipedia works. Maybe you should move to another website which does not have any quality control, and add your thoughts there? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Right we go with RS, not wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What are criteria whereby you determine that a source "has earned a reputation of fact-checking"? Is it someone who simply declares themselves to be a "fact-checker" like Snopes. Am I correct in thinking that wikipedia's policy is to quote such "fact-checkers" and omit the opinions of actual medical virologists (like Nobel laureate Montagnier who sequenced HIV)? Is this your definition of RS?

Hob: No I am doing it here. This is the main source for people. In these discussions you can see that you are not adhering to your own quality control and RS policies. The article claimed that "science reporters, doctors and public health experts condemned the film". I had to repeat myself 4 times before a citation appeared for this that satisfied your own RS policy. Even now, SlaterSteven appears to believe that a PhD in meteorology is a RS fror this topic. Actually, he didn't read the citation and thought that the guy was a medical doctor.

You dont appear to be listening to me. The first thing I need you to do is learn to sign your posts on Talk pages like this one. You do it by adding four Tildes at the end of your posts, like this ~~~~ -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 15:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Err I have now accepted he is a scientist, not a Doctor.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Just go and read the rules: WP:RS. Also, do not write stuff in the middle of other people's contributions (I corrected that for you), and sign your own text, as Roxy said. If you want to stay here, you have to follow the rules.
Montagnier has embraced several crazy theories, his opinion is worthless. If he would get his theories through peer review, that would change things. Determining the reliability of sources is not as simple as you think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Further question

Is This video actually called "Plandemic", or is it a very long extract from the as yet unreleased film "Plandemic"? -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 15:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it a trailer or not?Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the title was "Plandemic (Part 1)", but it has been uploaded and reuploaded in so many forms it's hard to verify that. jps (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The version I saw was uploaded as "Plandemic (Part 1)". The website [2] reads "Prior to the completion of the full-length documentary we'll be releasing a series of vignettes. The first installment features renowned scientist, Judy Mikovits PHD." Whether "vignette" means the whole movie in sequential parts or as Roxy said, a "long extract" is not clear. GerryDonohoe (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Another fact-check

In Science magazine. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-judy-mikovits-controversial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral Guy (help!) 09:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to add general source material relevant to her claims for more experienced editors to examine, such as the original DOD study.[3] from which she got her 36% figure. Is this the correct section? If so, I notice the citation appears at the bottom - should I just post links straight in without using the citation tag? GerryDonohoe (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I added the ref and had changed your post slightly to keep the ref with post. StrayBolt (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is a Google doc Debunking “Plandemic” refuting much of the movie, with references. StrayBolt (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Pro Publica interviews the filmmaker

Here's a good article by an investigative journalist, talking partly about how unbiased journalism works in general, and then trying to take the measure of Plandemic, using journalistic standards. The author succeeded in interviewing the filmmaker on this topic, with interesting results. This source may have some good information for use in the article:

I don't presently plan to contribute to this article, so have at it, if you find it useful. Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if its an RS or not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#ProPublica Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
OK I stand corrected we can use this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, we can, though whether we should is a different matter. I am not that comfortable with the starting proposition that Plandemic might be intended as a good-faith contribution to the public health debate, as opposed to what the sources say, which is propaganda by grifters. Guy (help!) 11:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Well we can use this as a source for the fact the makers admit its propaganda.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Is that the starting position? "So a fair presentation should at least acknowledge opposing points of view. I didn’t see this in “Plandemic,”" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, yeah, maybe I am just being paranoid, but I am losing patience with the media's tendency to pretend that people arguing in bad faith are worth listening to. Guy (help!) 20:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
They are certainly being listened to or at least talked about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That the virus was manipulated.

It is now a mainstream view that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab. All 17 US intelligence agancies view this as plausible. Many around the world have also concluded that the virus was manipulated, eg: Luc Montagnier Nobel laureate virologist who sequenced HIV, work that Dr Mikovits was amongst the first to follow up. The Andersen Nature paper you cite is really very very weak. It has the following logic: the ACE-2 receptor did not have the effectiveness of a spliced/engineered sequence such as we would expect in a bioweaponised virus. Therefore the virus was clearly not manipulated. Few virologists or even members of the public would accept this logic. Many techniques exist for evolving receptors sequences naturally and these would not look spliced or bind highly selectively. In the light of this, I do not think this claim qualifies as false or misleading, but rather, but its truth is not yet determined. You should remove it from the list of the false or misleading, since I cannot. - Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk • contribs) 00:27, May 9, 2020 (UTC)

Sources for "It is now a mainstream view that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab"? - MrX 🖋 00:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find a more recent report, but here's one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/04/14/the-washington-post-goes-rogue-china-lab-in-focus-of-coronavirus-outbreak/ My point is not that it is accepted as coming from a lab, but it is being discussed by British and US investigations. That's what I mean by mainstream. Another article addressing the flimsiness of the Andersen Nature study is: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/on-the-possible-origins-of-coronavirus-part-1/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC) As I write, no action has been taken to remove "That the virus was manipulated" from the list of false or misleading claims. It is Mikovits' opinion and that of many other scientists and intelligence officials, and it hence does not qualify as false or misleading. - Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

We go with what the bulk of the experts say, [[4]], hell even Americas own spies say it was not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Good find. Read the article past the headline, which is misleading. In it the President states he has seen evidence that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab, and the intelligence source in the article is quoted as saying they have found "no intelligence that would allow the agencies to explicitly rule out the possibility" that the virus came from a lab. Therefore I suggest that you quote this and write that "at present the origin of the virus is undetermined and under investigation," (and quote this article), following this by "and differing opinions exist in the scientific community about whether the virus was manipulated". For the latter, you can cite this article: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/on-the-possible-origins-of-coronavirus-part-1/ or find another article which cites more than just the Andersen Nature study which is flawed in its logic and conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Odd them how almost everyone else from the the almost all the worlds governess (who have also got intelligence agencies) to the scientific community disagree. We go with that the bulk of experts say, per wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, also I would want a more reliable source than Donald Trump, who is, according to most if not all reliable sources, the most prolific bullshitter in modern political history. Guy (help!) 16:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was communicating with someone who did not write English natively. I'll try to be more clear for you. Here is an article which shows that both the UK and the US are researching the origin of the virus: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-uk-ambassador-to-us-backs-investigation-into-origin-2020-4?r=US&IR=T. Now to substantiate (prove) your claim you need to find RS from some of the other "governesses" of the world that states that they disagree with this, and we can then write "Governments, intelligence agencies and scientists all currently differ in their beliefs about the origin of the virus, the most common position being that we do not yet know." Or else, you remove "That the virus was manipulated" from the list of false or misleading claims attributed to Mikovits in the Synopsis. Got it? I am following your own policies here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Err that is says nothing about it being manufactured, its about China's response. And this is my last reply to you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The article states that the US, the UK and Australia are investigating the virus's origins. The article is NOT about China's response. Do you actually read anything? I am relieved you are ending your replies because none of them address the issues under concern. So who is now responsible for making changes in this article so that I can continue the discussion on these critical-to-the-world issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Me. The first thing I need you to do is learn to sign your posts on Talk pages like this one. You do it by adding four Tildes at the end of your posts, like this ~~~~ -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 15:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Effin Dog. Will do: 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC) -Tony

Great. Now, how about Colons eh! we use them to format the talk pages so that we can see who is saying what to whom. Try it, one for each indent you need, it's fun! -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
"She said the international community needed to investigate the role of Chinese wet markets in the outbreak.", that is not a lab.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The BI article you linked says, and I quote, "She said the international community needed to investigate the role of Chinese wet markets in the outbreak." It pretty clearly is not talking about it being made in a lab, and even if it was just because there is an investigation of a possible cause does not mean that the cause is a likely one. Stavd3 (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

poor wording?

I believe the following sentence: "An NIH study failed to show any benefit and an increased risk of cardiac death from taking hydroxychloroquine" was meant to say that NIH study showed an increased risk of cardiac death? Well, it says just the opposite (that it failed to show that)! Either way, the wording needs to be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.53.222.39 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It definitely didn't show the opposite. The NIH panel recommended against HQ,[5] and it has been shown in recent clinical studies to have no benefit[6][7], in addition to increasing cardiac deaths. If anything, it might need a tweak to highlight the cardiac death risk, failure to show benefit in clinical trials, and the NIH warning against using it, along with a couple of extra references. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the IP is just noting that the sentence is ambiguous, not the studies. It could be read as "An NIH study failed to show any benefit and (failed to show) an increased risk of cardiac death." So perhaps a change to "An NIH study failed to show any benefit and instead showed an increased risk of cardiac death"? Kuru (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Ahh, go it, thanks. Sure, sounds reasonable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Or maybe "An NIH study showed no benefit and an increased risk of cardiac death". Either way. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

claim of discredited is false

there is no claim of discredidation in the Scientific field. This is obviously a very biased opinion by an opposing view. Dr. Mikovits is still highly regarded world-wide and is a readily sought after author & Scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:9906:4477:A865:DA29:B620:FE9D (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Is she, can we have an RS for the claim she is still highly regarded by her peers?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

she is still published in ncbi.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov websites. a top medical journal site. & (I am late for an appointment but) I will research to see if she is still in Oxford's research publications...my guess is YES!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniarosalokey (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Published and highly regarded are not synonymous, and please learn to indent and sign.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I see no evidence that she is highly regarded by anyone credible; however, there is much evidence (in WP:RS) that she is described as discredited. She has published nothing since her last CFS study in 2012[8] (which in part led to her downfall), so she is clearly not an active scientist. One is not "published" in PubMed -- it is simply a database of published studies akin to a library catalog; thus, the claim is akin to saying that an author whose book is on the library shelf is "published by the library" -- clearly incorrect. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Soniarosalokey, NCBI's NLM is a journal index. She's not "published" there, nobody is. Wakefield AJ also still appears there, and it would be hard to be any more discredited than him. Guy (help!) 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Fraud

And we have this [[9]], a doctor no less.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Alt-med sidebar?

We have this sidebar {{Alternative medicine sidebar}} that has a link to medicine conspiracy theories. Is it suitable for this article? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It would seem so. It's up on Judy Mikovits so would probably make sense to have it here too. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I added Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic to the sidebar and vice-versa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Just a YouTube video"

I added an infobox based on film and it was reverted by an editor because it's "just a YouTube video". Even a video made by Peter Capaldi for a young fan which was not originally intended for public consumption gets treated the same way (From the Doctor to My Son Thomas). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone or something seems to be deleting my signature. Restored. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Well I reverted because it is "It is claimed to be the trailer for an upcoming full-length film in Summer 2020".Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it matters: if it is a trailer, then this article will eventually become the article about the feature when it's released, and the infobox will change to reflect that release date and other information. We can change the wording for the intro to say it's "an upcoming feature" or words to that effect, including qualifications, remove the release date and running time, and indicate that the body of the article is discussing what we know of the film, which is based on its trailer. Either way an infobox is needed, IMO. For now, this video is the main focus of the article, I don't believe there is a template for 'trailers'. There's no objective reason for treating a short video of 22 minutes as a 'trailer' anyway. It's not disjointed like a trailer. A 25 minute version on the Plandemic website is called "Part 1". ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
And when (and indeed) if it becomes a film we can then then add in the film infobox. I would point out that wp:crystal really prevents us form assuming this will in fact go anywhere. Indeed I even wonder if this violates wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
You can't have it both ways. Either this is a standalone video, in which case the film infobox is appropriate, or it is a trailer for an upcoming film, in which case the film infobox is also appropriate. I'm not hearing a reason why the film template should not be applied, i.e. how this would violate policy. There are articles both for upcoming films and short films. Both use the same template. Just to add most of my work on WP is on films and videos, and I've yet to see an argument (let alone a successful one) against applying a template for film in an article about a film just because it's not been released yet. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
ZarhanFastfire, only if it's actually produced. See WP:CRYSTAL. Guy (help!) 15:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Where are you getting this from? Articles are made about films that are in production regularly. If this is a trailer, the film is in production. It's not crystal to say the film is in production. The infobox still applies. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, Guy. Please see this article: Dune (2020 film). And if that's not enough, I suggest you have a look at all the film articles under Category:Upcoming films
The problem there is that the sole source for this being an upcoming film is the maker himself, and as this article establishes, he is hardly reliable. RS talk about the fact that it's claimed to be a trailer or whatever, or just call it a video. There are lots of sources that discuss the production and development of Dune, because it has a multi-million-dollar budget. This video was made on a budget of three Big Macs and a donut and there's nobody in the professional film press talking about its production. Guy (help!) 16:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Then we treat it as a stand alone film.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, or rather, a standalone video. Either that or I am a cinematographer... Guy (help!) 16:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Whats the difference in terms of policy?Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
None as far as I know. There's no "infobox video", all the ones I've done for Daniel Cockburn (see Metronome (film), The Impostor (hello goodbye), Nocturnal Doubling...) I did under infobox film. @Guy Of course Mikki whatsit is not "reliable" in general in the sense that he's a conspiracy theorist, but he is reliable as far as he is already a filmmaker, a cinematographer, as is made clear in the article. "Part 1" of the video already exists, and it's ridiculous to say we don't apply the appropriate template just because the feature may not get made--that could happen this year with any of the projects under Category:Upcoming films and that would have no bearing whatsoever on their status as films, albeit incomplete/unmade. We have articles for films that are lost. Your arguments keep changing: now it is special pleading based on budget. Again see From the Doctor to My Son Thomas which has zero production values, it's a brief video made by one man with his mobile phone. All I'm saying is, it's a film, we use the infobox for films. You are overcomplicating this by bringing up things that are not relevant. The infobox is an objective summary of relevant data, not a statement about quality. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
ZarhanFastfire, nonetheless, film, implies more than a YouTube video, and we have no evidence that this is more than a YouTube video. Guy (help!) 17:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Guy, cite an actual policy that makes a distinction between a film (8, 16, 33, 66 etc.) and a video (Betamax and all the rest)--these are media--or a policy that states "YouTube video" is even a thing. It's not even been made by YouTube and wouldn't matter if it were. It was originally posted to Vimeo. The platform through which a video achieves distribution is irrelevant. This is like saying a homemade comic book isn't a comic book because it wasn't made by DC or Marvel. You're not even clutching at straws anymore, you're making things up on the fly, and you have not addressed any of the arguments above which are based on policy and practice. I've given you an example of a video with no production values at all twice, but I guess You did not hear that. You're screaming WP:IDONTLIKEIT.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
ZarhanFastfire, you're right, I don't like it. I don't like the original Dune, either, but I acknowledge that it's a film. Albeit a crap one. This is just a YouTube video. Guy (help!) 17:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support infobox. There is little reason to treat this article any differently than other movies that don't pan out, or even movies that were lost/misplaced. We know that the movie is getting produced and released, given the release of part 1, and presumably part 2 and so on, so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Given that even trailers of movies get infoboxes, I don't see why Plandemic would be the exception, even though we know it's a piece of misinformation. Tutelary (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    Tutelary, yes there is, though. Most movies are made to entertain. This is propaganda. And unfortunately once the film infobox goes in, you immediately have someone from the MOS police insisting that it be classified, and "fantasy" never wins, it always ends up as "documentary" even when it's actually a crockumenatary (see, e.g., Vaxxed). Guy (help!) 17:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be wise to see how that article explains things. "Propaganda film" -> "Pseudoscience documentary", all terms that can be used in this article. Ensuring in the main body of the article that it's clear misinformation, and including an infobox are not mutually exclusive. I also don't see in that infobox what you are referring to "Fantasy". I don't really see an issue with including one if the main argument against is that "Someone from the MOS police would insist it would be classified." Disputes are a natural part of editing Wikipedia, and help provide a more thorough consensus. Tutelary (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Tutelary, a pseudoscience documentary is a factual programme about pseudoscience. A pseudo-documentary is a programme that looks like a documentary but is based on propaganda or delusion rather than fact. American Factory is a documentary. A documentary is factual, though it may jazz things up a bit.
"A documentary film is a non-fictional, motion picture intended to "document reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record""
This is not that. Guy (help!) 21:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
And here we get to the crux of the thing, Guy. You don't like the content. It does not matter why the movie was made. I repeat, it does not matter. Propaganda films are still films. Birth of a Nation is propaganda. Propaganda films are a thing, your personal feelings about the film are not a thing that matters. You are out of arguments. You've tried "it's not out yet", you've tried "no budget", you've tried "it's crap". None of that matters. It's a film. Films get infobox film. Cite a policy that backs up any of these objections you raise or concede that an article about a film gets a film infobox. There is no distinction between "film" and "video" for our purposes. There is no distinction between how a film reaches its audience. It's all the same. It doesn't matter if it's a load of shit. The whole point of having the article is so people can find out, from our tertiary resource, why it is a load of shit in the most efficient manner possible. You're actively working against helping us do that out of some bizarre, misguided belief that you are actually on the side of ... I don't know what. What do you think is accomplished by not having an infobox, and what great harm do you think is done by giving it one? Do you actually think it gives it some kind of WP-created legitimacy? Becuse it doesn't.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Your point about MOS police is pure fantasy. TV shows have genre in their infoboxes, films do not. And whether you like it or not, this is a documentary. Just like Farenheit 9/11 or the one about Obama made before his re-election. Some people believe everything in one and not the other, virtually nobody believes both. Documentaries are not objective. They are essays in film form. Again, you are out of arguments.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
By the way, you may not have noticed I included the Documentary Films Task Force of which I am a amember in the Project statement above when I rated the article for WP:FILM.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
ZarhanFastfire, no, it's not a documentary. It's a YouTube conspiracy video. And yes it does matter. From documentary film: "A documentary film is a non-fictional, motion picture intended to "document reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record"". Compare propaganda film: "A propaganda film is a film that involves some form of propaganda. Propaganda films may be packaged in numerous ways, but are most often documentary-style productions or fictional screenplays, that are produced to convince the viewer of a specific political point or influence the opinions or behavior of the viewer, often by providing subjective content that may be deliberately misleading."
Which of those two is a better description of this video, do you think?
But this isn't even a film. It's just a YouTube video. Talking head on screen. My videos of my railway layout have higher production values!
Anyone who thinks this is in the same category as Michael Moore's polemics (which I also would not call documentaries, with the possible exception of Bowling For Columbine) is clearly missing the difference between good faith and bad-faith argument.
A category which includes both this and, say, Blue Planet, is worthless. Guy (help!) 21:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinions about documentaries and propaganda films, Guy, both of which get infoboxes. They are just that and once more irrelevant. Your refusal to back up your opinions with policies or anything remotely like a consistent, logical largument is noted, but it only prolongs the inevitable. Again, it does not matter if you don't consider Moore's work "valid" according to some personal scale of quality. By the way, unlike yourself, I've seen images from the film on its website and it has real production values, it's nowhere near "talking head on a screen." Not that quality has anything whatsoever to do with genre or medium or whether it gets an infobox. I get that this thing offends you and intelligent people everywhere, but that has nothing to do with OUR POLICIES. Doggerel is poetry no matter how bad it is. Finally, you accusing me of arguing in bad faith is very ill-considered and, were I you, I'd retract that sentence. If you will not concede, stupid as it is, I will call an RfC to settle this, even though it's a waste of energy and time. You are the only person left on this page opposing this absolutely routine, non partisan, self-evidently obvious Wikipedia standard thing to do in an article about a film. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
ZarhanFastfire, see below. Most sources do not call it a film. As in 0.14% of Google results use the term. Not every article needs an infobox, we already had that fight and the "infobox always" side, lost. Guy (help!) 22:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Include infobox Having read through the comments by Tutelary, ZarhanFastfire and others, my vote is to include an infobox for the following reasons. The infobox does not render an opinion on the content, but it makes the information about the work easier to find, digest, and talk about. It is not just a film, though arguably short, but it a film which has had a fairly large influence, and it generates discussion. After hearing about it, I looked for it on Youtube, and being the private company they took it down which is their perogative. I found it on another source, than came to Wiki to get more info. The more info the better, whether we agree or disagree with the facts (true or false) and opinions (which are opinions) depicted in the film, we should treat it as a film. I'll say this, I was suprised by the production values. Wiki should be about including information, let's make it easier for readers to get information, not decide in advance for readers which films we believe are worthy or unworthy based upon our own opinions and beliefs. 

KnowsetfreeKnowsetfree (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Asking Dr. Google

  • Plandemic +film: 96 hits.
  • Plandemic +video: 78 hits.
  • Plandemic +"conspiracy theory": 66,200 results

Most sources don't seem to use film or video. Omit the infobox. Come to think of it, we already had that fight: contested infoboxen don't get included. Guy (help!) 22:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious. According to that then, you would next argue that "Plandemic is a conspiracy theory in the form of moving images." Still waiting for that apology for accusing me of arguing in bad faith. Next, please. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
ZarhanFastfire, ffs, I did not say you are arguing in bad faith, Plandemic is doing that. It is not a good faith production. It is propaganda. Guy (help!) 22:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
1. Just because you don't need an infobox in every article does not mean you shouldn't have one in any particular article. I'm sure there are many stubs where that wouldn't be helpful. The argument is irrelevant to this article. 2. "Google" doesn't decide whether something is or is not a film or video. You are the one choosing the search and determining the range of results. "Conspiracy theory" is NOT a category for a medium, genre, etc. You are arguing that because you added the word "fresh" to a search of "Emperor bananas" and got x number of results that Emperor bananas are not bananas. Fortuituous choice of words there on my part. Your argument is completely bananas. 3. Your quotes of propaganda films and documentary entirely miss the point. Documentaries document reality from the POV of the documentary filmmaker. That's what I meant by saying "they're not objective" and nor are they supposed to be. They are essays. TBH the line between documentary and propaganda is often a fine one. Let me ask you a question: how many film / video articles have you worked on, and how many of them were documentaries? Because I get the impression you haven't worked on any. I'm not making an argument from authority here, I am just wondering. I get the impression you either don't really understand the terminology nor how this stuff works. You can't deny that a box is a box because it's open. You can't deny that a box is a box because it's all wet. It remains a box. No matter how much you hate and despite something, that doesn't change its nature. And, might I add, all those emtions are obviously clouding your judgement. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't really have a preference in regard to the infobox, but I find those search results odd. I just did a google search for Plandemic +film and got 1,650,000 hits. 96 seems strangely low. Did you use somethihng other than Google? Or were there filters in place? - Bilby (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
So is From the Doctor to My Son Thomas which has the infobox. Someone hasn't read the thread. Again, film and video are the same thing and this is not a valid argument. No valid argument based on policy has been presented for excluding an infobox. Arguments based on tendentious misunderstandings of terminology, ireelevant considerations related to quality and content have been presented that would have Marshall McLuhan laughing his butt off.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
ZarhanFastfire, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Not every article needs an infobox. Guy (help!) 11:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Guy, we've been through this. WP:OTHERSTUFF is usually invoked when someone is arguing for breaking Wikipedia rules, or otherwise demanding something be changed from regular ordinary every day stuff to something unusual. Typically the someone in question is pointing to an article where things have been done incorrectly, not something which is an established norm. Again, just because something does not have to be done is not an argument for why it should not be done in a given instance. We don't have to have a synopsis if we know nothing of the content. If we do, we should include it, as you would a Plot in a fiction-film. As Knowsetfree pointed out above (out of order), the infobox is there to make it easier to find basic information about the subject quickly. We don't have to have External links, but if such exist and are valid as links, there's no tenable argument against including them in an article. None. For example, the article now says which production company is behind the film (if you've looked at it, as I've pointed out before, it's not a talking head as someone called it, and wouldn't matter even if it were). These are bog standard things. I do not understand why this is so controversial to some of you. I get that you hate the content (so do I) but giving it an infobox is not doing anything to give it legitimacy or "more" notability than it already has by virtue of it having gained widespread exposure and coverage. You are doing a disservice to Wikipedia readers by refusing to treat this like any other topic--including other highly questionable sources such as books by UFOligists, David Icke, or all the other nutjobs out there. Seriously, I don't get where you are coming from. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, you wouldn't have any information in the article at all, which I believe some of you privately wish was true, but that ship has sailed (see nomination for deletion above which lasted less than a day).ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I support omitting the infobox. This article should be about the conspiracy theory/propaganda that happens to be in the form a video. It is not a work of creative expression. - MrX 🖋 01:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Whether you think it is a form of creative expression or not is irrelevant. It's a documentary and/or propaganda film. Regardless of the truth value of the content (none), regardless of the quality (subjective). It's irrelevant. Still waiting for someone to make an argument based on policy and standard procedure on Wikipedia and not based on subjective feelings about the crockumentary. You can argue about whether Pluto is a planet or a planetoid, it's got nothing to do with whether it should have an infobox. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Things that "happen to be" in the form of a video are... videos, which are the same thing as films. I don't even know if this is is made on video, it's just as likely to have been made on film, but whatever. I notice the article now identifies the production company that is making this film and/or video. Does anybody care to explain how a production company makes films and videos but this isn't one? Does anyone care to make the argument that a poison apple isn't an apple while we're at this? Since some of you appear to be convinced that words mean exactly what you want them to mean, per Humpty Dumpty in the Alice books? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the video is not a film and does not qualify for a film infobox. Lowering the bar for this, or any other low-grade nutty YouTube video, by calling it "film' seems preposterous. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Include ZarhanFastfire is right. This is one of the weirder discussions I've participated on Wikipedia about. conspiracy theory/propaganda that happens to be in the form a video. It is not a work of creative expression is really tortured logic and plainly appealing to the writer's own desired outcome. It plainly is a video that could include an infobox. But whatever. I did laugh at the three Big Macs and a donut budget. By the way, lots of stuff since Attack of the Clones (nearly two decades ago now) has been shot on video equipment. That isn't even a standard for what is "a film" anymore. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there's an actual straw poll going on, but by the looks of things, those requesting inclusion are outnumbered by those opposing -- note that WP:SPA do not qualify for straw polling purposes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment With 4 editors for (User:ZarhanFastfire, User:Bri, myself, User:Knowsetfree) and 3 editors opposing (User:MrX, User:JzG, User:K.e.coffman), there is definitely a consensus for inclusion. Note that Knowsetfree and ZarhanFastfire are definitely not single purpose accounts, due to This is because while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed. Which they are definitely not editing to showcase their favored point of view, or for purposes of promotion. Making a minimal support for an infobox in one article does not all of a sudden make the rest of their history irrelevant. Knowsetfree has been an infrequent editor for 13 years, editing a wide arrange of topics. ZarhanFastfire also does not meet this definition, as they are an active, prolific editor outside of this subject. We should assume good faith and not cast WP:ASPERSIONS on another editors. I have reverted Rhode Island Red's revert of Bri, given this consensus. If there continues to be dispute about this subject, then I recommend filing a requests for comment, drafted as a question that answers 1. whether or not it is a film and 2. whether or not it should have an infobox. Tutelary (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tutelary: 4 to 3 is not a consensus, even if we were to just count votes. Consensus does not mean majority; it's closer to a supermajority. However, the strength of arguments with respect to Wikipedia's policies are what matter when determining consensus. I don't believe that there is a consensus here, but if you do, you can request that an uninvolved editor assess it by posting at WP:ANRFC. - MrX 🖋 01:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I am biased given that I !voted to include an infobox, but I do believe the argument is stronger for the inclusion crowd, given that even simple Youtube videos by a popular celebrities, of 40-50 seconds in length, trailers of movies not released, and the like manage to utilize the film infobox, but a film, billed as a documentary (but is actually a propaganda documentary) somehow does not meet the criteria of using the film infobox, since it's "not a film". It's also of note that WP:NOTAVOTE does not actually link to a policy or guideline, but a supplement, of which that is used to get a clearer understanding of a particular guideline, but is not mandatory to follow. I am partial to these, as I link to WP:BRD on the regular, but again it's just another factor to consider. The reference to numbers and specific editors is a partial rebuttal to Rhode Island's revert claiming there is no consensus and to give a clearer overview to other editors when they review this subject. Tutelary (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
There not yet been a proper straw poll, but so far the count is 5 against inclusion (myself, Slatersteven, Guy, Mr X, and K.e.coffman) versus 3 4 for (Bri, Tutelary, Knowsetfree; ZarhanFastfire is a WP:SPA and doesn't count for voting purposes). For now the loose consensus is against; and again, it's not a simple majority up down votes that matters but also strength of arguments. The arguments for inclusion just haven't been compelling.
What criteria would one use in distinguishing this as a true “film” from any nutter conspiracy theory tirade on YouTube? Public screening? Commercially released? Film distribution deal? Coverage and recognition as a film by a reputable film media or organizations? Listing in IMDB even? Nope. It’s not a film IMO. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
User:ZarhanFastfire has more edits than myself and even you, over a wide range of topics. They are not a single purpose account by any stretch of the imagination, and I request that you stop calling them that, per WP:NPA. I did not count User:Slatersteven as even though they stated it as a film Then we treat it as a stand alone film, but in other words reverted the infobox. So I did not know what position to put them in. You're right though, I should have included a "currently unknown" column too. To even concede that it is a trailer for a full length film is conceding that it is a film, and is deserving of the film infobox. As far as your question, the reliable sources. One Two Three Four Five. Even Snopes, which is used on the article for fact checking refers to it as a film. here | Though honestly, just because we use the film infobox does not mean that you have to concede that it is a film, as even trailers, or notable Youtube videos from celebrities use said infobox. So there are two issues here that have to be discussed and resolved. In its current form, the article itself refers to it as a film. Tutelary (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, my bad, I saw that wrong when I checked the user contributions; the editor is not as SPA. I'll correct that and thanks for pointing it out. Still makes 5-4 in favor of not including -- so no consensus for inclusion. Like Slatersteven said, there's always the option of including an infobox at a later date if this ends up qualifying as an actual film. Seems like We've discussed it to death here and can agree to disagree. RfC is an option to get a broader range of inputs from uninvolved editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Tutelary, oh, cool, we do it on edit count? Fantastic.
ZarhanFastfire: 24,220 edits, 2,378 pages
JzG: 138,477 edits, 59,298 pages.
I win! Guy (help!) 07:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
User:JzG, you misunderstand the reasoning for pointing out edit count, which is normally a meaningless statistic. The user was being accused of being a single purpose account, that they clearly are not. I was not making a a point about their capability, nor was I implying that ZarhanFastfire was somehow better than Rhode Island Red, myself, or you. I thought that was clear based on the structure of my response. It is not my intention, nor desire to violate Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, led alone where an ArbCom judgement or intervention is needed. Tutelary (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it can be all three, after all JFK was a film, a book a Video A DVD (no doubt a song). But I always assumed (and still do (wp:other aside) that trailers or teasers are not separate films form their parent. I also still think its too early if this will be a full blown film or a failed film projected that will be forgotten about when the Anti-vaxers hear their next Donkey Hooting.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks like a clear majority oppose inclusion, so I'd say the issue has been decided and can be put to rest on the TPG for now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red... Yeah the problem with this is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not allow a bunch of editors to block other editors from improving the article when they actually have no argument based on policy or practice, but instead refuse to follow regular policy and practice based on their own feelings and opinions. You don't refuse to call a film a film because it's on video, or because of how it is distributed. You could all decide it's okay to include original research but you can't. Local consensus means nothing in the face of acting againt policy. You can't vote for something that actually goes against policy. And the policy here is not that infoboxes aren't necessary. The policy in question is, does having an infobox improve an article by making it easier to get at basic information or not. Those of you are saying things like it doesn't "deserve" an infobox are judging the content of the film rather than thinking in terms of improving the article.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
There’s no clear-cut policy on film info boxes, and at issue is whether the video qualifies as a film, not simply whether or not it “deserves” an info box as you suggest. A decision had to be made one way or the other and the process for reaching that decision was WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, the best mechanisms we have at this stage for decision making. A clear majority felt that the video did not qualify as a film and ergo an info-box wasn’t warranted. You seem to be suggesting that this is going against policy but I fail to see any prior discussion of a policy that was violated, and merely saying it does not make it so. I assume we are all acting in good faith and working towards the common goal of improving the article. If you think the wrong decision was reached you can try DR or RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • My final comment. All of this started because I heard about this thing on Facebook, found a lot of other discussion about it after seeing a bit of it on YouTube, I have a lot of time on my hands because I'm not at work. I've been lucky to live in a part of the world that has seen few deaths from the virus, but I have many former colleagues and friends from New York to the UK, from Hong Kong to Vancouver and so on. I watch in horror at what has happened. I fear and loathe the conspiracy theories and their potential impact on the world. And because I work with film and video articles a lot, I thought I'd have a look and see if there was already an article on Plandemic. I saw there was, added a bit here and there, was thanked for that, but was also reverted for putting in an infobox. Then Guy comes along and seems to have an axe to grind against infoboxes. I've heard of editors who don't like them on principle, just never met one before. But I don't think that's the main thing. Guy and some of the later editors are denying the article an infobox because they are so offended by the subject that they cannot distinguish the two (viz. the number of attacks on the content itself when this is meant to be a talk page about improving the article, not whether the content is any good), nor the difference between arguing for improving the article and supporting the article's subject, viz. ultimately accusing an editor more than once of supporting woo or being a SPA. And no, "my bad" doesn't begin to cover it. (Look, I suffer from anxiety and depression, you aren't to know that but it's still incumbent upon you to think before you post). Assuming bad faith when it is so damned easy to check is inexcusable. Click on my username and you can see I've been creating film and video articles for a year and a half. And accusing me of promoting woo is basically assuming my guilt by association. I'm not sure which form of bullying is more insulting--and for what? The great thought crime of including an infobox. This is not the first time I have been subjected to invalid personal attacks on a talk page on Wikipedia but I would really like it to be the last. It's one of the reasons I create articles now rather than contribute. Arguments such as this are a waste of everyone's time. Both sides believe they are standing for a principle and get dug in, and the one who concedes is the one who finally gets tired first, or has more of a life. Some people cannot admit when they are wrong and are best left to their own devices. It's just not worth it sometimes, but it's a shame something has to be such an issue when it is otherwise so trivial. I am done with this discussion and this page.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Promotion of "Plandemic"

Not sure if or how this fits into the article, but this Vice article is a good breakdown of who is behind promoting "Plandemic". If nothing else, it contains lot of links to other sources which could be used in this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Vice is in a gray area regarding WP:RS.[10] It could be used in theory. But the article also provides a good starting point for additional details to track down in other publications regarding Vorhies' role in promoting the YouTube video. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red, NYT do you? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/technology/plandemic-judy-mikovitz-coronavirus-disinformation.html Guy (help!) 18:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
JzG, yes, that NYT article seems to have some good background on who was promoting this vid. Addressing the who/why behind promotion seems like it would be a good addition to the article. The virulence of the video was clearly not organic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red, seems fair. Guy (help!) 09:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's another good article that explores the roots of the video's virality (i.e., who was disseminating it).[11] Just wanted to bookmark it here for now. Rhode Island Red (talk)

Currently given reasons for removals comprise 'misleading content and promotion of false information'.

In addition: many of the take-downs that I saw on YouTube and elsewhere were for infringement of copyright – see for example https://lumendatabase.org/notices/20823458 and https://lumendatabase.org/notices/20823460, the first of which probably relates to the SWAT team footage that was misused by Willis/Elevate. Grahamperrin (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Grahamperrin, we follow what reliable independent sources say about it. Guy (help!) 09:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
So do any RS report this alleged copyvio?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
According to multiple WP:RS cited in the WP entry, the video was taken down from Facebook, YouTube, Vimeo, and Twitter due to its misleading content and promotion of false information; nothing to do with copyrights. I’ve never heard of Lumedatabase, but if they took down videos for reasons related to copyright violation, it’s immaterial for our purposes because it received no RS coverage.
It’s possible that Plandemic did violate copyrights. According to the 2 docs in Bakerfield who made a COVID conspiracy video, which was also taken down from multiple online platforms because of false and misleading content, claimed that Plandemic used footage from their video without permission,[12] and in fact, the WP article already addresses their claim. However, copyright violation was not the reason why the video was removed from the major platforms. Again, that was due to its misleading content/false information. It’s possible that Plandemic also violated other copyrights, but we have no evidence nor RS to back it up so it’s a moot point. Rumors on Reddit are immaterial because it’s not a RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

wearing the mask literally activates your own virus. You're getting sick from your own reactivated coronavirus expressions.

can someone please post the timestamp where this is said in plandemic2407:7000:9863:A171:D864:F3E2:C75D:517 (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a reasonable NPOV to be more against censorship than misinformation

This article rails about misinformation, but doesn't even mention that this video and even links to the video are being censored and deleted far and wide on large platforms like Facebook and Google. The fact of the censorship seems notable to me, I care more about censorship than I do about misinformation. We're essentially avoiding mention that a bookburning is taking place. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2020/plandemic-recirculates-after-platforms-say-they-took-it-down/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/twitter-plandemic-conspiracy-video-resurfacing/ 98.7.201.234 (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

A book burning lol. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Errr yes it does "The video was removed by multiple platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, Vimeo, and Twitter, over its misleading content and promotion of false information."....I am gona reply with the rest at your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of that, however, why doesn't this article have an EL to an official Plandemic website (WP:ELOFFICIAL)? I assume there is one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you answered your own question, you have not found one. This goes back to "its not actually a real film, its not even a trailer for one". Slatersteven (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't find any (now I actually looked), that makes it harder to add one. Thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify my point, I searched the page for "censor" and the word is not there. Censorship is a topic worthy of documentation if you believe in civil rights and a right of free speech. "The best disinfectant is sunshine" 98.7.201.234 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • If reliable sources talk about "censorship", we can include it - but the reliable sources need to be found first. If you want to include something, I suggest you propose the actual wording you propose to add and provide the sources to support it. Then if there's a consensus for its inclusion, you can go ahead. And, just to expand, whether we cover something here is *not* decided on whether we think it is "a topic worthy of documentation if you believe in civil rights and a right of free speech", but on what reliable sources say in accordance with their balance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing my point directly this time rather than going off half-cocked like the rest of the Committee of Public Safety. I'm already performing a valuable role by alerting the people who have rights and who edit the article that the article is tilted in one direction. If those people, including them who accuse me of bad faith on my talk page, can't be bothered to reflect on their own bias and change their behavior, I sure as shootin aren't going to spend my day tilting at this windmill. 98.7.201.234 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
There was a website, consisting of one page with a black background, a pic of judy and the interviewer, and a statement that the film was to drop soon, and an extract, the video we know and love. This was a day after peak judy, and I cant find it now. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I was pointing out that before asking us to make the edit you suggested it might be worth reading it as the lede already says its been taken down from multiple platforms.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Simply put, 98 IP, we're not addressing the point because there's no reason to include the word "censorship." Until we have multiple reliable sources claiming it, we don't add it. Regardless of how any user feels, Wikipedia does not phrase articles based on personal belief. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
HandThatFeeds, Per this Buzzfeed article:
A Facebook spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that the site was removing copies of the video. "Suggesting that wearing a mask can make you sick could lead to imminent harm, so we're removing the video," the spokesperson said.
But as the video has been taken down, other copies have been uploaded to YouTube, Vimeo, and fringe video sites, allowing for a subsidiary narrative to take hold, however false: that a whistleblower is being censored.
“Once a video gets taken down, there’s a secondary appeal,” Renee DiResta, research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, told BuzzFeed News. “You see this a lot in crisis situations, where there’s a morbid curiosity audience and where they think they are fighting an anti-censorship battle.”
DiResta has been watching the false narrative bubble since April, witnessing it finally boil over in the last few days with the "Plandemic" video. She said its spread could be attributed to groups that deny vaccine science, falsely believe cellular technology can spread the virus, and support reopen protests across the country — and to one more ingredient:
“She’s going to be framed as a whistleblower," said DiResta, "and that’s because the whistleblower narrative really works.”
Couldn't agree more. This appeals to the conspiracist mindset and the framing of every grifter with a book or movie to sell as a "brave whisteleblower". Guy (help!) 12:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I know. I wanted to provide the IP a reason per Wikipedia's rules as to why we're not going to buy into this narrative. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
HandThatFeeds, yes, I know :-) Guy (help!) 17:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The article is tilted in the direction of reality. This is a feature, not a bug. Removing profit-motivated health disinformation is not censorship, it's the responsible and all-too-rare thing to do. These platforms also remove how-to suicide videos and the like.
The idea that this is censorship is founded on the false premise of equivalency. It is a common truism that "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins", and that is directly relevant where someone is promoting dangerous disinformation for personal profit.
It's also built on the standard misunderstanding of the freedom of speech as it relates to social media platforms. Your freedom to say crazy shit does not confer any obligation on any third party to help you broadcast it, and refusal to do so does not infringe your rights. Alex Jones has been booted, good riddance to him. Same for this arse-gravy.
And, to your point, Alex Jones says Plandemic has been "censored". So does Mike Adams. But reliable sources do not, so we don't. Guy (help!) 12:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm on the side of the angels, founder of wikipedia says NPOV has become a joke, wikipedia is badly tilted. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ edit: just in case you need help parsing it, he's talking about you guys 98.7.201.234 (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

When I say it's censorship, you all say "the article already says it's removed" indicating that you yourselves see the equivalence between the act of censorship and the act of removal. However, there can be other reasons for removal than censorship, for example copyright claims; so in this case censorship is the precise word and removal is the weasel-word. 98.7.201.234 (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

So find us the reliable sources that use that precise word then. It's been explained to you in some detail, so you can't pretend you still don't understand. If reliable sources say "censored" then we will say "censored". And if reliable sourses use what you think are weasel words, then we use the same weasel words. An approach of "censorship is the precise word and removal is the weasel-word" is expressing an opinion and would be making editorial judgment ourselves, and Wikipedia policy does not allow that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
wikipedia has a policy against weasel words, but according to you, that just "opinion". So do I have your permission to go around wikipedia and remove all such opinions, you and your brigade will have my back? Also, I have your permission and backing to go around wikipedia and remove all paraphrasals and rewordings that don't match the citation? Instead, every phrase in wikipedia should have quotes around it, it should be quotipedia, is that your opinion? 98.7.201.234 (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
No, obviously not every word needs to be quoted and have a citation, so please cut out the sarcasm. The Manual of Style (which is a guideline, not policy) aids editors writing the in-between words that expand upon what sources actually say in order to string the reported facts together. Did you actually read what it says at WP:WEASEL, by the way? With something like the "censorship" issue, as it is such a key (and debatable) word, editors do not have individual leeway to decide to use it themselves in Wikipedia's voice. They must go by consensus, and that's what this is here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Here, NY Times says China censors... According to you, isn't that the NY Times inserting their opinion? Shouldn't they say "removal" and how can you consider the NY Times to be a reliable source if they don't say "removal"? Admit it, you are making up standards and rules as you go along because you have your own bias that you are trying to bend this article to fit. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/world/asia/china-coronavirus-answers.html 98.7.201.234 (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Sigh, I'm not saying reliable sources should not express their opinion, I'm saying Wikipedia should not. Wikipedia should reflect the balance of opinion expressed by reliable sources. But you've been told that multiple times. Anyway, I've exhausted my current patience for repeating myself to people who refuse to read and listen. So bye for now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
sigh, the obvious point I was making was not whether the NYTimes is allowed to insert opinion into its news, the point was that the word censorship has a precise meaning and it is not an opinion and you were wrong to assert that it was, and the NYTimes using it is not an example of opinion, it's an example of literacy. I already gave a good description of how censorship is actually the more accurate term than removal; you need to explain in what possible way it is not? how is censorship the wrong word to use in plain English for removing content such as Plandemic? Do you think censorship is an actual issue in the world? Think it might crop up in politically charged cases? Isn't that exactly when to use the word, in politically charged cases? Do you understand why citations work? because people can look things up, which they can't when they are censored. How can anybody look up the truth about wikipedia's Plandemic article if Plandemic is censored? 98.7.201.234 (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
My opinon on those questions is not relevant, and it's *your* opinion that "censored" is the precise correct word! For the last time I'm going to say it, Wikipedia reflects the balance of reliable sources. If that balance says it's censored, so does Wikipedia. If that balance doesn't, neither does Wikipedia. That would be true even if "censored" *is* the precise correct word in the Wikipedia community's judgment. And that really is all I've got to say to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
So, according to you, any wikipedia article that says "some say..." and refers to a minority opinion with citations, I can delete that portion because it's clearly not part of your "balance" of sources? 98.7.201.234 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
If you come across an article that says something as vague as ""some say..."[who?], you would probably be justified in adding the tag as I just did. Even to say that of course, it should be a significant source, because reagardless of how ludicrous the proposition, it is almost always possible to find a blog somehere or other that makes the claim. "Some say the Pope is really a girl", isn't a very useful thing for anyone to know. Pincrete (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

CBC calls it censorship https://ca.news.yahoo.com/debunked-covid-19-video-kept-170837348.html the Atlantic calls it censorship https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/what-covid-revealed-about-internet/610549/ ABC News reports it is called censorship https://www.abc27.com/news/top-stories/the-plandemic-documentary-removed-from-youtube-and-social-media/ NZ Herald calls it censorship https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=12331342 heavy.com uses the term censorship https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/mikki-willis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.201.234 (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've only checked the first two. The first one contains the word "uncensored" once and "censorship" once, but neither in the context of CBC describing Plandemic as having been censored. The second one doesn't even mention Plandemic at all. Is it possible you might have just searched for the word rather than actually read those sources? But, I did make an error of omission in my previous statement. I should have said "If the balance of reliable sources says "censored" then we will say "censored"". It's entirely possible you can find some individual reliable sources making that claim, but we have to reflect the balance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
tsk tsk tsk, assume good faith; you can tell I read the articles because of the subtle but literate changes in wording I used to describe the citations. And the other question I asked you above are serious question, you're ignoring them. Is it your claim that no wikipedia article can use words that don't appear in citations, because to do otherwise is opinion? The entire CBC article from the headline down is about Plandemic, and as you point out, they do use the word censorship twice. You yourself should stop censoring the word censorship. 98.7.201.234 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
See my last couple of comments above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The CBC source almost support your contention. It says it has been hosted on sites that seem themselves as proponents of uncensored free speech. (which is not quite the same as saying it has been censored) and (in quotes) A censorship backfire. So we might be able to write "and this has been seen by some as censorship". In fact I think I will.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, of course the fundamental problem here is mistaking censored for censured. Removing a video that violates terms of use by spreading dangerous disinformation censures the poster but does not censor them. Guy (help!) 10:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The CBC source says censored (well seen as censored).Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, yes, it's a common mistake, especially among militant freeze-peachers. For some reason they value the "right" to publish dangerous disinformation above any obligation to protect the public from such bullshit, even when published in obvious bad faith. Guy (help!) 10:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Not the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a documentary film

Will someone please remove that category?--Caffoti (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I have always disagreed with this idea "documentary film" does not mean true or accurate. It means it thinks its not fiction. But in this case (given the importance of this issue) I lean towards treating it as fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
It's a documentary peddling falsehoods. It purports to say the truth and fails. It's clearly not fiction. Fiction doesn't claim to be true. MonsieurD (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Flashman.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Although nearly all the substantive information in the film is false or misleading, it still should be classified as a "documentary". We can present all of the falsehoods in the film without having to redefine terms like non-fiction and documentary. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
JoelWhy, no, it should be classified as propaganda. The definition of a documentary is, at its core, a telling of truth, not conspiracist claptrap. Guy (help!) 23:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. A documentary purports to show the truth. Whether it succeeds has no bearing on whether it is a documentary or not. The documentary aspect lies in the intent, not the result. The Wikipedia page about documentaries defines it this way (source is Oxford English Dictionary): "A documentary film is a non-fictional, motion picture intended to "document reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record". The intent is key. If actual truth was key, movies which are considered now documentaries would cease to be documentaries in the future with new discoveries. I don't think film styles work like that. There are true documentaries and there are false documentaries. They are documentaries because they purport to show the truth, even if sometimes they fail. MonsieurD (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Our working definition of "documentary" has to have some basis in fact rather then being just an expression of an editor's personal feelings as to what constitutes a documentary. I see no definition anywhere to the effect that a documentary "purports to show the truth". Miriam Webster defines it as "a presentation (such as a film or novel) expressing or dealing with factual events". The events in this film are not factual -- not even close. And it doesn't appear to be an accidental miss on the facts but rather a purposeful attempt at peddling obvious falsehoods (aka propaganda as JzG put it) by someone (a discredited ex-scientist) with a pre-existing reputation for peddling falsehoods. This isn't a mockumentary but it would be fair to classify it as a "faux-umentary" (i.e., poorly crafted propaganda maliciously masquerading as a documentary). Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red, it's more of a crockumentary, really. Guy (help!) 18:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep! There are several terms used to describe things that seem documnetary-ish but which are in fact not documentaries; e.g. mockumentary, pseudo-documentary, and docufiction. I would classify Plandemic simply as disinformation in video format that was briefly posted on YouTube. It's neither a "documentary" nor a "film". Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rhode Island Red: I've put the part of the definition where they say that a documentary purports to show the truth (intended to document reality). It's what distinguishes documentaries from fiction. It's a terrible documentary, it's false, it shouldn't exist. But it's a documentary. MonsieurD (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I hear you and I don't dispute the definition., but I just don't think the video meets it. I would argue that it doesn't intend to document reality, it intends to distort it, and it's primarily purpose is disinformation, not education. But potato/tomato, it's a matter of opinion. I did however note that their there are other terms that might apply when "documentary" doesn't. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
MonsieurD, no, it's propaganda. It tells a version of "truth" that lacks an essential component: being true. Guy (help!) 12:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Normally I would disagree, documentaries do not have to be true, just earnest. This is the problem (to my mind) here. It is so chock full of outright (and now at least in part acknowledged) lies (or as they put it "mistakes") its hard to say it was not knowingly dishonest, and thus is not an earnest (if erroneous) attempt to tell a story.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, right. Like the work of Dinesh D'Souza, it's wilfully dishonest, so fails the essential test of documentary. Guy (help!) 12:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the idea that only true films are documentaries is untenable. What if the movie makes 5 claims, with two of them being false? Still a documentary? What about a movie about politics? Is it a documentary for the reds but a fiction flick for the blue? Intent to show the truth is what makes a movie a documentary, but one can intend to do something and fail. That's what false documentaries are. MonsieurD (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The issue is not the fact it is false, the issue if that it was knowingly false. A documentary does not have to be true, but it does have to be honest.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@MonsieurD: Yep, you said it yourself, "Intent to show the truth is what makes a movie a documentary". Plandemic clearly never intended to show the truth. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure both Judy Mikovits and Mikki Willis believe that what they are saying is true. Is there any indication to the contrary? See Hanlon's razor. MonsieurD (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The woman whose career as a virologist ended because she was caught faking her results? Yes, sure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
MonsieurD, it's fine, the sources don't identify any accurate claims made by the video. Guy (help!) 17:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
When asked both Mikovits and Willis admitted that it was an error to say she had not been charged and in fact she had meant to say that the charges were dropped, to me that is an example of dishonesty.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Where on earth do you guys get the idea that something cannot simultaneously be propaganda and documentary? Or that a documentary has to be inherently truthful? Never heard of Dziga Vertov or other Soviet directors of the 20s and 30s? Leni Riefenstahl? Or - closer to home Why we Fight - or as someone else pointed out, almost anything by Dinesh D'Souza, whose films are not famed for their nuanced portrayal or balanced presentatation of both sides of the argument! Saying that something cannot be both propaganda and documentary is as silly as saying that something is either a book or propaganda - chalk and cheese. Documentary is an expression of 'kind/class' of work, dealing in a factual subject, ostensibly factually, it isn't an expression of quality or truthfulness any more than 'novel' or 'song' or any other form is. Propaganda is a (fairly subjective) reaction to what we perceive as the manipulative intent or of the lack of subtlety in the case made.Pincrete (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
A documentary is supposed to "document reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record", If therefore it contains knowing misinformation is is not about documenting reality (even a false version of it). As I said the issue (for me) is not the fact it is inaccurate, but that it is not an attempt to document a perceived reality but rather it is an attempt to actually mislead. It is in fact rather less factual than the Flashman novels.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm just going on Wikipedia's own description of what a Documentary film is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
That quote appears to be from Ox Eng Dict concise, the most basic dictionary OED produces. A dictionary's purpose is to broadly define the most common use of a word for the benefit of those who don't know the word - it isn't even designed to be the arbiter of what is/isn't anything. Good God, we wouldn't even use OED to decide what was/wasn't bread on WP. Film historians, certainly those in the UK, have no problem with the idea that a documentary can be propaganda (it can be propaganda and still be an exceptionally good/landmark documentary even). Nobody doubts that in ordinary speech we tend to use propaganda to mean crudely manipulative, and 'propaganda' is one of those 'us' and 'them' words - our government produces government information films (to motivate people in war time or to inform the public of dangers during 'cold war' for example) but the other side produce propaganda.
This is of course a largely academic question at the moment, 'Plandemic' appears to be a piece of crude crap, regardless of how it is classified. I simply felt that I had to register dissent from people arguing that a piece of film (or video) was only entitled to call itself a documentary if it passed some PBS/BBC/Ken Burns/Attenborough objectivity, balance and honesty test. The history of documentaries contradicts that idea - some of the best have been unapologetically partisan and sometimes knowingly dishonest and intentionally manipulating the viewer toward a predetermined viewpoint. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Ahhh, now there I agree with you. Being wrong would not mean it is not a documentary,. nor would being propaganda. My issue is solely with honesty.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree with people saying that documentaries are not necessarily truthful. Documentaries are primarily about storytelling and narrative, as opposed to the complex, messy world we live in. Documentary footage can be manipulated in the exact same way as reality TV, watch this old Charlie Brooker bit on the topic. Look at recent smash hit netflix documentary Tiger King, which used selective evidence to make Joe Exotic into some kind of antihero, despite his terrible actions, or Planet of the Humans which was panned by actual scientists for misleading and out of date information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

CHANGE Zarine Kharazian, described the response to the removal as a "censorship backfire", invoking the Streisand effect. TO Zarine Kharazian, assistant editor of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, described the response to the removal as a "censorship backfire", invoking the Streisand effect.[1] Awildknight (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - MrX 🖋 13:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The reason I did not put the 'fuller' text from the very beginning, is because I wonder whether ir is lead-worthy. The text is only there really to satisfy the IP who wanted the word 'censored' somewhere - though of course a "Streisand effect/ censorship backlash" is very different from saying that the video was in any way censored.Pincrete (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to revert. I didn't make any judgment about whether the revision improved the article. - MrX 🖋 14:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The contrarian opinion of one individual cited in a single source is not lead worthy IMO and is WP:UNDUE. Article's body text, yes; lead, no. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
She isn't particularly contrarian, simply someone who thinks that removing the video from the most public social media sites ('censoring'), may be counter-productive (since it arouses public curiosity). However, I'm inclined to agree with your substantive point - this is body worthy, not lead worthy. Pincrete (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe WP:FRINGE would have been a better term than contrarian but glad that we are in general agreement. I find any reference to censorship rather absurd. It is censure but not censorship. When you violate a social media site's terms of service and your post gets scrapped as a result, it is not censorship; merely a logical and predicable consequence of the violation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
She isn't saying there is censorship - merely that some people see it thus - and respond accordingly, are curious about the 'forbidden fruit'.Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Pincrete, I agree with that. It's not a point made often enough or widely enough to qualify for the lead. Guy (help!) 08:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I have lingering concerns about the addition of the text about “censorship backfire” and “Streisand effect”. My first concern is whether the speaker (Zarine Kharazian) is notable enough to warrant citing their fringe opinion. Lots of people get quoted in news articles but that doesn’t mean that their opinion is encyclopedia-worthy, particularly when their opinion stands alone. Secondly, the speculative opinion she expressed was as follows: "I think, paradoxically, what has been happening with the Plandemic video is a sort of censorship backfire. It's called ... the Streisand Effect."
It’s terse and not a particularly strong statement (“I think”), and the Streisand effect is defined as “a social phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove, or censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing that information.”
This might be an interesting point if it weren’t purely speculative and if it were supported by data, but I see no evidence that this in fact occurred. Quite the contrary, the hubbub about the video seemed to ebb fairly quickly after it was removed from multiple social media platforms. The video may have subsequently been posted on alternative sites but the reach seemed to have been greatly attenuated. I see no encyclopedic value in speculative claims about the Streisand effect in the absence of data. Lastly, I also take issue with referring to this a “censorship backfire” when this wasn’t a case of censorship but rather a simple response to a violation of terms of service, and there is no evidence that it backfired. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't fight "tooth and nail" to keep this, but on balance I find the reaction worth recording. Perhaps we should have more "reactions" in the general sense ie reactions to the phenomenon of the video and its removal - rather than simply the scientific 'debunking' of its claims - which may be the most important obligation here, but which is not the whole story. For reasons which puzzle me, there are plenty of people who seem to "lap this stuff up". Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/zarine-kharazian/

proof of anything in this wiki page

While names, dates and actions are recorded and verified in the dialog by Judy Mikovits and the so called "disgraced" is questionable since there is no charge or evidence as to an error or wrong doing. Wiki should remove anything from this as it is completely without any supporting facts to the claims it makes and if it is not should be considered libel and Defamation. Why can such strong statements be allowed without any shred of evidence? I am not saying one way or the other of the validity, but several sources seem to contradict this article almost in its entirety but they offer ways to verify their statements. To believe this just because it is in Wiki is a big issue in the world today, believe whatever is said or printed, as long as it hurts someone, anyone or society. Last point, when there is an agenda, everything is consistent on the view given, no use of maybe, this source disagrees or any possibility of error or misgiving. for example, "I think the vaccine is defective, BUT, a report from this other source states..." that would be objective, this article has but one purpose and it is not to educate or share fact but to force the authors agenda! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc528334 (talk • contribs) 11:50, August 19, 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you see those little numbers superscripted above almost every sentence in this article? Those are called citations. If you believe that they are inaccurate, find reliable citations to justifiably counter them. If you find contradicting citations, feel free to list them in this talk page, and it can be sorted out. In the mean time, please help to better the article by finding problems you claim are so rampant, and address them instead of complaining without contributing. Also, there's no "disgraced" anywhere in the article. Thanks for your consideration, GyozaDumpling (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Objectivity does not mean false balance. When a subject is so objectively wrong as Plandemic, it would do our audience a disservice to pretend it's anything but wrong.
Also, be very careful throwing terms around like libel and Defamation, per WP:LEGAL. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Category removals

I've stayed out of this, and only took a peripheral role in the debate above about whether Plandemic was a documentary, though my peripheral position was that those who sought to say "not a documentary, just a video", "not a documentary, just propaganda", or other variants were fundamentally muddling genre (documentary, drama, comedy etc), with format (film, video (tape), digital) and adding in quality/motive purposes (informatory/propagandist etc.). So if editors prefer to think that a documentary cannot possibly be dishonestly constructed, manipulative and/or propagandist, that's their privilege, and in the last resort we use the term most common in RS, so Plandemic is described as a video rather than a documentary or a film. So be it.

However, removing Plandemic from categories (Category:Documentary films about conspiracy theories - Category:Pseudoscience documentary films), simply because the categories label contains the word 'documentary' seems perverse. We don't have a category "Pseudoscientific extended moving image format visual creations" but since the purpose of categories is to 'tie together' similar subjects, would anyone argue that Plandemic does not belong alongside other videos/films/whatever that peddle conspiracy theories/pseudoscience? Sorry, but I think that removing these categories simply because people are offended by the word 'documentary' is shooting ourselves in the foot. Documentary is anyway a description of purported genre, not a quality or integrity-control term. A crude, dishonest, crappy, manipulative, propagandist documentary is no stranger than a puerile, infantily unfunny comedy.Pincrete (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

My mistake on this article has been corrected. I added cats that I thought I was removing. Sorry, and thanks for the correction. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
But what is the advantage of removing cats that link Plandemic to other pseudoscience/conspiracy theories 'videos'? If the genre isn't 'documentary', what is it? Video is simply a format.Pincrete (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Pincrete, it's not a documentary film about a conspiracy theory. It is a propaganda video promoting a conspiracy theory. We already went thorugh that. As to whetrher we need a genre? No, we don't. Per Ralph Waldo Emerson, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Just because actual movies usually have a genre doesn't mean that every piece of dross pretending to be one must also be slotted in as if it were a part of the honest endeavour of film-making. Guy (help!) 09:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't actually care what we call it HERE on this article. But what exactly is the advantage of not inluding this " edited compilation of moving images" alongside similar 'edited compilations' which also have the purpose of promoting pseudoscientific or conspiracy theories? Please don't OTHERSTUFFEXISTs me, but these categories contain 'edited compilations' claiming that 9/11 was a put-up job through to the US Government is controlled by lizards from space/Jesus was an astronaut. On a simple practical level - which may not have been uppermost in Emerson's mind - what exactly is the advantage of NOT tying this 'work' to similar 'works' in the same format promoting similarly nonsensical claims?
You could correct those other articles I haven't looked at? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The Category:Pseudoscience documentary films, does not contain a single film ABOUT pseudoscience that I can see. From Chariot of the Gods, via vaccine conspiracies and Water remembers, every single film is an example of pseudoscience being promoted in a purportedly factual compilation of moving visual images (aka a documentary) - not an examination of pseudoscience. It is this page which appears to have a different view of what the category is for and a -proscriptive- view of what a documentary is. I don't care much about the 'documentary' angle, a genre is simply a practical 'delineator' of what the 'work' purports to be, whether that be an unfunny comedy or a drama where nothing interesting happens, but the distaste for categories simply because they contain the word documentary seems silly. Pincrete (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
.. by the same token, putting anti-vaxx diatribes in the "documentary" category seems odd, which is why I removed it. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 11:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
To 'diatribe' you could probably add 'paranoid' and a dozen other negative adjectives which both I and almost all RS would probably endorse. However the fact that the 'work' is ethically, scientifically and (AFAIK) cimematically, technically and logically dire has nothing to do with the genre to which it most closely belongs. At the risk of offending Godwin's law - Mein Kampf may be largely or wholly a spluttering incoherent antisemetic nationalist tirade - it is still a book and still autobiographical/political manifesto in genre. The rest is criticism (justified and almost universally held, but still criticism). This page is inventing 'quality controls' for what a film is and what a documentary is that bear no relationship to genre classifications in the real world, nor anywhere else on WP. Many of the most iconic documentaries of film history are - and always have been - classified as propaganda. No one would argue of course that Plandemic is ground breaking or iconic cinematically, but since we can't invent a new category for "paranoid pseudoscientific anti-everything diatribes which purport to be factual and which are in the form of a series of compiled moving images with attached audio commentary" - "pseudoscientific documentaries" comes closest. And documentary, contrary to claims made here, doesn't ordinarily carry any kind of 'quality', 'honesty' or 'integrity' precondition attached to it. As I said previously, I don't care much how we describe it here, since many sources also avoid 'genre', by simply using 'video' - which is format of course - however, to not include this film 'work' in the categories of similar 'works' because of distaste for classifying it, seems perverse IMO. Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: You seem to be repeating yourself. I don't understand this change with the comment "no consensus for reversion". Which version is the original version? Are we developing some kind of consensus here in this "discussion"? It doesn't look to me like anyone is challenging your point. Is there a WP guideline for genre classification? Do we need to bring this to the attention of more experienced editors? A5 (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There isn't agreement here for inclusion, therefore for now the categories should not be restored. There are guidelines, but this case isn't clear as many sources avoid classifying its genre. An RfC could be started, but I haven't decided whether I can be bothered. Ultimately it depends on whether you take a pragmatic or a prescriptive attitude to categorising this 'work' IMO. Someone in the future interested in what twaddle was circulating on the internet making what bizarre claims isn't going to find Plandemic included because editors are too fastidious to acknowledge that 'documentary' is the only way one can classify what it purports to be. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

W.H.O. ended its trial of hydroxychloroquine

The fifth bullet in the synopsis ends in this sentence: "Other bodies are currently running additional controlled trials to investigate hydroxychloroquine's safety and efficacy; results from a WHO trial are expected in mid-June.[27]"

There are no results -- the trial was suspended again. (I think it was suspended in late May, then started again June 3rd, then suspended June 17th.) According to the updated information at the link[1] from the quote above:

"On 17 June 2020, WHO announced that the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) arm of the Solidarity Trial to find an effective COVID-19 treatment was being stopped.

"The trial's Executive Group and principal investigators made the decision based on evidence from the Solidarity trial, UK's Recovery trial and a Cochrane review of other evidence on hydroxychloroquine.

"Data from Solidarity (including the French Discovery trial data) and the recently announced results from the UK's Recovery trial both showed that hydroxychloroquine does not result in the reduction of mortality of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, when compared with standard of care."

As for the first part of the sentence in question, my quick googling did *not* find that other bodies are still "currently running additional controlled trials", but others should confirm this.

In a normal Wikipedia article I would change the bullet-ending sentence myself (probably deleting it), but this deserves an experienced and deliberate editor.

Magnabonzo (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-hydroxychloroquine-and-covid-19

Is there any encyclopedic reason not to link to the video?[13] It's available on Brighteon here, as well as on Bitchute via this link. It would seem to me to be a rather glaring POV violation to have a whole article critical of the movie and not let our readers judge for themselves. -- Kendrick7talk 17:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Not as far as I am aware no.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I think its technically okay under WP:NOTCENSORED, but generally not okay as it spreads misinformation. But for me, WP:NOTCENSORED rules. I mean, this is an encyclopedia, not some awareness article. GeraldWL 17:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll keep removing it as unimportant, unencyclopeadic crap that we should not direct readers to. It is COVID misinformation after all. Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 19:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
People looking for the video are going to find it; it's been all the talk today on Twitter. What we have is an opportunity to present a fair counter-balance to them finding it along the way. That's why I put the link all the way at the bottom. And it's the least we can do in order to appear impartial. -- Kendrick7talk 22:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Roxy the dog: The point of Wikipedia is to explicitly give information about the subject. If you're pointing at unverifiable research, this does not apply here, because its solely about the video, this is not an article about COVID-19. If you're trying to avoid people from getting misinformation, I just tested, and there already is a link to the video in just page two. GeraldWL 09:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Assuming it's ok copyright-wise etc, include per WP:ELYES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Kendrick7, well, we probably don't want to actually kill our readers, so there's that... Guy (help!) 22:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELNO tells us to exclude it: "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." -- Valjean (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well it can be argued that this article is about the viewpoints in the video, but I agree this is a bit of a grey one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
We are talking about the video that was chased relentlessly off social media because it was covid misinformation, yes? Not some sort of revalation to the world that covid would line Bill's pockets, masks would kill you, Yaws is deadly, etc etc. That video, yes? the one that if we were to link to it the worlds media would praise Wikipedia for being the only ones telling the truth about the virus, we should be beatified, given noble piece prizes. Oh dear me. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
And we point out how all of that is wrong. The reader will only get to the link, after they have read its BS. Anyone who is not going to take notice of that will ignore us and find the video anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Dont forget the link to "Vaxxed" at the same time. Oh, while we're about it, could we link to Natural News and Watts up with that? Gotta give the public all that good stuff. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 09:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
We would link to the video this article is about, not to anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Why would we link to the video? I'm inclined to agree that hardly anyone who is going to believe this piece of BS is going to come to WP first and if they did they would have read the refutation before watching, but even if this were a totally standard film/pop video etc ... would we be linking to the sample? To the box-office? We have tons of articles about crappy films, we don't feel obliged to provide the means for readers to "check it out for themselves". The disinformation issue is secondary IMO. We aren't here to tell anyone where they can see a film/buy a book etc.Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
As I said above its a bit grey. I am not sure either side has a great case.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll tip the scales for you and nip this in the bud. Links to medical advise, which not only represents pseudoscience but is also outright dangerous, should not be linked directly. This is reflected in the general conclusion by the Arbitration Committee that: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work. Also, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, which I am invoking, also says that: any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)... I am adding this as a prohibition — just so there's no confusion. Any addition of the direct link can be viewed as disruptive and may be reverted on sight, reverts which will be exempt from all restrictions. Repeated addition of the link should be reported to an admin for intervention. El_C 11:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that "except where consensus exists" seems to say that if there was a clear consensus to include the link, then it would become permissable. I don't think such a consensus is likey, but I'd hate to be in a position where admins could make independent rulings regarding content decisions in violation of consensus without a clear policy to back it up. - Bilby (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to respond to that, beyond saying that, in this case, I have sharpened it as a prohibition, per the WP:GS, as I am mandated to do. El_C 11:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what manadate you have in mind, but given that what you quoted read "any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)..." and specifically noted the "except when consensus for the edit exists", it seems a problem to ban content if there was a genuine consensus for inclusion. Which is moot, as such a consensus doesn't exist, but I'm wary of admins making unilateral content decisions. - Bilby (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay...? So am I. El_C 11:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
B. does this sort of wierd unexpected stuff often. One of the reasons I view him so circumspectly. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I misunderstood El_C to be saying that the link couldn't be added, but I now understand that EL_C is saying that the link may be added if there is consensus to do so - but it should be removed immediately if there is no consensus. I'm ok with that. - Bilby (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plandemic/Archive_1&oldid=1137087893"