Talk:Plandemic/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Disgusting biased write up

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.

---

This is a disgusting writeup. Who is the author? The fact that Wikipedia allow this misinformation tells us that Wikipedia themselves are corrupt and untrustworthy. I call for this article to be taken down and unbiased authors found. We need to investigate the author. I'm so sick of these blatant lies. Helpkb (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Helpkb -- I hope it's OK to put my reply above the other one, as I'm agreeing with you in the following crucial sense. Mikovits makes the really unsupported claim that 'masks activate viruses.' She also makes other claims, such as that a drug called Suramin developed as an antiviral agent may be effective in doing something having to do with protein expression which might be useful for autistic spectrum symptoms (not that autism is caused by viruses or vaccines for that matter). She claims that time was wasted in finding HIV treatments because of investigating Inteleukin-2, and she blames Fauci. She has had a priority dispute with Fauci. She says that she has worked on a team which were modifying Ebola so that it could infect humans for research purposes, and she worries that Covid-19 was made by a collaboration of a lab in Illinois and one in Wuhan province. She says that incorrectly prepared vaccines contain unknown viruses and could cause infections. She is concerned that people like Bill Gates, who, let's be truthful, is a marketing expert, not even a computer expert, is given a platform to recommend universal vacciation against Covid. Her opinions are certainly different from the mainstream, and her statement that masks 'activate' viruses is on the level of believing in astrology or religous miracles. And it is a dangerous thing to say just when an ignorant anti-masker component of society is threatening to allow the pandemic to continue unabated in some places. I *actually*, *strongly* believe that Wikipedia editors horrified by the malpractise of publicly stating that masks 'activate' viruses has led to a piling-on and bullying. It is a *very serious* issue that Wikipedia in this article has transformed itself into an advocate for a mainstream position, just at a time when uncensored medical thinking is needed, and when we will, soon, all be called to make a decision whether to allow or require a universal vaccine which will not have been through the rigors of clinical testing. It is an immature and foolish -- though understandable -- knee-jerk reaction by Wikipedia editors to try to refure point-by-point everything that Mikovits says by annihilating it by references to the mainstream opinion. Createangelos (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Then nominate it for wp:afd, and report us (there is more than one author, I am one of them) to wp:ani. I would advise against both courses, but your choice.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Helpkb: If you think this article misrepresents what reliable sources (WP:RS) say about the subject, then please feel free to explain how those sources are either unreliable or misrepresented, and provide reliable sources of your own. That's the way Wikipedia articles are developed - if you want an article improved, you do it yourself in accordance with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, not just demand that other authors are found to do the job for you. (I see that, though you registered in 2009, you've contributed very little here, so it's entirely understandable that you don't yet know how Wikipedia works - so I shall leave you a belated Welcome message, containing links that should help you get started.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind replies. In my defence all I can say is we live in a time of great bias. Red vs Blue. Pro-Trump vs Against-Trump. For those who are actually widely read, there is extreme bias in this area. Lets take Hydroxychloroquine as an example -- Several prominent doctors and virologists working with CV have reported great success with using HQ to cure the most ill, with no bad side effects. It's painfully obvious that HQ is promising, and more than that HQ is actively being used now to cure sick patients with no bad side effects. Yet this bias document paints HQ as mostly worthless. Yes you quote your sources yet ignore that the World Health Organization and their associates Orgs are under great scrutiny at the moment for criminal misconduct in this world wide shut down. Do we see this in the document? No we just quote big brother Orgs and that makes it good? So I stand by my accusations. This document is a worthless hit piece. You need to stop quoting from your echo chamber of possibly corrupt sources and start documenting both sides of the coin. But I expect the scorpion pit is incapable of being unbiased. Helpkb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And many others have disagreed with her about Hydroxychloroquine (in fact most). We reflect what RS say, so we have to say they disagree with her. As to standing by your accusations, I would advise against that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

As soon as we have sources that meet the requirements of WP:MEDS reporting on the effectiveness (or otherwise) of Hydroxychloroquine, Wikipedia will include it. It would be wonderful if it turns out to be effective. But as far as I'm aware, it's still very much in the test stages and we don't have WP:MEDRS-compliant sources calling it a success yet. Anyway, as I said above, if you want changes to be made to the article, you need to make the changes yourself and see how they go, or propose the actual changes you want and provide the sources to back them up - not just attack everyone else and demand that the article is rewritten. And if you don't feel you can do any rewriting yourself but you still see the article as a "worthless hit piece", you can always propose it for deletion at WP:AFD. But there are two things you absolutely will not be able to change. One is Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources (generally defined at WP:RS and specifically for medical topics at WP:MEDRS), and the other is that decisions on article content are made by consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and on the subject of bias... We often have people turning up here and, when they find an article they don't agree with, they put it down to bias on Wikipedia's part. It's an understandable human reaction, and we all tend to believe that we ourselves are unbiased and so the bias must lie with those who disagree. The truth is that we all have our own biases, not matter how much we might think we can be totally neutral and objective. In fact, I've never met anyone yet who is remotely close to being totally neutral and objective - I'm certainly not. So what do we do about that at Wikipedia, and does Wikipedia have a bias? The answer is yes, Wikipedia does have a bias. That bias is towards what mainstream reliable sources say, and it's deliberate. An encyclopedia should not be about trying to unearth the truth (whatever that is), but should just reflect the balance of real-world coverage. That doesn't mean every view is treated equally, but that different views are given prominence in accordance with the consensus of reliable sources. Now, determining the reliability of sources is difficult, which is why it's taken a lot of consensus-building discussion to formulate WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. But how else can we do it? We certainly can't go on the suggestion that any source a Wikipedia contributor doesn't agree with is "possibly corrupt", because everyone disagrees with something and that would lead us to conclude that everything is corrupt. If you have a better direction on how to decide on what weight we give to various sources and how to balance our articles (other than "I'm right and you're all a scorpion pit incapable of being unbiased"), I'm certainly open to hearing it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And we would be very interested in reliable sources quoting those "Several prominent doctors and virologists" who "have reported great success [..] with no bad side effects". At the moment, we only have the word of some guy on the internet that those people exist. And the word of some guy who also recommends injecting disinfectants. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Helpkb, I think you might have this the wrong way round. The claims for HQ originate with a single group, and the original publication (which was published in a remarkably short time in a journal whose editorial board contains one of the co-authors) has now been flagged by the publisher as causing concern. Many people have dissected the study noting, for example, huge disparities between the case and control groups, and removal from the analysis of subjects who were admitted to ICU or died.

NIH terminated their study because there was increased risk of cardiac death and no evidence of benefit. Nor is there any reason to believe there should be benefit: there's no reason why an antimalarial (whether or not in combination with an antimicrobial) would work on a virus. Malaria is a parasitic infection.

I've seen no reporting of any investigations of "criminal misconduct" by the WHO. There is an investigation by the Trump administration, but this appears to be based on the crime of "making Trump look incompetent", which is not yet on the statute books. Guy (help!) 11:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to just add a detail in case Helpkb is mystified why people don't just use chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine on a 'just-in-case' basis since they have been around a while and are known to be safe. My understanding of chloroquine is an anti-rheumatic originally derived from herbal medicines. On general principles, an anti-rheumatic acts like throwing a wrench into the immune system. It knackers and nobbles part of the immune system--- which is great in the case of some diseases which piggyback on the immune system. But for someone who is sick, it does make sense that disabling part of the immune system is going to be a mixed blessing, and could be un-helpful or even harmful. To say it in an ignorant and un-scientific and probably wrong way: whatever part of the immune system gets knocked-out by chloroquine might be something that is needed to fight Covid-19. This is written out of total ignorance, I'm not a scientist, but just to try to explain at least one justification for not using anti-rheumatics on a 'just-in-case' basis. By the way, the same might be said for ibuprofen --- is it really a goal to lower fever in the first week anyway?Createangelos (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Users need to read wp:rs and wp:undue. If RS say something she said is rubbish so do we. What we do not do is give equal weight to the man who says the moon is made of green cheese as the man who says its made of rock in the name of balance. As far as I can tell every claim she makes in that video has been shown to be faulty (if now outright dishonest). Even if she says one thing there that is correct (after all even Eccles bit of paper is right twice a day) that does not mean we should treat the video as equal to the scientific mainstream (any more then we would use Eccles bit of paper over Big Ben).Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

We are also not a forum for discussing medicinal treatments (or our views on them).Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 26 July 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.

URL

I want to watch the video so that I can edit the article, how do I do that? My goal is to help Wikipedia document the viral video's erroneous and misleading claims. A5 (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A5, Wikipedia articles are not based on you/us watching a video/reading a book etc. and then writing what we think. We base our articles on what sources have said - otherwise this would simply be a mass of personal opinion, not an encylopedia. I have no more idea than you do as to where/whether the video is still available.Pincrete (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This is different from fiction. In fiction, you can summarize it by yourself. This is a documentary, and it has a different kind of treatment it receives. GeraldWL ✉ 04:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox again

We've debated the infobox several times. It recently got added yet again. No thanks. Not all articles need infoboxes, especially when the specific infobox is contradicted by the content of the article. Until we have {{Infobox conspiracist bullshit}}, no infobox is appropriate here. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there an infobox for trailer?Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. And if anyone is suspecting, no its not me adding the infobox, I just added the photo. I hope people could be more analytical before erasing things. GeraldWL 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, I don't think we need that either, but whatevs. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we need it? It is primary identification to the video. Or maybe we just have different levels of COI towards this stupid video. GeraldWL 11:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, it's a promotional logo. I would rather have a still of the lying liars lying, as an illustration of the subject, than its logo, that's all. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like you are being to COIed. Promotional logos have been used time-to-time on Wikipedia, and is solely for primary identification. Just because you don't like the movie (nobody likes it) doesn't mean you should be like this. But I can see where you're coming from. GeraldWL 12:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I'd suggest you read WP:COI because you seemingly don't understand what it means. SmartSE (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, it's a metaphor, you know what I'm talking about. I'm just saying, if there's a logo and it can be appropriately added, why not? It's not like we're promoting them. GeraldWL 12:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, ""COIed"??? Glen (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually at a loss of words. I feel like we're falling to a useless discussion here. For me (and I know some will agree), adding an image to that is appropriate. Done. I do not see any harm by doing so. GeraldWL 12:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis, your logical fallacy is: begging the question. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion, will try explaining things better next time. GeraldWL ✉ 15:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Full-length video

Hello everyone. The larger video has been out for a week now and we have a fair number of sources discussing it - the content, the reviews and reactions, the social media dynamics. Is it better to start a new page (Plandemic: Indoctornation I guess) or rework this one to include it? Either way, I could make a first attempt, but it's worth a discussion here before doing anything. Robincantin (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It makes more sense to me to change the subject of this page to include both. See The Goop Lab as an example Page for which a trailer garnered much criticism, and the page was written About the trailer well in advance of the release of the series. Then the series was released and the structure of the page changed to capture this. RobP (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Robincantin, not reliable sources though. BuzzFeed News is OK. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG, doesn't need to be straight-up reviews to have valuable material, I think. I see Forbes, Politifact, The Verge, USA Today and of course AFP Factcheck. Robincantin (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Robincantin, yes, I saw those. I am wary of The Verge, Politifact and USA Today. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a longer AFP factcheck linked in that article here. I think there are definitely enough sources to merit including something about this new video in the article and creating a redirect, but I haven't read enough to know how different the claims being made are to the first video. SmartSE (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Smartse, sure, just as long as we don't start trying to treat it as a documentary, which is clearly is not. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Heaven forbid that anyone should think that the usual, neutral, shorthand term for a "purportedly factual series of compiled moving images with attached audio commentary" is "documentary film". No one with any knowledge of the history of that genre thinks that all documentaries are balanced, fair, or honest any more than that all comedies are actually funny! But if it makes people happy to think avoiding the term is somehow standing up for truth, so be it! Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete, there is a difference between a documentary film and propaganda by grifters. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You are inventing a wholly subjective set of values for what is/is not a documentary. Anyone who thinks propaganda is inherently not documentary has never heard of Dziga Vertov, nor the other Soviet film makers of that time, nor of Leni Riefenstahl, nor of the the Capra films in the Why We Fight series (which were a conscious response to Riefenstahl) - nor equally notable UK films of the wartime period, nor of the less glorious output of - especially US - anti'Red' films of the Cold War. There is a good reason for not calling Plandemic a 'documentary', which is that RS avoid the term (the Guardian uses documentary, but in quotes) most avoiding genre altogether, rather than proposing some other term. However the notion that this is not a 'documentary' because the film is propaganda, or because the makers are 'grifters', or because the content is false - is as absurd and subjective as saying "film X isn't a comedy because I didn't find it funny!". Pincrete (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If (as was said at the time of its release) this was just a trailer for thew main feature this page should be about the main feature.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

(I don't know how many colons I should put here) From someone who's a cinephile here: a documentary film (or video) is a film to document reality, or for instructional or educational purposes, or for historical record. Plandemic did not meet those 4 criteria. Documentaries are sometimes called "actuality films," and Plandemic is not actuality. If it is not informative, it can still be a documentary if it's meant to be informative, however its best to not give this criteria a green ticket since it is meant to be manipulating. Although I am quite unsure too, since other pseudoscientific films articles have the word "documentary"-- see Plandemic#See also. So for me, Plandemic is a conspiracy video, not a docu, not even a docufiction. It's plain pseudoscience, conspiracy video, and a garbage. GeraldWL ✉ 13:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course Plandemic is garbage, but no one has ever said that a documentary has to be any good, even more than a novel has to have a coherent narrative, a thriller be exciting or a comedy actually funny. I don't think anyone would accuse Leni Riefenstahl of 'documenting reality'! Her films are mesmerisingly beautiful hymns immersed in a grotesque fascist aesthetic, yet they are also among the most famous and influential documentaries of all time. The other films/filmmakers I mentioned were also engaged in overt propagandist purposes, necessarily so given war circumstances, but also produced memorable films. I think what we may here be dealing with is a layman's use of 'propaganda' - where what our side makes is 'public information', what the other side makes is 'propaganda'. No film historian - certainly not a UK one - would argue that distinction or claim that documentaries had to be fair, balanced or honest. I don't disagree with anyone as to what Plandemic is, and agree that most RS avoid giving it a genre, but the notion that only 'honest', 'truthful' films can be documentaries is an invention of editors here. Apart from the anti-vaccine films listed as 'see also's, this film thinks that water can remember! Are these, and many other similar pieces of nonsense, the product of sincere but misguided people? Or are they consciously created 'lies', designed to attract attention, misinform, or make money? I've no idea. Pincrete (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, we should probably call it what it actually is: misinformation.

That said, I think we should treat this like another well-known misinformation film, Loose Change. That one is properly labeled under Category:Pseudoscience documentary films. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, call it out for what it is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Except those who say it is not a documentary, argue that it cannot therefore go into Category:Pseudoscience documentary films! It cannot even be described as a 'film'. Sorry, but to me this is ludicrous posturing based on wholly subjective notions of what a documentary is. Plandemic is crap by all accounts, the motives of the film makers, and for that matter the thinking of those who give credence to this BS are a mystery to me, but I know enough about the history of documentaries to know that editors here are inventing an "honesty and quality' threshold that bears no relationship to the real world notion of what a documentary is. Documentary is a genre, not a statement of approval. Film is a medium, not a quality mark. A documentary has no more inherent obligation to be honest, balanced or accurate than an autobiography - a self-serving selective, misinforming autobiography is still an autobiography.

This film argues that the Yugoslav wars were the result of a US/NATO plot to destabilise Yugoslavia and that "the fall of Srebrenica was "a stage-managed ploy by the Bosnians and Americans to justify NATO military intervention against Serbia" - it's still a documentary regardless of how many people think its claims are delusional. Pincrete (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Pincrete, thinking about it, I think it would qualify as a documentary. Overall I see no harm in labeling it as one. GeraldWL ✉ 16:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you're tilting at windmills at this point, Pincrete. People here are leaning towards support for Category:Pseudoscience documentary films, so that rant wasn't helping. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that it shouldn't be described as a documentary, not for the 'quality/truth' reasons that others give, but because - for the time being - most RS avoid genre-ing it at all. It should be in the category, "Category:Pseudoscience documentary films" because that ties it to similar films. Apologies, having worked professionally on historic documentaries, it has been very frustrating to read people opining about what a documentary is. We all agree the film is rubbish, it's simply what kind of rubbish!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 13:18, August 26, 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. Getting that deep into the weeds on a topic can definitely lead to frayed nerves! But I think we're making progress here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think its better to have it in the categories box only since not everyone will see it. Fair play to me. GeraldWL ✉ 00:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

So... I take it there's no objection to reorganizing content to include the latest production in addition to the trailer-teaser from the Spring (there are repackaged clips bouncing around too), keeping in mind some misgivings about the quality of the sources available. I don't think it's necessary to rename the page, Plandemic is a good term to describe the various products. Unless somebody beats me to it, I'll try to get to it tonight, offer a base people can improve on. Robincantin (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Robincantin, only after you have listened to this week's God Awful Movies. I promise you will not be disappointed. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Done now. We have a couple of good sources, and a few so-so sources as support. I'll keep an eye out for more, but I think it holds pretty well together. Feel free to improve. I wish I could have used God Awful Movies as a source, it's by far the most complete analysis - thanks JzG. Robincantin (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Robincantin, my sinister agents tell me that the new turd in its entirety is bitching about the fact-checking of the "trailer" - the "trailer" material itself doesn't make the cut. Marsh called it "Nuh-Uh, The Movie". Guy (help! - typo?) 23:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The current construction is now very problematic. Two videos are discussed but in almost all cases the text says “the video...” without differentiating. Also, should not the first be called the trailer? RobP (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Watched the garbage; a teaser would be a better word. GeraldWL 09:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Different portmenteau

In the full movie, they stated that Plandemic is a mashup of "plan" and "demic," demic being "characteristic of pertaining to a people or population." Should it be changed? GeraldWL 10:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

I added a colon to your reply, and please sign next time. I honestly would love to add that it is a mashup of "Satan" and "Lucifer," but I am almost going to bed that time and would not like to see another revert. "given the general level of maturity and honesty he displays when discussing it" is questionable. GeraldWL 11:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Release date of Plandemic: Indoctrination "Plandemic: Indoctornation" is incorrect

The video was at least released on the 18th of August. For example, the article by BuzzFeed is written on the 18th. (Dajasj (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)).

We say the full video was released on the 18th, What however is meant by "Indoctrination is incorrect"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

As a closed captioner, [crickets questioning]. GeraldWL 14:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, what I meant with the title was "Release date of Plandemic: Indoctrination is incorrect". In any case, what I referred to was the first sentence of the section Plandemic: Indoctornation, where it still says the 25th instead of the 18th. Dajasj (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I see. I think it is fixed just as you posted this, I dunno. GeraldWL 14:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because it was released as a teaser then. But maybe we should make clear the first video was only a teaser or trailer.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The 80-minute version was released on August 25, 2020. is still on the page as far as I can see. I know it is minor, but still confusing. Dajasj (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The BuzzFeed article, which is also cited as such at the top of the page. So right now this Wikipedia page gives two contradicting release dates for the longer/sequel video at the top and bottom of the page. Dajasj (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

How could an article published on the 18th announce the release of a film on the 25th? Also where does it say "25th"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Haha no, you're misinterpreting me (or I am bad at explaining the problem). If you go to section Plandemic: Indoctornation of this Wikipedia page, the first sentence reads The 80-minute version was released on August 25, 2020.. And we both agree on that it was actually released on the 18th, so that specific sentence on the bottom of the page should be changed, right? Dajasj (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

So this section contains the error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plandemic#Plandemic:_Indoctornation Dajasj (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now marked it as needing a cite.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It was indeed a mistake, which I made! Several sources say it hit the web on Aug 18 (which is the day I watched it, actually). Changed and sourced now, thanks ! Robincantin (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Dajasj, it appears to be a different film. Indoctornation is primarily an 80-minute whine about fact-checkers. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Media sources sometimes get access to "films" before wide release. All the Buzzfeed article says is that they saw it, not that it was available to the general public. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Changed the section title to avoid confusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2020

Link to the official website. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we should not link to this misinformation, as discussed further up the page. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 03:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Undone by Roxy the inedible dog . P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's a terrible idea. We don't want to kill our readers, I think. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with User:Roxy the dog's revert. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• I also agree with Roxy's revert. Mathglot (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggested grammar correction, fairly minor

Regarding the final sentence of the third paragraph:

"Because the social media platforms were forewarned, the second video was distributed more limited."

I would suggest changing the phrase following the comma to:

"the second video was more limited in its distribution."

Other changes are also possible, just don't leave it in its current form, lol.

Thanks!

Tani Rainbow.Weaver.Tani (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure... done. Robincantin (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "The video jumps from one topic to the next without establishing clearly how the informations presented might relate to each other" should be changed to use the word information as a non-countable noun (cannot be pluralized). I suggest, "without establishing clearly how the various pieces of information presented relate to each other." Ccheitmann (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, Ccheitmann. I'm not used to editors suggesting uncontroversial edits in the talk page for others to do, are people reluctant to leave their fingerprints on this one? Robincantin (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Editing seems to be disabled. . . maybe I just don't know what I'm doing? Ccheitmann (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed the article is semi-protected, I guess the account you're using doesn't yet have enough edits associated to it to have permission. You absolutely did the right thing. Robincantin (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

Reason for changes: Wikipedia is for information not opinions. The page has numerous references and opinions of people/physicians debunking the film, without mentions of physicians who believe in its theories. We should be impartial and only state facts. Thus removing opinions promotes Wikipedia's integrity for facts and unbiased information rather than politicized news.

Change 1: "Both promote falsehoods and misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic" to: "Both promote a theory that the COVID-19 pandemic was created for an ulterior motive"

Change 2: "a discredited former medical researcher" To: "a former medical researcher"

Change 3: "numerous unsupported or false claims" To: "numerous claims"

Change 4: "Fact-checker PolitiFact highlighted eight false or misleading claims made in the video, including:[5]" To: <Delete>

Change 5: "but the amount is open to dispute, and there is no evidence that this influences diagnosis, and in fact the evidence suggests that COVID-19 is, if anything, under-diagnosed.[29]" To: "but the amount is open to dispute."

Change 6: "This has also been debunked,[38][39][14] the flu shot contains no coronaviruses.[40]" To: <Delete>

Change 7: "Masks prevent airborne transmission of the virus, especially during the asymptomatic period (up to 14 days), when carriers may not even be aware they have the disease,[14][41] and a virus may be de-activated, but cannot add to one's infection level, if it leaves the body even temporarily.[42]" To: <Delete>

Change 8: "and makes false and unsupported claims that beaches should remain open" To: "and makes claims that beaches should remain open"

Change 9: "Physician and comedian Zubin Damania wrote in his commentary: "Don't waste your time watching it. Don't waste your time sharing it. Don't waste your time talking about it. I can’t believe I'm wasting my time doing this. But I just want to stop getting messages about it."[47]" To: <Delete>

Change 10: "Science journalist Tara Haelle described the video as propaganda and posited that the video "has been extremely successful at promoting misinformation for three reasons":

it "taps into people's uncertainty, anxiety and need for answers"; it "is packaged very professionally and uses common conventions people already associate with factual documentaries" it effectively exploits various methods of persuasion, including the use of a seemingly trustworthy and sympathetic narrator, appeals to emotion, the Gish gallop, and "sciencey" images.[50] Willis stated that propaganda was a fair description of the film.[23]

To: <Delete>

Markbanin (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Markbanin (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done. As for the deletions, we are not going to remove sourced material without good reasons. As regarding the changes to existing material, you will have to provide sources that support that changed information. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I am following Wikipedia's guidelines. Regarding the changes and deletions requested; The author of the this page has included opinions without any citation of sources, and as such these opinions should be removed as they are non factual and merely opinions. They should not be included in the first place.

For example, in change 10 above, the author is quoting a journalist with no scientific qualification whatsoever, and as such her opinion should not be published.(see ). Clearly this is not a reliable medical source.

In Change 9, The author is quoting Zubin Damania who apart from his comic endeavors is merely a hospitalist. Zubin Damania has no expertise in virology or anything similar, and should not be used as a source of information regarding virology. Why is he being quoted other than the fact that he has a youtube channel? I suggest that this citation as a source, cannot be justified.

In change 8, it says "false and unsupported claims" - where is the source citation for that? As such the words "false and unsupported" should be removed. Anything without a reliable medical source is n opinion and not a fact, and should be removed.

I could go through the rest, but they are the same issue either untrusted non medical sources or no citation of source with no evidence citation.

Source citation is required to support and give evidence to opinions. The author has failed to do this in the areas I have addressed above.

If you disagree, please show me where I'm wrong using the 3 examples I quoted you. Markbanin (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please narrow the focus of your request. I just looked at Change 1, and the phrase "falsehoods and misinformation" are supported by multiple in-line citations. In contrast, the word "theory" is used in those sources only in the phrase "conspiracy theory". It would be highly misleading to use the word "theory" on its own as proposed in Change 1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Simply put, we are not here to provide false balance. Neutrality does not mean we give both sides equal treatment when one side is abjectly wrong. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

This "article" is extremely biased more so than an opion piece in a Broadsheet Newspaper

This article on the video is extremely biased and clearly does not follow a Neutral Point of View as is normally required on Wikipedia. This article only talks about the negative parts of the documentary that have been talked about by mainstream media and DOES NOT feature any opposing views such as those that are in support of the "facts" stated in this documentary to the point that it reads more like an opinion piece in the Left-wing The Guardian newspaper or Vice or maybe even MSNBC as opposed to having views from Right-wing sources (thats if they have reported on them which is extremely likely) such as Rebel News, Breitbart News, The Epoch Times or maybe even Sky News Australia... 2.125.4.7 (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC) William Clifton: https://www.conservapedia.com/User:William_Clifton

We don't provide false balance to fringe views and "alternative facts". And your interpretation of WP:NPOV is incorrect. NPOV dictates that we report what is said in reliable sources, which is exactly what the article is doing. Please see WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE.. The sources you provided, except for the latter, are all considered unreliable sources that promote fringe views, and do not have a reputation for fact checking or providing reliable material. Some of them have been deprecated for use on the encyclopedia due to being extremely poor sources. See WP:IRS to learn what constitutes a reliable source. Lastly, this is not Conservapedia, which is well-known for promoting a plethora of conspiracy theories and fringe material; most of their "encyclopedia" is written by a very small handful of highly partisan editors. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with National Review, Sky News, etc, but the problem is, after filtering out misinformation sites, there's no coverage of Plandemic by rightist sources. If IP has one that does not contradict with science (not left) nor denies science, that can probably be okay. A lot of the misconceptions people have is that right-wing sources are not allowed... that simply isn't the case. And if there were a policy that fully prohibits rightist sites, that simply isn't justifiable. Fortunately there isn't. GeraldWL 06:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• IP 2.125.4.7 is now blocked for block evasion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

punctuation

I would change this, but the article is protected. It needs to follow the WP:LQ convention of punctuation for quote marks, not any other form, according to the MOS. This breaches that requirement. 86.173.116.125 (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you specify where is the violation(s) are seen? GeraldWL 06:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Throughout. Examples include, but are not limited to: "a money-making enterprise that causes medical harm.", "between the North Carolina laboratories, Fort Detrick, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, and the Wuhan laboratory.", "all vaccines.", "revealed that the common use of animal and human fetal tissues was unleashing devastating plagues of chronic diseases,", "revolutionized the treatment of HIV/AIDS,", "documentary feature film,", "a hodgepodge of conspiracy theories,", "has been extremely successful at promoting misinformation for three reasons:", "taps into people's uncertainty, anxiety and need for answers;", "is packaged very professionally and uses common conventions people already associate with factual documentaries;". That’s a quick look at the first half of the article and I may have missed some in there too. None of these are dull grammatical sentences in their own right, which is the rule of LQ, and the punctuation needs to go outside the quote marks.Other problems I saw include: "it is all planned– like 9/11." - the spacing needs sorting (and it doesn’t matter if it’s in the original, it should be corrected on WP), the use of hyphens instead of dashes and “writing for BBC” - it’s “the BBC”. It’s a long way from GA level with these basic flaws running throughout. 2A01:4C8:493:2843:59F7:361D:A013:C20 (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, it will be soon fixed. I opened a peer review recently but it weirdly has no comments, despite it being a highly-visited page. I instead took it to GA, see if people will respond. GOCE doesn't accept more than two requests, so I'm fucked there. If you see any more mistakes don't hesitate to bring it up- it's all part of the process. GeraldWL 08:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I do have to note that certain quotes will still have the terminal inside, since it's part of the sentence. GeraldWL 08:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter if the full stop is in the original, if it’s not a complete grammatical sentence the quote mark comes first - see WP:LQ for details. 2A01:4C8:493:2843:59F7:361D:A013:C20 (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

As stated by LQ, "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark." This means in cases where the original has a terminal punct, it is allowed to have it inside the quotations. GeraldWL 08:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Zubin Damania

This part of the article is an absolute joke: "Physician and comedian Zubin Damania wrote in his commentary: "Don't waste your time watching it. Don't waste your time sharing it. Don't waste your time talking about it. I can’t believe I'm wasting my time doing this. But I just want to stop getting messages about it."" First, Zubin did not "write," but rather talked about it in a YouTube video. Second, he being a comedian makes things suspicious, and I sense a comedic fashion in his review. Normally doctors would instead give a comprehensive review and dive into the details, but not for Dumania. I suggest removing the sentence. Bringing this here since an edit request requesting so has been declined previously by another editor. GeraldWL 13:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The quote isn't mentioned in the prose of the article either. The sentence fails WP:DUE and so I've removed it. — Bilorv (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

G. Wolff

As for reference n° 26, the paragraph can be strengthened: Canadian researchers repeated the study, with more data. The outcome: "Vaccine significantly reduced the risk of influenza illness by >40% with no effect on coronaviruses or other NIRV risk.". --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Article in SBM

Can be found here: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/plandemic-judy-mikovits-covid-19/ --Julius Senegal (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Aboutself

@Gerald Waldo Luis: These were really uncited, but you then said that the source is the film itself. This is then a WP:PRIMARY source used to support self-serving fringe claims (WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:FRINGE). Such material could then be deleted anytime. I don't doubt that they cry censorship and claim that the mainstream is biased, it's common in conspiracy theorist narratives. Such claims should be reported from the point of view of a reliable secondary source that puts them in context. WP:OR also matters when using primary material with editor interpretation. This is not your typical film, it's a propaganda video. —PaleoNeonate – 05:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, I don't believe that my additions somehow support their claim; I stressed repeatedly that they are claims, and I gave them attribution. It's the same case for Leaving Neverland. If you can further neutralize them (if they are somehow biased), then feel free to, but I don't think CN tags are of merit in uncontroversial descriptions. GeraldWL 06:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Also per WP:FILMPLOT, film itself is a primary source and thus doesn't need citation, unless for interpretations or receptions. GeraldWL 06:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the plot of a fictional film, it's false claims about an ongoing global pandemic. Standards ought to, and do, differ for such things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, but does it limit to not allowing comprehensive coverage? The primary source statements are uncontroversial and thus citing "you're promoting misinformation" as reason to removal is not of merit. GeraldWL 07:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What's the purpose of letting a bunch of conspiracy theorists republish their utter nonsensical bullshit in the encyclopedia? We are under no obligation to assist them in spreading lies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, it's not republish, it's coverage. It doesn't promote them nor encourage them. If Dennō Senshi Porygon inspired Pokemon to publish more seizure-inducing episodes, are we responsible for publishing the clip? Hell no. Sources also inform of their (false) claims too! Does that reduce the credibility of the source? Hell no. Similar to that of Wikipedia. GeraldWL 07:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, mind joining this discussion? GeraldWL 06:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a misaplication of filmplot which I would take to refer to fiction. Even if it is not, all we can do is say "the film says this" which this edit seems to do. As such Im am not sure there is a problem with it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the addition I did basically is the "the film says this" stuff, so it further makes no sense as to why it's removed. Hoping for a consensus here. GeraldWL 10:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes "all we can do is say "the film says this" which this edit seems to do", is what I said. But if filmplot only applies to fictional content (as I would have thought it would, but I may be wrong) that is a different matter.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the films should not be used as sources and that FILMPLOT does not apply. We should stick to what the secondary sources say. Per my last edit, there is seemingly a fair bit on content which needs removing. SmartSE (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

One reason why we should rely on secondary sources for coverage of a "film" like this is to avoid issues of WP:UNDUE coverage/republication of the film withOUT the context: For example, in Unplanned, this secondary source [1] puts stuff into context: "Indeed, the film includes many scenes of blood gushing through tubes and onto women’s clothes, painting a picture of abortion as extremely dangerous. In fact, according to one recent study, complications occur in about 2.1 percent of abortions, with major complications — defined as hospitalizations, surgeries, or transfusions — happening in 0.23 percent. The procedure is significantly safer than childbirth." ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Plandemic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 18:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Some Dude From North Carolina, thanks for picking this up! GeraldWL 01:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• In the third sentence, it should be mentioned that you're talking about the first video.

  Done.

• Other than that, the image and the lead are well-written without any other issues.

Background

• "in March 11" → "on March 11"

  Done.

• The last sentences in a few paragraph need references.
• "bioweapon control" → "bioweapon to control"

  Done.

First video

• "in future" → "in the future"

  Done.

• The last sentence from #Reception needs a reference, and Plandemic: Indoctornation doesn't have to be linked.

  I moved it to Indoctornation's production, since it's more relevant there. The last unreferenced bit's removed.

Plandemic: Indoctornation

• Fair-use rationale is in good condition, so that's good.
• Add a comma after "Google".

  Done.

• "jeopardised" → "jeopardized" (consistency with the rest of the article)

  Done.

• "had interest" → "had an interest"

  Done.

Sinclair Broadcasting Group

• Couldn't find any major issues here.

References

• Sources are archived already.
• Websites are also linked.

External links

• Is the link to Rotten Tomatoes necessary if it doesn't have a score?

  You're right... removed it. GeraldWL 01:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

the first sentence is grammatically wrong. The 15th word is incorrect. it currently reads as: ‘Plandemic is a 2020 conspiracy theory video and film produced by Mikki Willis which promote misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.’ It should read with either a ‘s’ or a ‘d’ add to promoteS or promoteD as follows: ‘Plandemic is a 2020 conspiracy theory video and film produced by Mikki Willis which promoteS misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.’ Or: ‘Plandemic is a 2020 conspiracy theory video and film produced by Mikki Willis which promoteD misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic.’

Hope this helps, thank you for all your work MonkieMillin (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

MonkieMillin, done! Thanks for the observation. GeraldWL 05:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Are we saying that Plandemic is a single thing that can be described as both a conspiracy theory video and as a film, or is there a difference between the conspiracy theory video and the film? This distinction is not very clear in the lead, and that would affect the grammar. One thing promotes misinformation, but two things promote misinformation. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Marking this as answered for now. @Larry Hockett: You might have better luck getting a response if you ping Gerald Waldo Luis (this does not ping). ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is this article on Wikipedia?

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.

---

Why is this article written? What exactly is the purpose of this article? If it is to explain what is in the video, anyone can see it for himself. It if it is to debunk, is that what Wikipedia is about? If it is to discourage people, again is that what Wikipedia has become? A moral police?

Why is this article written? What do you want exactly? To hold moral pedestal of all-knowing Web site?

Why would this would be anyone's goal about anything: "the responses failed to successfully stop the video's proliferation"? In what sense was necessary to stop the video proliferation? It talks about what that we have not seen already.

What are you doing, Wikipedia? Too many people are watching those videos? Why is that bothering you? People deciding something on their own by watching Youtube channel? When has that become a problem?

Is there a problem?

Shall we start the supporting pages on Wikipedia about anything you can find on any site? What universal character this article has?

None. Which body has interest in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.248.76.166 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:n, if multiple RS find it notable we have an article on it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Per general notability criteria, this topic merits an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Well I don't need to say this. Everyone knows who you are. And I don't wanna go down the rabbit hole... 'f ya know wh't-ah mean. GeraldWL 15:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Non-free images

I don't understand how any of the non-free images drastically enhance our readers' understanding of this article? The fair use rationales for each are very dubious. I guess unless there's a good argument here for them and the FURs are updated, I'll remove them all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No argument here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the kid at the protest seems pretty random - the only link being that their sign includes the word plandemic - not necessarily anything to do with this film. SmartSE (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

For the lead image, it pictures Mikki Willis (I see no free image of him) and is a very exclusive image on the set most readers probably haven't seen. The second non free shows the atmosphere of the video, how it plays with human emotions, and how it is ultimately criticized. I don't rly have much arguments on the third, so feel free to remove it. Regarding the kid holding the sign, I think it's a good addition for the article; I took inspirations from The World Without Us, which features such types of images. You can remove that too. GeraldWL 02:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Weird sentence

Since the article is locked, I can't edit the sentence "The branding of it was intentionally conspiratorial, in order to gain attention wherein in modern society is perceived to be hard to gain.", though maybe this should just be deleted. Otherwise, this article is great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.217.99.225 (talk • contribs) 10:03, April 8, 2021 (UTC)

There are a bunch of slightly clunky sentences or missing apostrophes or odd word choices. I fully understand the need to keep this article locked, but it would be good to have a professional editor go through it, particularly considering that it's deemed a "good article".Magnabonzo (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

The first sentence states that this documentary involves a conspiracy theory and also promotes misinformation about the pandemic. Can we either add sources that support these statements or remove them? 172.116.66.77 (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Sources are in the body of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Illogical proliferation

Hi, this sentence 'It was soon removed by multiple platforms but this failed to stop the video's proliferation.' sounds illogical. Also, is there a source that supports the statements (1. 'soon removed'; 2. 'removed by multiple platforms'; 3. 'failed to stop' (did they remove or didn't they? If they did, it spread outside these 'platforms'.); 4. 'proliferation' (is this the correct word usage here?)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuRazor (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@HuRazor: I don't see what the logical problem is: as you explain yourself, the implication is that the video spread on platforms other than those that removed it. For sources, you need to read later into the article. Sources for the first two claims are given in the second paragraph of the "Release" section. It's normal to keep sources out of the lead paragraphs but to source the claims in the article's body text. "Proliferation" is indeed the correct word here: to proliferate is "to increase in number or spread rapidly", which is what the video did. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: Thanks for the response, the info on article structure and the info on the sources! Okay, I put it differently then. The sentence surmises that the intention of platform A, B, and C (which 'soon removed' the video) was to stop the proliferation of the video. But it could not be the case. Platform A, B, and C could only stop proliferation on their own platforms. The video could continue spreading on and to other platforms D, E, and F. So, their removal of the video was not a failure, and it is important to make this distinction to readers, because the current sentence instils the idea that even though it was removed on platform A, B, and C, the video kept spreading on platform A, B, and C. And that is illogical. The platforms that acted did not fail to stop the spread of the video. In my understanding it spread on other platforms and groups, as it is cited in the "Release" section. I hope I made it clearer now. I suggest a wording like: It was soon removed by multiple platforms but the video proliferated on other platforms and groups. HuRazor (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

HuRazor, that doesn't seem to be the case. You see, Plandemic relied on social media to spread the video, and almost everyone knew it from there. Not a lot of people know BitChute or Digital Freedom Platform. They know Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. Up until now, you can still see Plandemic's full video on YouTube, undetected. So yes, it still spreads on said platform. GeraldWL 01:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

HuRazor, when a platform is known to have huge reach, and viral content on that platform spreads far and wide, then it's entirely logical and consistent for removal from that platform being predicated on controlling its proliferation.

In a sane world there would be actual penalties for grifters producing shit like this, but there isn't, so controlling proliferation on their own platform is all media companies can do. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed text

CC-BY-SA declaration: Text in this section is copied from the article because I'm removing some of it. I'm leaving it here for the benefit of future editors (and myself), and in case the removal breaks any refs. See the article's history for full attribution. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Plandemic: Indoctornation's thesis relies on a number of claims that have been discredited. For example, COVID-19 was not engineered in a laboratory and Event 201, a 2019 disaster response exercise, was not a plan to release a real virus into the population. Despite the film's assertions, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation continues to fund projects in India and cooperates with the Indian government on several initiatives; it does not have technology allowing it to covertly implant an invisible proof of vaccination. PolitiFact categorized the film as a pseudo-documentary. In spite of the film claiming a patent applied by the CDC during the 2003 SARS outbreak was meant to "[control] the proprietary rights to the disease, to the virus, and to its detection and all of the measurement of it". Rather, the defensive patent covers the genetic material detection methods for human coronaviruses so "public research and communication were not jeopardized by commercial parties seeking exclusive private control".

References

I've removed the following section because it does not directly relate to either of the media texts this article discusses; it is off-topic here. CC-BY-SA as above. Baffle☿gab 02:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sinclair Broadcasting Group

In July 2020, Sinclair Broadcasting Group (SBG) scheduled to air an interview with Judy Mikovits and her lawyer Larry Klayman, conducted by Eric Bolling on his America This Week show. During the interview, Mikovits put forth a baseless claim that Fauci created COVID-19 and sent it to China. Bolling did not argue against Mikovits' allegation or fact-check it on-air, although he claimed that he had indeed argued against Mikovits by calling her allegation "hefty". SBG distributed the interview to its local stations, and also released the interview online, with an on-screen graphic of "Did Dr. Fauci create COVID-19?" After media reports regarding the interview emerged, SBG received substantial criticism, resulting in Sinclair stating that they would delay the television release of the interview by around a week. They later decided to drop the segment entirely.

References

Baffle☿gab 02:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC).

Baffle gab1978, jeebus, really? Larry Klayman? Has there ever been a more compelling indicator that she's a grifter? Guy (help! - typo?) 13:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on misinformation in the lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Summary: There is broad consensus that Option A should be chosen as the lede and that the term "misinformation" is more appropriate than "falsehoods." TrueQuantum (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the lede say either?

A Plandemic: The Hidden Agenda Behind Covid-19 and Plandemic: Indoctornation are a 2020 conspiracy theory video and film, respectively, both of which were produced by Mikki Willis and promote misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic

Or

B Plandemic: The Hidden Agenda Behind Covid-19 and Plandemic: Indoctornation are a 2020 conspiracy theory video and film, respectively, both of which were produced by Mikki Willis and promote falsehoods about the COVID-19 pandemic

Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning A - Mostly because it's the status quo and I don't believe the two options are really that different from each other to warrant a change. I understand the argument behind using stronger language, but I'm not convinced "falsehood" is necessarily a stronger word than "misinformation". PraiseVivec (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option A. Misinformation sounds more encyclopedic to me than falsehoods. It conveys a factual tone. There is also precedent for it, e.g. COVID-19 misinformation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option A. You can see my whole argument on the thread above, but TL;DR: I fail to see how changing the word to "falsehoods", which is definitively similar, can make the article a better one. GeraldWL 16:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option B I have no more to add than I already have, if it means the same it's a change that has no effect (so nothing is lost by making it), if (as some of us argue) it does not in fact mean the same we are watering down the critism.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Either (pinged by bot) Unless someone can demonstrate the sources heavily favour one wording over the other both wordings mean to point towards almost identical things. (not watching please ping).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Neither. Those are statements of opinion, not fact, that have no place in an encyclopaedia, even if shared by the sources. Not everything in the sources ought to be unqualifiedly on WP. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 21:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Guarapiranga, I beg to differ. It is factually and scientifically proven that the claims of Plandemic are misinformation; see the references. GeraldWL 16:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option A, I suppose, though as others have noted above, the difference is extremely minor, even in a tonal respect, and I really would like to encourage the parties who couldn't come to a consensus on such an ultimately trivial detail to consider their approach to editing and process: that numerous editors had to be summoned in to resolve this matter is frankly a tedious waste of project resources and an indication that at least two editors here have lost perspective. The regular-editor-to-workload ratio has arguably never been so unfavourable as it is now since the earliest days of the project, and the fact that we increasingly have to litigate every tiny, barely relevant semantic point surrounding a single word in a single clause of a single sentence is straining those sparse volunteer hours even further--someone clearly could have given way here, with virtually no consequence to the information being conveyed to the reader.

The fact that it seems from the foregoing discussion above that the editors involved have largely similarly perspectives and objectives on the underlying editorial principles makes this situation all the more galling: even if we look at just the narrow world of articles concerned with COVID information/disinformation, there is a lot of work that needs doing, and frankly there should be real embarrassment at this juncture regarding the amount of myopia required for this matter to go all the way to RfC. All of that said, for the sake of breaking this ridiculous impasse, I'd say that "misinformation" leans (infinitesimally) more towards the encyclopedic, so that's where my !vote (under protest) goes. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the more salient point for anyone who couldn't let this one go is the advice to think twice before digging a trench to defend a position on such a minor difference in language: this entire discussion is the editorial equivalent of Hamburger Hill.... Snow ^{let's rap} 23:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option A . As noted above, the difference between the two is minor but misinformation sounds more encyclopedic. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Option A, concur with BristolTreeHouse. Misinformation sounds more formal, but aside from that there's really no difference between the meaning conveyed by the two words. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning A as both are correct though misinformation sounds a little bit more encyclopedic. (BTW, do we really need RfCs for so minute details...?) Jeppiz (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option A as mentioned above, there isn't much difference between the two words but misinformation sounds better. Sea Ane (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Reverted lead changes

Hello. I'm disappointed to see that all of my changes to the lead were reverted today. I'd like to get some third opinions on this. Please also note the paragraph that was removed at the bottom of the diff. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think (given how much of the article is taken up with its lies and falsehoods) that we should mention that it has been widely condemned for lies and falsehoods.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, it doesn't really seem necessary to me. I mean, what falsehoods are more lead-worthy than the other? The entire claims of the video can really just be summed up to this strand of "spreading misinformation about COVID-19." The video emphasizes all claims equally and so all claims should be treated equally.

And also Novem Linguae, I didn't revert all your changes. I kept some that I find constructive. I found some points from the reverted and added some stuff in the lead. GeraldWL 10:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You reverted most of it, including the maintenance tag (without addressing it), my changing the vague word "researcher" to the more specific "biochemist", "26-minute", and my misinformation paragraph. The lead is supposed to summarize the body, and is often many paragraphs. I am a bit puzzled that around 35% of the article body (non-lead, non-reference sections at the end) discusses misinformation, yet the only thing the lead says about specific misinformation is that Mikovits is anti-vaccine. The first time I read this article, I was looking for an overview of the misinformation in the films, and the lead did not include an adequate summary of it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I'll address this point by point.

1. "Most" doesn't mean "all."

2. I did give a reason as to why I removed the tag, as seen in the summary.

3. "Researcher" is more relevant because it covers more of Mikovits, a biochemist doesn't always make journal articles.

4. 26-minute is too specific. No film articles mention the duration in the lead, only in the infobox; what's worse is editors have come to an agreement to not include infoboxes in this article.

5. "Often", yes. But it's not mandatory. Some articles can just have two, or one, paragraph for their lead and it's still valid. Pointing out very specific things are too much for the lead; I think the bulleted section does a good job at summarizing, and the points are not long per se.

6. I don't understand what you mean by "non-references sections." Leads don't have to be referenced; in fact it's widely encouraged not to. GeraldWL 10:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with most of your points. #6 is a misunderstanding, I meant that when computing what percent of the article talks about misinformation, I was not counting the see also, explanatory notes, references, and external links sections in that percentage. Anyway, let's see what others have to say. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, yeah. [keeps refreshing the watchlist in subtle anxiety] GeraldWL 11:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Novem Linguae that the lead should summarise what misinformation the film included. I've boldly tried to incorporate them while removing some of the repitition of the titles. SmartSE (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Smartse, that seems okay to me. I have one problem reading "Due to social media companies' preparedness for the release of Plandemic: Indoctornation, this film did not get as much attention as the first video. It argued that there is a decades-long conspiracy involving Big Pharma, the CDC, Google, climate scientists, John Oliver, and Bill Gates." There's something that doesn't really string these two well; I think it'd better placed on paragraph 1 as elaboration to the last sentence. Thoughts? GeraldWL 11:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation, or a stronger word?

That is why we summarise, I agree we do not need a huge list in the lede, but we should have an acknowledgment that it is basically full of lies.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I think without listing some of the points and just by saying "it spreads misinformation" it has that acknowledgement. GeraldWL 12:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I would rather it said falehoods, lets not downplay how misealeading this was.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Also it did not "spread them" it uttred them, it contains them, it promoted them. The lede is far to weak in this respect.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, what is even the difference between falsehoods and misinformation? Misinformation is a more neutral word, and COVID articles also use this term. The video basically just repeats these things. "Spread" is basically a combination of uttered, contained, and promoted. "Spread the word!" GeraldWL 12:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Its just an issue of style I suppose, but I think falsehood is stronger, and no we do not need false neutrality. This film told lies and we should say that, and not attempt to be neutral for the sake of it. No one who know what they are talking about has not called this film full of falsehoods.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, yeah it says false things, but we have to know our place. Just because Wikipedia tells truth doesn't mean we have to use the strongest, most opinion-sounding language. There are descriptions for Plandemic like "wrong information" or 'questionable themes", doesn't invalidate that statement. GeraldWL 12:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Our place right now (as far as I am concerned) is not to whitewash or downplay decetefull BS that might cost lives. But I think its time for others to chip in now, I have had my say.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 08:49, June 2, 2021 (UTC)

I think the intro to Loose Change is a good indicator of how we handle such blatantly false propaganda: we outright state that the films claims have been debunked. I also think the lede here is just too long & has some poor phrasing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with the other editors here, Gerald Waldo Luis. I'm not sure if it's just a lack of familiarity with editing in these topic areas or some broader misunderstanding that's leading you to make these edit suggestions, but what you're proposing is very much contrary to our policies. I don't mean to sound harsh, but WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE make quite clear that we use the STRONGEST possible language, and make clear that this is complete and utter bullshit, as well as a patently false conspiracy theory. Watering down the language doesn't do that, but tends more toward whitewashing the subject matter, and misleading our readers. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think misinformation is fine. Using stronger terms runs the risk of straying away from a factual tone, which lowers our credibility to the reader. Plus misinformation isn't whitewashing or sugarcoating it in any way. Finally, there is precedent for using the word misinformation. For example, our main article on COVID-19 misinformation is called COVID-19 misinformation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, FRINGE and PSEUDOSCIENCE does not ask us to make strong languages. What Slater is suggesting is to spam tbe word falsehoods all over the place as if several mentions that Plandemic is misinformation is not enough to persuade the readers. And we DONT persuade readers. We are not allowed to pour out our hearts and say "Plandemic is utter bullshit" on the article— as factual as it sounds, it is non-neutral. And one editor here mentions Loose Change— that article is PERFECTLY neutral; it only states a very brief summary (as Smartse just did with here), and state how journalists debunk it. It's EXACTLY like the status quo. At the core, these topics are no different than others. GeraldWL 01:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

To elaborate: the lead mentions various words: "conspiracy theory", "promote misinformation", "anti-vaccine", "alleged", "misleading", "brainwashing", "poorly received." It also nutshell some of the points, in a way that does not endorse it. How is that not enough? As Novem states, the word misinformation is in no way whitewashing or watering down the nature of Plandemic. GeraldWL 04:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

No I am suggesting changing one word in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

GWL, the Loose Change article flatly states that it isn't true. Why are you using that as an example of neutrality, then claiming the same phrasing here is non-neutral? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Ironic, since I stated that what the Loose Change article did is exactly what the current Plandemic lead is. It's both straightforward, yet I feel like I'm being accused of not being straightforward. Slatersteven, how is "misinformation" somehow watering down the claims of Plandemic? Because nearly all COVID articles uses it. GeraldWL 01:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Becuase there is a difference between (say) being mistaken and lying. Also I would need to see what articles say what.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, misinformation is literally lying, what are you even talking about? See articles like COVID-19 misinformation, COVID-19 misinformation by governments, COVID-19 misinformation by China, COVID-19 misinformation by the United States, and all COVID-19 articles; nearly all of them call it misinformation. GeraldWL 11:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In other words overview articels that cover all forms of incorrect information, not just outright lies.

misinformation /ˌmɪsɪnfəˈmeɪʃ(ə)n/ noun false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

So no it does not mean just lies.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, "false or inaccurate information" inaccurate means "not accurate" which is literally the claims in this video-- further strengthened by "deliberately intended to deceive", literally what Plandemic is about too. I don't see what's the point of changing it-- nobody cares if it's "misinformation" or "falsehoods"-- it's the same definition and it hits home right off the bat. There are sources that use the word "misinformation" for Plandemic too-- doesn't mean they're downplaying; doesn't make their fact-checking less valid. GeraldWL 13:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I count 1 user here who does not and three who do, that is not "nobody". And if no one cares and its not impanrt why not change it then?Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I'm not referring to the 5 of us here, I'm talking about the common readers. Like dude, if I am a reader and read this article, I would be in no way thinking "OH MY GOD BUT OXFORD DICTIONARY SAYS THIS AND THIS AND THIS." Regarding And if no one cares and its not impanrt why not change it then?, the real question should be why bringing it up in the first place? GeraldWL 16:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Because we think it does not mean the same thing and is not clear enough as to the degree of BS in this video.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be 4 against 1, that is consensus, and it seems to me that is to change the word. This is all just going round in circles now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Me and Gerald seem to be fine with "misinformation", Slater and Symmachus want the word strengthened. I'm reading 2:2 consensus. Maybe HandThatFeeds would be willing to clarify their comment so we can see where they stand. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, do not discount Novem and claim I'm the only one fine with the status quo. Also I can't comprehend how you can quantify the intensity of a word as strong as "misinformation." You have not answered my question: if sources calls Plandemic misinformation, is it watering down the videos? We also have no right to assume the motives of the creators; anyone can be easily lied by pre-existing conspiracies and be influenced to make a video like this. No sources confirm such, and so any exaggeration is not allowed. When editing, don't look from your perspective, look from the readers' perspective. GeraldWL 02:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The second allegation of misinformation quotes an article by Andersen et al. in Nature, which, when I read it, seems like a letter 'to the editor', rather than the opinion of the editorial team. Thus a casual reader may think that the source has a stronger authority than it really has. Much of the article cited is written in quite technical language, which I don't fully understand. However I think the article is opinion rather than proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Note, in particular, the word 'probably' in 'Furthermore, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used'. To me this word 'probably' means that the article does not have a bullet-proof case. Really, it is just the opinion of Mikovitz vs. the opinion of Andersen.

Nature article

I really think wikipedia should be very careful of labelling things as 'misinformation'. Heliocentricism was misinformation once. Issues should be put under the heading 'controversy' rather than 'misinformation'. To do otherwise is failing to try to maintain a neutral point of view. My opinion of wp is being rapidly diminished by the current editorial policy.84.92.40.18 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

NPOV does not apply to things that are outright un-truths. Saying that something is misinformation (e.g. "cats are not humans") is not NPOV-- NPOV applies to things that are subjective (e.g. we shouldn't say a movie is bad or good, but "a movie is perceived by many to be bad/good"). GeraldWL 05:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Just as an aside, you mean POV. Although WP:POV and WP:NPOV point to the same place, NPOV is the opposite of POV because the N stands for "not". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"Controversy" sections are discouraged, per WP:CSECTION. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean we must be delicate. "Neutral" does not mean "both sides get equal say." Especially when one side is spreading blatantly incorrect statements. Plandemic is misinformation, full stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

And if and when Plandemic turns out to be true we can change it, until then we go with the scientific consneus.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A book about the movie

Mikki Willis has also written a book about the movie, called Fear Is the Virus. Truth Is the Cure. , it will be released October 19, 2021. ISBN 9781510765542. A paragraph about the book should be added to the article.1000mm (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Definition

I have a slight problem with the definition. The definition refers mostly to a movie? Or book? or anything like that? But, aside from this there is the "commonly used phrase", where that meaning is different. I would even reason that more people know the general term and fewer people would know that it would refer to a book or a movie or anything else - yet the article insinuates currently that this refers to:

"a 2020 conspiracy theory video and film"

So why is this a problem? Well - it would elevate THAT particular theory above any other theories. So why would wikipedia then fancy that one theory over any other theory? How is that not a conspiracy theory to ask by whoever then wrote that article? So my problem is less about A, or THE, theory (whatever the reasoning), but that one particular book/video/movie would be elevated above others. I don't even think the word "plandemic" was newly coined in 2020, or do we have any proof of that? Wikipedia should be as objective as possible at all times, from all possible point of views. As it is right now I consider it a conspiracy theory by wikipedia to claim that "plandemic" is about one or two movies. I also reason that this will be highly representive of people trying to get (objective) information, as nothing else other than these two movies/books are mentioned. That reads more like an ad than a wikipedia article ... 2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Valid point we should remove video.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. This page was created about the video. The term got expanded a bit by true believers once the film was out, but the video & film are the reason this article exists.

If reliable sources can be found that show notable uses of the term that do not involve the video & film, we could either create a section about that, or a separate article and add a hatnote directing people there for further information. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That's true

That's not a theory while human depopulation is happening... how blind and stupid can you be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DF4:221:2900:ED07:5A3F:8A6D:AF9 (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

What is true?Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2021

This statement is now outdated.

Tens of millions of people contracted the disease, a percentage of whom died from it.

It reflects the cited source as of March 15, 2021. At the moment, the source says 266,349,165 total cases and 5,261,311 total deaths. Please update the retrieved date and change the text to

Hundreds of millions of people have contracted the disease, and more than five million have died from it.

Thank you. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: "tens" has been changed to "hundreds", although 5 million means it is still "a percentage". GeraldWL 01:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please update the citation, because the data no longer reflect what the source said on March 15, 2021. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to the citation that backs up the number claim? This? The source is up to date. GeraldWL 02:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's what the citation says right now. "COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU)". ArcGIS. Johns Hopkins University. Archived from the original on September 5, 2019. Retrieved March 15, 2021. You retrieved this data on 7 December 2021, so the "Retrieved" part shouldn't say March anymore. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for specifying there. Accessdate updated. GeraldWL 03:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: if all of this request is done, would you please set "answered=no" on the template above? If not, can you help restate what is still outstanding? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I don't understand. Shouldn't it be set to =yes as it is right now? GeraldWL 01:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't at the time Xaosflux made their comment. I changed it to 'yes' as I felt there was nothing left to be done. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Plandemic

Who is deciding what is discredited? Your descriptions of anyone or anything that disagrees with the established way of looking at the world is biased. Sometimes the bias is subtle,sometimes more overt. You are no longer my go to for info. 138.207.195.215 (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Science is what decides what is discredited in this case. If bias is "anything that offends some people", then Jeffrey Epstein should be described as "a financer and an assumed children injurer (God has not approved of that allegation yet)." Putting that God part in as a Catholic myself. The wrongdoings Willis and Mikovits have done are supported by facts and no exaggeration in the article is done to warrant bias. Also Wikipedia should never be a go-to for info, it should be a starting point to finding info. GeraldWL 01:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Plandemic

There needs to be a misclaimer attached to this article as there is no proof that the "Plandemic" is NOT true! 2001:569:5205:900:14A5:FD77:2A88:32BA (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. We dont have it on pages about other far-out bullshit either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ahah

Can you prove that everything have been said in this movies it's not the truth? Plus it seems more realistic than what our governments says to us everyday, maybe it's because who tells lies are the one that said thing to gain something from it... i don't see any profit on saying something that goes against the whole society. Honestly i think that people who lied about this will going to pay that. 87.2.135.17 (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The way many of these work is they start with tiny grains of truth, but then they twist motives and facts to create a fiction that is enticing. Here are some tips to help identify: Identifying conspiracy theories, How to Spot COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories, The Conspiracy Theory Detector. You can study this List of fallacies and see how flawed our reasoning systems are. StrayBolt (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2022

Citation 54's doi doesn't work, the "full" at the end should be removed. 2A02:A453:54B8:1:1139:466A:62DD:CAF7 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Revert

ScienceFlyer, do you mind elaborating your revert summary "It doesn't make sense"? GeraldWL 08:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It was a sentence fragment. It didn't make sense. ScienceFlyer (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

ScienceFlyer, a majority of footnotes are sentence fragments. Perhaps the problem is that I placed a dot in the end as against the MOS, which I can fix in a heartbeat. To give an explanation, it would be ambiguous to just quote the source saying that Plandemic is Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom, and then criticizing it, without providing an explanation as to why it is compared such. If you have any better alternatives, I'm open for discussion. GeraldWL 13:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

This phrase: “ while Willis's abhorrent filmmaking style…”

Is needlessly subjective. I’m not sure any amount of citation could warrant “abhorrent” as a descriptor. My proposed edit would simply remove that word and allow the rest of the sentence to stand. PopMechanic (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"Google took down the Drive file featuring the movie [Plandemic]"

seems to be a relevant piece of information to this controversial topic https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/20/misinformation-coronavirus-plandemic-workaround/ 2A02:2F0E:DA19:8700:100D:8CA9:7877:5C2B (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Article has left leaning bias

The article describes the docuseries as follows “Plandemic are a trilogy of conspiracy theoryvideo and films produced by Mikki Willis promoting misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. They feature Judy Mikovits, a discredited American researcher described as an anti-vaccine activist.” “Conspiracy theory” and “Promoting misinformation” are left-wing political rhetoric and so therefore seen through a biased lens. 172.56.201.154 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ section of this talk page. These conclusions are based off of the rigorous research sources have made against the doc's claims, and the article provides a reasonable balance by putting in some conservative reviews too. I'd argue too that both wings (none of which I associate with) use similar rhetorics against each other. GeraldWL 04:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Editorializing

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.

---

This article violates Wikipedia rules on editorializing articles. The lede is full of descriptors not found in the sources. Kapnkrunch337 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources are in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. If you have specific wording you wish to challenge, point it out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Kapnkrunch337, please also look at the FAQ section of this talk page in case any of your questions are there. GeraldWL 03:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

After reading much of the archived talk page, much of the commentary from both people raising discussions and responses from those controlling this article are concerning. This seems way too polarized, and the fact Snopes and Politifact are given so much preference in this article, as opposed to actual studies and real sources lowers the perceived quality of Wikipedia as a whole.

I would agree with Kaprikrunch on editoralization, as essentially this article is 50% of just quoting another publications "op ed" on the topic, as if that was impartial. Politifact is a bias organization and the way it performs "fact checks" and presents it to the reader is in an editoralized gotcha style (with the overly cartoony truthometres).

I would suggest there is a review done, concerning more recent information and that the article is updated, with any such claims of information prefaced with an actual source, and not Politifact and Snopes, whom are both organizations tarred as being politically bias. Instead of writing "politifact said this", it would be better to say that several claims such as X Y Z have been raised as being misleading, or incorrect, whether at the time the film was made or at a later date after more data has become available.

If we take a look at one example where there has been change and where this article operates a now neutral perspective (although originally it was not neutral) - this would be Covid -19 origins.

The information concerning Covid-19 especially its origins is still very much under dispute.

Taking a quick browse at news articles we can see that a exposed document for the investigation shows no evidence of lab leak, but then only 3 months later, a whistleblower is inferring the opposite and that the Wuhan Lab leak theory is correct, and that the original investigation can be discredited as a result of bribery.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/23/covid-19-origins-wuhan-lab-leak-us-intelligence-reports

https://www.science.org/content/article/cia-bribed-its-own-covid-19-origin-team-reject-lab-leak-theory-anonymous-whistleblower

So, already we have factual disputes in 2023 as to news reports of investigations, and this is before we even begin to examine scholarly articles and research done on the virus itself. However, this was updated in 2021 to show the dispute, and I expect once the investigations has been fully settled and more information comes to light, this will likely be needed to be updated again. [Politifact originally had this as "false" and that Wuhan leak theory as impossible, many of talk discussions repeat this, and yet with new evidence we now have an updated article stating the correct line that "origins are still in dispute"]

Now if we look at an existing contencious issue there is HCQ Treatment:

A quick search finds the below articles, one is the WHO saying that it is ineffective, and another saying that it is effective. Both seem to state such assertions as conclusive, both citing the existance of several trials to this effect. Lancet study states improvement seen is that of placebo effect, and not any innate qualities of HCQ. The lancet study is from 2022, and the NCBI article I quote is from 2020.

https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-hydroxychloroquine

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00060-6/fulltext

Nonetheless, when the claim was made in this video the outstanding evidence available was to say that HCQ was either effective, or that the information was under dispute. The WHO conclusion among with the larger trials and the 2022 lancet study, were only conducted after the manufacture of this video.

I'm also not sure why so much information is given to the personal life and location of the people involved in the product of tihs video, would that not normally be reserved for their own wikipedia pages? (Its certainly not information I've seen when looking at other documentary or film pages).

As an aside there is a correct in the Politifact article quoted that is not reflected in this article.

"Correction: A previous version of this article said the authors of a January 2020 study did not say flu vaccines increased subjects’ odds of getting a coronavirus by 36%. While that figure was not explicitly written in the body of the study, it was included in the data tables. We've updated this article with more context from the study."

So the article is also currently perpetuating false information in its unupdated state, by using "politifact" as a mouth piece for the authors editorial views. 2A00:23C8:B80E:F701:65F9:ED8D:80CB:3007 (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:or and wp:synthsis. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Also can you give examples of 5 opp-edds we use? Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Just as a brief comment: the personal life of the people were put in as background as to who they are; Mikki Willis as a person is not notable enough to merit his own article. It would help a ton if you pinpoint where said correction can be implemented in this article; it's not my current priority now. And about the political leans, rightists could also argue Guardian and NCBI have their biases too, and so by this point the argument "politically biased" is meaningless. Per Slater, it would also be excellent if you can provide sources mentioning such new information juxtaposed with Plandemic. GeraldWL 10:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The statement would just need removing for the correction to take place. Or for a re-statement of the position of politifact.

The point about Newspapers is nuanced. Politifact is not a newspaper and does not purport to do journalism, it purports to fact check, but it does it in a very heavily editoralized manner. One that is targeted to specific political wings (as noted in its own Wikipedia article).

When quoting sources for newspapers, unless commenting about opinions at the time, to maintain neutrality, editorials should be avoided, with preference towards articles that merely report the news, to minimize bias. There is a clear difference between an editorial in the guardian, and a normal news report in the guardian. The Guardian is known to be left wing, and the Daily Mail is known to be right wing. However, this is not at all relevant when normally citing said sources as to evidence of events that have happened, as wikipedia articles do not normally give full exposure with extended quotations from news sources, but instead would have a more balanced neutral tone, with the source merely supporting the statements being said.

For example if providing information that a political figure attended an event, then the wikipedia article would expect to state as such. "On June X attended Y" while citing Z article. In the article it might state "On June X attended Y and was well received, as the greated politician in all history". However, such statements are clearly editorial and would not appear in the wikipedia article.

The difference between an encylopedia as to any other form of academic or other educational material is that an encyclopedia merely acts as a repository of information, while academic or educational material often act as mouth pieces for the authors arguments or views.

An encyclopedia would merely go:

There exists debate on this topic, source Y says Z, source A says B (they can be found both in citations).

An encylopedia has no reason to "Prove" something to the reader. It merely exists to point towards information and summarize information. Other academic, journalistic or other media is trying to "convince" the reader of the authors views.

This is why it is not appropriate to state in a wikipedia article that Z has been debunked and then go on to large quote a political source. If you want to state that Z has been debunked, then it would be better to state that the Z has met large swathes of criticism, where multiple parties have contested the claims as clearly untrue, misleading, or factually incorrect. Some of these parties are A, B, C, among the claims that were stated in the video they make the following counter arguments (go on to list arguments). If Z has been largely contested then finding multiple varied sources should not be difficult that the reader can be pointed to for further reading. 2A00:23C8:B80E:F701:71E5:EFDB:5DC1:2D4 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to launch an Encyclopedia using the criteria you want. This article is perfectly in line with Wikipedia's criteria. Jeppiz (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies then, because you're arguing to overturn the entire way things are done here. We will not be making changes based on what you want Wikipedia to be. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:40, 15 October 2023 (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.