Talk:Plandemic

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Logo of Plandemic: Indoctornation

• ... that BuzzFeed News compared the conspiracy film Plandemic: Indoctornation (logo pictured) with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker? Source: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/plandemic-sequel-review
  • ALT1:... that Plandemic was criticized for its professional-style production? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/14/plandemic-movie-discredited-dr-doctor-judy-mikovits-how-debunked-conspiracy-theory-film-went-viral

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hrant Dink Foundation

Improved to Good Article status by Gerald Waldo Luis (talk). Self-nominated at 03:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good. Either hook could be used, but my preference is ALT1. It's so surprising, I had to read it twice – very "hooky". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:50, 17 March 2021 (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.