Talk:Plandemic: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:21, 4 October 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plandemic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

Plandemic has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 8, 2020	Articles for deletion	Kept
December 18, 2020	Peer review	Not reviewed
March 15, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 8, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Plandemic was criticized for its professional-style production?
Current status: Good article

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: Should Plandemic be called a video or a film?

A: The consensus is that the first Plandemic is a video, whilst the second Plandemic is a film. The first video is merely a 26-minute interview with several fair use clips, hence there is not much originality, and a video is a sufficient description. However, Plandemic: Indoctornation is an interview combined with original clips, one that can be seen in various documentaries. As documentaries don't have to be of real information, it is safe to describe Indoctornation as a film.

Q: Why is Plandemic deemed misinformation on Wikipedia?

A: Wikipedia is a summary of information shared by reliable sources. According to reliable sources, most of which had extra fact-checking, Plandemic is misinformation due to its baseless claims regarding COVID-19 and virology, as well as several other topics including politics and Judy Mikovits. Many of the claims stated within it, as well as Indoctornation, have been discovered to be untrue, and is reasonably backed up. There's no personal or political agenda.

Q: Why does this article not state any praises regarding Plandemic and only talk about the bad stuff?

A: Actually, this article does, as an attempt to present a wide view on the subject. Several conspiratorial reviews of the film are shown, and not once do either sides get justified here: this is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia only reports what sources say, not trying to give superiority over a party. In the end, it's up to the viewers to decide what they think of a topic, even Plandemic. Nevertheless, Plandemic being misinformation is a fact, not an opinion.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism GA‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: Documentary / American GA‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

COVID-19 GA‑class Mid‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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)[reply]

(

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

A book about the movie

Mikki Willis has also written a book about the movie, called Fear Is the Virus. Truth Is the Cure. ^[1], 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)[reply]

References

^ https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Plandemic/Mikki-Willis/9781510765542

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 about 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)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Plandemic/Mikki-Willis/9781510765542

[1]

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 {{reflist-talk}}
+== 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 about 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 ... [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F|2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F]] ([[User talk:2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F|talk]]) 18:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)