Talk:Great Reset/Archive 1

Archive 1

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2020

Remove the word Progressive from the sentence "Progressive political leaders such as Trudeau and US president-elect Joe Biden have endorsed the plan, as has UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson" No evidence that Joe Biden is considered a member of the Progressive wing of the Democrats by anyone. 49.184.94.60 (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

While the given source does cite Biden as progressive, I think that there are enough other reliable sources out there to say other things about him (ie: Joe Biden#Political positions), and so I'm going to remove the word "progressive", also because it could be misread in the current form as suggesting Boris Johnson is progressive, and I think most RS's would disagree with that. Seagull123 Φ 14:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I accidentally submitted the edit doing this before finishing the edit summary, so I meant to say rmv word "progressive" per edit request on talk, not just rmv word "progressive. Oops. Seagull123 Φ 14:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Please remove the following line: "Political leaders such as Trudeau and US president-elect Joe Biden have endorsed the plan, as has UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.[9]" The citation provided says only that these leaders have used rhetoric SIMILAR to the Great Reset proposal but have not specifically endorsed it. Trudeau, Biden, and Johnson have not endorsed the plan. As explained in the entry below, lending legitimacy to the proposal only stokes conspiracy and disinformation. 68.206.188.63 (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Username6892 _(PR) 16:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2020 (2)

Add Category:Medical-related conspiracy theories 94.252.32.190 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

Remove "and has been debunked". This contradicts the references. The BBC article doesn't claim to have debunked it. It says, "But the suggestion that politicians planned the virus, or are using it to destroy capitalism is wholly without evidence." Hevernon (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I recommend you use {{edit extended-protected}} in the future when requesting changes to this article. Username6892 _(PR) 13:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Confusing wording

Under response it says "His rhetoric was criticized by multiple commentators and editorial boards". It is confusing who the 'his' is referring to. I briefly looked at the citations, and it seems that the person whose rhetoric was criticized was Justin Trudeau,which is confusing because the last person to be mentioned in the previous sentence was Pierre Poilievre (who was in fact the subject of that previous sentence). By that context alone, and without looking at the citations, I would normally assume that the person whose rhetoric was criticized would be Pierre Poilievre. In this case it may be better to drop the pronoun all together and just have the name of the person whose rhetoric was criticized spelled out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:1900:166E:1145:EFB9:E58A:9FE (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Missing details and inaccuracy in conspiracy theory section

The section is missing important details about what's written and sounds disingenuous. The "abolish personal ownership" bit comes from the WEF's "8 predictions for the world in 2030" [1]. This is not just a "since-deleted 2016 tweet linking a WEF piece describing what life might be like in 2030". The tweet contained a video about the 8 predictions, which is also on the WEF's website and Youtube channel.

The two sources which mention "build back better" don't say anything about how the phrase is relevant to the conspiracy. It's not just "Joe Biden's campaign slogan". It's been used by many politicians around the world and the UN etc. The UN used the phrase before Biden or Boris adopted it. This isn't noteworthy by itself, unless there's a source which gives some context and says how it's connected.

The "isolation camps" part comes from a supposed email from a Canadian politician. The Snopes reference is about this. The email is mentioned further down in the text. These parts should be together for clarity. There's different things jumbled about.

I wanted to make some ammendments myself on the above, but someone has decided that barely anyone is allowed to edit this article.

The Wikipedia article also claims "The conspiracy theory is without evidence and has been debunked". What has been debunked exactly? The BBC article says a claim about the vaccines has been debunked, and some fake WHO advice, and a French plandemic video. In regards to claims about The Great Reset it says they're without evidence. Hevernon (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It is the typical fact-check debunking wherein selective claims are trotted out as straw-men. This is used to broadly dismiss all concerns as debunked conspiracy theories. Par for the course. Wikipedia engages in it as does Snopes. It is unreasonable to expect otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy section needs a bit more detail

Having read through the article a few times, I have to say that while the conspiracy theory section does cover some ground, it doesn't do so in a way that would be truly indicative of why people have cause for concern (and would therefore be helpful in debunking such aspects that might need debunking).

The following elements in particular should be revised:

• Currently, the article mentions "a 2016 WEF piece describing what life might be like in 2030" but does not go into detail about what exactly that piece is discussing. The overall "8 predictions for the world in 2030" piece does indeed offer eight predictions in summary, with links to additional WEF pieces discussing the individual predictions in detail, and was accompanied by a video on the WEF's social media channels (subsequently deleted but independently archived on Youtube). From what I've seen, discussion of the 2016 piece in relation to the Great Reset conspiracy theory revolves mainly around the following predictions: "All products will have become services" (or "You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy" as per the video), "There is a global price on carbon" (or "Polluters will have to pay to emit carbon dioxide" as per the video, which bizarrely has this prediction down as the sixth item while it's the second item on the actual WEF piece), and "We are eating much less meat" (or rather "You'll eat much less meat" as per the video which again has mismatched numbering and lists this as the fourth prediction while the WEF piece lists it as the fifth prediction).
• The "Build Back Better" slogan is treated as being unique to Joe Biden's presidential campaign, when in fact quite a few other politicians and organisations have used the slogan or variants thereof in their discussions of recovering from the COVID situation (see here), and it is this widespread usage that is being treated as conspiratorial (see here - by my own admission)
• The "COVID-19: The Great Reset" book is mentioned, but no real examination of its contents is present, nor is there any mention of how 1) said contents and 2) the fact of Klaus Schwab's authorship are discussed in relation to the conspiracy theory.

Dvaderv2 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2020

Links to other existing Wikipedia pages:

"The proposal" ... "and to start a fourth industrial revolution, creating" ... to "The proposal" ... "and to start a Fourth Industrial Revolution, creating" ... 77.53.232.129 (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Username6892 05:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

Remove entire "Criticism" section. It is actually criticism of criticism. It contains too many half-truths and hyperbole to justify serious editorial critique. Amendment1toUSConstitution (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The first sentence in that section is sourced to the New York Times. Please be more specific in what you would like to remove or rewrite. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Response section

Are there reliable sources covering responses from any notable figures outside of Canada (besides the ones listed)? The section was recently retitled to "Response in Canada" (which I have since reverted) though I think more RS should be found as it is assuming any response mentioned in other sections of the article is outside of Canada (In the conspiracy theory's case, it is not). If we can not find a good resolution to the issue, I suggest adding {{Globalize}} to the section. Username6892 05:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Russian disinformation

The article reads:

"It has also been disseminated by Russian propaganda outlets. According to Oliver Kamm, in an article for the CapX website: "The propaganda apparatus of the Putin regime has for many months published wild allegations from obscure bloggers that the Great Reset is code for oligarchs to amass wealth and control populations."

The author Oliver Kamm is not exactly known for his non-partisan "journalism" but not only that I could not seem to find any sources saying anything similar regarding the Great Reset being pushed as Russian disinfo. Now maybe I'm just not looking up the right things, which is possible, but if there are no other sources saying the Russians are pushing it then maybe it should not be included in the article per WP:FRINGE.PailSimon (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Two typos:

Change: "politician Maxime Bernier who lamenting on his webpage" To: "politician Maxime Bernier who lamented on his webpage"

Change: "Trudeau the "world's most prominent defender" this Great Reset" To: "Trudeau the "world's most prominent defender" of this Great Reset" Datb2 (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To editor Datb2:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

On the subheading Conspiracy theory of the same name:

A November 2020 article said that the Great Reset conspiracy theory, was the first in the Presidency of Joe Biden.^{[1 11]} A January 30, 2021 article in The Economist said that the United States has a "rich history of conspiracism, due to its anti-government, apocalyptic religious and entrepreneurial traditions."^{[1 12]} According to the article, 50% of Trump's supporters espoused QAnon "core falsehoods" that Trump was "leading the fight" against a corrupt, global, and high-level "Democratic child-sex operation".^{[1 12]} Trump promoted the QAnon conspiracy which combined a number of "fabrications into a single narrative."^{[1 12]} With the COVID-19 pandemic combined with presidential election, the "far-reaching and baseless QAnon conspiracy" has spread worldwide. Adherents believe they are an "embattled minority"—the only ones that "know 'the truth'." Main stream media outlets such as The New York Times, the BBC, and The Guardian traced the spread of the latest conspiracy theory on the great reset, which had integrated the anti-lockdown conspiracies, to far-right internet personalities and groups—some also supporting the QAnon conspiracy theory—including Candace Owens, Glenn Beck, Fox News' Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson.^{[1 10][1 13][1 3][37]} and by Paul Joseph Watson.^{[1 14]} and the UK-based editor of Alex Jones' far-right conspiracy website Infowars where he advocated for the New World Order among others.^{[1 15]}

Change Main stream to Mainstream.

PS. While I was typing this, I noticed some improper use of periods near the end of the paragraph. This is what you get when you take out the citations:

[...] Candace Owens, Glenn Beck, Fox News' Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson. and by Paul Joseph Watson. and the UK-based editor of Alex Jones' far-right conspiracy website Infowars where he advocated for the New World Order among others.

Here's my final suggestion for that sentence:

Mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times, the BBC, and The Guardian have traced the spread of the latest conspiracy theories on the great reset, including the anti-lockdown conspiracy theories, to far-right internet personalities and groups—some also supporting the QAnon conspiracy theory—including Candace Owens, Glenn Beck, Fox News' Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson^{[1 10][1 13][1 3][37]}, and Paul Joseph Watson^{[1 14]}, the UK-based editor of Alex Jones' far-right conspiracy website InfoWars, where he has advocated for the New World Order among others.^{[1 15]}

MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor MrPersonHumanGuy:  Done Thanks, DigitalChutney (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

In the section entitled "The Key components ...", para. 4, sentence 3 in the phrase "The second is component" delete "is". Steffens uploads (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Username6892 10:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

Under the section of the "Critics of the Great Reset," it merits noting a new review article of Schwab & Malleret's book in the prestigious academic journal 'The Journal of Value Inquiry'. More particularly, perhaps it should be noted that the reviews' author, Steven Umbrello, states that:

• "From a philosophical perspective, I suggest their argument pushes a false dilemma. Rapid transformation of the overall global system is proposed with no real obvious ways forward. The pathway towards this more ‘equitable’ future with Mother Nature is thus opaque. Fears associated with the failure to push for a Great Reset (i.e., violent revolutions, conflicts) seem to be one of many possible outcomes from trying to institute the total change of so many different socio-economic and culturally-situated systems of living. With no clear way forward to evaluate in terms of both boons and perils, Schawb and Malleret whitewash a seemingly optimistic future post-Great Reset with buzz words like equity and sustainability even as they functionally jeopardize those admirable goals."

• "they ultimately advocate for a substantial (if not complete) socio-political-economic overhaul without offering any specifics as to how this could be achieved. They fail to do so even while arguing that the overhaul is not only necessary, but also in need of expedient execution. Despite their explicit position on the benefits of doing so, they ultimately risk undermining their aim given the opacity of how to achieve it. In sum, beware of those who roar “this is the way”."

perhaps some of these merit inclusion given that it is one of the first academic critiques of the work in a journal of standing. --EthicsScholar93 (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

In the subheading "Critics of the Great Reset Agenda" add the following (please feel free to edited):

Similarly, in his review of COVID-19: The Great Reset, ethicist Steven Umbrello makes parallel critiques of the agenda. He says that the agenda amounts to nothing other than "a substantial (if not complete) socio-political-economic overhaul" and that such a proposal is a "false dilemma" and that "Schwab and Malleret whitewash a seemingly optimistic future post-Great Reset with buzz words like equity and sustainability even as they functionally jeopardize those admirable goals"

source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10790-021-09794-1

EthicsScholar93 (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Propose split

The conspiracy theory has little relation to reality of the Great Reset. For this reason, I think it would work better in its own article about the conspiracy theory. For similar reasons, we split Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory from Frankfurt School, what the conspiracy theory is about. (t · c) buidhe 17:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: After thinking about this further, I have come to the conclusion that the section is too small to split and the conspiracy theory is heavily based on the plan, using its own marketing materials to allege a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy theory about the reset therefore it belongs here. Username6892 22:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Weak support: When I created this article, I had lacked the sources for the main points of the plan to justify such a split (both articles, particularly that on the actual proposal would be very short). With the sections about the actual plan having since been expanded, this leaves my only concern being that the conspiracy theory article would be a bit short, but I do not believe it is short enough to justify keeping the entire section in this article. Of course, given this is a conspiracy theory making baseless claims about the proposal, a section containing a short summary of the conspiracy theory should continue to remain present in this article. Username6892 01:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• OPPOSE per WP:POVSPLIT. This article also has no problem with length, this is being proposed as a blatant attempt forking off the POV, we dont do that. If the article at some point in time is too long then there is an argument, but we are not even close to that now. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems fine in the current article. Doesn't pose a size concern. I fixed some other things that made the section look bigger than it is, such as an extremely long explanatory footnote. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Ill defined as to what separate legitimate criticism with the the goals expressed at the WEF and actual conspiracy. Until then no separate page should be made. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The role of Russia in the conspiracy theory

The last paragraph of the section "Conspiracy theory" is uninformative. There are more detailed studies into this matter, in a media. For example, Meduza analyzed and compared internal and external Russian coronavirus propaganda in the article "The two faces of RT’s coronavirus propaganda": outside Russia, pro-Kremlin media are trying to raise doubts as to the propriety and validity of the vaccination and the anti-coronavirus restrictions, but when it comes to an internal audience, they support any restriction by the Russian authorities.

It should be pointed out that Russian federal draft law about QR-codes or, as it is called in folk talk, cuckold-codes (QR-codes is transcribed into Russian as куар-коды; in folk talk, this transcription has quickly become куку-коды and then – куколд-коды which is transcribed into English as cuckold-codes) will be adopted as a part of the regular (not state of emergency) legislation, and it means that QR-codes system will be operational on permanent basis, even after the end of the pandemic. People hesitant of official causes and consequences of the introduction of the QR-codes system will be criminally prosecuted. Thus, domestic policy of Putin's regime really looks like the COVID-19 pandemic is used as a pretext for the establishment of a new totalitarian order based on total digital control over citizens and segregation of disloyal people.

As for how it works in the rest of world, let the others write about it. 5.129.59.116 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References

The line "Flaws with the conspiracy theory include that the WEF lacks authority to tell countries what to do." is a simplification

When countries with unmanageable short-term debts request assistance (loans) from the IMF, the loans are always conditional on significant economic restructuring, such as privatisation of state assets. Greece in 2015 is a typical example. This has been overlooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainsleyf (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm just spitballing here but are you confusing the WEF with the IMF? Granted, one letter is the same. It would however appear to me that conflating the 2 would rather be a considerable simplification of sorts.

--217.228.175.127 (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I conflated the two. Somehow I read the article as saying IMF, not WEF. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainsleyf (talk • contribs) 01:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Plutocratic agenda to distract public discourse

It sees periods of global instability – such as the financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic – as windows of opportunity to intensify its programmatic efforts. Some critics hence see the Great Reset as a continuation of the World Economic Forum's strategy of focusing on connotated activist topics such as environmental protection and social entrepreneurship to disguise the organization's true plutocratic goals

Can that abstruse and mind-numbing phrasing exist for any other reason than having this sentiment present in the article (required by balance policy), while ensuring that no normal person actually reads to the end of the sentence?

Here's an alternative:

Some critics hence see the Great Reset as a continuation of the World Economic Forum's plutocratic agenda to distract public discourse from their self-serving economic goals by promoting contentious activist issues such as environmental protection and social entrepreneurship, positioned divisively, to exhaust the social media air supply.

So maybe that's not very good and could use another three layers of wordsmith varnish.

But consider this.

Primary clause in current version: strategy of focusing on connotated activist topics

Proposed version: plutocratic agenda to distract public discourse

One of these reads like an airless footnote in a graduate text on Marxist theory, the other would spare you a broken nose at the pub down the street. — MaxEnt 17:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

More possibly deliberate damp sand

WEF chief executive officer Klaus Schwab described three core components of the Great Reset: the first involves creating conditions for a "stakeholder economy"; the second component includes building in a more "resilient, equitable, and sustainable" way—based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics which would incorporate more green public infrastructure projects; the third component is to "harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution" for public good.

A more direct route to immediate comprehension:

WEF chief executive officer Klaus Schwab described three core components of the Great Reset:

• create conditions for a "stakeholder economy"
• build in a more "resilient, equitable, and sustainable" way—based on environmental, social, and governance metrics (ESG) which would incorporate more green public infrastructure projects
• harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution for public good

I also liberated the gloss for ESG from between the modifier and the modified, which always causes a lurch in the mind.

There's no need to quote the harness part, it's standard language with no real clarity issue, whether indicated as verbatim or not.

However, the phrase "stakeholder economy" is about a thousand miles from standard language, and every single reader encountering this buzzword for the first time should immediately devote 90% of their available cognition to WTF?

In my bulleted version, this cognitive process can easily take root, but not so much in the belabored existing version. — MaxEnt 17:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, I've just become a victim of my own clarity medicine. Reading my proposed bullet version, I started to wonder about bullet item #2:

build in a more "resilient, equitable, and sustainable" way—based on environmental, social, and governance metrics (ESG) which would incorporate more green public infrastructure projects

The mdash here is not standard grammar to begin with. But what is this rider clause, anyway? Let's boil it down.

based on metrics which would incorporate more projects

Doh! That's idiotic. Metrics do not incorporate projects on this planet or any other planet.

My editorialized version:

based on a novel framework of environmental, social, and governance metrics (ESG) [as conceived by the WEF elite] designed to promote more $HAPPY projects

But this item is attributed to Klaus Schwab, so we need to keep it within his lexical slant.

based on a balanced and progressive framework of environmental, social, and governance metrics (ESG) designed to promote more $HAPPY projects

Maybe he didn't apply those particular adjectives to his shiny new framework of metrics. If not, we should find some he has used.

It's not like government does not already have these metrics in spades, if presently somewhat less formalized as a central pillar from on high. I have many family members with long careers in the civil service, and the only time that any of these "metrics" escapes a mind-numbingly long internal deliberation (FOIA CYA if nothing else) is when a politician reaches in to jerk a stiff payola wire (the iron law of civil service: thou shall not interfere with a politician paying off his central political debt). Apart from this, business as usual in the Canadian civil service is comprehensively ESG all the way down, and has been since around the turn of the century. — MaxEnt 17:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Qanon

The lede currently states in wikivoice:

"conspiracy theories spread by American far-right groups linked to QAnon" 

Are the conspiracy theories limited solely to Qanon as the lede states? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed and tagged it since no response here. It was also sourced only by an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are not WP:RS for these types of claims. Here is my removal diff. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarification request

I am unable to find a sentence or sentences in the section “conspiracy” that actually state what conspiracy theory or theories actually exist in connection to this subject, save one toward the very end: “... code for oligarchs to amass wealth and control populations.” The rest of the section is a desultory write-up of non-relevant facts concerning conspiracies generally, various times politicians or pundits endorsed or opposed them, and who first espoused them - but not what they are and what form they take in regard to the current topic of the Great Reset. I suggest the entire section be deleted and re-written. CookDing (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I came to the talk section to say just this. The whole section is "Lots of conspiracy theories, here's what the media is saying to dismiss them!" without stating what the actual contention is. It mentions Trudeau giving a speech that some thought echoed the tenets of the Great Reset conspiracy... but it doesn't tell us what Trudeau said? Someone with more time than me should go through and expand that section as best possible, trying to remain "NPOV" as much as possible so as not to anger the Wikipedia gremlins. (lol) Mercster (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Some concrete information about the conspiracy theorising was present in earlier revisions and is still extant in the text but (by accident or by design) is currently relegated to ' ref group="Notes" ' status. Nor in case did that information ever get updated to reflect this little thing I wrote up back in December which provides a bit more detail about the sort of WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about the GR that are being advanced by PJW, James Delingpole etc. Dvaderv2 (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Must be by design... stick any information we want less people to see in Notes. Put it back! Mercster (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory" Is Inherently A Value Judgement

There are several discussions above about the validity of calling a critical "theory" regarding this a "conspiracy theory". The problem with this term is that it is unavoidably a value judgement and remains so regardless of who says it. That is, a reliable source making a value judgement is still a value judgement. 50 years ago, most reliable sources would have described homosexuality as a sexual deviance (also a value judgement). So the best factual statement one can make is that "most sources that Wikipedia judges to be reliable consider these opinions to constitute a conspiracy theory". You cannot honestly present a value as a fact.

It might be added that there are other voices considering the proposals of the WEF to be highly undesirable without the "conspiracy" elements regarding Covid, effectively proposing that powerful figures (the large corporations who comprise the WEF, for instance) are using crises such as Covid and Global Warming to impose their agenda, a practical implementation of Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine".

You can argue forever about what constitutes a conspiracy theory. It tends to depend on where you stand. Many things said about Donald Trump might qualify. Why not just drop this term altogether? 82.71.30.178 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• One could argue forever and never arrive at any conclusion; given infinite time, yours is an hypothetical outcome. Alternatively, by now humanity might have developed a communication system (at first just through speech, then also through writting) where words, terms and expressions have intelligible, non-ambiguous definitions. So, instead of "dropping" the term conspiracy theory "altogether", defined through innumerous ideological contributions (followed by community consensus), one could just try to learn about the definitions of said term and, if not in agreement with the consensus around those definitions, try to construct and propose a new and better definition, or even a new concept/term. TL;DR: Where is the evidence to prove that there is a real conspiracy, that it is not just another stupid online conspiracy theory? Once solid evidence is presented, people's objectivity and morals will accept it; journalists would just love an exclusive like for that, for sure. Just bring credible evidence to the community and the community will accept it for sure. ACLNM (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe "opposition to The Great reset" would be more appropriate. I don't see why there is a need for a conspiracy, the plain text of some of the language coming out of that meeting is enough to send many peoples' blood boiling. I agree that labelling it a conspiracy is an effort to fringe-ify opposition. (I'm good with words?) Mercster (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Is the lede still accurate

I came to this article today as a reader (not intending to edit although I did make some minor tweaks) and found the lede confusing. Just wanted to ask editors more familiar with this article to double-check? The lede currently begins "The Great Reset is the name of the 50th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF)".

There are two issues for me here.

First issue is small. If the topic of the article is a meeting that occurred in 2020 then shouldn't the lede be in past tense? i.e. - "The Great Reset was the name..."

Second issue is bigger. The lede says this article is going to be about a meeting, but the article is not at all about a meeting. The article appears to be about an initiative or larger agenda, which makes the lede completely inaccurate in introducing the article.

I don't want to step into editing a contentious article. Would some editors who are vested here attempt to make the lede more clearly say what the Great Reset is? - Hoplon (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. You were correct to raise this back in March 2021, the lead was inaccurate. I've now fixed it. Jr8825 • Talk 04:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Change of George III's title

I changed the introduction from calling Charles III "Charles, Prince of Wales" to then Prince of Wales "George III". If anyone doesn't believe it's necessary, please restore it! Thanks in advance Omgaddad (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I personally think it's better to keep his title at the time, otherwise future readers might mistakenly think he was king at the time. Jr8825 • Talk 06:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Idea of Great Reset is more than 10 Years old!

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.

---

Hello,

I remember a video in the official youtube channel weforum, that showed an interview with Klaus Schwab. The video was ten years old. Also, on a symposium in 2005, the term was spoken. So, the idea of a "Great Reset" is already very old and not a result of Covid-19. In the interview, Klaus Schwab said that he got the idea in a talk with Bill Gates and an ethnic Chinese person that I don't know and can't tell if he's probably from the U.S. CDC.

--92.193.34.99 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Youtube videos are generally considered unreliable sources by Wikipedia. The reason is that YT videos can be edited post-publication. Also, YT channels do not have to provide any sources/references for their content.

I have made Youtube videos, and I can tell you that they can't be edited post-publication. The titles, description, tags etc. can certainly be edited, but the videos themselves can not be. If an uploader doesn't like how a youtube video turned out, they have to delete the video or make it private and upload a new video which is the updated version. While YT videos are generally considered unreliable sources by Wikipedia, it is not because they can be edited post-publication. 2600:6C40:1900:166E:1145:EFB9:E58A:9FE (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)JMM

I second this last statement by another person, and I too have made Youtube videos: videos cannot be edited on YouTube after they are uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.105.211 (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2022 (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.

Broken ref

@Ne0Freedom: you've got an undefined ref named "BBC57532368" on the page. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Charles III

Charles III is no longer a prince; he is a king. 173.206.20.230 (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It is harmful to claim that the conspiracy theory is baseless

I do not think that we should claim the conspiracy theory is baseless. It looks suspicious and draws too much attention to it. I think it rather invites people to question the claim than convinces them of it, thus doing harm. I understand the general importance of informing the public that certain theories have no ground in reality, as we have done with many other conspiracy theories (like the false idea of the Great Replacement), and that any own research into them is without merit, but I have now come to believe that doing so will only have adverse effects on the mind of the populace. 78.48.73.42 (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t follow. By definition of being a conspiracy theory, it is baseless. There should be no need for us to sugarcoat it for our readers in order to avoid criticism or prevent possible “adverse effects” on the public. If any of our readers want to dispute the claim that it is a conspiracy, then they need to provide reliable sources to allow for a change, which has not happened so far. Crazymantis91 (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing inherent to conspiracy theories saying they're baseless. Just that they're a theory regarding some people conspiring. In order for them to be inherently baseless, it would have to be impossible for conspiracy to be a thing. --122.61.49.170 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If this “theory” had any semblance of credibility, then it would not be called a conspiracy theory by the majority of reliable sources, which is all Wikipedia is concerned about. The onus is on the “theorists” to prove their claims, which has not happened. Crazymantis91 (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Again. "Conspiracy theory" doesn't mean baseless speculation. It means theory about conspiracy. Even if it was all but confirmed, it would still be right to call it a conspiracy theory. I don't particularly have beef with the calling of this particular theory as baseless. I just felt compelled to point out that conspiracy theories aren't inherently so. --122.61.49.170 (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have never heard of a conspiracy theory being demonstrated to be based in fact, but your definition makes sense. There still isn’t a good reason to not call this particular conspiracy theory baseless. Crazymantis91 (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

LOL, the mental gymnastics is impressive. WEF openly advocates for Great Reset, its CEO writes books about it, they run adverts describing it, they run international summits full of prominent politicians and billionaires pushing it forward (ergo: conspiring to make it happen), and you still think it's "baseless". Ama-effing-zing.

Well, isn't that exactly what makes it not a conspiracy; all the participants known, communicating openly, their agenda available to the public? I can't help but chuckle. --217.228.175.127 (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That makes it a conspiracy fact, not a conspiracy theory surely? The meeting are held in private. We don't know all the details. 79.155.70.181 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Crazymantis91 - Both you, and that BBC article which you quoted, are demonstrably false, when you say that "There still isn’t a good reason to not call this particular conspiracy theory baseless." To establish basis for a claim, one needs a lot of flaming-gun-evidence; however to establish basis for a mere conspiracy theory, one only needs a single suspicion-raising-counterexample. And in this case, there's actually plenty of "Worrying" basis for this conspiracy theory.

So, ultimately, the BBC use of "baseless" in the phrase "baseless conspiracy theory" is demonstrably just false, and you should not be able to cite it, as it is clearly WP:BIASED, using a phrase which not only can't be proven, but doesn't remotely reflect the loads of basis for this particular theory.

Summary: 1. If you want to say that "claims" are baseless, fine, but don't ever say that a "conspiracy theory" is baseless. 2. Get rid of that footnote. Octavius2 (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Karl Marx predicted Great Reset-like conditions as anticipating world working class revolution

From The German Ideology, unpublished, 1844.

This “alienation” (to use a term which will be comprehensible to the philosophers) can, of course, only be abolished given two practical premises. **For it to become an “intolerable” power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must necessarily have rendered the great mass of humanity “propertyless,”** and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture, both of which conditions presuppose a great increase in productive power, a high degree of its development. And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples “all at once” and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism. Moreover, the mass of propertyless workers – the utterly precarious position of labour – power on a mass scale cut off from capital or from even a limited satisfaction and, therefore, no longer merely temporarily deprived of work itself as a secure source of life – presupposes the world market through competition. The proletariat can thus only exist world-historically, just as communism, its activity, can only have a “world-historical” existence. World-historical existence of individuals means existence of individuals which is directly linked up with world history. 216.114.116.93 (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Soapbox discussion, please only add to this section with relevant discussion on improving the content of the article

Worldwide Communist revolution is not happening. Except for Venezuela, Communist states are walking or have walked away from Communism. China and North Korea are closer to fascism than to Marxism. Vietnam is working for Western Big Business. Putin might be a tyrant, but he is also a capitalist. People from the Russian Federation who take Marxism seriously risk being considered politically dangerous. Putin tolerates a socially conservative, nationalist, and imperialist Communist Party, but he does not have much use for real Marxists. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC) Why even mention Russia at length here? Nobody would think it has anything to do with communism these days. ---- Overall, this whole section merits removal per Talk guideline. Any objections? --Enyavar (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC) The point is that the conditions envisaged by the Great Reset - a mass of propertyless workers globally - is Marx's immiseration thesis made manifests and anticipates world working class revolution. 216.114.116.93 (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC) I belong to the poor people from the Dutch society, buy I'm not propertyless, and I don't blame neoliberalism for my poverty. And I can assure you that hard-working Dutchies don't want communism, even if they own little. To most poor people from the Western world, Marxist revolution is either a pipe dream or completely irrelevant (and undesirable). tgeorgescu (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Marx's point is that it doesn't *matter* what anyone in particular wants at this moment or that. From The Holy Family: "When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all, as Critical Criticism pretends to believe, because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the contrary. Since in the fully-formed proletariat the abstraction of all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is practically complete; since the conditions of life of the proletariat sum up all the conditions of life of society today in their most inhuman form; since man has lost himself in the proletariat, yet at the same time has not only gained theoretical consciousness of that loss, but through urgent, no longer removable, no longer disguisable, absolutely imperative need — the practical expression of necessity — is driven directly to revolt against this inhumanity, it follows that the proletariat can and must emancipate itself. But it cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of life of society today which are summed up in its own situation. Not in vain does it go through the stern but steeling school of labour. It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do. Its aim and historical action is visibly and irrevocably foreshadowed in its own life situation as well as in the whole organization of bourgeois society today." Now to bring this back around to the Great Reset, what did Marx say would necessitate this "absolutley imperative need"? Again, The German Ideology (written in 1846 but unpublished until 1932, and hence unavailable to Lenin and the Bolsheviks): "For it to become an intolerable power, i.e. a power against which men make a revolution, it must have necessarily rendered the great mass of humanity "propertyless" and produced, at the same time, the contradiction of an existing world of wealth and culture" "You will own nothing, you will be happy" The conditions proposed by the Great Reset are those Marx said would presage the world worker's revolution. He anticipated it 176 years ago. 216.114.116.93 (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Small Typo

Change "Acc0rding" to "According" under the conspiracy theory section. PythonicWikier (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Tying in "New Normal" with this article

Granted, both terms are different in some ways, in other instances one does indeed relate to the other, and vice versa. Can someone with the knowledge and/or wherewithal integrate "New Normal" per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_normal#COVID-19_pandemic Gizziiusa (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

Please remove the sentence at the end of this article, "Great Reset conspiracy theories were a major theme in the 2022 anti-vaccine film Died Suddenly which appeared on the Stew Peters Network channel on the Rumble website." It is not notable, in the context of this article. It's an online "movie" of no note. It has two references, but the first does not work, and the second is merely stating that it's bullshit. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The film itself appears to be a notable example of a film perpetuating the Great Reset conspiracy theory. Also, both of the references work for me. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Move some non-'conspiracy' mat'l up

The 2nd and 3rd paras and the 1st sentence of 4th para in the 'Conspiracy theories' § (from Schwab wrote through were to occur seem more appropriate for the start of the 'Key components' §. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree the 2nd and 3rd paras don't best belong in the conspiracy theories section. I think what's missing is a section for reactions/criticism where non-conspiracy-related analysis can go, rather than "key components". There's also some content in the lead which would fit in such a section. The 4th para seems to fit fine in the conspiracy section. Jr8825 • Talk 12:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

[Some steps towards meshing these thoughts:] Maybe 1) Insert a 'Background' section before 'Key components' that includes the 4th IR material and other relevant pre-GR material; 2) Rename 'Conspiracy theories' --> 'Criticisms and conspiracy theories'. We could then see about further moving material around and/or parsing. Humanengr (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

It is not adequate to simply say "debunked". If you use that term it is incumbent upon you to provide the argumentation and facts used to "debunk". To refer to opposition as "Conspiracy Theory" is far from neutral and lacks any balance in discussion of "resetting" management of the globe. Reference to Canadian right wing political pundits does not qualify their rebuttal as Conspiracy Theory particularly when one has the support of 71000 signatures. ToroTotal (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources. If reliable sources classify these false claims a conspiracy theory, so do we. (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

What metrics are used to determine if a source is reliable? 74.139.215.192 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The ones already linked above: reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Reuters, the AP and NPR have provably intentionally lied in articles. The idea there is any set of reliable source of truth in this world is misinformation in its essence. This article gives very week criticism of the WEF, which wields incredible power through ESG over the investment of 401k, property, and thus economy. That's not a conspiracy, it's intentionally buried fact. 2600:1700:A80F:841F:E12D:769D:35B2:431C (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Claims do not become "provable" by you claiming that they are. Whatever Wikipedia is based on, your opinion is definitely not it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Reuters is at the very least a conflict of interest as they have an exclusive partnership with the WEF. www.reuters.com/article/rpb-wef-davos-agenda-connect-idUSKBN29U0Y3. Also, while it might not be provable that they intentionally lied, it is absolutely provable that they have lied. I would challenge anyone to provide a media source that has never put out information that turned out to be false. In that regard, there is some merit to the idea that no source is reliable. 128.227.140.253 (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

While GR did seek to push some economic changes, they are not a cabal conspiring to rob ordinary people of their freedom. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

So, yes, GR has an agenda, but it is boring reform talks for government functionaries rather than something sinister. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@ToroTotal: This isn't about all opposition to the initiative. The part referred to as a conspiracy theory (backed up by the sources used) was specifically the claims that it would create a New World Order or something similar. The fact that 70K+ people signed it is irrelevant. I know of criticism outside of the conspiracy theory (This source mentions criticism from Erin O'Toole), though I'm not sure whether I should add it. Username⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 21:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It's well established that conspiracy theory is any opinion or set of circumstances that are inconvenient to the left. It's used as a way to devalue and censor information. How long a list of conspiracy theories that were later shown to be true would you like to be presented with? Gcburns (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Claims do not become "well established" by you claiming that they are. I would ask you to bring reliable sources, but above you made clear that you do not believe in them. Given that belief, you are clearly in the wrong place. Wikipedia is not for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Legalisim is the tacic for any argument when debating the great reset. Tie your opponent up in legalism to avoid discussion on substantive issues. Example, the question was asked, how can you say it's a conspiracy theory when discussing the great reset. For the opposite side, this is where legalism comes into play. It's a effort to detract you and the listeners from substantive issues on the reset and it's agendas. You'll be asked to define conspiracy instead of focusing on the meat of the matter. 2600:1702:2AC0:2510:6D31:C5D8:5A91:4709 (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not the definition of conspiracy which makes or breaks it, it is the lack of evidence for a vile plot. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Countering a proposal can in no way be referred to as a conspiracy theory. ToroTotal (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This kind of smear is within the standards of Wikipedia's style. Honestly, I'd be surprised if this site published critical stance on any of the globalist promotions. Expect edits away from this narrative to be met with battles, tumultuous disputes, etc. This isn't a site for the free expression of information or research into topics with political implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with the above. The article itself is pretty disingenuous - it currently reads as gibberish with no real substance to what is being proposed. The only definitive thing mentioned is a carbon tax, yet no discussion of the pros and cons of these. Not sure how a regressive tax with harms those at the bottom end of the spectrum will end up helping anyone. The article certainly doesn't explain it.198.161.4.44 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Rolls eyes Globalist is anything you people don't agree with. This isn't 4chan, you need reliable sources. 2001:BB6:7AA9:F958:E1A4:194A:D341:F958 (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"you people" typifies the quality of discourse one can expect. "A Five Point Plan for a New Globalism", by Klaus Schwab: https://fortune.com/2013/01/30/a-5-point-plan-for-a-new-globalism/ Tell me again how this isn't globalism? Honestly, at this point wikipedia is a parody of an establishment echochamber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.52.10 (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

There's been countless studies that show people who lean right get their information from a wider range of sources. That's the ironic world of misinformation you live in, it creates disingenuous self-supporting beliefs ... Not that it's new, Marxism was all over it generations ago Gcburns (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be noted what the conspiracy theory is based on. Many of the "conspiracy theorists" are citing articles on the WEF's own website such as this one https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/how-life-could-change-2030/.

Also I think describing RT explicitly as a propaganda outlet is a bit biased. Maybe change it to "Russian state media". --147.148.82.39 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @ToroTotal. The structure of the presentation is biased. Even if an opinion is considered by some as a conspiracy theory, it does not make it a subheading. The subheading should read "negative responses" and then there can be further responses to these responses. Unfortunately, I am not able to edit the structure because there is a vandalism protection. somewhere on Wikipedia says that this kind of protection would be quite brief, but it is already more than 30 hours since I saw it. Lightest (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I found this info for the information about the lock:

08:12, 21 November 2020 Johnuniq talk contribs protected The Great Reset [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 08:12, 28 November 2020) (Persistent disruptive editing) (hist) (thank) Lightest (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lightest: No reliable source I've seen disputes that it is a conspiracy theory. Per WP:YESPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. As well, not all negative responses are listed as conspiracy theories (The best example is Erin O'Toole claiming it is risky to implement a reset) The responses that are not uncontroversially conspiracy theories are currently listed at The Great Reset#Response. If you can find other responses mentioned in reliable sources, feel free to place an edit request on this page. Username⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 19:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

in WP:YESPOV you cited, I saw "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Most comments that use the term "conspiracy theory" is an opinion. Even from a reliable source, there should be a distinction between fact and opinion. In addition, when I look up the meaning of conspiracy theory, a dictionary says "a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event." So by definition, any objection of the Great Reset proposal is not categorized as a conspiracy theory. A good example of conspiracy theory is the theory about why 911 happened that was not supported by published evidence. Lightest (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lightest: Not every objection to The Great Reset is described in the article as a conspiracy theory (O'Toole's is not, Poilievre's has been argued both ways in reliable sources), but the responses described in the "Conspiracy theory" section have not been disputed as being a conspiracy theory by the reliable sources I have seen, most of which are not opinion columns or editorials (the idea that it is a conspiracy theory are asserted as fact). According to WP:YESPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Username⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 15:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to say "debunked" maybe the article should be about how the WEF DID NOT come up with a great reset plan. otherwise you are claiming a theory is debunked after stating that it's real. (96.74.207.155 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2023

General cleanup and expansion have been researching via official plans Easyrider291 (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

How come the conspiracy theory section is the biggest in the article?

Also how come there's no criticism section? The way it currently reads is that the only criticism falls under conspiracy theories. This would appear to be a poor article that needs to be reworked. 2405:DA40:5118:7700:5946:9DB3:23DB:D6D (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. This article is grossly inaccurate and misleading in the criticism against The Great Reset and Covid policy. In other words, this article is ideologically/politically biased. 184.182.82.103 (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:CITE WP:RS with rational criticism of the Great Reset. Fox News isn't rational criticism of the Great Reset. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is the Transnational Institute article filed under Conspiracy Theory?

The article is a well founded criticism of The Great Reset agenda, and it makes really good points. So I dont understand who, and why was it decided to file it under Conspiracy Theory? Criticizing it now is conspiracy theory? Do you really want to live in a world where some topics are beyond reproach? 2A03:4B80:A036:2A60:4908:12C9:E9AE:44C0 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it that. Just look at who is "criticizing": a bunch of climate-change-denying anti-science wackos who accept nothing as real except what their free market ideology predicts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I only now noticed the header. The TNI may well not belong in that section. I had thought you were talking about Delingpole, Jones, Hannity and so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I moved it to a new section. Daniel Souza (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

Does no one find it bizarre that there's no criticism section, but a large "conspiracy theory" section? Wikipedia has a credibility problem for EXACTLY this reason. Anything that dares question the narrative must be debunked as conspiracy, and only conspiracy. This undue weight suggests the GR is accepted, and not widely criticised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.28.113 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Came here to say same. Shocked, but shouldn’t be. 88.110.36.119 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

About lack of credibility: of course loons don't trust Wikipedia. Why should they? Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources, and loons have a problem with that. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Came here to say same as 1st and 3rd contributor to this talk section. Especially when there is a large “endorsement” section. Legitimate criticism still exists in this democratic world, as Klaus Schwab, the unelected head of WEF is not yet its totalitarian leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.98 (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The 1st and 3rd contributor are on opposite sides. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Forum discussion about Wikipedia editors

@Tgeorgescu Wikipedia isn't trusted precisely because it uses sources that are "trusted" by people who subscribe to the narrative pushed out by the left of center, international media. The fact people curating content for large tech firms pretend to trust certain sources (NBC,BBC,CBC,NYT,etc) doesn't make them more accurate than sources those same people choose not to trust. In many cases, "mistrusted sources" just report facts they don't like or present facts in a way that they don't agree with. The GR material itself describes what many of these "conspiracy theorists" allege verbatim and that shows in this article. 2601:19C:8101:1EB0:BC:D2EC:80D8:4611 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia does render several conservative media outlets, but not of the fringe conspiracy theories sort. In fact, in most articles about economics, Wikipedia is de facto biased for neoliberalism (Reagan, Thatcher and Bush 41). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC) This terminology, neoliberalism, of which virtually nobody self-identifies with is mostly used pejoratively by left-leaning individuals. Every time I see the use of this word it sounds like a conspiracy theory. A simpler explanation to your perceived bias in articles about economics is that historically collectivism and big government led to economical and humanitarian catastrophes so it makes sense for theory to recognize the downfalls of interventionism and advocate for free-markets despite academia being largely dominated by left-leaning individuals. This is comparing apples to oranges but to take the case of Harvard a 2022 survey shows that >80% faculty identify as liberal where less than 2% identify as conservative. It's not surprise that there's a strong left-leaning bias in a platform that is dominated by academics like Wikipedia. Sadly this means that Wikipedia isn't for all. Regardless of merit, in political topics any thought or contribution that deviates from the accepted mainstream left-leaning narrative will lead to a witch-hunt. Daniel Souza (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC) I forgot to provide the source of the survey. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/7/13/faculty-survey-political-leaning/ Daniel Souza (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You will need reliable sources for that. Do you have any? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think most criticism is dismissed as conspiracy theories. So it will be a challenge to differentiate the two. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

i mean there is there is evidence that this may be sinister

take a look https://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~ervrscay/TheGreatReset.pdf Easyrider291 (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a poor fiction wrote by bureaucrats out of touch with reality. What is sinister is how criticism is being handled and how some just expect people to accept the wiseness of the non-elected bureaucrats. Like how the WHO initially dismissed COVID as a pandemic and advised against the use of masks (respirators)... Daniel Souza (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I mean it does seem weird it seems like some sort of plan that will not go into place across the world by 2030 but who knows this may happen in a pseudo way but I think it would be stupid Easyrider291 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Should the conspiracy theory be it's own article?

I feel like this topic has become a bit confused. For example, someone earlier in the talk page (intentions unknown, but their point is actually a valid one) mentioned that there's no "criticism" section on this article, only "conspiracy theories". I feel like it'd be better if this page was dedicated to mostly rational discussion (praise and criticism, mindful of WP:DUE), based on the actual proposal, and then a "conspiracy theory" section with a sentence or two which links to another article, describing the conspiracy smoothie based on it. MarkiPoli (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

agree this article tends to downplay the substantial negative coverage Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I would agree now that the article is longer. When I created this article three years ago, neither section was long enough for its own article. ~UN6892 ^t_c 09:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that your argument that mainstream criticism needs to be separated from conspiracy theory has a lot of merit and makes a very good case for separating out a Great Reset conspiracy theory article. There is also a lot that can be added to such an article, but which would be unconstructive clutter in this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• I cleaned out a little of the unsourced stuff as well as failed verification. The section currently is decent, far from what would be needed in a standalone article. It still reads a bit like an editorial and is a bit odd where many sentences start by repeating the conspiracy theory wording again and again. Might do to summarize a bit more. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Support why not? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• I have created a draft: Draft:Great Reset conspiracy theory. Although, it is pretty hard to distinguish discussion/criticism about the actual proposal and the conspiracy theory. Just for information's sake, the conspiracy theory and the proposal itself seem to have been somewhat forgotten by now, so we would be using sources from quite a while ago. Feel free to edit to bring it up to standard for main space. MarkiPoli (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• I oppose a separate article as it creates a content fork. There is very little difference between the two bits of content, it is just a different interpretation of it. Great Reset in its original form talks about a society reset and why it is good and the Great Reset (so called conspiracy theory) talks about why the same reset it bad. Its not different enough to warrant a content fork. WP:CFORK states that "While content forks that are different page types covering the same subject are acceptable, they should not contradict each other—contradictions should be corrected or removed." This proposal doesnt address that this goes against policy. Most of the supporters of this appear to seek to move the conspiracy content off the article as it provides an alternative explanation of the article subject. This proposal thus seeks to rather than address the contradiction on the main article it seeks to whitewash the main article and move the contradictory content off to another article. This is not encyclopedic and is contrary to policy. It can more or less be summarized (to intentionally oversimplify) that "The Great Reset" is good and supported by a book and has these plans. The fork article would rather contradict this article by saying "The Great Reset" is bad (and is therefore referred to as a conspiracy theory) and has these plans (which are often misinterpreted). This is proposal is laughable when viewed in terms of our existing policies. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Support 100%. LOLHWAT (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)