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.
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 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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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]
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]
In the 2nd paragraph, there is the sentence "The video also contributed to the increasing rebellion against health protocols." This is vague and seems like it should be backed up by a credible source. Who says it contributed to the increasing rebellion? By how much did it increase? Is there an article explaining this rebellion we're referring to?
Am I wrong? I don't have a Wikipedia account or know how all of this works. Thank you. 50.237.68.146 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph is part of what we call the lede, basically the introduction to the topic. The lede itself does not require citations, as it's meant only to summarize the cited contents of the rest of the article. In this case, the citation is in the third paragraph of the release section. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good explanation. In the release section, the most relevant piece of text backing that claim up is "noting that it might have been a major contributor to the lack of compliance towards health protocols". (Emphasis added by me.) Is "might have been" enough to back that up?
If you go to the article it cites, the exact text is as follows:
"Suppose Plandemic had been released right before January 2021, or maybe a day or a week before a major public vaccination? We can now show that disinformation spread would be much harder to gatekeep due to the decentralized nature of information diffusion online, and that, consequently, a significant proportion of the public might resist public health policies. Policy makers, public health officials, and medical information gatekeepers do not yet have the appropriate tools at their disposal to combat these disinformation campaigns, as was the case with Plandemic." (Emphasis added by me.)
The authors are discussing what might have happened if Planedemic had been released at a different time. It seems like a big leap from that sentence to a blanket, apparently factual statement that it definitely "contributed to the increasing rebellion against health protocols." Even if that is just the lede, and thank you for the explanation, it doesn't seem to be sufficiently backed up by the third paragraph of the release section or the article that paragraph cites.
Again, I could be wrong; I'm just going off of what I was taught in college about citing factual claims. Thanks for your time. 67.190.168.101 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
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)