Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:53, 13 May 2020

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 This article is supported by the Documentary films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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.

"Disgraced" violates WP:NPOV and is a subjective opinion

RFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternal Father (talk • contribs) 09:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Eternal Father, it's a statement of fact (https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-cb-coronavirus-plandemic-judy-mikovits-conspiracy-theories-20200507-rmcmcjkfvnfbzp3swvvnl22iye-story.html). She was sacked for cause. Guy (help!) 11:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Discredited: https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-cb-coronavirus-plandemic-judy-mikovits-conspiracy-theories-20200507-rmcmcjkfvnfbzp3swvvnl22iye-story.html (actually "long-ago discredited") Guy (help!) 13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed discredited, for absolute certain. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 13:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A problem? Not huge.

As a veteran editor with huge and varied experience of wiki editing, I cannot fix what I believe is a mistake in the first reference, making it look very strange. I would pay the usual fee to anybody who can fix it, or tell me why it doesn't need fixing. Thanks. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 13:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, it's ProveIt. It is surprisingly good at decoding metadata but, in the absence of any consistent format among sources, not infallible. Guy (help!) 13:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The fee is in the place that Big Pharma leave all your cheques. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 14:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, curses, can't get to the secret drop box due to lockdown. It's all a conspiracy I tell you! Guy (help!) 14:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Further question

Is This video actually called "Plandemic", or is it a very long extract from the as yet unreleased film "Plandemic"? -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 15:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it a trailer or not?Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the title was "Plandemic (Part 1)", but it has been uploaded and reuploaded in so many forms it's hard to verify that. jps (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The version I saw was uploaded as "Plandemic (Part 1)". The website reads "Prior to the completion of the full-length documentary we'll be releasing a series of vignettes. The first installment features renowned scientist, Judy Mikovits PHD." Whether "vignette" means the whole movie in sequential parts or as Roxy said, a "long extract" is not clear. GerryDonohoe (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Contents vs. Reception

I have added a reception section; it might be an idea to relocate most of the contents section to reception since it's not a straightforward description of contents but rather analytical highlights of criticism. A short "Synopsis" would be more appropriate there. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone (or something) seems to be deleting my signature. Restored. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"Just a YouTube video"

I added an infobox based on film and it was reverted by an editor because it's "just a YouTube video". Even a video made by Peter Capaldi for a young fan which was not originally intended for public consumption gets treated the same way (From the Doctor to My Son Thomas). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC) — ZarhanFastfire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Someone or something seems to be deleting my signature. Restored. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I reverted because it is "It is claimed to be the trailer for an upcoming full-length film in Summer 2020".Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it matters: if it is a trailer, then this article will eventually become the article about the feature when it's released, and the infobox will change to reflect that release date and other information. We can change the wording for the intro to say it's "an upcoming feature" or words to that effect, including qualifications, remove the release date and running time, and indicate that the body of the article is discussing what we know of the film, which is based on its trailer. Either way an infobox is needed, IMO. For now, this video is the main focus of the article, I don't believe there is a template for 'trailers'. There's no objective reason for treating a short video of 22 minutes as a 'trailer' anyway. It's not disjointed like a trailer. A 25 minute version on the Plandemic website is called "Part 1". ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

And when (and indeed) if it becomes a film we can then then add in the film infobox. I would point out that wp:crystal really prevents us form assuming this will in fact go anywhere. Indeed I even wonder if this violates wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. Either this is a standalone video, in which case the film infobox is appropriate, or it is a trailer for an upcoming film, in which case the film infobox is also appropriate. I'm not hearing a reason why the film template should not be applied, i.e. how this would violate policy. There are articles both for upcoming films and short films. Both use the same template. Just to add most of my work on WP is on films and videos, and I've yet to see an argument (let alone a successful one) against applying a template for film in an article about a film just because it's not been released yet. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire, only if it's actually produced. See WP:CRYSTAL. Guy (help!) 15:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Where are you getting this from? Articles are made about films that are in production regularly. If this is a trailer, the film is in production. It's not crystal to say the film is in production. The infobox still applies. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Guy. Please see this article: Dune (2020 film). And if that's not enough, I suggest you have a look at all the film articles under Category:Upcoming films

The problem there is that the sole source for this being an upcoming film is the maker himself, and as this article establishes, he is hardly reliable. RS talk about the fact that it's claimed to be a trailer or whatever, or just call it a video. There are lots of sources that discuss the production and development of Dune, because it has a multi-million-dollar budget. This video was made on a budget of three Big Macs and a donut and there's nobody in the professional film press talking about its production. Guy (help!) 16:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Then we treat it as a stand alone film.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, or rather, a standalone video. Either that or I am a cinematographer... Guy (help!) 16:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Whats the difference in terms of policy?Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

None as far as I know. There's no "infobox video", all the ones I've done for Daniel Cockburn (see Metronome (film), The Impostor (hello goodbye), Nocturnal Doubling...) I did under infobox film. @Guy Of course Mikki whatsit is not "reliable" in general in the sense that he's a conspiracy theorist, but he is reliable as far as he is already a filmmaker, a cinematographer, as is made clear in the article. "Part 1" of the video already exists, and it's ridiculous to say we don't apply the appropriate template just because the feature may not get made--that could happen this year with any of the projects under Category:Upcoming films and that would have no bearing whatsoever on their status as films, albeit incomplete/unmade. We have articles for films that are lost. Your arguments keep changing: now it is special pleading based on budget. Again see From the Doctor to My Son Thomas which has zero production values, it's a brief video made by one man with his mobile phone. All I'm saying is, it's a film, we use the infobox for films. You are overcomplicating this by bringing up things that are not relevant. The infobox is an objective summary of relevant data, not a statement about quality. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire, nonetheless, film, implies more than a YouTube video, and we have no evidence that this is more than a YouTube video. Guy (help!) 17:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, cite an actual policy that makes a distinction between a film (8, 16, 33, 66 etc.) and a video (Betamax and all the rest)--these are media--or a policy that states "YouTube video" is even a thing. It's not even been made by YouTube and wouldn't matter if it were. It was originally posted to Vimeo. The platform through which a video achieves distribution is irrelevant. This is like saying a homemade comic book isn't a comic book because it wasn't made by DC or Marvel. You're not even clutching at straws anymore, you're making things up on the fly, and you have not addressed any of the arguments above which are based on policy and practice. I've given you an example of a video with no production values at all twice, but I guess You did not hear that. You're screaming WP:IDONTLIKEIT.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire, you're right, I don't like it. I don't like the original Dune, either, but I acknowledge that it's a film. Albeit a crap one. This is just a YouTube video. Guy (help!) 17:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support infobox. There is little reason to treat this article any differently than other movies that don't pan out, or even movies that were lost/misplaced. We know that the movie is getting produced and released, given the release of part 1, and presumably part 2 and so on, so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. Given that even trailers of movies get infoboxes, I don't see why Plandemic would be the exception, even though we know it's a piece of misinformation. Tutelary (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  Tutelary, yes there is, though. Most movies are made to entertain. This is propaganda. And unfortunately once the film infobox goes in, you immediately have someone from the MOS police insisting that it be classified, and "fantasy" never wins, it always ends up as "documentary" even when it's actually a crockumenatary (see, e.g., Vaxxed). Guy (help!) 17:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be wise to see how that article explains things. "Propaganda film" -> "Pseudoscience documentary", all terms that can be used in this article. Ensuring in the main body of the article that it's clear misinformation, and including an infobox are not mutually exclusive. I also don't see in that infobox what you are referring to "Fantasy". I don't really see an issue with including one if the main argument against is that "Someone from the MOS police would insist it would be classified." Disputes are a natural part of editing Misplaced Pages, and help provide a more thorough consensus. Tutelary (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Tutelary, a pseudoscience documentary is a factual programme about pseudoscience. A pseudo-documentary is a programme that looks like a documentary but is based on propaganda or delusion rather than fact. American Factory is a documentary. A documentary is factual, though it may jazz things up a bit.

"A documentary film is a non-fictional, motion picture intended to "document reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record""

This is not that. Guy (help!) 21:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

And here we get to the crux of the thing, Guy. You don't like the content. It does not matter why the movie was made. I repeat, it does not matter. Propaganda films are still films. Birth of a Nation is propaganda. Propaganda films are a thing, your personal feelings about the film are not a thing that matters. You are out of arguments. You've tried "it's not out yet", you've tried "no budget", you've tried "it's crap". None of that matters. It's a film. Films get infobox film. Cite a policy that backs up any of these objections you raise or concede that an article about a film gets a film infobox. There is no distinction between "film" and "video" for our purposes. There is no distinction between how a film reaches its audience. It's all the same. It doesn't matter if it's a load of shit. The whole point of having the article is so people can find out, from our tertiary resource, why it is a load of shit in the most efficient manner possible. You're actively working against helping us do that out of some bizarre, misguided belief that you are actually on the side of ... I don't know what. What do you think is accomplished by not having an infobox, and what great harm do you think is done by giving it one? Do you actually think it gives it some kind of WP-created legitimacy? Becuse it doesn't.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Your point about MOS police is pure fantasy. TV shows have genre in their infoboxes, films do not. And whether you like it or not, this is a documentary. Just like Farenheit 9/11 or the one about Obama made before his re-election. Some people believe everything in one and not the other, virtually nobody believes both. Documentaries are not objective. They are essays in film form. Again, you are out of arguments.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, you may not have noticed I included the Documentary Films Task Force of which I am a amember in the Project statement above when I rated the article for WP:FILM.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire, no, it's not a documentary. It's a YouTube conspiracy video. And yes it does matter. From documentary film: "A documentary film is a non-fictional, motion picture intended to "document reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record"". Compare propaganda film: "A propaganda film is a film that involves some form of propaganda. Propaganda films may be packaged in numerous ways, but are most often documentary-style productions or fictional screenplays, that are produced to convince the viewer of a specific political point or influence the opinions or behavior of the viewer, often by providing subjective content that may be deliberately misleading."

Which of those two is a better description of this video, do you think?

But this isn't even a film. It's just a YouTube video. Talking head on screen. My videos of my railway layout have higher production values!

Anyone who thinks this is in the same category as Michael Moore's polemics (which I also would not call documentaries, with the possible exception of Bowling For Columbine) is clearly missing the difference between good faith and bad-faith argument.

A category which includes both this and, say, Blue Planet, is worthless. Guy (help!) 21:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions about documentaries and propaganda films, Guy, both of which get infoboxes. They are just that and once more irrelevant. Your refusal to back up your opinions with policies or anything remotely like a consistent, logical largument is noted, but it only prolongs the inevitable. Again, it does not matter if you don't consider Moore's work "valid" according to some personal scale of quality. By the way, unlike yourself, I've seen images from the film on its website and it has real production values, it's nowhere near "talking head on a screen." Not that quality has anything whatsoever to do with genre or medium or whether it gets an infobox. I get that this thing offends you and intelligent people everywhere, but that has nothing to do with OUR POLICIES. Doggerel is poetry no matter how bad it is. Finally, you accusing me of arguing in bad faith is very ill-considered and, were I you, I'd retract that sentence. If you will not concede, stupid as it is, I will call an RfC to settle this, even though it's a waste of energy and time. You are the only person left on this page opposing this absolutely routine, non partisan, self-evidently obvious Misplaced Pages standard thing to do in an article about a film. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire, see below. Most sources do not call it a film. As in 0.14% of Google results use the term. Not every article needs an infobox, we already had that fight and the "infobox always" side, lost. Guy (help!) 22:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Include infobox Having read through the comments by Tutelary, ZarhanFastfire and others, my vote is to include an infobox for the following reasons. The infobox does not render an opinion on the content, but it makes the information about the work easier to find, digest, and talk about. It is not just a film, though arguably short, but it a film which has had a fairly large influence, and it generates discussion. After hearing about it, I looked for it on Youtube, and being the private company they took it down which is their perogative. I found it on another source, than came to Wiki to get more info. The more info the better, whether we agree or disagree with the facts (true or false) and opinions (which are opinions) depicted in the film, we should treat it as a film. I'll say this, I was suprised by the production values. Wiki should be about including information, let's make it easier for readers to get information, not decide in advance for readers which films we believe are worthy or unworthy based upon our own opinions and beliefs.

KnowsetfreeKnowsetfree (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Asking Dr. Google

• Plandemic +film: 96 hits.
• Plandemic +video: 78 hits.
• Plandemic +"conspiracy theory": 66,200 results

Most sources don't seem to use film or video. Omit the infobox. Come to think of it, we already had that fight: contested infoboxen don't get included. Guy (help!) 22:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious. According to that then, you would next argue that "Plandemic is a conspiracy theory in the form of moving images." Still waiting for that apology for accusing me of arguing in bad faith. Next, please. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire, ffs, I did not say you are arguing in bad faith, Plandemic is doing that. It is not a good faith production. It is propaganda. Guy (help!) 22:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Just because you don't need an infobox in every article does not mean you shouldn't have one in any particular article. I'm sure there are many stubs where that wouldn't be helpful. The argument is irrelevant to this article. 2. "Google" doesn't decide whether something is or is not a film or video. You are the one choosing the search and determining the range of results. "Conspiracy theory" is NOT a category for a medium, genre, etc. You are arguing that because you added the word "fresh" to a search of "Emperor bananas" and got x number of results that Emperor bananas are not bananas. Fortuituous choice of words there on my part. Your argument is completely bananas. 3. Your quotes of propaganda films and documentary entirely miss the point. Documentaries document reality from the POV of the documentary filmmaker. That's what I meant by saying "they're not objective" and nor are they supposed to be. They are essays. TBH the line between documentary and propaganda is often a fine one. Let me ask you a question: how many film / video articles have you worked on, and how many of them were documentaries? Because I get the impression you haven't worked on any. I'm not making an argument from authority here, I am just wondering. I get the impression you either don't really understand the terminology nor how this stuff works. You can't deny that a box is a box because it's open. You can't deny that a box is a box because it's all wet. It remains a box. No matter how much you hate and despite something, that doesn't change its nature. And, might I add, all those emtions are obviously clouding your judgement. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude infobox: it's indeed just a video. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

So is From the Doctor to My Son Thomas which has the infobox. Someone hasn't read the thread. Again, film and video are the same thing and this is not a valid argument. No valid argument based on policy has been presented for excluding an infobox. Arguments based on tendentious misunderstandings of terminology, ireelevant considerations related to quality and content have been presented that would have Marshall McLuhan laughing his butt off.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Not every article needs an infobox. Guy (help!) 11:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy, we've been through this. WP:OTHERSTUFF is usually invoked when someone is arguing for breaking Misplaced Pages rules, or otherwise demanding something be changed from regular ordinary every day stuff to something unusual. Typically the someone in question is pointing to an article where things have been done incorrectly, not something which is an established norm. Again, just because something does not have to be done is not an argument for why it should not be done in a given instance. We don't have to have a synopsis if we know nothing of the content. If we do, we should include it, as you would a Plot in a fiction-film. As Knowsetfree pointed out above (out of order), the infobox is there to make it easier to find basic information about the subject quickly. We don't have to have External links, but if such exist and are valid as links, there's no tenable argument against including them in an article. None. For example, the article now says which production company is behind the film (if you've looked at it, as I've pointed out before, it's not a talking head as someone called it, and wouldn't matter even if it were). These are bog standard things. I do not understand why this is so controversial to some of you. I get that you hate the content (so do I) but giving it an infobox is not doing anything to give it legitimacy or "more" notability than it already has by virtue of it having gained widespread exposure and coverage. You are doing a disservice to Misplaced Pages readers by refusing to treat this like any other topic--including other highly questionable sources such as books by UFOligists, David Icke, or all the other nutjobs out there. Seriously, I don't get where you are coming from. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, you wouldn't have any information in the article at all, which I believe some of you privately wish was true, but that ship has sailed (see nomination for deletion above which lasted less than a day).ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• I support omitting the infobox. This article should be about the conspiracy theory/propaganda that happens to be in the form a video. It is not a work of creative expression. - MrX 🖋 01:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether you think it is a form of creative expression or not is irrelevant. It's a documentary and/or propaganda film. Regardless of the truth value of the content (none), regardless of the quality (subjective). It's irrelevant. Still waiting for someone to make an argument based on policy and standard procedure on Misplaced Pages and not based on subjective feelings about the crockumentary. You can argue about whether Pluto is a planet or a planetoid, it's got nothing to do with whether it should have an infobox. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Things that "happen to be" in the form of a video are... videos, which are the same thing as films. I don't even know if this is is made on video, it's just as likely to have been made on film, but whatever. I notice the article now identifies the production company that is making this film and/or video. Does anybody care to explain how a production company makes films and videos but this isn't one? Does anyone care to make the argument that a poison apple isn't an apple while we're at this? Since some of you appear to be convinced that words mean exactly what you want them to mean, per Humpty Dumpty in the Alice books? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the video is not a film and does not qualify for a film infobox. Lowering the bar for this, or any other low-grade nutty YouTube video, by calling it "film' seems preposterous. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Include ZarhanFastfire is right. This is one of the weirder discussions I've participated on Misplaced Pages about. conspiracy theory/propaganda that happens to be in the form a video. It is not a work of creative expression is really tortured logic and plainly appealing to the writer's own desired outcome. It plainly is a video that could include an infobox. But whatever. I did laugh at the three Big Macs and a donut budget. By the way, lots of stuff since Attack of the Clones (nearly two decades ago now) has been shot on video equipment. That isn't even a standard for what is "a film" anymore. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's an actual straw poll going on, but by the looks of things, those requesting inclusion are outnumbered by those opposing -- note that WP:SPA do not qualify for straw polling purposes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment With 4 editors for (User:ZarhanFastfire, User:Bri, myself, User:Knowsetfree) and 3 editors opposing (User:MrX, User:JzG, User:K.e.coffman), there is definitely a consensus for inclusion. Note that Knowsetfree and ZarhanFastfire are definitely not single purpose accounts, due to This is because while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed. Which they are definitely not editing to showcase their favored point of view, or for purposes of promotion. Making a minimal support for an infobox in one article does not all of a sudden make the rest of their history irrelevant. Knowsetfree has been an infrequent editor for 13 years, editing a wide arrange of topics. ZarhanFastfire also does not meet this definition, as they are an active, prolific editor outside of this subject. We should assume good faith and not cast WP:ASPERSIONS on another editors. I have reverted Rhode Island Red's revert of Bri, given this consensus. If there continues to be dispute about this subject, then I recommend filing a requests for comment, drafted as a question that answers 1. whether or not it is a film and 2. whether or not it should have an infobox. Tutelary (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tutelary: 4 to 3 is not a consensus, even if we were to just count votes. Consensus does not mean majority; it's closer to a supermajority. However, the strength of arguments with respect to Misplaced Pages's policies are what matter when determining consensus. I don't believe that there is a consensus here, but if you do, you can request that an uninvolved editor assess it by posting at WP:ANRFC. - MrX 🖋 01:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I am biased given that I !voted to include an infobox, but I do believe the argument is stronger for the inclusion crowd, given that even simple Youtube videos by a popular celebrities, of 40-50 seconds in length, trailers of movies not released, and the like manage to utilize the film infobox, but a film, billed as a documentary (but is actually a propaganda documentary) somehow does not meet the criteria of using the film infobox, since it's "not a film". It's also of note that WP:NOTAVOTE does not actually link to a policy or guideline, but a supplement, of which that is used to get a clearer understanding of a particular guideline, but is not mandatory to follow. I am partial to these, as I link to WP:BRD on the regular, but again it's just another factor to consider. The reference to numbers and specific editors is a partial rebuttal to Rhode Island's revert claiming there is no consensus and to give a clearer overview to other editors when they review this subject. Tutelary (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

NPR source

Excellent source that we can use in this article, potentially. jps (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Vaccines are "a money-making enterprise that causes medical harm"

This is presented as a "conspiracist claim". But it is a fact that companies make a lot of money from vaccines. And there are many documented cases of vaccines causing harm. So I suggest to change "conspiracist claim" to "fact". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• The conspiracist claim is the last four words of the statement, not the first four. See Vaccine hesitancy. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually they claim both, and there is a lot of evidence to support both. Companies make a lot of money. A lot of kids got sick from vaccines, especially in uncontrolled tests. You are just using the word "conspiracist" to try to close down debate. We know this technique was developed by the CIA in their CointelPro work. It is not worthy of Misplaced Pages to use such a defaming/propagandist slur. Remove the word "conspiracist" please, since I cannot edit the article myself. For the same reason, the slur should be removed from the first sentence of the article. Do it. We are sick of this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk • contribs) 00:21, May 9, 2020 (UTC)

The reason why you cannot edit the article is that if you could, you would add your above opinion to it instead of sourced information. The meaning of the edit restriction is that only those people can edit who have demonstrated that they know the basics of what belongs in articles and what doesn't. Someone like that will not add your opinion for you because it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Translation: people who can back up their cheap smears with citations of journalists and internet personalities have shown they are qualified to write wikipedia articles. And someone who offers actual scientific advice based on 30 years in academic biosciences cannot.

Almost. "Journalists and internet personalities" should be replaced by "sources which have earned a reputation of fact-checking". And "someone who offers actual scientific advice based on 30 years in academic biosciences" can convince those reliable sources to publish their views, if they have any merit. (Thousands of people can offer such advice, and there is bound to be a bell curve of better and worse advice, so "I have spent 30 years in academia" is not a valid justification for "I am right". See argumentum ad verecundiam.) Then, we can quote that. We just summarize what the reliable sources say.

You will not change the way Misplaced Pages works. Maybe you should move to another website which does not have any quality control, and add your thoughts there? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Right we go with RS, not wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What are criteria whereby you determine that a source "has earned a reputation of fact-checking"? Is it someone who simply declares themselves to be a "fact-checker" like Snopes. Am I correct in thinking that wikipedia's policy is to quote such "fact-checkers" and omit the opinions of actual medical virologists (like Nobel laureate Montagnier who sequenced HIV)? Is this your definition of RS?

Hob: No I am doing it here. This is the main source for people. In these discussions you can see that you are not adhering to your own quality control and RS policies. The article claimed that "science reporters, doctors and public health experts condemned the film". I had to repeat myself 4 times before a citation appeared for this that satisfied your own RS policy. Even now, SlaterSteven appears to believe that a PhD in meteorology is a RS fror this topic. Actually, he didn't read the citation and thought that the guy was a medical doctor.

You dont appear to be listening to me. The first thing I need you to do is learn to sign your posts on Talk pages like this one. You do it by adding four Tildes at the end of your posts, like this ~~~~ -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 15:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Err I have now accepted he is a scientist, not a Doctor.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Just go and read the rules: WP:RS. Also, do not write stuff in the middle of other people's contributions (I corrected that for you), and sign your own text, as Roxy said. If you want to stay here, you have to follow the rules.

Montagnier has embraced several crazy theories, his opinion is worthless. If he would get his theories through peer review, that would change things. Determining the reliability of sources is not as simple as you think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That the virus was manipulated.

It is now a mainstream view that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab. All 17 US intelligence agancies view this as plausible. Many around the world have also concluded that the virus was manipulated, eg: Luc Montagnier Nobel laureate virologist who sequenced HIV, work that Dr Mikovits was amongst the first to follow up. The Andersen Nature paper you cite is really very very weak. It has the following logic: the ACE-2 receptor did not have the effectiveness of a spliced/engineered sequence such as we would expect in a bioweaponised virus. Therefore the virus was clearly not manipulated. Few virologists or even members of the public would accept this logic. Many techniques exist for evolving receptors sequences naturally and these would not look spliced or bind highly selectively. In the light of this, I do not think this claim qualifies as false or misleading, but rather, but its truth is not yet determined. You should remove it from the list of the false or misleading, since I cannot. - Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk • contribs) 00:27, May 9, 2020 (UTC)

Sources for "It is now a mainstream view that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab"? - MrX 🖋 00:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find a more recent report, but here's one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/04/14/the-washington-post-goes-rogue-china-lab-in-focus-of-coronavirus-outbreak/ My point is not that it is accepted as coming from a lab, but it is being discussed by British and US investigations. That's what I mean by mainstream. Another article addressing the flimsiness of the Andersen Nature study is: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/on-the-possible-origins-of-coronavirus-part-1/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC) As I write, no action has been taken to remove "That the virus was manipulated" from the list of false or misleading claims. It is Mikovits' opinion and that of many other scientists and intelligence officials, and it hence does not qualify as false or misleading. - Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

We go with what the bulk of the experts say, ], hell even Americas own spies say it was not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Good find. Read the article past the headline, which is misleading. In it the President states he has seen evidence that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab, and the intelligence source in the article is quoted as saying they have found "no intelligence that would allow the agencies to explicitly rule out the possibility" that the virus came from a lab. Therefore I suggest that you quote this and write that "at present the origin of the virus is undetermined and under investigation," (and quote this article), following this by "and differing opinions exist in the scientific community about whether the virus was manipulated". For the latter, you can cite this article: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/on-the-possible-origins-of-coronavirus-part-1/ or find another article which cites more than just the Andersen Nature study which is flawed in its logic and conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Odd them how almost everyone else from the the almost all the worlds governess (who have also got intelligence agencies) to the scientific community disagree. We go with that the bulk of experts say, per wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, also I would want a more reliable source than Donald Trump, who is, according to most if not all reliable sources, the most prolific bullshitter in modern political history. Guy (help!) 16:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was communicating with someone who did not write English natively. I'll try to be more clear for you. Here is an article which shows that both the UK and the US are researching the origin of the virus: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-uk-ambassador-to-us-backs-investigation-into-origin-2020-4?r=US&IR=T. Now to substantiate (prove) your claim you need to find RS from some of the other "governesses" of the world that states that they disagree with this, and we can then write "Governments, intelligence agencies and scientists all currently differ in their beliefs about the origin of the virus, the most common position being that we do not yet know." Or else, you remove "That the virus was manipulated" from the list of false or misleading claims attributed to Mikovits in the Synopsis. Got it? I am following your own policies here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Err that is says nothing about it being manufactured, its about China's response. And this is my last reply to you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The article states that the US, the UK and Australia are investigating the virus's origins. The article is NOT about China's response. Do you actually read anything? I am relieved you are ending your replies because none of them address the issues under concern. So who is now responsible for making changes in this article so that I can continue the discussion on these critical-to-the-world issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Me. The first thing I need you to do is learn to sign your posts on Talk pages like this one. You do it by adding four Tildes at the end of your posts, like this ~~~~ -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 15:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Effin Dog. Will do: 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC) -Tony

Great. Now, how about Colons eh! we use them to format the talk pages so that we can see who is saying what to whom. Try it, one for each indent you need, it's fun! -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"She said the international community needed to investigate the role of Chinese wet markets in the outbreak.", that is not a lab.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The BI article you linked says, and I quote, "She said the international community needed to investigate the role of Chinese wet markets in the outbreak." It pretty clearly is not talking about it being made in a lab, and even if it was just because there is an investigation of a possible cause does not mean that the cause is a likely one. Stavd3 (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Reporter Claire Spellberg suggests Zubin Damania's three-minute video. Science journalist Tara Haelle described the film as propaganda

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.

Damania's 3 minute video is a contentless splutter by a "Internet Personality" who happens to have a medical practice. His only scientific citation is to a skeptic blogger surgeon called Orac. Neither of them, nor reporter Claire Spellberg, are authorities on this topic. Are you really trying to appear this amateur? This Plandemic article is quite simply dreadful: it is illogical, smearing, unfactual, unbalanced and cites journalists and personalities who are not qualified to judge Dr Mikovits' work. Are you TRYING to appear this amateur? - Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the Damania material because the sourcing was poor, and it seems WP:UNDUE. The Haelle material should probably be removed in favor of something with a better source. That said, the film is propaganda and worse. - MrX 🖋 00:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The Misplaced Pages article in its current state IS propoganda. The film, on the other hand, contains a number of scientific assertions that are contestable but serious. Many of them have not been definitively determined one way or another. And Mikovits is highly qualified to offer her opinions up, unlike the writers of this article, or the reporters and "internet personalities" that they cite as backup for their cheap smears. Shameful. - Tony

We go with RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you do not. See my comment in the section below. I strongly suggest to remove the section "Reception" until you have found some scientists who can be quoted on the movie. You will probably find a spectrum of reactions. The opinions of amateurs and non-scientist debunkers are not relevant here. This is not "movie criticism", when we are under lock-down facing mandatory vaccination. Get your RS right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Err why would we need scientist quoted in the movie when we have them commenting about the movie? What scientist do you refer to?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. It's curious that I have to spell this out repeatedly. You have a section called "Reception" in which you claim that "Scientists and public health experts condemned the film". You do not cite any scientists and public health experts, but 2 journalists and a meteorologist blogger who write about why people believe disinformation, and what the social media giants say about why they censor Mikovits. Therefore you have no backup for your claim that "Scientists and public health experts condemned the film", so you must remove this claim.

Can we discus this in one thread?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you want. My motivation is to reach a resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Scientists and public health experts condemned the film for promoting misinformation and "a hodgepodge of conspiracy theories".

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.

I checked the 3 citations given for this claim and found (1) A CNBC article quoting Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and Vimeo executives (2) An NBC article quoting a professor who studies weaponized health communication and an academic who studies disinformation (3) A Forbes article by a climatologist musing on conspiracy theories. No biologist or public health expert was quoted and no scientific point was made in any of the 3 articles. It was all theorizing about why people believe conspiracy theories. It is shocking that you would claim from these non-experts that "scientists and public health experts condemned the film". Therefore this claim is, so far, not verified and it should be removed. It seems, that apart from Mikovits herself, there is only one biologist involved in this "effort" and it is me, so I shall continue to push you. - Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There are more than 3 cites in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

??? I refer to the 3 citations listed at the claim quoted here above. None of them is from RS, but are as I detailed above: these are journalists and "conspiracy theory theorists", not scientists. Find some scientists and public health officials who have condemned the film and cite them here or remove this claim.

Read wp:lead.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I read it. What's your point? Cite "scientists and public health officials who have condemned the film", or at least someone who cites them, or else remove this section. You are citing "disinformation theorists" and social media censors. Apparently you don't you see how ridiculous and circular your position here is.

Sorry its not in the lead, my mistake.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's OK. We all make mistakes. Just to be clear: I want this article to be good and fair, and that is my motivation. Right now this is important for people. I am unable to change it directly, so I rely on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

However my point still stands, we have a tone of sources in this article, all condemning this video, we cannot add them all to support one line.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You make a claim. You cite 3 non-RS to back it up. Remove the claim or back it up with RS. If you have have a "tone" (sic) of RS in the article which back up this claim, then list some of them after the claim. Or remove the claim.

So a doctor is not a health expert?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No medical doctor was cited in your 3 RS. Try reading your own RS. And even you find a medical doctor than believes something, that does not back up your claim that "scientists and public health experts condemned the film" as "scientist" would refer to a research virologist and "public health expert" is different from "medical doctor". Find some valid RS or remove your claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

They are not my RS, and there are now more than 3. And again, we do not have every damn source in the article added to one sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I trust Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd is medical enough for you?Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you are simply not listening to me or checking your own RS. Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd is a doctor yes. But he is a "expert in weather and climate, a meteorologist, who makes no medical claim in this so-called RS. Are you unable to distinguish between a "medical doctor" and someone with a PhD in something else? Is that really the legacy you wish to leave on this page for all to see forever? Read what I have written and provide proper RS, or remove the claim. I am checking the new citation from the Harvard Gazette to see if it meets your RS criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This IP has started the last four sections here. "I want this article to be good and fair, and that is my motivation", they say. BLP violation NPA NPA + MSM are unreliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That is correct Black Kite. The article is a biased atrociously sourced shambles. I am trying to improve it. Your point is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite. Are you responsible for simply removing my "Talk" from the Judy Mikovits page you quote above. If so, either justify this action or reinstate the deleted text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• As far as I can see your comments are still there, followed by a number of people saying how ridiculous they are. I can tell you, however, that if you do continue to attack other editors or commit further BLP violations, I will remove your ability to post here at all. Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Black Kite. A large body of text by me was deleted from the end of the https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Judy_Mikovits&diff=prev&oldid=955599835 section "This is a hastily assembled hit-job". Did you do that? How can I retrieve this text? How can I find out who has deleted it? In addition, I can no longer edit the Talk page there. Who has made this so, and how can I retrieve my ability to edit talk pages and, indeed, Misplaced Pages pages? I am not attacking editors. I am pointing our the inadequacy of their arguments, and of these two pages on Judy Mikovits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.157 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Another fact-check

In Science magazine. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/fact-checking-judy-mikovits-controversial-virologist-attacking-anthony-fauci-viral Guy (help!) 09:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to add general source material relevant to her claims for more experienced editors to examine, such as the original DOD study. from which she got her 36% figure. Is this the correct section? If so, I notice the citation appears at the bottom - should I just post links straight in without using the citation tag? GerryDonohoe (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I added the ref and had changed your post slightly to keep the ref with post. StrayBolt (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is a Google doc Debunking “Plandemic” refuting much of the movie, with references. StrayBolt (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Pro Publica interviews the filmmaker

Here's a good article by an investigative journalist, talking partly about how unbiased journalism works in general, and then trying to take the measure of Plandemic, using journalistic standards. The author succeeded in interviewing the filmmaker on this topic, with interesting results. This source may have some good information for use in the article:

• I’m an Investigative Journalist. These Are the Questions I Asked About the Viral “Plandemic” Video..

I don't presently plan to contribute to this article, so have at it, if you find it useful. Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if its an RS or not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#ProPublica Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

OK I stand corrected we can use this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, we can, though whether we should is a different matter. I am not that comfortable with the starting proposition that Plandemic might be intended as a good-faith contribution to the public health debate, as opposed to what the sources say, which is propaganda by grifters. Guy (help!) 11:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Well we can use this as a source for the fact the makers admit its propaganda.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Is that the starting position? "So a fair presentation should at least acknowledge opposing points of view. I didn’t see this in “Plandemic,”" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, yeah, maybe I am just being paranoid, but I am losing patience with the media's tendency to pretend that people arguing in bad faith are worth listening to. Guy (help!) 20:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

They are certainly being listened to or at least talked about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Disgusting biased write up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

poor wording?

I believe the following sentence: "An NIH study failed to show any benefit and an increased risk of cardiac death from taking hydroxychloroquine" was meant to say that NIH study showed an increased risk of cardiac death? Well, it says just the opposite (that it failed to show that)! Either way, the wording needs to be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.53.222.39 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It definitely didn't show the opposite. The NIH panel recommended against HQ, and it has been shown in recent clinical studies to have no benefit, in addition to increasing cardiac deaths. If anything, it might need a tweak to highlight the cardiac death risk, failure to show benefit in clinical trials, and the NIH warning against using it, along with a couple of extra references. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the IP is just noting that the sentence is ambiguous, not the studies. It could be read as "An NIH study failed to show any benefit and (failed to show) an increased risk of cardiac death." So perhaps a change to "An NIH study failed to show any benefit and instead showed an increased risk of cardiac death"? Kuru (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, go it, thanks. Sure, sounds reasonable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe "An NIH study showed no benefit and an increased risk of cardiac death". Either way. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

claim of discredited is false

there is no claim of discredidation in the Scientific field. This is obviously a very biased opinion by an opposing view. Dr. Mikovits is still highly regarded world-wide and is a readily sought after author & Scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:9906:4477:A865:DA29:B620:FE9D (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Is she, can we have an RS for the claim she is still highly regarded by her peers?Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

she is still published in ncbi.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov websites. a top medical journal site. & (I am late for an appointment but) I will research to see if she is still in Oxford's research publications...my guess is YES!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soniarosalokey (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Published and highly regarded are not synonymous, and please learn to indent and sign.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I see no evidence that she is highly regarded by anyone credible; however, there is much evidence (in WP:RS) that she is described as discredited. She has published nothing since her last CFS study in 2012 (which in part led to her downfall), so she is clearly not an active scientist. One is not "published" in PubMed -- it is simply a database of published studies akin to a library catalog; thus, the claim is akin to saying that an author whose book is on the library shelf is "published by the library" -- clearly incorrect. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Soniarosalokey, NCBI's NLM is a journal index. She's not "published" there, nobody is. Wakefield AJ also still appears there, and it would be hard to be any more discredited than him. Guy (help!) 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class film articles
• Start-Class Documentary films articles
• Documentary films task force articles
• Start-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles