Talk:Great Reset
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great Reset article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Great Reset appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 December 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 Yoninah (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- ... that a conspiracy theory claims that The Great Reset will be used to bring in a New World Order? Source: The New York Times
- ALT1:... that a petition by Canadian Member of Parliament Pierre Poilievre to stop The Great Reset reached 76,000 signatures after a conspiracy theory spread about it? Source: Toronto Star
- ALT2:... that according to the World Economic Forum, the COVID-19 pandemic has provided an opportunity to reshape the global economy, which it calls The Great Reset? Source: World Economic Forum
- Reviewed: 3rd nom
Created by Username6892 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Disclaimer, I did accept this article at AfC, but I am not a significant contributor. I c/ed the hooks to rm improper italics. I think ALT0 is best. (t · c) buidhe 05:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- This cannot go on the main page giving any kind of credence to the theory, which all the sources call "baseless". So I am adding that word to the hook:
- ALT0a: ... that a baseless conspiracy theory claims that The Great Reset will be used to bring in a New World Order? Yoninah (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Possible source
editCorona, Climate, Chronic Emergency WAR COMMUNISM IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY By ANDREAS MALM
ISBN 9781839762154
"In Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency, leading environmental thinker, Andreas Malm demands that this war-footing state should be applied on a permanent basis to the ongoing climate front line. He offers proposals on how the climate movement should use this present emergency to make that case. There can be no excuse for inaction any longer."
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/667901/corona-climate-chronic-emergency-by-andreas-malm/
Here's a book from a major publishing house which is germane to the topic. Not sure how editors would like to spin this. Thanks.
Criticism
editDoes 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)
- 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)
Forum discussion about Wikipedia editors
|
---|
|
- 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)
- 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)
Should the conspiracy theory be it's own article?
editI 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 tc 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)