Talk:Great Reset

|topic= not specified. Available options:

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
`{{Great Reset\|topic=aa}}`	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
`{{Great Reset\|topic=crypto}}`	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
`{{Great Reset\|topic=kurd}}`	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
`{{Great Reset\|topic=mj}}`	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
`{{Great Reset\|topic=pw}}`	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
`{{Great Reset\|topic=rusukr}}`	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
`{{Great Reset\|topic=sasg}}`	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
`{{Great Reset\|topic=syria}}`	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
`{{Great Reset\|topic=uku}}`	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
`{{Great Reset\|topic=uyghur}}`	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia'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.

Articles for creation C‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 21 November 2020 by reviewer Buidhe (talk · contribs).

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

Economics C‑class Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

COVID-19 C‑class Low‑importance

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

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... 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).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Idea of Great Reset is more than 10 Years old!

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 a Chinese 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)[reply]

Conspiracy Theory

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 21:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Great idea, but to no one's surprise, the article is locked. No conspiracy there.198.161.4.44 (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 19:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 15:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2020

This edit request to The Great Reset has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

Done Username 6892 _(PR) 16:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Great Reset. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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