Talk:Great Reset

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


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


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


 * Came here to say same as 1st and 3rd contributor to this talk section. Especially when there is a large “endorsement” section. Legitimate criticism still exists in this democratic world, as Klaus Schwab, the unelected head of WEF is not yet its totalitarian leader.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.98 (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The 1st and 3rd contributor are on opposite sides. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


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


 * You will need reliable sources for that. Do you have any? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think most criticism is dismissed as conspiracy theories. So it will be a challenge to differentiate the two. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * i mean there is there is evidence that this may be sinister
 * take a look https://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~ervrscay/TheGreatReset.pdf Easyrider291 (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a poor fiction wrote by bureaucrats out of touch with reality. What is sinister is how criticism is being handled and how some just expect people to accept the wiseness of the non-elected bureaucrats. Like how the WHO initially dismissed COVID as a pandemic and advised against the use of masks (respirators)... Daniel Souza (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I mean it does seem weird it seems like some sort of plan that will not go into place across the world by 2030 but who knows this may happen in a pseudo way but I think it would be stupid Easyrider291 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Transnational Institute article filed under Conspiracy Theory?
The article is a well founded criticism of The Great Reset agenda, and it makes really good points. So I dont understand who, and why was it decided to file it under Conspiracy Theory? Criticizing it now is conspiracy theory? Do you really want to live in a world where some topics are beyond reproach? 2A03:4B80:A036:2A60:4908:12C9:E9AE:44C0 (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources call it that. Just look at who is "criticizing": a bunch of climate-change-denying anti-science wackos who accept nothing as real except what their free market ideology predicts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I only now noticed the header. The TNI may well not belong in that section. I had thought you were talking about Delingpole, Jones, Hannity and so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved it to a new section. Daniel Souza (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Should the conspiracy theory be it's own article?
I feel like this topic has become a bit confused. For example, someone earlier in the talk page (intentions unknown, but their point is actually a valid one) mentioned that there's no "criticism" section on this article, only "conspiracy theories". I feel like it'd be better if this page was dedicated to mostly rational discussion (praise and criticism, mindful of WP:DUE), based on the actual proposal, and then a "conspiracy theory" section with a sentence or two which links to another article, describing the conspiracy smoothie based on it. MarkiPoli (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * agree this article tends to downplay the substantial negative coverage Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree now that the article is longer. When I created this article three years ago, neither section was long enough for its own article. ~ UN6892  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)