# Talk:Contagion (2011 film)

don't know how to add this or if it is worth adding to this page.
http://www.cityofevanston.org/news/2010/11/news-contagion-filming-on-lincoln-ave-dec-13/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.137.169 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC) 

Sorry if this is out of order.  Under the plot I changed the casino from Hong Kong to Macau.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acsmith3 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC) 

Don't put spoilers in opening paragraph?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.203.237 (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC) 

Achoos of Death Are Film’s Scourge
A Virus Movie Determined to Get Real
Is 'Contagion' Fact or Fiction?
The smart science of "Contagion"
'Contagion' created a crew of germaphobes
Soderbergh's virus thriller 'Contagion' sweeps Venice
Word of Mouth: 'Contagion' could really catch on
Steven Soderbergh talks 'Contagion,' George Clooney Dropping out of 'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.' and the Lingering Mysteries of 'Oceans 12'
A-listers not spared in pandemic film "Contagion"
CS Interview: Contagion Writer Scott Z. Burns
Reference to use. Please add more! Erik (talk | contribs) 15:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A "Scientific accuracy" section would be a good addition too. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone got anything on how the crtitics thoguht of this movie? Happymeal33 (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a brief "Critical reception" section referencing Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The plot synopsis was obviously written from the trailers and relfects ver litttle of the actual movie.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.241.174 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC) 

Have you seen the film yet? Go ahead and update it! I have not seen the film, otherwise I would flesh it out more. Some guidelines for writing film plot summaries can be seen at WP:FILMPLOT. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen the movie and won't see it any time soon. I keep checking the article, because I am curious about one thing: how does it end? Is the disease contained? Is a cure found? Or does it ravage the globe infecting (nearly) every one? Do some infected survive? Are some people immune? Or does the movie keep the end open? I'd assume some one who saw the movie could reveal this. CuriousOliver (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I just watched the movie. Do no read any further if you don't want any spoiler. Scientists tried out different vaccines and eventually there was one particular vaccine that worked - vaccine #57. The monkey injected with that vaccine survived. The character played by Winslet then injected herself with the vaccine and went to visit her infected father to test it out. The vaccines were then produced in large amount but then again it would take months to get approval from the authority, let alone to be distributed. 07 Matthew (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the synopsis should remain in the article.  When I'm looking for a movie to watch, I just want to read a few lines about it -- not a few paragraphs, as is detailed in the plot.  Here is the synopsis as it was on 11/September:

Synopsis Contagion follows the rapid progress of a lethal indirect contact transmission virus (fomite transmission)  that kills within days. As the fast-moving pandemic grows, the worldwide medical community races to find a cure and control the panic that spreads faster than the virus itself. As the virus spreads around the world, ordinary people struggle to survive in a society coming apart. Sliceofmiami (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this. Sometimes I just want to read what the movie is about without revealing too much spoilers.07 Matthew (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where there are three references for a single indisputable sentence in the "Synopsis" section, but I retrieved a synopsis draft from a pre-release revision of the article and included it in the lead section to provide more of an overview of the film. I included some other information as well. After all, the lead section is a summary of the article body, so we can mention the plot concisely and save the specific spoilers for the plot summary section. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Eric, your plot synopsis is wrong.  I added the references because the original plot synopsis was wrong.  It is not an "airborne virus". Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Eric, why are you opposed to having a section titled Synopsis?  I prefer the section approach (that you now changed twice). Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My name's Erik. I was including the previous synopsis draft because it was not using the ugly presentation of references that existed before. We can use the correct terminology but we don't have to use references unrelated to the film. That can constitute original research. If the film describes it as "a lethal indirect contact transmission virus", then we can go with that. The Los Angeles Times reference did not really give a specific description, and we should not use unrelated scientific references either per WP:FILMSCI. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Two references were the exact same. One reference just reprinted the Los Angeles Times article, so it's unnecessary to have two. The other one was about science in general, not about science in the film itself. We need to use sources that talk about both science and film. We can't extract information from non-film sources to talk about science as depicted in film. See WP:FILMSCI. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Then fix it correctly, however you want Erik, but don't keep putting incorrect information in the article.  And reverting referenced material?  That just seems unsportmanlike, Erik. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it to be correct. Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for getting my name right! :) There were three references being used, when only one was valid to be used. I formatted it to be consistent with the other references since the previous formatting was not showing well in the "References" section. Are you okay with the way the lead section is now? We should probably have a "Scientific accuracy" section that can explain the science of the virus better, and we can mention highlights from that section in the lead section. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Just letting everyone know I made a minor wording edit concerning the Alan Krumwiede character to reflect the fact that he's specifically a blogger and not a journalist. In the first ten minute of the movie he's seen trying to convince journalists to run his story to no avail. at several intervals he's snubbed off and disregarded as a mere blogger. all in all I think the movie makes the point that his unedited blogging is not journalism and exacerbates the fictional outbreak.
Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


### Madcoverboy revisions
I did a fairly thorough re-write of the plot synopsis to clean out some tangential details and fill in the gaps about some missing subplots. User:Erik expressed concerns on my talk that the summary is too long per WP:FILMPLOT. I agree in principle, but I'm having trouble condensing the summary. I believe that this film falls under the exemption to the 400-700 word limit given its "unconventional" and "complicated" storyline. I welcome other editors' suggestions and revisions on how to further summarize. Regarding comments made in the previous discussion, I would remind editors about WP:SPOILER: "Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." Madcoverboy (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for trying! I think the challenge is that when one goes by (major) scene, it is difficult to have a high-level summary. Obviously, the official synopsis released by the studio is a truly high-level summary. I guess that when we introduce characters, we feel compelled to follow their paths scene by scene until the end. However, a plot summary's role is to provide context for the article. We do not need to go through all these scenes for the reader to understand the rest of the article. Per WP:PLOT, it really needs to be a concise portion of the article body. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

From the synopsis (I haven't seen the movie and probably won't get around to it) and trailers, I'm vaguely reminded of Outbreak, the 1995 film. Of course there are quite a few differences, but still the idea of a deadly virus that kills quickly.--Dramartistic (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a good observation! The New York Times article "Achoos of Death Are Film’s Scourge" says, "The most recent heyday in the United States for calamity films appears to have been the late 1990s, before the terror attacks and a series of wars took their toll. Pictures like 'Armageddon,' 'Deep Impact,' 'Volcano,' 'Twister,' 'Dante’s Peak' and the disease thriller 'Outbreak' all belonged to that somewhat rosier era." Do you think it's worth mentioning Outbreak somewhere? Or create a "See also" section linking to it? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
There was a movie from the 70s or 80s, some kind of deadly virus that killed everyone but a baby and a drunk.  I cannot remember the name of it, but it reminded me of this movie. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
was the movie called The Adromandian Strain? There was also a recent mini-series too. But im not sure if it was a virus and not some kind of bio-nanomachine because of the grey matter'esque (the fear that nanomachines will reproduct and consume everything till it becomes grey goo) properties of it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.0.10 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC) 

I'm not sure how to add sub plots per Wiki guidelines.  I thought I'd express them here to start.


### Infidelity - wife cheating on the spouse subplot?
I wanted to mention the wife cheating on the spouse subplot going on.  I found it interesting, that if she were not cheating on her spouse, she would likely have made it home with no issues, and her natural son would not have died.  As it was, Paltrow & her son both die, but her second husband and his natural daughter live.  The movie ends with the husband's wedding ring in center film, husband looking at pictures of his wife in a place she shouldn't have been (a casino, where she made contact with her boyfriend), a picture specifically of when she gets infected (the cook), and U2 singing "All I want is you" in the background.  If anyone comes across articles that reference this subplot, please add it. Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems infidelity may be a front plot for Paltrow, although I'm not sure how to apply this to the article, or if it does.  "Gwyneth is at it again by trying to convince us that infidelity is a normal part of marriage" Sliceofmiami (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the plot, but my impression was that she picked up the virus in the casino, then passed it to her boyfriend in Chicago. So, either way she was going to pass it to her son and die. Being at the casino was just part of the trip, not a place she should not have been in.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.207.249.162 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC) 

No, you are correct. She passed the virus to her old boyfriend in Chicago, as well as to several others who were in contact with her or items she touched in the casino. --71.38.172.171 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


### Tweeter followings, and "internet lie" concepts
One of the characters has 14 million tweeter followers.  He claims that those followers will refuse to take a drug, and in the end someone (or all of them?) post bail for him.  The government either tries to defame him by saying he lied about having the disease, or has truly figured out that he never had the disease. I'm not sure how important this is to the whole story line, I fell asleep twice in the movie. I'll try to do more research when additional reviews come out.  Sliceofmiami (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In the real world it's called "Twitter", with the messages called "tweets".  I don't know what it's called in the movie.  The movie could have taken the opportunity to call the followers "twits".... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Sliceofmiami, plot summaries exist in Wikipedia articles to serve as context for coverage from secondary sources about the topic. We provide the summaries so readers have an idea of what the film is about, but the main focus is on the real-world coverage, for example talking about the film's reception. So in-universe information is secondary as a complementary element. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Eric, how do the identified "sub plots" relate to your response about in-universe or real-universe information?  I think your post says that plot summaries don't belong in Wiki (or belong only as secondary information)?   Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It's Erik.... see the policy at WP:PLOT: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." So in that light, a summary is important in that it should help understand coverage from secondary sources. So it is in a way secondary. A summary is not intended to be by itself. So if you had an article with nothing but 700 words of describing the plot, that's not the right approach. The summary should be proportionate to the rest of the article. For example, at Changeling (film), the summary is a small portion of the whole article. WP:FILMPLOT explains a little more. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I found the whole movie to be a bunch of government knows best propaganda. The government doesn't work that hard to protect the public interest (to protect their own interests yes, but not the public interest). If you want a good example of how hard the government works for you look how hard the USPS works when they lose your package.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.88.189 (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Erik, why did you remove the link to Rotten Tomatoes that went directly to Contagion? Sliceofmiami (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? I added the Rotten Tomatoes passage to the article, and I never removed the Rotten Tomatoes link from the "External links" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I might know what you mean. We do not include user ratings because they are subject to demographic skew and vote stacking. See MOS:FILM#Critical response: "Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used. Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Is that what you are referring to? That is why I included the CinemaScore grade in the "Box office" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, that was the second part.  The first part was I added a link directly to the Rotten Tomatoes Contagion site which you removed, along with the date (instead of "To date, review aggregator...", to actually post a real date, "As of 11/September, review aggregator...").  Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
My bad, Erik, you didn't remove it.  The link was just pushed back to a later part of the paragraph. Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see it now! :) It's because we do not need to add a footnote after every sentence. We only do that if we go back and forth between references. As for the date, I guess I was thinking that every time we update it, we would have to change both the date in the sentence and the "accessdate" field in the reference. Do you think it's needed to mention the actual date in the article? I guess we can do that, it just feels like one more thing to worry about. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you mean about the "double date" thing... but when reading the article, it renders a more accurate reading.  For example, ten years from now most contributors will be thinking about Contagion the movie, but some "old movie" buff might go through and read the article.  When he reads, "To date" -- he then has to figure out when "to date" was.  If he reads, "As of September 2011..." at least he gets an idea that the article is dated. I think at least having the month and year is important, the day is less important.  Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
In a couple of months, Rotten Tomatoes will have gathered all the reviews, so when I reference it for older films, I do not do "To date" or a specific date. The score is set in stone. It's more relevant now because the information is still changing, especially everyday. But we can do a specific date for now. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay for now.  I think in a couple of months, it would be appropriate to say, "In 2011, blah blah blah".  Why? Wikipedia isn't a printed record where a reader knows the print circulation date.  Instead, it is a dynamic product, just like the Rotten Tomatoes database.  If RT does change for whatever reason, and Contagion_(film) does not have a date in the reference, they could be out of sync with one another.  Since this kind of statistic could (in theory) change, it would be appropriate to at least identify the year. In contrast, it would never be appropriate to identify, "To date, blah blah blah" as the article did read, since a reader is left to wonder -- "to what date?"  Sliceofmiami (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sliceofmiami, do you want to work together on a "Scientific accuracy" section? We can try to explain more about how the filmmakers tried to get the science right, and see if there are any scientists that had a problem with it. We could explain the virus in the film a little more, using sources like what's listed above. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Now this sounds of special interest to me as well as fun, and will also result in an enhanced article.  Do you have any examples of how this might look and still be in compliance with Wiki standards?  Sliceofmiami (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I cannot think of any good examples off the top of my head. There is an example at Limitless#Scientific accuracy, but it did not get that much scientific coverage compared to this film. I was thinking that we could move from "Production" the sentence about who Soderbergh worked with into a "Scientific accuracy" section. We could basically say who the filmmakers worked with, and what these experts say about making the science accurate (like why this particular virus and not another), and maybe see if there are any independent experts (as in they did not work on the film) who also agree with the science or perhaps disagree with it. Typing contagion science into Google and choosing the past week will show a lot of scientific articles. We can also choose Google News Search with the same keywords. When using sources, we should be conscious of not sounding too promotional. Sometimes people will say "we chose this design because it will make a great movie", but we should look for the why, like "we chose this design because it spreads at a pace that fits the film's narrative", like not too fast or not too slow. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this film deserves such a section as it is, in my opinion, a unique example of a scientifically literate film. At least point readers to some of the scientific topics mentioned in the film, like Paramyxovirus, or perhaps the virus on which MEV-1 is based, Nipah virus         ndufour
Hi there, I'm new here, and this is my first time participating in a discussion, so please forgive me if I commit any faux pas. Sliceofmiami, you may be interested in this article on Medscape: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/749482 It's a review of the film by Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert. He praises the film for getting the science right. To view the article, you have to create a free log-in on Medscape, but I was able to view the article without logging in by clicking on it through Google (just paste the url into Google, search, and then click on the first hit.)Dustinlull (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been reading so much about the science in Contagion this weekend, so I went ahead and added a section. I hope you all (the editors monitoring this section) don't mind. This is my first wikipedia edit of any significance, so go easy on me.  :-)Dustinlull (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It's great! Thanks for adding. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
i wonder if the filmmakers had the world of warcraft epidemic incident in mind when they made this? for now, thats the closest we have to an actual "worldwide" epidemic. KRISHANKO (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
A "worldwide epidemic" is called pandemic. We have several ongoing right now. Polio is still making the rounds in the wild, though it is currently not at pandemic levels, that changes when certain pilgrimages are made. We have HIV infection, which is pandemic. The Spanish Influenza pandemic comes to mind, though not in living memory of most readers here, it was a massive pandemic with a massive impact on society. World of Warcraft virus isn't a real world example, as biological agents don't spread by computer.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that its OBVIOUS. yet its a fact the WOW "pandemic" has been used by scientists to study reactions on a real world pandemic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6951918.stm?lsm).KRISHANKO (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

An earlier version of the wikipedia entry plot outline included sections after the airport retreat of Dr. Orantes, so it appears that parts of the plot description may have been accidentally deleted or are currently being worked on...
However, in the earlier version, there was a description of a scene in a laboratory and specifically Dr. Hextall describing the virus to Dr. Cheever as a variant of a paramyxovirus. If this returns to the plot description, a link should be provided to the wikipedia entry [[1]]. Relating to scientific accuracy, the Nipah virus [[2]]specifically reads like the zoonotic transmission that ends the movie (ie, Day 1). The Nipah virus  is included in the viral family Paramyxoviridae...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5amuel (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC) 

The premise of the movie is similar to that of The Andromeda Strain. Somewhat different take on it,
though, in that a full scale epidemic is averted by chance in The Andromeda Strain. --71.38.172.171 (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

From reading about the 1995 novel at Wikipedia and at Amazon [[3]], there doesn't seem to be any connection.  Anybody know if there is one?  Or is the name just a coincidence? Paulburnett (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just a coincidence. After all, "contagion" means "the communication of disease by direct or indirect contact". Erik (talk | contribs) 15:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Themes" section suggests that the movie is set against "the contemporary backdrop of anti-government Tea Party movement in the United States" and cites a NYTimes article. I've seen the movie and I didn't notice any references, explicit or otherwise, to the Tea Party movement. Also, having read the cited article, the author's reference to the Tea Party seems offhand. I'd suggest removing the Tea Party reference unless someone can better explain how the movie refers to it. MaxVeers (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Policy mentions Dargis's observation. Maybe we could make it more general, like being against big government, without mentioning the specific movement? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Both of those articles suggest that it takes a pro-government stance, so I assume that's what you mean? Swarm u / t 20:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, that the film is in response to the anti-government stance by being pro-government in the experts' capabilities. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Then yeah, I agree that we could make the wording more general and use both articles as sources. Swarm u / t 21:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I created the page Meningoencephalitis Virus One with details and information about the virus and how it works, I'm not sure if the two articles should be merged because someone who has a better understanding of a viral outbreak such as the one in Contagion could add to the page.
Astrel (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge it is unsourced and not notable beyond this film, there really is no need for a separate article. (Emperor (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC))
Condense and merge This content is in-universe and isn't terribly helpful for either understanding the movie or the nature of viral contagion. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Merge It belongs in this article, where people would look for it. Contagion doesn't have a big enough universe to warrant in-universe spin-off articles. Angryapathy (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Merge I agree with merging into the film's page.Dustinlull (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Merged (Selective paste merger). This barely even warranted a discussion. Still needs trimming though. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Any chance well get one? Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful, as the movie is about a disease that, in the end, had a vaccine to prevent its spread.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In the final Plot paragraph, there is reference made to "Emhoff's mining corporation". Is this a corporation that's owned by one of the Emhoffs (which one?), or that one of the Emhoffs works for (in which case it's probably Beth). This really needs to be clarified here and/or introduced with a word or three in the first paragraph. It might be best to make them "Mitch" and "Beth", once introduced, to avoid confusion. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed the final plot paragraph to match your suggestion. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Not "owned" but associated with Beth, andI have copy-edited that paragraph to clarify this further. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 19:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The end of the plot summary currently states that the chef who handled the infected pig transmitted the virus to Emhoff, thereby making her patient zero. But technically why wouldn't the chef be patient zero? I understand from the audience's perspective that she's patient zero, but for what it's worth, from the bio-medical perspective /within the film/ he would be the original animal-to-human transmitter. Flagging, but haven't changed anything in the entry. Thanks, Eric  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eroston (talk • contribs) 16:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC) 

I don't think the plot summary is too long. 
If you want a plot summary to decide what to watch on TV tonight, then it's too long. 
But there are many people who are, for example, scientists or journalists, or students writing a paper, who will come here to find out more about a move that among other things was a successful educational effort to explain the science behind an emerging virus epidemic. I came here because I wanted to compare the movie to the actual Ebola epidemic. I saw the movie, but I wanted to refresh my memory. It's useful to have a movie as a frame of reference for explaining technical details to people. For example, just as the movie predicted, bats are a likely reservoir for the Ebola virus. There are a lot of details that are really important to the virology insiders. If you don't understand the science very well, you'll spoil it for those who do. 
Please don't shorten it. You would destroy the article's main value for people like me. http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=854 
If I don't see any objections here after a while, I'll remove the tag from the plot summary. --Nbauman (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Per policy, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." This means that the concise summary complements independent coverage of the fictional work—basically, understanding what the work is about before reading what is said about it. The encyclopedia is not a place to get a blow-by-blow summary of the film. The consensus is to have film articles' plot summaries be between 400 and 700 words. Currently, the word count is 1,027. So it definitely needs to be shortened to meet encyclopedic criteria. For what it's worth, websites like themoviespoiler.com provide more detail on a level that is not appropriate here: Contagion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know about themoviespoiler.com before, and it has an impressive amount of detail.
But they're not always too accurate. For example, they refer to the "R-not number", which I assume is the R-0 (naught) number. In contrast, we have PhD scientists editing Wikipedia.
Sometimes I'll read, say, Science magazine, and they'll refer to a film to make a point. I can't or don't want to see the film, but I want to get enough of a summary to understand the point they're making. 700 words may not be enough for that purpose.
As Madcoverboy pointed out above, WP:FILMPLOT says:
Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)
I think Contagion's plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. I'm discussing it with other editors. --Nbauman (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I posted a neutral notification at WT:FILM. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment The plot summary is not there to support PhD research, since the vast majority of readers won't really care about the scientific details. It is there to support the real-world coverage of the article i.e. casting decisions, discussion of the themes, to provide a context for the critical analysis etc. If the length of the plot summary cannot adequately do this within the specified 400–700 word range than that is a legitimate argument for setting the guideline to one side, but those types of decisions need to be justified in relation to the rest of the article, not to what somebody has written elsewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:FILMPLOT, this plot is too long. It needs to be cut down by about 300 words. Completely agree with Betty and her rationale. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree it is fine as it is. WP:FILMPLOT also says "The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range" and the second is the case here. The plot deals with scientific/medical concepts that need more explanation than the average romcom or crime film plot. Or perhaps these could be put in their own section, to make everybody happy; this is probably the ideal solution.  Note also the box at the top of the MOS page - these things are not written in stone. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
We can reference the primary source (the film) in two ways. One way is to reference it to concisely summarize the plot per policy. The other way is to expand on primary-source detail in the rest of the article body where applicable. For example, sometimes cast lists provide some detail about the character so the ensuing independent commentary makes sense. That can and should be done here whenever independent commentary is cited. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Betty Logan and WP:FILMPLOT, this film is notable in large part because it was discussed and reviewed in many WP:RSs in the scientific literature, and they still write about it, so a significant part of its audience (and editors for this story) were scientists. They want to know what's going on and they may not have time to get the movie. It's very important to them and it's not very important to you. Why do you want to spoil it for them? Could you please address that objection? --Nbauman (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe I already have addressed that objection. WP:PLOTONLY states "A summary should facilitate substantial coverage of the work's real-world development, reception, and significance" i.e. what we include or exclude from the plot summary depends on what else we cover in the article. This gives us a simple rule of thumb: if adding overly-specific details to the plot summary does not increase our understanding of the other sections of the article then we do not need to do it; if cutting overly-specific details from the summary decreases our understanding of the other sections then we shouldn't do it. There is no point dumping a load of scientific details into the plot summary if they are not addressed elsewhere in the article. If this film has had scientific implications which have received significant coverage in journals then it seems to me the correct approach would be to be summarise the coverage in the themes section, or a "scientific impact" section and then refine the plot to the appropriate level of detail. And finally: this article received 100,000 hits over the last couple of months, most of which are probably not scientists; we write for the general reader, not for someone highly educated in a specialised area! Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, what else we covered in the article includes scientific accuracy, and there is a section on scientific accuracy. The introduction also discusses the scientific accuracy and experts, including the WHO, Lipkin, Brilliant and the note that "It was also well received by scientists, who praised its accuracy." I read the plot summary again carefully and every detail in there relates to important issues that scientists or informed laymen would recognize, such as the bats or the ethical dilemmas of treating epidemics. It's a very condensed overview of important issues in virology. The plot summary supports the Scientific Accuracy section by giving examples of what the Scientific Accuracy section is referring to. We don't write (only) for the scientists, but we do write for the educated layman, and there's nothing in there that an educated layman couldn't understand. (An educated layman can read it, but it would take a fair level of virology to edit it and not make mistakes.) The reason it got 100,000 hits is probably because people thought of it because of the Ebola epidemic. And the plot summary does describe an incident that has an uncanny similarity to the Ebola epidemic. If you start deleting things, you'll destroy that. Does that answer your objections? --Nbauman (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Not really, no. The scientific accuracy section only discusses the actual science in very general terms, so it wouldn't affect the understanding of the rest of the article if we trimmed some of the overt scientific detail from the plot summary. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The article got a GA rating on 13 July 2012. At that time the summary was also over 700 words. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contagion_%28film%29&oldid=502181120 A lot of WP editors reviewed it for GA and thought the length was OK. Erik, could you please address that? --Nbauman (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
A Good Article candidate is reviewed by one editor, and judging from the GA assessment, the editor may not have been aware of the film plot guidelines or even the film guidelines in general. This does not set the plot summary in stone. Anyway, a plot summary is not meant to substitute watching the film, so special treatment cannot be given to those who want to do that. Per policy, we need to provide readers a concise summary of the film to basically comprehend what the rest of the article is going to detail. It should also be noted that per WP:PSTS, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Plot summaries should be written for laypersons and should not get too specialist in language. However, this does not mean the plot summary section is the only time that the primary source can be referenced. The primary source can also be referenced alongside independent commentary elsewhere in the article body. For example, if a commentator is discussing an element, we can state what happened in the film to put that commentary into context. Scientists would benefit from that combination -- learning what happens in the film and what the cited scientist said about it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Why should the limit be 700 words? Why not 500 words? Or 900 words? Or 1,000 words? Was that number handed down from God? Or was there a reason for it? --Nbauman (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
700 words is approximately one side of A4, written in a 12-point font with single line spacing. The principle is that no-one should have to read an essay to get a basic outline of the story. Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Is that actually the reason WP:MOSFILM gave for the 700-word limit? --Nbauman (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This is something that could actually happen. It is not something that is only  plausible in a future time. There have been outbreaks that caused millions of deaths in history such as the Black Plague and the Spanish Flu. Targje (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
50.82.14.181 (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Well, the science fiction genre was on the IMDb, and it was removed.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Contagion (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/09/14/140464792/cdc-basks-in-contagions-admiring-take-on-disease-detectives
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Contagion (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309030211/http://newssun.suntimes.com/news/2247024-418/monday-amstutz-helicopters-closed-contagion.html to http://newssun.suntimes.com/news/2247024-418/monday-amstutz-helicopters-closed-contagion.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303043050/http://blogs.ajc.com/the-buzz/2011/01/06/matt-damon-jude-law-movie-contagion-filming-at-cdc/ to http://blogs.ajc.com/the-buzz/2011/01/06/matt-damon-jude-law-movie-contagion-filming-at-cdc/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding this, I think we should remove the final paragraph for the following reasons:

It's excessive detail. There is no need to exhaustively list the sequence of bulldozer, palm tree, bat, banana, pig, etc in this summary, nor other superfluous details (the chef "simply" wipes his hands on his apron, etc).
This sequence doesn't explain anything important for the plot - it's more like an "if you were curious" epilogue than a plot point. The summary already explains that the virus developed from pig and bat cells and that Beth was the index case. The article should only summarise the most important elements of the plot and this scene, while interesting and fun to watch in the movie, is not important to understanding the movie plot.
The placement of this information means we have to start describing the editing of the film to shoehorn it into the summary ("in the final scene, the source of the virus is revealed"). This adds extra cost to including it (might be justifiable in other circumstances, but it's not worth it here).
I know that since I rewrote the rest of the summary it's now under the WP:FILMPLOT wordcount of 700 words, but that isn't license to include extra things if we don't need them - we must only include things we need. Popcornfud (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Doesn't explain anything important for the plot" - this statement is very subjective. The whole plot happens because this event takes place. If it provided nothing to the plot, it wouldn't have been included in the film. The stylistic choice of the wording that you point out can easily be fixed. Later on in the article: "The chain of contagion involving bats and pigs is reminiscent of the trail of the Nipah virus (which infects cells in the respiratory and nervous systems, the same cells as the virus in the movie) that originated in Malaysia in 1997, which similarly involved the disturbance of a bat colony by deforestation.[25]" This final section in the plot also helps to contextualize this. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
this statement is very subjective well yes, of course as editors we have to make judgement calls about what is and isn't important in articles. I've made my arguments.
If it provided nothing to the plot, it wouldn't have been included in the film. This is specious reasoning. Films are made of hundreds or thousands of scenes, each of them included in the film for different reasons, and obviously we don't include all of them. We summarise only what's critical for plot comprehension. We don't include the subplot about the daughter's romance with the neighbour either (with her prom dance etc). More judgement calls. Popcornfud (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Not comparable. The daughter is already a very minor part of the overall film so it’s only reasonable not to include that. The virus, its origin and its origin in the index case were several major facets in the plot of the film which warrants the inclusion of this reveal. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's not comparable - my point there is that arguing that these things are subjective or that "it's in the film therefore it matters" are dead ends. The only discussion to be had here is whether this particular sequence is relevant - about which so far you're only saying stuff like "these were major facets", which is not really an argument - why are these major facets?
I mean we're spending like 100 words on this sequence, which is poor value for money from a copyediting perspective. If I were to include this sequence I would reduce it to a single sentence, something like "The virus spreads to a pig from a piece of banana dropped by a bat; the pig is slaughtered and prepared in a restaurant by a chef who shakes hands with Beth". (That's not perfect but you hopefully get the picture). But all that's really saying is "the virus is spread from pigs and bats to Beth", which the summary already tells us earlier. Nothing is changed in the plot (ie the sequence of events in the story) by this information. Popcornfud (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
They're major facets because it is what the whole movie is about, unlike the daughter's relationship with the boy. What I meant by "If it provided nothing to the plot, it wouldn't have been included in the film" is that the film could've easily ended where it did without showing the last scene, therefore the filmmakers deemed that showing how the index case came about was very important (and why? Because it had been a major plot point in the film unlike "fillers", for lack of a better term, such as the scene you pointed out). Anyway, I agree that the amount of wording used to describe this was probably too much. Your new wording is fair, thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 01:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Howdy.  Saw all of this after you two reached a compromise and I come and go in long stretches anyway so I'm not sure what my opinion is really worth.  But Imma give it anyway so... I agree with Popcornfud that the sequence is not necessary based on what we need from plot summaries in film articles; their entire existence is meant to support the real world info in the other sections of the article.  But the compromise wording is succinct so I don't think it harms the article to leave it.  I modified what you put in to trim it down some more; for our purposes all that's really important about it is revealing that the scene definitively shows the zoonotic tranmission to Beth via the chef. We do cover it earlier in the summary, but I can see an argument to be made for this clarifying/reiterating that fact, much in the same way that the scene itself does in the actual film. If you see what I mean.  Millahnna (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I dropped a short note at the film project to ask if anyone else wanted to weigh in.  I figured a couple more sets of eyeballs might help pin the whole thing down.  You can see it here, if you like.  Millahnna (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
There is an objective way to decide whether content belongs in the summary. We must follow Wikipedia policies, including WP:WEIGHT:
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
If multiple reviewers cite this content, that shows that it's important enough to belong in the article. We don't depend on an individual Wikipedia editor, who may or may not understand the movie, saying, "I just feel that this isn't important." We depend on a consensus of published sources deciding that it's important.
(In contrast, WP:FILMPLOT is a guideline, not a policy:
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.... Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range ... unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.)
This is not simply an entertainment film; one of its stated purposes was to educate people about emerging diseases, and to be accurate, which is why the film had a team of scientific advisers.
In the sequence we're talking about, Beth Emhoff's corporation disrupts the environment by bulldozing the trees for a plantation, driving the bats into closer contact with human activities, a bat transmits virus to a pig by dropping a piece of banana, the pig eats the banana, the pig is transported to a restaurant, the chef is exposed to the virus, and the chef transmits the virus to Beth.
I first heard essentially the same story at Rockefeller University in (I think) the 1990s, at a lecture on emerging diseases. That's where new viral epidemics come from. Biology professors and science journalists have been citing this move as a teaching example. This scene is regularly cited by reviewers, especially the more science-minded reviewers, like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P6nrjciiS0 which establishes WP:WEIGHT.
I agree with User:Vaselineeeeeeee. It's not a throwaway scene, it's an essential part of the movie plot. In The Iliad, the judgment of Paris was the cause of the Trojan war. In Contagion, the environmental destruction is, according to a lot of reviewers, the "original sin" that led to the epidemic. Any biologist would understand this. If you saw Contagion, it should have taught you that this is an essential part of the plot.
Here's another example from viral biology. During the AIDS crisis, before we understood the role of the virus, I heard a lecture by a doctor and heard for the first time that AIDS was transmitted by "receptive anal intercourse." (Newspapers like the New York Times used to euphemize it to "homosexual sex.") Suppose you were summarizing a movie about AIDS, but you deleted the reference to receptive anal intercourse. That would miss the point as much as deleting this explanation of environmental destruction causing the epidemic. --Nbauman (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
That all sounds like your own personal estimation of how important such-and-such is in the film. Statements like If you saw Contagion, it should have taught you that this is an essential part of the plot. are circular: this amounts to "Any idiot can see this is correct", which is not an argument. We go by WP:FILM guidelines unless there is clear consensus to make an exception. Popcornfud (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT is a WP policy, not my personal estimation. The scene is repeatedly mentioned in reviews, which is a good reason for including it in a review.
When I said, "If you saw Contagion, it should have taught you that this is an essential part of the plot," I was arguing that the idea that environmental destruction leading to the epidemic is a clear message within the movie, not my personal interpretation.
I'm not saying that editors who disagree with me are idiots, but if you don't understand why that scene is important in the movie, then I don't think you appreciate how important the science was to the plot. The director thought it was very important, and he thought that a lot of his viewers would also think the science was important. There are editors who said, "Only a scientist would be interested in that." This amounts to, "Our readers are idiots." I'm not writing for idiots. At least some of my readers understand the science. I would hope that through the process of editing this summary, some of my fellow editors would better understand the science too.
Since this matter seems to have been resolved amicably by consensus, then we have nothing left to argue over. --Nbauman (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Several of the Youtube reviews mention that Erin Mears was modeled on Carlo Urbani, who discovered SARS in Vietnam and died after treating the first patient. It was also mentioned in several WP:RS, including this one written by someone who worked on Contagion [4] Urbani's death made a big impression on the worldwide infectious disease (and medical) community, especially in Italy, and he's considered a hero, so it's not an obscure reference. As Lipkin says, the film is in part a memorial to the epidemiologists who died doing their work. I propose that somewhere after the first reference to Mears, we add the line, 

Mears was modeled on Carlo Urbani, who died investigating SARS.
--Nbauman (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the bulldozer was destroying a rain forest, and the bats in the rain forest, was an important part of the plot and a deliberate message of the movie. The producers said so, most of the reviewers caught it, and many of the WP:RS thought it was important enough to mention. Please leave it in. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS57323549020110913
How the ‘Contagion’ virus was born
Peter Christian Hall
Reuters
SEPTEMBER 13, 2011
“Scott and I talked a lot about bats and the deeply profound stress on local bat populations,” says Garrett. “They are the great pollinators. Fruit bats are so stressed by the combination of apparent rising temperatures in the upper canopy of the rain forest and human encroachment that they are increasingly going into human areas in search of food. They’re starving, basically–and passing ancient viruses, via either their saliva [when they feed] or their urine.” Viral crossover can take place when their fluids come into contact with food being consumed by pigs or humans.
Now the filmmakers needed a plausible recombination of related viruses from bats and pigs — a concept strikingly illustrated in a sequence at the end of Contagion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/opinion/coronavirus-china.html
We Made the Coronavirus Epidemic
It may have started with a bat in a cave, but human activity set it loose.
By David Quammen
New York Times
Jan. 28, 2020
We invade tropical forests and other wild landscapes, which harbor so many species of animals and plants — and within those creatures, so many unknown viruses. We cut the trees; we kill the animals or cage them and send them to markets. We disrupt ecosystems, and we shake viruses loose from their natural hosts. When that happens, they need a new host. Often, we are it.
--Nbauman (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Woosp Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the WP:RS that mention the bat-to-pig scene refer to it as a flashback. Our plot summary is difficult for the reader to follow if we describe the movie in chronological sequence, reach the end, and then go back to the beginning, without explaining why we've disrupted the chronological sequence. I think we should put the word "flashback" back in. 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7923315/Fans-movie-Contagion-point-eerie-similarities-coronavirus-outbreak.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-features/contagion-most-urgent-movie-of-2020-964532/
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/contagion-science-fact-41929
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/09/19/call-the-doctor-david-denby
--Nbauman (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I dislike using terms such as "flashback" in plot summaries as I feel this moves into technical description, which should not be the purview of a plot summary (see WP:FILMPLOT). However, I know some editors disagree there. Restore it if you want, but if you do, remove "days before Beth is infected" as this is redundant. We don't need both. Popcornfud (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone keeps altering the genre from action thriller to just thriller even though it is sourced - albeit the source could use improving. Comments? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee, the film is not an action thriller and I think the feeling will be unanimous there. I haven’t checked the source but if that’s what it says then it’s wrong. We should deal with it like we usually treat inaccuracies in sources - by seeing if it’s trumped by other sources or by local consensus to ignore it. Popcornfud (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@77Survivor: Alerting you to this. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I would bet this can be resolved by just looking at sources and noticing that basically none of them say "action thriller", I'm certain "thriller" would be the primary genre it's identified with. I'll check that myself if I get round to it and no one else does... Popcornfud (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Or if it leads to a lot of conflict, we could simply use a better term: medical disaster film. I don't think one would go against it. (77Survivor (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC))
77Survivor, well, we can't use that if it's not what sources say. See WP:FILMLEAD. Popcornfud (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't get this. Sources say action thriller but you don't agree on that. I suggest using a simpler and possibly more vandalism-proof term and you have problem even with that. I can see some confusion brewing up. You find the sources "wrong" but on the other hand are willing to rely them too, and that pretty much sums it up. (77Survivor (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC))
77Survivor, let me try and clarify.

Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know, lives and dies by its sources. Anything we put for the genre here has to, per WP:FILMLEAD, correspond to the main genre specified by the majority of sources. If those sources describe this as a "medical disaster film" then great, let's use that. I'm merely pointing out that we can't "simply use" the term as you suggest, it has to be backed by sources.

I am challenging "action thriller" because I believe that source is simply incorrect, which sources sometimes are. As I said above, the solution is to see if it corresponds with other sources - if other sources disagree then it indicates the source is flawed and we can develop a local consensus to ignore it. Or perhaps all the sources will describe it as an action thriller after all, in which case my opinion is irrelevant. I will do the homework here and return shortly. Popcornfud (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, addendum to what I wrote above: I thought only one source stated "action thriller", but actually there are two given in the article.
Anyway, I went through the reviews cited in the article. Ignoring 404s, paywalls, and other barriers, here are the genres mentioned by those sources:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/09/19/call-the-doctor-david-denby "international thriller"
https://nypost.com/2011/09/09/catch-it/ "thriller"
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/movies/contagion-steven-soderberghs-plague-paranoia-review.html "drama", "thriller"
https://www.salon.com/test/2011/09/09/contagion_review/ "thriller"
https://www.npr.org/2011/09/02/140151673/contagion-when-person-to-person-is-a-bad-call "thriller"
https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-reviews/contagion-119882/ "thriller"
I also Googled "Soderbergh" "Contagion" and went through the first few pages of results, with a bias towards clicking on reliable sources I know we often use for film articles (like the Guardian).

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/business/media/coronavirus-contagion-movie.html "thriller"
https://variety.com/2020/film/features/contagion-coronavirus-scott-z-burns-trump-1203532260/ "disaster movie"
https://www.indiewire.com/2020/03/steven-soderbergh-contagion-lesson-virus-inevitable-1202217477/ "thriller"
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/mar/16/coronavirus-movies-why-are-we-obsessed-contagion-films "disaster thriller"
https://www.indiewire.com/2020/03/steven-soderbergh-contagion-lesson-virus-inevitable-1202217477/ "disaster movie"
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/feb/26/gwyneth-paltrow-coronavirus-contagion "thriller"
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/30/what-can-we-learn-about-coronavirus-from-watching-contagion "thriller"
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/oct/20/contagion-film-review "thriller"
https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-features/contagion-most-urgent-movie-of-2020-964532/ "thriller"
Obviously this is highly unscientific, but I think we have enough here to make a decision. 1) None of them say "action" or "action thriller" and 2) "thriller" is the overwhelming trend. Unless there is a reason why the two sources currently given for the genre trump the rest of the sources (maybe there is? I don't know) I think "thriller" is our answer. As per WP:FILMLEAD, At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. Popcornfud (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Support simply thriller, with hidden note in hopes to deter change. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
If the edit war continues, I will put some sort of protection on this article until you resolve this dispute. I hope this won't be necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 16:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This Movie is like The ongoing pandemic but is different because it’s bird flu Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The coronavirus pandemic is not a bird flu. Also, your comment does not state any need for improvements, as the article is simply documenting its virality amid the pandemic. Mentions of the film looks like the pandemic is from sources documenting the virality. GeraldWL 14:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I both watched the movie and read the summary, and while true, the summary seems to be, for lack of a better phrase, "all over the place". Various events in the movie are interlaced, such as the events that happen to the doctor that was kidnapped were spread out through the movie, but in the summary in Wikipedia, the summary makes it seem as though these events all happened right before the ending of the movie. I am suggesting changes to the "Plot" section of the article for this reason.
UltimateGames357 (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)UltimateGames357

From the opening paragraph:
> the introduction of a vaccine to halt its spread that the virus will likely becoming an endemic disease.
This may not be proper grammar, or at the very least I could not understand it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleh12479 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC) 

@Bleh12479: You are correct. It is *** not *** proper grammar, and it also does not make sense. This situation -- [that is, the damage to that sentence] -- has existed since about Feb. 19 or so ... according to the new section called << Damage_to_a_sentence_in_the_first_["lede"]_paragraph >> which was just added -- recently, -- to this "Talk:" page. Rock on ... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed this recently. 
A long sentence that used to be OK (the second-to-last sentence in the first paragraph of the lede) was damaged on Feb. 19, 2022 -- and it has not yet been repaired. That sentence used to end with the words "and the introduction of a vaccine to halt its spread." 

The words added at the end of that sentence now say (still, about 18 article versions ["revisions"] later!) [QUOTE:]that the virus will likely becoming an endemic disease. That damage occurred during 
this [Revision as of 03:55, 19 February 2022]
edit, and there were also some other changes made during that same edit. 
To me it looks like an un-finished attempt to make some change that would perhaps have been worthy of remaining in this article, if it had been completed, and if the wording had been adjusted correctly  to make sense (and to be more grammatical). 
Perhaps the editor got busy making those other changes, and did not bother to ("re-") proofread things, before clicking on [the blue button labeled] << "Publish Changes" >>. It's difficult to determine now, but it doesn't matter. The damage should be repaired. 
ALSO, the other changes made during that same edit (see above) should be inspected to determine which ones are OK, and which ones [if any] are candidates for being ('manually') "reverted" (or maybe "improved" in some way). 
It is not clear now (even if doing so "automatically" were shown as an option ... which it is not) whether the entire "edit" would deserve to be reverted. Probably not. 
I would work on [editing] this now, but ... I am busy with some other things. So, maybe later; (and ... at that time, this "Talk:" page section, might then serve as a good anchor to "mention" in -- and to link to, from -- a helpful 'explanatory' sentence in the "edit comment"). 
Meanwhile, feel free to 'chime in', with comments.--Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


### Now it has been fixed
The problem mentioned above was fixed during part of the sweeping edit that created the "Revision as of 09:37, 24 April 2022" -- (see the DIFF listing at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contagion_(2011_film)&diff=next&oldid=1083081423 ).THANKS to @Goodnightmush: and also to the author -- ("@Bleh12479:") -- (of the << "unsigned comment added by Bleh12479 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)" >> ) (What? no 'User:' page? and no [User] "Talk:" page?) -- who added the new "Talk: page" section here [above], called #Possible_Grammatical_Issue ... having noticed the problem more than a week before I did.

 --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Themes and analysis section says "Dr. Mears continues her containment work despite contracting the virus". I didn't see that in the film. What she did was staying in her room and try to make sure anybody who had contacted her would be aware that they may be sick. That is not bending or breaking the rules, that is upholding them. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Contagion (2011 film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Contagion (2011 film until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 21:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)