Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#Contested new material

{{edit extended-protected|COVID-19 misinformation|answered=yes}}

Please change the citation under [21] from :

Bursztyn L, Rao A, Roth C, Yanagizawa-Drott D (19 April 2020). "Misinformation During a Pandemic". Becker Friedman Institute for Economics at the University of Chicago. Archived from the original on 9 March 2021. Retrieved 21 April 2020

to

Bursztyn, Leonardo, Aakaash Rao, Christopher Roth, and David Yanagizawa-Drott. "Opinions as facts." The Review of Economic Studies 90, no. 4 (2023): 1832-1864. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdac065

Explanation: the current citation is an old working paper version of the published article. The authors changed the name of the paper that was eventually published. For source see one of the authors's webpage (where he writes in the notes of the title page that the paper was previously titled "Misinformation During a Pandemic". See also the site of th ejournal where the paper is published:

https://yanagizawadrott.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/OpinionsAsFacts_Revised.pdf Tarquaeron (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Lova Falk (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|Unactionable WP:PROFRINGERY. Bon courage (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)}}

An elite unit of scientists working for the Defense Intelligence Agency

concluded three months after the pandemic began that COVID-19 likely was genetically manufactured and escaped a Chinese lab rather than evolving in nature as Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed, a bombshell revelation now at the heart of ongoing investigations into a possible U.S. intelligence cover-up.

“SARS-CoV-2 Spike Appears to be a Chimera,” a slide from the DIA National Center for Medical Intelligence's June 25, 2020 presentation declared, using the scientific terms for the COVID-19 virus and the “chimera’ term for a genetically engineered pathogen that is a combination of pieces from two separate viruses. 129.222.125.135 (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:It is very hard to do something with your comment. If you would like to request an edit, please make a formal edit request, describing which old text you want to replace with which new text, and adding your sources. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Its also not true, there are naturally occurring chimeric viruses such as BSL-RDHV. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{edit extended-protected|COVID-19 misinformation|answered=yes}}

You are promoting misinformation about misinformation. Tar. Maloney supposed °misinformation was later proved to be accurate. I suspect the editors are liberal democrats or have been paid off by them. 4.15.40.101 (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{notdone}}Unactionable silliness. Bon courage (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

With https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_misinformation&oldid=prev&diff=1296918659, @TarnishedPath reverted my addition of this image to the article's ivermectin section. The article topic is misinformation and this is among the most prominent exemplars thereof. Along with the FDA's you're not a horse tweet, which should also be featured. Articles should have images, and these are good ones.

File:105_COVID-19_Ivermectin_studies._Mar2025.c19ivm.org.png

RememberOrwell (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, this is an article about misinformation, not a conduit for it. Even blandly describing the shit in that site as "studies" is going a bit far. A picture of Didier Raoult or Bret Weinstein or similar might better show the face of "misinformation". Bon courage (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Wasn't that image or similar discussed as part of an AE report not that long ago? TarnishedPath^talk 10:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::My memory serves me correct. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive350#RememberOrwell. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry, what are you saying? It's hard to show misinformation without ... showing misinformation.

::What percentage of the studies cited are shit? It appears they list all studies. Some are going to be shit, as with any large list of publications.

::A photo of Didier Raoult or Bret Weinstein doesn't contain misinformation, but also seem reasonable.

::What is up with your and TarnishedPath's apparent aggressive attitude and obsession with this article/topic? Seems to be something you have a close connection to. Do you? RememberOrwell (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@RememberOrwell, do you intend on continuing with your incivility and vague accusations? TarnishedPath^talk 10:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. Do you use logical tricks like that intentionally? RememberOrwell (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::As you refuse to answer and are using logical tricks, I choose to disengage. You have made it clear I am not welcome here. RememberOrwell (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't see any logical tricks here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We're all presumably here trying to improve the encyclopedia. Treat your fellow editors like you believe that to be the case. RememberOrwell (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Just throwing an almost context-free misinformation-containing screenshot from a misinformation page, without explaining what is wrong with it, can be interpreted by hapless readers as correct information that debunks misinformation and does not improve the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's the third time this has been attempted. WP:NOTDUMB. Bon courage (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Why do we need a picture? Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)