The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses 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.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
COVID-19 misinformation by the United States is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The first sentence of the lede of this article states that it consists of disinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic propagated by officials of the United States government. It seems to me if we're gonna describe it as disinformation, that's how it should be titled. I think the lede description is an accurate representation of the article, but the title is not. ––FormalDudetalk19:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Even if we accept that some of the cases of misinformation discussed in this article were intentional, and hence disinformation, it is reaching to claim that all of them are (it mentions disinformation by Trump at the start, then misinformation by Fauci towards the end – many people who accuse Trump of deliberate misinformation would not levy the same accusation against Fauci). Disinformation is a type of misinformation. It seems better to have an article on misinformation in general, than one on disinformation specifically, because what then to do about content discussing misinformation which isn't disinformation? That seems a recipe for two articles, a misinformation and a disinformation one, when I think one will do. Not everyone spreading incorrect information is doing so knowingly and intentionally - many no doubt are simply genuinely mistaken or ignorant or confused. Mr248 (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article is only Trump-bashing!! No reference to the likes of Pelosi, Biden, Harris and Cuomo outright criticizing Trump for scaring people about the seriousness of covid and subsequent shutdowns. Where's where these same peeps said they don't trust the "Trump vaccine" and we shouldn't either. Ridiculously biased, so won't be donating until reliability returns. 2601:701:8203:1A00:143C:DD25:A55D:95D0 (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. Fauci is mentioned four times in the entire article, and in a negative light only once, yet he could be considered a major contributor to the dissemination of misinformation on Covid-19. This article seems more like a bash on Trump than an actual article. Even if you think that downplaying and predicting before knowledge of the facts is spreading misinformation, why does it only focus on Trump? Where is the impact of the Biden administration on the spread of misinformation? What about the impact of the general media on the spread of misinformation? What about the impact of Trump's statements and the media's reactions to them, which also created misinformation, some statements which can be considered spreading misinformation solely based on the fact that he said it? 2ple (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
So, even though it's his direct statement, it still falls under the category of original research because the fact that it might be misinformation doesn't matter because no source said so? Just clarifying. 2ple (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
"The fact that it might be misinformation" is your own personal interpretation of that statement, so yes, unless you can find a source which says that this is misinformation, then it cannot go in. Also, what Biden says, quote, If you're vaccinated, you're not going to be hospitalized, you're not going to be [in] an ICU unit, and you're not going to die. That is nowhere near the strawman of saying that "you can't spread Covid if you're vaccinated". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I don't think that some of the stuff talked about in this article is actually misinformation, for a variety of reasons.
Here are some of them:
April 2020 Paragraphs 1, 3, 7
Mid and Late 2020 Paragraph 7 | This one annoys me especially because it feel like a lot of time was spent on Trump. Who are these 'members of the opposing political party' and why were they not mentioned in depth?
Others Paragraph 4 | "If you're under 50 and you're healthy, which is most New Yorkers, there's very little threat here." What about that statement is misinformation? The fact that a source said it wa does not make it so. 2ple (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, yes, if a reliable and qualified source says something is misinformation, it is. See WP:VNT. And in this case, what the reliable sources are saying is also correct. "If you're under 50 and you're healthy, which is most New Yorkers, there's very little threat here." is an obvious example of downplaying the risk and ignoring the fact that not only A) it's not entirely harmless, even if you're young and healthy and B) you may still transmit it to more vulnerable people even if you don't get terribly sick from it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
No. That is 1) an opinion article (not reliable for fact by Wikipedia standards) and 2) published by the Washington examiner, which Wikipedia does not consider reliable. (See WP:RSP). — Shibbolethink(♔♕)13:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
