Talk:Eli Lilly and Company

Loss in market cap “caused by” tweet

The article cited in this talk page explicitly states “Were the fake Twitter accounts responsible for the drop in share price? Hard to say. Lot’s o’ things can affect a company’s stock price.” Therefore, the article shouldn’t suggest causality when the cites source does not. Furthermore, given the fairly modest percentage movement on the day in question, the event likely doesn’t warrant inclusion in the article, as ~4% movements in share price are not particularly rare. 2600:1011:B321:CB83:75D5:2EE:7108:B16E (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the Twitter incident has turned out to be a mere blip and does not need to be in the article at all. It especially doesn't need to be mentioned in two successive paragraphs giving contradictory statements as to what the tweets contained. Also, the sources don't appear to see any connection with the tweets and the changes in insulin pricing, which is implied in the paragraphs in question. Indyguy (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, 2600:1011:B321:CB83:75D5:2EE:7108:B16E and Indyguy, for raising these concerns. I appreciate the critical reading and thorough analysis.

I understand the concern over the statement's implication of direct causality between the Twitter incident and the drop in stock price. It's indeed essential that we base our content on reliable sources and ensure that we do not misrepresent or overstate their conclusions.

However, I'd like to provide some counterpoints for consideration:

Significance of Misinformation: While the cited source doesn't confirm causality, the incident itself does highlight the potential dangers and implications of misinformation, especially on platforms as widely used as Twitter. It's a pertinent topic in today's digital age and provides an illustrative example in the context of major corporations.

Connecting Events: It's true that ~4% movements in share prices might not be rare. However, the context of such a movement following a significant misinformation incident makes it noteworthy. It's less about the percentage and more about the potential influence of fake news on stock prices, even if the causality isn't explicitly confirmed.

Clarification in the Article: Given the concerns, we can modify the wording in the article to indicate a potential correlation rather than a direct causation, making sure to align it closely with the source's language. This would provide readers with the information without misleading them about the degree of connection.

Changes in Insulin Pricing: We can also rephrase to ensure that the connection between the tweets and insulin pricing changes isn't overstated. The intention was to chronologically present significant events, but I acknowledge the risk of implying a cause-and-effect relationship that might not be substantiated by the sources. Ushistorygeek (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Indyguy and the IP editor. This, at best, belongs in Twitter-related articles, not here. This non-event might warrant inclusion if Eli Lily sued Twitter or if it even completely stopped advertising on Twitter (neither of which is the case). I've left it as it to see if there are any other inputs. In the meantime, I removed another sentence which duplicated this. Ptrnext (talk) 06:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Missing sources

@Ushistorygeek: in recent edit you added references to ":12" and "usdoj-200902", but these aren't defined in the article. Will you be able to provide these references for the article, or should the unsourced material be removed? -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

They're the same refs used for that statement later in the article, but with "2" appended. I've fixed them. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)