This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vertex Pharmaceuticals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
A template on the article, dating back to 2007, argues its neutrality, pointing to the talk page. Neither this page, nor its history, indicates any basis for the challenge. If no one objects, I'll remove the template. Bustter ( talk) 01:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Hi. I have an edit request for the sub-section of the "Medicines" section called "Triple combination treatments." A short sentence was recently added to this section which, because it does not give any background information, context or explanation of the complex processes involved in global drug distribution and accessibility, appears distinctly not neutral. This edit request is a sourced, accurate and more in-depth description of the rationale and process of how this particular medicine, Trikafta, is made available around the world to people with CF. I propose to replace the content that is currently in the "Triple combination treatments" section with the following content, some of which is already on the page, and some of which is new, sourced material. Together this is a more encyclopedic and neutral presentation of the subject:
References
cystic
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I am calling on Kj_cheetham, who has helped in the past with the bios of people affiliated with Vertex, to help out with this edit request. Thank you. JohnDatVertex ( talk) 18:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@ JohnDatVertex and Quetstar: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and requested edit - seems worth a consideration - further comments (support or oppose) welcome from others - in order to reach a WP:CONSENSUS on the edit request if possible, according to current Wikipedia policy, guidelines and related - as before - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy!! - Drbogdan ( talk) 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done - @ JohnDatVertex and Quetstar: (and others) - seems the best action at the moment is to defer to the original text (actually, no objections to this text at the moment) - and Not to the proposed text (actually, objection to this or similar text has been noted - see discussion above) - at least until there is sufficient agreement and/or consensus (per WikiPolicy, WikiGuidelines and related) to modify the text - hope this helps - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 15:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
References
I suggest to delete the remark on the firing as it is not relevant for Vertex. TruthPrevailsFinally ( talk) 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi. As disclosed, I am an employee of Vertex. It seems abundantly clear that the current paragraph regarding the employee and the armband is not supported by WP:RS as well as violates WP:NOTNEWS. Numbers of views or shares on social media are irrelevant on Wikipedia- the question here is not whether the event occurred, but whether it is noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia entry about the company given the coverage. As the situation stands today, all sources are either primary or regurgitations of primary sources in foreign media. There is no independent coverage in reliable, third-party publications, and therefore, the information is not relevant for inclusion. If the incident is later covered in relevant mainstream media, perhaps this can be revisited, but otherwise, it should be removed. One editor is clearly an SPA, and the discussion above and others on various User Talk pages indicate that both editors have a conflict of interest of some sort. Therefore, I’d like to get a neutral editor’s thoughts on this. Perhaps Ptrnext or Drbogdan would like to add to the discussion. Thank you for your time. JohnDatVertex ( talk) 13:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
BLP outweighs most possible benefits for inclusion, but the fact this was just a social media scandal makes it clearly UNDUE in the article about the company. If the individual in question as an article, put it there. Otherwise it should stay out. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vertex Pharmaceuticals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
A template on the article, dating back to 2007, argues its neutrality, pointing to the talk page. Neither this page, nor its history, indicates any basis for the challenge. If no one objects, I'll remove the template. Bustter ( talk) 01:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Hi. I have an edit request for the sub-section of the "Medicines" section called "Triple combination treatments." A short sentence was recently added to this section which, because it does not give any background information, context or explanation of the complex processes involved in global drug distribution and accessibility, appears distinctly not neutral. This edit request is a sourced, accurate and more in-depth description of the rationale and process of how this particular medicine, Trikafta, is made available around the world to people with CF. I propose to replace the content that is currently in the "Triple combination treatments" section with the following content, some of which is already on the page, and some of which is new, sourced material. Together this is a more encyclopedic and neutral presentation of the subject:
References
cystic
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I am calling on Kj_cheetham, who has helped in the past with the bios of people affiliated with Vertex, to help out with this edit request. Thank you. JohnDatVertex ( talk) 18:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@ JohnDatVertex and Quetstar: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and requested edit - seems worth a consideration - further comments (support or oppose) welcome from others - in order to reach a WP:CONSENSUS on the edit request if possible, according to current Wikipedia policy, guidelines and related - as before - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy!! - Drbogdan ( talk) 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done - @ JohnDatVertex and Quetstar: (and others) - seems the best action at the moment is to defer to the original text (actually, no objections to this text at the moment) - and Not to the proposed text (actually, objection to this or similar text has been noted - see discussion above) - at least until there is sufficient agreement and/or consensus (per WikiPolicy, WikiGuidelines and related) to modify the text - hope this helps - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 15:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
References
I suggest to delete the remark on the firing as it is not relevant for Vertex. TruthPrevailsFinally ( talk) 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi. As disclosed, I am an employee of Vertex. It seems abundantly clear that the current paragraph regarding the employee and the armband is not supported by WP:RS as well as violates WP:NOTNEWS. Numbers of views or shares on social media are irrelevant on Wikipedia- the question here is not whether the event occurred, but whether it is noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia entry about the company given the coverage. As the situation stands today, all sources are either primary or regurgitations of primary sources in foreign media. There is no independent coverage in reliable, third-party publications, and therefore, the information is not relevant for inclusion. If the incident is later covered in relevant mainstream media, perhaps this can be revisited, but otherwise, it should be removed. One editor is clearly an SPA, and the discussion above and others on various User Talk pages indicate that both editors have a conflict of interest of some sort. Therefore, I’d like to get a neutral editor’s thoughts on this. Perhaps Ptrnext or Drbogdan would like to add to the discussion. Thank you for your time. JohnDatVertex ( talk) 13:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
BLP outweighs most possible benefits for inclusion, but the fact this was just a social media scandal makes it clearly UNDUE in the article about the company. If the individual in question as an article, put it there. Otherwise it should stay out. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)