This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Big Pharma conspiracy theories article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Incredibly trivial this is but, In source 10 titled 'Chakras, crystals and conspiracy theories: how the wellness industry turned its back on Covid science' when hovering over the source the publisher of the source is spelt as 'The Gurdian' which is incorrect, This should be changed to 'The Guardian'. 92bandox ( talk) 16:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The term "Big Pharma" is nothing new, and is used to point to a very very wide range of theories and matters, by a wide groups of peoples. Like, big tons of them. Some of them are proven true, some are proven false, and some are not proven yet or impossible to be proven. Above all, "big pharma" is a term, and under certain context, are very similar to how we use the term "big tech" to point to major info-tech corporations.
We almost never say "big tech conspiracy theories" as one term, and when people used the term "big pharma", they usually don't automatically add "conspiracy theories" after that. "Big Pharma" as a term today is derogatory before having relations to any "conspiracy theory". Like, when people bash Facebook or Youtube for any form of censorship, they may call them "big tech", but the censorship is totally real, like real enough to be reported in major news.
In short, the head title and the etymology of the term needs more work.
Also it's not that COVID must be excluded, but a subsection of it is redundant, as there are whole pages dedicated to such matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vc06697 ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
This article has an identity crisis and two terms in the title contribute to the problem. Plus each of the terms has it's own problems. "Big Pharma" is generally a very POV term. And the most common use of "conspiracy theory" (including in this article) is to disparage criticism which does not allege a conspiracy and which usually is not a "theory" but rather a "take"/spin on established events/facts. My advice is figure out exactly what you want to cover and then select a suitable title. North8000 ( talk) 15:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
"Big Pharma" is generally a very POV termYes, that fact is connected with the fact that there are conspiracy theories about it.
the most common use of "conspiracy theory" (including in this article) is to disparage criticismThat is what conspiracy theorists usually say who call their conspiracy theories "criticism". I don't think there are any reliable sources agreeing with it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
publicly traded companies are concerned about profitsCorrect, that is not a conspiracy theory. Did anybody call it that?
"[..] aid and abet" doctors dispensing medication "without a legitimate medical purpose"Correct, that is not a conspiracy theory. Did anybody call it that?
The title might be ok, but the lead section is complete nonsense: «claim that the medical community in general and pharmaceutical companies in particular, especially large corporations, operate for sinister purposes and against the public good». I see no source for the statement that conspiracy theories involving Big Pharma necessarily implicate "the medical community in general". Also, operating against the public good and for the shareholders' benefits is the definition of Shareholder capitalism, not a conspiracy theory. Nemo 07:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
"If there is good evidence for a conspiracy, which is published in reliable sources..." And what are those "reliable" sources? 75.174.135.52 ( talk) 17:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not think mentioning donald trump's remarks on antivax are relevant to the explanation of the various big pharma conspiracy theories. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Relevance and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_claims_of_relevance_are_false.
I believe this is an example of twice removed information. I do not contest that this information is important, rather that it should be moved to a more appropriate article. I would also add that the main article on vaccine hesitancy does not mention Donald Trump at all 2A0C:5BC0:40:1008:EB59:6DAB:DE02:EABC ( talk) 13:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
What's up with ClueBot? /Archive 1 exists, but ClueBot is archiving discussions to /Archives/ 1. Endwise ( talk) 11:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Right-wing? Antivaxxers are for sure rightists.
Left-wing? They might not cause diseases, but they certainly want to profit off the tragedy. Billionaire pharma people made millions when their loyal ally Trump announced Warp Speed. Not like money is good for your mental stability.
Seriously, we need to have a dichotomy between what a company wants and can do from what it is doing. Western Progressivist ( talk) 23:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Big Pharma conspiracy theories article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Incredibly trivial this is but, In source 10 titled 'Chakras, crystals and conspiracy theories: how the wellness industry turned its back on Covid science' when hovering over the source the publisher of the source is spelt as 'The Gurdian' which is incorrect, This should be changed to 'The Guardian'. 92bandox ( talk) 16:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The term "Big Pharma" is nothing new, and is used to point to a very very wide range of theories and matters, by a wide groups of peoples. Like, big tons of them. Some of them are proven true, some are proven false, and some are not proven yet or impossible to be proven. Above all, "big pharma" is a term, and under certain context, are very similar to how we use the term "big tech" to point to major info-tech corporations.
We almost never say "big tech conspiracy theories" as one term, and when people used the term "big pharma", they usually don't automatically add "conspiracy theories" after that. "Big Pharma" as a term today is derogatory before having relations to any "conspiracy theory". Like, when people bash Facebook or Youtube for any form of censorship, they may call them "big tech", but the censorship is totally real, like real enough to be reported in major news.
In short, the head title and the etymology of the term needs more work.
Also it's not that COVID must be excluded, but a subsection of it is redundant, as there are whole pages dedicated to such matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vc06697 ( talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
This article has an identity crisis and two terms in the title contribute to the problem. Plus each of the terms has it's own problems. "Big Pharma" is generally a very POV term. And the most common use of "conspiracy theory" (including in this article) is to disparage criticism which does not allege a conspiracy and which usually is not a "theory" but rather a "take"/spin on established events/facts. My advice is figure out exactly what you want to cover and then select a suitable title. North8000 ( talk) 15:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
"Big Pharma" is generally a very POV termYes, that fact is connected with the fact that there are conspiracy theories about it.
the most common use of "conspiracy theory" (including in this article) is to disparage criticismThat is what conspiracy theorists usually say who call their conspiracy theories "criticism". I don't think there are any reliable sources agreeing with it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 08:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
publicly traded companies are concerned about profitsCorrect, that is not a conspiracy theory. Did anybody call it that?
"[..] aid and abet" doctors dispensing medication "without a legitimate medical purpose"Correct, that is not a conspiracy theory. Did anybody call it that?
The title might be ok, but the lead section is complete nonsense: «claim that the medical community in general and pharmaceutical companies in particular, especially large corporations, operate for sinister purposes and against the public good». I see no source for the statement that conspiracy theories involving Big Pharma necessarily implicate "the medical community in general". Also, operating against the public good and for the shareholders' benefits is the definition of Shareholder capitalism, not a conspiracy theory. Nemo 07:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
"If there is good evidence for a conspiracy, which is published in reliable sources..." And what are those "reliable" sources? 75.174.135.52 ( talk) 17:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not think mentioning donald trump's remarks on antivax are relevant to the explanation of the various big pharma conspiracy theories. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Relevance and /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_claims_of_relevance_are_false.
I believe this is an example of twice removed information. I do not contest that this information is important, rather that it should be moved to a more appropriate article. I would also add that the main article on vaccine hesitancy does not mention Donald Trump at all 2A0C:5BC0:40:1008:EB59:6DAB:DE02:EABC ( talk) 13:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
What's up with ClueBot? /Archive 1 exists, but ClueBot is archiving discussions to /Archives/ 1. Endwise ( talk) 11:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Right-wing? Antivaxxers are for sure rightists.
Left-wing? They might not cause diseases, but they certainly want to profit off the tragedy. Billionaire pharma people made millions when their loyal ally Trump announced Warp Speed. Not like money is good for your mental stability.
Seriously, we need to have a dichotomy between what a company wants and can do from what it is doing. Western Progressivist ( talk) 23:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)