Talk:Australian Pharmaceutical Industries

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Australian Pharmaceutical Industries is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Affiliations

I am editing the article on behalf of Priceline in order to contribute to a neutral and reliably sourced article that is consistently up to date. I intend to edit responsibly and follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As such, I have disclosed existing affiliations on this talk page as advised in WP:CONFLICT. In disclosing my interests I would like to request others' views, particularly if my edits may be contested. Smallworldsocial (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WorkChoices section

Reconsider the static, you can read about "loaded words" within Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (WP:NPV). Initially, the sentence in question was written like this: "Prime Minister John Howard condemned Priceline and other firms seeking to fire workers and rehire at lower wages, "operational reasons are not and should never be seen as code for saying, 'Well I'll get rid of "X" because I'm paying him $100,000 a year so I can employ "Y" at $80,000 a year.'"

Use of the term "condemned" is emotive language (i.e. loaded word). While you have removed this word, I must ask what purpose the sentence has in summarising the case in a neutral tone?

It's important to not take a quote out of context. If you check the citation of the quote you will be able to see the remainder of that quote which is: "There has to be a bona fide operational reason. And that of course has always been in the law." This repeats what is already summarised in the 'WorkChoices' section.Smallworldsocial (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm you make a valid point. I've reverted the changes. -Reconsider | speak 10:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further improvements

The article has undergone a number of edits since the COI tag was put up on May 2010. Considering that Wiki's COI policy is in place to discourage editors violating policies such as neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, is the COI tag still relevant to the current state of the article? In the article's current form, the COI guidelines have been met and the article seems to be neutral and reliably sourced. Does anyone have any suggestions to ensure this article's tone or style meets Wiki's guidelines? Smallworldsocial (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Pharmaceutical Industries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302235445/http://www.mccullough.com.au/publications/publications.aspx?p=47&itm=1787 to http://www.mccullough.com.au/publications/publications.aspx?p=47&itm=1787

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]