Jump to content

Talk:Fortrea/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Neutrality

I went to the article on Jeffrey Dahmer today, and nearly the ENTIRE article focused on his killings! It's unbalanced I tell you! Look, whether or not an article is "balanced" should be based on how it presents the companies impact on humanity and the world. What is it's importance in the world? What is it known for? What is the larger impact of what it does and how it does it? A company appears in an reference body (like wikipedia) not just for being in business, but for being noteworthy in some way. When it comes doing business, this is just another corporation. What makes Covance noteworthy is that this company presides over some of the most heinous examples of animal cruelty in the world. Their name is synonymous with animal cruelty - they are famous for it. It's not the only thing they do, but it's the reason most of us know of their existance, which speaks to the company's impact on the world and humanity. It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to cover up the thing which makes a company most noteworthy simply because there isn't much else to say about them! It is Wikipedia's responsibility to honestly describe why the company is noteworthy. Therefore, I say this article is balanced as is. If anything, there should be even more about their animal abuses; or better yet, a separate article linked to this one dealing soley with their animal abuses. 68.48.39.151 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: POV tag was added by User:Idleguy saying not neutral. caveat: I'm not a fan of any corporation nor do I like animal torture. but this article is more on their torture and less on the company!

I basically agree that it could have more info on the company. However the company does get publicity mostly through its scandals, keeping low profile otherwise. Therefore I do not think that the weighting is that wrong. Maybe someone could find some more info on the company profile. -- Ravn 17:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and I removed it because we don't allow drive-by tagging. Editors who want to tag it have to say here what needs to be changed exactly, and the changes have to be consistent with our policies. Anyone who thinks it needs more information on the company should simply add some. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you really think that the weighting of an article should be determined by a company's "publicity"? Is that what an encyclopedia is about? --Wikismile 19:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This article should be renamed to "Criticisms of Covance". It is extremely unbalanced. --Wikismile 20:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article could present a more balanced picture of Covance. I'm going to do some research and either update the article tonight or later in the week (whenever I get the time). I think Covance just released a new annual report, so some of the company stats can probably be updated too. If anyone has info on Covance's response to the various allegations, jump on in. -- Orcar967 14:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added my changes. Be gentle. Hopefully the new edits will bring the balance everyone's been talking about. -- Orcar967 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality in Vienna, Virginia case

I added a neutrality tag to this section. All of the cited information seems to be coming from the animal rights group, PETA. Not trying to insult PETA here, but they are prone to sensationalism and simply can't be considered an independent and reliable source on this issue. We at least need some opposing comments to balance the article. As Gary asked (below), do we have any referenced info from Covance on this subject? Actually, I think that statements from an independent and relevant organization like the USDA would be preferable. I'll do some Google work and see what I can come up with. Jay†Litman 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The cited information is coming from the former Covance study director, not PETA. By all means add Covance's response if you can find one. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I removed the tag because you've not said anything else about this, or found more references. How would you like to proceed? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did find some referenced material containing Covance's responses. However, I had been waiting for a response from the USDA's FOI office regarding animal welfare inspections at the Vienna location. The inspection reports are available but would run anywhere from $25-$99. I'm not about to drop that much cash for a wiki article, so we'll have to settle for Covance's responses. :) I'll try to work those into the article when I have some free time. Jay†Litman 14:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Covance's reaction

Has Covance issued any statements in defense? It seems like such a large company should say something about all these allegations. Is there any more information about the lawsuit? Gary 18:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd sentences

I have an issue with the wording of the following two sentences in the lead:

"Under the name Covance Research Products Inc. (CRP) based in Denver, Pennsylvania, the company also deals in the import and sale of laboratory animals for clinical testing as required in the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s drug approval process and by other regulatory agencies."

This makes it sound like Covance imports and sells animals because they are required to by the FDA. That simply isn't true - they import and sell animals because their clients pay them to.

"It owns two dog-breeding facilities, two primate centers, and a rabbit-breeding facility as it is the federally-mandated practice for companies to test drugs in two species (one rodent, one non-rodent) to ensure the safety and effectiveness of new medicines."

Again, Covance does not own the facilities because of mandated drug testing. It owns them because their clients are required to test their drugs on two species, and therefore the clients pay Covance to do the testing. It's almost like a corporate PR person is trying to put a spin on the article to make it sound like this is not a purely commercial enterprise.

I propose removing the phrases "...as required in the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)’s drug approval process and by other regulatory agencies." and "...as it is the federally-mandated practice for companies to test drugs in two species (one rodent, one non-rodent) to ensure the safety and effectiveness of new medicines." respectively. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess no one cares. I will remove the phrases. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Spike. They were violations of WP:SYNT. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

While I'm new at this, I'm struck by the fact that negative information greatly outweighs any positive or neutral information. It reads as if it was written for PETA propaganda or something. While that's hardly the fault of the initial posters since negative information is much easier to come by, I think the article would certainly benefit from more balanced information. Would anyone take issue with more general company information being added? --Bejshepherd 15:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead, Bej, and thanks for offering to do it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried fleshing out the article previously but goofed it up. I didn't realize some of my edits were violations of WP:SYNT. Here are some links I found in my research that provide more general info on what the company does and their history that may help things out:

Sources

Parkeak, where does the source you're using say: "Covance's animal testing programs and facilities are AAALAC-accredited, ISO 9001:2000 registered, OLAW-assured, and USDA research registered. "About CRP" SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, cancel that. I was looking at the wrong link. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ebola information

I was surprised to find the information I added a few years ago about the Ebola controversy had been removed. I believe this is an important part of Covance's history as it attracted attention. I have restored the removed information. --Turn685 (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User BrainSnail has removed the information because it "Changed the page layout" and insists Wiki articles on companies only contain corporate information. I don't see any problem with Wikipedia's policies and I believe the article should contain information that's reliable (check), verified (check), pertinent to the company (check) and involves content that's historical. If you believe otherwise, please discuss it here. Thanks --Turn685 (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
User Turn685 wrongly stated my concern, The Wikipedia Policy is to provide balanced content, Ebola scare is relevant, but Ebola is/should be an article by itself. There should be a link to Covance, as Covance was connected. Putting full topics under a company header is structurally NOT correct. Please revise accordingly, thanks BrainSnail (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
So you think there is too much information about the topic to be on the page? I created an additional page called Covance controversies which has the full details. I edited the section so it's not as wordy and linked it for people who want to see more. Hope this addresses your concerns. Cheers --Turn685 (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, I will find more news articles/mentions about this to add. --Turn685 (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Novel

Turns out Covance's ebola scares were inspiration for the novel The Hot Zone. --Turn685 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Animal Welfare Concerns

As :User Turn685 created a new page with details around animal welfare concerns, I suggest to strengthen the link to that page, by removing the main animal welfare details, only keep the headers and refer to the new page, please post here if there are any objections BrainSnail (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ebola information

I was surprised to find the information I added a few years ago about the Ebola controversy had been removed. I believe this is an important part of Covance's history as it attracted attention. I have restored the removed information. --Turn685 (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User BrainSnail has removed the information because it "Changed the page layout" and insists Wiki articles on companies only contain corporate information. I don't see any problem with Wikipedia's policies and I believe the article should contain information that's reliable (check), verified (check), pertinent to the company (check) and involves content that's historical. If you believe otherwise, please discuss it here. Thanks --Turn685 (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
User Turn685 wrongly stated my concern, The Wikipedia Policy is to provide balanced content, Ebola scare is relevant, but Ebola is/should be an article by itself. There should be a link to Covance, as Covance was connected. Putting full topics under a company header is structurally NOT correct. Please revise accordingly, thanks BrainSnail (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
So you think there is too much information about the topic to be on the page? I created an additional page called Covance controversies which has the full details. I edited the section so it's not as wordy and linked it for people who want to see more. Hope this addresses your concerns. Cheers --Turn685 (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, I will find more news articles/mentions about this to add. --Turn685 (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Second article

The company is officially called Covance, Inc. according to the listing on the NYSE. I undid the redirect that was set on that page, and build a company page that reflects the history. I suggest that we keep that page, and the controversies page to create the awareness needed. (and expire this page)Cromng (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there's a discussion taking place with another editor on his talk page that you might want to look at; see User talk:Tbd-r1. I've explained some of our policies there (about why criticism stays on the same page, rather than being presented in a separate article), and why mention of it belongs in the lead.
We can't have two pages about the company with different titles (three if you count the controversies page), so I've redirected them. I don't know whether we include Inc in company titles; I'll take a look around and if we do, we can move this title, rather than creating a new one (because we have to preserve the contributions history of this page).
The other point is that this article can't simply be an extension of the company's website. Some of the details you added to the other page could be incorporated into this one (for example some of the history), but bear in mind that people who want full corporate details can read the company's website. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've requested uninvolved opinions at our neutrality noticeboard. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Covance.

Regarding whether to move the title to Covance Inc., I checked the guideline, which is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). Apparently we don't add the legal status to a name in the title (e.g. Microsoft, not Microsoft Corporation), unless it's needed to disambiguate -- which refers to situation where other titles on Wikipedia contain similar words (e.g. Apple versus Apple Inc.). SlimVirgin (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

Cromng, I've incorporated some of the material you added to the history section of the new page you created at Covance Inc. (now a redirect). I used source material from one of the websites you added, [1] because it looks very detailed and comprehensive, but I'm a bit concerned because I don't know what that webpage is exactly. If you could clarify that would be helpful. Alternatively, if there's a detailed history on the company's own website, that would be appropriate to use as a source too (in fact, better than using a site of unknown provenance). SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Lab Data Fraud

There is a bit of history here that's been missed but how far back we should go is why I've posted here.

There is a notorious case of lab data fraud, with a firm by the name of Bio-Test, which was located in Northbrook, IL. In a nutshell, someone noticed that for the size of a building they were in, they couldn't house the number of animals they claimed to be in testing. Once the investigation began, you would find cases, of animals, dieing on one day of the test, gaining some weight a few days later, then dieing a second time. The animal testing part of the business, was shut down, and as I understand the environmental testing part was purchased by Nalco creating Nalco Environmental Science. Around 1980 this was purchased by Hazleton Laboratories. The Northbrook operation operated for about 3 years, when Hazleton purchased the Raltech (located in Madison, WI), which was a biological testing firm, part of Ralston-Purina. Raltech, had started out as "WARF" or Wisconsin Area Research Foundation". In any case, for Ralston, they discovered a significant problem in that Raltech was active in the animal testin field. Seeing that there could be significant public relations issues here with their core business, this was sold to Hazleton. A few months after the sale, the Northbrook facility was consolidated to the Madison facility which had significantly more room and was overall a larger operation.

Now, how much is verifiable. The Bio-Test fiasco, still appears on the internet. The relationship of the companies located in Northbrook can be found at: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/cs/177000.html. The link between Raltech and Hazleton appears here: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/risk/toxsums/pdfs/2240.pdf (you'll see the name as Hazleton-Raltech in the citation for the article). Beyond that, this is personal knowledge (Hazleton - Northbrook employee), and what appeared in old newspaper articles on the Biotest scandal. If this meets burden of proof, then move the info over.

Greg Pronger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpronger (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Humans

This article doesn't even mention they conduct testing with human volunteers. Any information on that? -- 128.171.47.230

[2] says "By volunteering for paid medical trials with Covance, everyone from students to office workers to retired couples are earning up to £3,500* and helping to make a real difference to pioneering medical breakthroughs" so the answer seems to be yes. --Rumping (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV/N listing

The blurb in the lead looks fine, although I strongly suggest removing the still video captures from the body as they add nothing useful to the article. a13ean (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As this was recommended as the outcome from the neutrality review, I suggest to remove the still images accordingly. Please feedback, if with reasoning, if you do NOT agree with this action.Tbd-r1 (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'd object to the images being removed. There is just one image from each of the two undercover investigations/videos (one BUAV, one PETA). Both videos were widely reported by secondary sources; both led to government investigations or legal action in Germany, the United States, and England. So it would seem odd not to show examples of the kinds of things that caused concern.
When Covance tried to stop one of the videos from being shown in England, a British judge found the footage was "highly disturbing," and denied Covance's application for an injunction. See Wagman, Bruce A., Waisman, Sonia S., and Frasch, Pamela D. (2009). Animal Law: Cases and Materials. Carolina Academic Press, pp. 515–516. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

restraint tube description needed

This article contains a figure captioned: "A monkey in a restraint tube filmed by PETA inside Covance, Vienna, Virginia, 2004–2005", but there is no reference to "restraint tubes" in the article or a description of what they are.Originalname37 (Talk?) 17:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Covance. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Covance. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Covance. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Covance. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fortrea/Archive_1&oldid=1255648520"