Talk:Pfizer/Archives/2014

Exploded

Exploded sounds rather dramatic. Almost certainly catastrophic failure, but accompanied by high temperature and expanding gases? I doubt it. Can we either back up the word "exploded" or change to something more plausible? Wikid 13:52 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A few months ago there was a documentary on Channel 4, which mentioned some fairly dubious things Pfizer have done -- anyone have the details? I also happen to know that their UK employees are forbidden to join a union, though I don't know how common a practice this is in the UK -- Tarquin 12:44 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Pfizer vs. Pfizer Inc. - proposal to reverse a move from July 2004

In July 2004, an anonymous author moved the article from "Pfizer" to "Pfizer Inc." The majority of link to the "Pfizer Inc." article are through the redirect created by this move. What would you think about swapping and using "Pfizer" as the main article and "Pfizer Inc." as the redirect? Courtland 16:38, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

I would definitely support that fix. I'm sure there's a naming convention I'm too lazy to find, but a good example is Microsoft: Its legal name, Microsoft Corporation, redirects to Microsoft. If you plan on making the move, make sure you fix any double redirects. See WP:MOVE. Mrtea (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I also would agree with the move. I search for it through Pfizer. --Matterbug 18:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I also support the move. Most company articles don't have the Inc. (or whatever) in article title and for most readers the exact form of incorporation is of no interest anyway. jni 07:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've revisited this as I was going to formally nominate this for a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves and subsequently fount that the move is technically correct according to present guidelines; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). In the case of Pfizer, the company self-refers as 'Pfizer, Inc' in their 'About Pfizer' statement at http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/are/index.jsp. Keeping the article at Pfizer Inc. seems supported by these observations. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should base Wikipedia naming conventions on some HR manager's about.html. Pfizer's website spells the company most of the time without the "Inc." If you take a random sample of 10-20 well-known companies from Category:Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange and compare their websites to Wikipedia articles (both title and lead sentence) and to their SEC filings (where the "Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter" is typically on the front page) you will see discrepancies in almost every case and that Wikipedia omits the "Inc." from title almost every time (when not needed for disambig.) For example Berkshire Hathaway's website uniformly names the company as "Berkshire Hathaway Inc." as do its SEC filings (except that in some of them it is spelled as "Berkshire Hathaway, Inc." with the comma). Still, in published books, newspaper articles and other references about Berkshire the superfluous Inc. is usually omitted. jni 11:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You unnecessarily belittle Pfizer staff who design and maintain the outward face of the company. Consult the company's most recent 10-Q statement (see http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/download/investors/financial/10q_0508_06.pdf) in which it is prominantly stated "PFIZER INC. (exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)". I don't think that was written by 'some HR manager'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes I have seen Pfizer's 10-Qs and 10-Ks. By your logic we should rename vast majority of our articles about American companies because all of them have some designation comparable to "Inc." in their SEC filings. Why should Pfizer be an exception to our naming conventions? jni 12:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to move this back to simply Pfizer. If we went by 10-q statements and other such legalese, then nearly all articles about corporate entities are incorrectly named. The fact is that most coporations are more commonly known by names other than their legal name. The very about pfizer page mentioned above also very prominently uses simply Pfizer to refer to the company for the majority of references. older ≠ wiser 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify something here; I don't advocate moving articles based on legalese alone. I originally suggested that the move of 'Pfizer' to 'Pfizer Inc.' be reversed; then after some time had passed, I felt that the status quo (where it is now) is ok, i.e. not inappropriate. I offered up an opinion, and I will certainly not stand in the way of a consensus to do what I originally proposed, despite my no longer supporting it. I'm somewhat sorry now that I gave it any more thought ... no, that I expressed that additional thought. If the concern of other editors has now turned to questioning whether I am in the business of changing articles to conform to legalese rather than 'reasonable expectation' or 'standard use', I can assure you that I am not in that business. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to sound as if I was attacking you. Sorry if it seemed that way. I was only pointing out what seemed an inconsistency to me in basing arguments about article names on 10-q and other such legal documents or on a web page that uses "Pfizer, Inc." once and everywhere else uses only "Pfizer". older ≠ wiser 17:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I didn't take it as an attack — my experience tells me that you are not the type of person who makes personal attacks. I'm concerned about folks in general getting the notion that I'm picking sides in the oft contentious side show of titling tug of war. The statement 'I can assure you' is for the two of you who expressed concern and, more broadly, for anyone who happens across this article - and for the many who respect your opinion in these matters. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Kelo v. New London

Could we mention Pfizer's recent lawsuit in wich New London used its power of eminent domain to take a big hunk of land to build a regional center? I beleive the case was Kelo v. New London anyways...

I think a brief mention of Pfizer's involvement in Kelo, a reference to the Kelo page, and a quote from Justice Thomas regarding Pfizer's involvement would be a great addition. It's well documented and a clearly significant impact on people's lives with far reaching consequences, probably good and bad.Sandwich Eater 15:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fluconazole

Can someone please tell me what is the relation between Fluconazole an Anti-Fungal and AIDS? Its mentioned in the AIDS Involvement section, i don't really seem to get the link. Lamuk69 (talk) 09:20, 07 June 2006 (UTC)

People with aids get really awful fungal infections and fluconazole appears to be very necessary for treatment. If I recall correctly (and that's a big if) there is a neural infection of some wort that is particuarlly nasty. Sandwich Eater 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bribery in Mexico

Pfizer has serious accusations alongside drug wholesaler Farmacos Especializados SA de CV of illegal payments to Mexicans Authorities, in order to secure the inclusion of its portfolio within government health care institutions (ISSSTE). There are plenty of reported irregularities, specially in the Mexican Social Security, where the company sells plenty of more expensive cholesterol lowering product (Lipitor) over cheaper generic versions of generic drugs (Simvastatin and Pravastatin). Oftentimes ISSSTE favor’s Pfizer with huge purchases and failing to maximize budget to purchase more critical drugs, thus compromising the healthcare coverage of Mexican Citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.234.249 (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I included my impressions of the rhotic and non-rhotic pronunciations of Pfizer, since when I first saw the word written I had no idea of how to pronounce it. If I've made a mistake, please correct them • Leon 12:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

News: Reduction of Sales Force

Media reported in the past week or so a substantial reduction in Pfizer's sales force -- 25% if memory serves (tho I have no special interest in following the issue). Someone might want to look further and see if this article should be updated. --OWL 13:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

News: Class Action Suit in Canada

[url]http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=7c963231-bb52-43f7-a67f-2e83f114c33b[/url] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.113.153 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Zantac

Zantac is manufactured by gsk not by Pfizer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.62.97.20 (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:PfizerLogo.png

Image:PfizerLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Green Stone

Is there a link between Green Stone Pharmaceutical (they make a generic Zithromax) and Pfizer? Dynamicfun 16:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

not the world's largest

Johnson and Johnson is the world's largest pharmaceutical company, not Pfizer. JNJ does sell other stuff. JNJ is a bigger company. Pfizer does sell more drugs, I think (can't find source).

How about car companies? The order of companies by revenue is different form order by number of vehicles sold which is different from number of cars (not SUVs and trucks) sold. So this similar with Pfizer and JNJ.Spevw 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer is the world's largest research based pharmaceutical company. I have edited the article with a citation. Oliverwk 10:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger section

The merger section lists quite a bit of information and history about the companies involved in mergers with Pfizer. I believe the extraneous information should be deleted, so as to keep concise and to-the-point. The information should be moved to the companies' pages (if it is not present already). wingman358 07:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new article for SUGEN and moved most of the details to that article Ceolas (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Attention Admin

There are several claims/events in this article that need not be in a encyclopedia. For example it is irrelevant how much Pfizer has donated in Nigeria and what it aims to do in future. I think this article needs serious attention and deletion of several sections towards the end. Thank you. Platinum999 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Pfizer funded false research supporting it's pharms

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-medical-madoff-anesthestesiologist-faked-data

21 studies that where either partially or fully falsified by an anesthesiologist on Pfizer's payroll. This information should be included in the wikipedia article. 72.136.137.24 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Caution: Pfizer has not admitted complicity in this deception, so could take legal action if fault is attributed to them. They paid for independent research; the independent researcher was the one who falsified results.Wugo (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"...the discovery and marketing of (Zoloft, Lipitor, Norvasc, Zithromax, Aricept, Diflucan, Viagra). "

From the article:
During the 1980s and 1990s Pfizer underwent a period of growth sustained by the discovery and marketing of (Zoloft, Lipitor, Norvasc, Zithromax, Aricept, Diflucan, Viagra).
Shouldn't the brackets be removed? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 settlement

There are minor difficulties in reconciling the language in the BBC report and the NYT's article. I think American language ought to be used for this section as it is an American legal proceeding. I'm not sure what "misbranding" means. I'm not sure any American would. Does it mean illegal marketing? or does it have other connotations? This settlement might be notable enough to support a separate article. Fred Talk 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nigeria and POV problems

I believe there are serious POV issues with the "Nigeria" sub-section under "Legislation and litigation". In particular, this section "In 2007, Pfizer published a Statement of Defense...unrelated to meningitis, were observed after 4 weeks." constitutes roughly half of the section, and yet is based on a single source that is self-published by Pfizer and hosted on their website. Also:

• The section uses bold typeface to outline the points made by pfizer, effectively giving these points more emphasis and not using any third-party sources to justify, verify, or critically examine these points.

• Presenting these points after the discussion of the negative allegations and controversy, which is presented first, has the effect of presenting these points as the "final say".

• Presenting an isolated paragraph with a statement like "The administration of Trovan saved lives." whether in bold-type or not is misleading to those glancing at the article...as this is a claim given in the defense statement, not a truth established in the outcome of a court-case, or by any sort of consensus in third-party sources.

• The use of the term "claims which deserve mention" is problematic and an example of WP:Weasel Words...deserve mention according to whom?

On the basis of these points I'm going to re-work this section to address all four of these points. I would appreciate any help anyone could give. In my opinion the ways to correct this are (1) eliminating the bold typeface, (2,3) integrating the material about Pfizer's claims into the prose instead of presenting the whole section like a rebuttal after the allegations, and instead of having isolated claims presented as single paragraphs. (4) eliminating the weasel-word language and clearly delineating which parties made which claims and not making any judgments about which claims are more deserving of mention, only referring to which claims have been documented/discussed in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've had to rename this section to "Nigerian Illegal Human Trials" rather than "Nigeria". As someone new to the issue I find "Nigeria" to be a terrible title. I thought the topic had been completely omitted as I scanned the page, "Nigeria" is so vague I assumed it was a legal challenge regarding generic big pharma IP or the like. I feel it is nothing short of obfuscating the truth, shall we rechristen the Three Mile nuclear accident "Pennsylvania" as well? Anonymous, 01-11-2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.139.187 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Spam Emails

Should there be a section about spam emails from people claiming to be from Pfizer? 70.16.239.164 (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am bombarded with spam from Pfizer, ten emails a day, trying to sell me viagra etc. It is spam from Pfizer. 173.169.89.161 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The spammers are fooling you. The emails do not come from Pfizer. They come from sleazy spammers in Russia and elsewhere trying to make a buck off you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.89.95 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Information needs to be added about how Pfizer hired investigators to find evidence of corruption on Nigerian attorney general to persuade him to drop legal action over a controversial drug trial involving children with meningitis, according to a leaked US embassy cable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.142.70 (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Intro section

This section currently features the line "Called a repeat offender, this was Pfizer's fourth such settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in the previous ten years". I have no vested interest in the company and the line is cited, but this seems to be a little "off" for inclusion in an intro that already has a line about them being landed the biggest fine in pharma history. Basically 10% of a 150 year old company's summarization (and much of the rest is just a litany of products) is accusing them of being a criminal venture. Is it notable that they were landed with the largest ever fine for illegal drug marketing? Yes, of course. However litigation is an almost inevitable part of drug development - all drug "majors" have entire divisions devoted to legalities. This particular sentence I believe, because of its appearence in the intro and therefore prominence, carries undue weight and should be removed unless or until the intro is expanded to the point where it becomes a more balanced entry. I'm disinclined to remove it without consensus as clinical drugs are an area that can arouse high feeling, but I do think that it makes the intro imbalanced. danno 01:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Logo of Pfizer

Dear Wikipedians, i tried to add a logo to the article Pfizerlogo.gif, look for this image in Commons. But i am not able to add this. Later on i uploaded a new image using the logo upload form. The image can be inserted into any other article,except this. Can anyone help ?

Anandtr2006 (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. In short, fair use images must not be uploaded to commons. They can be uploaded here though, provided all the hoops are jumped through, to substantiate that it really is fair use. Try again here, and address any flagging reports that get posted to your talk page or the article talk page (such as the one above) regarding the logo that someone else uploaded, but presumably failed to respond to. If you jump through the hoops, administrators are quite unlikely to delete the logo.--Elvey (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Zyrtec

Pfizer was admonished by the FDA for marketing Zyrtec using overstated claims. Johnson & Johnson subsidiary McNeil Laboratories, who now markets Zyrtec was admonized by the BBB's Advertising Self-Regulatory Council for advertisements that convey the inaccurate message that Zyrtec keeps working for 24 hours while Claritin does not, and misleading consumers into believing they will obtain relief in a much shorter period of time by using Zyrtec over Claritin. All claims from source: Case #4903 (08/29/08) decision. (NAD/CARU Case Reports) Zyrtec was a blockbuster; shouldn't a few things about the drug be mentioned somewhere in this article? Seems at least as notable as the names of various executives.--Elvey (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Shareholders?

Recent moves to make inroads into generic drugs from India or the debate about evergreening patents are quite political, and Pfizer is clearly a political player to advance their business. As shareholders have a certain influence on the policies of a company it would be interesting to know who the shareholders typically are. I know it varies, but we'd like to see which individuals or organisations influence the course. Pfizer would be a stock that shareholders would hold long term. They may not be the only player who pushes for more revenue from patents but a significant one when it comes to life and death of some people. It is also worth noting that they do not seem to seek the change of patent laws in the international organisations in charge with that but in bilateral moves. Who is behind that, you wonder. 144.136.192.45 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agent production for Cold War US bio-warfare program

Not to vilify but the are several sources describing this involvement as well as human experimentation.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Security Agents manipulated the Pfizer-Wyeth deal

Pfizer-Wyeth deal There are evidences to show that Chinese government was behind the Pfizer-Wyeth deal.

This item was added to the Pfizer on Jan. 26, 2012, but was deleted by someone else. Here are editing history:

(cur | prev) 21:17, 27 January 2012‎ Gang.liu.1989 (talk | contribs)‎(63,565 bytes) (add the link to "China is the black hand behind the Pfizer-Wyeth deal". Please don't delete this item.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:12, 27 January 2012‎ 128.120.111.139 (talk)‎ (63,202 bytes) (Undid revision 473536372 by Gang.liu.1989 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 16:36, 27 January 2012‎ Gang.liu.1989 (talk | contribs)‎ (63,577 bytes) (add the link to "China is the black hand behind the Pfizer-Wyeth deal".) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gang.liu.1989 (talk • contribs)

The cite is an (alleged) copy of a submission to a court; it may only be a reliable source if the blogger and the party are independently reliable sources, and a mainstream source has commented on the information or on the lawsuit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Request to Pfizer for informed consent documents

Request to Pfizer for informed consent documents

Hello. I requested that Pfizer share some information that I wanted to use to develop this Wikipedia article and some other Wikimedia projects, including Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource. My request is in this letter. I emailed it to Jennifer.Kokell@pfizer.com and Dean.Mastrojohn@Pfizer.com, who made themselves available for contact through Contact Pfizer Media Relations. I am sharing this here so that there can be a public record of my seeking public information from Pfizer for the purpose of developing Wikipedia's presentation of Pfizer's research. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I am pretty uncomfortable with this, and I think this violates WP:TPG. This Talk page is not a forum to discuss whether or not Pfizer makes its informed consent documents public, and is especially not a platform to try to shame Pfizer into making them public. I understand and appreciate your advocacy, but I cannot see how it is appropriate for this Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog Shame is not my intent and I talked with a lot of people to revise this request in such a way to minimize any harm to Pfizer while still making the request.

I do not think it violates WP:TPG as I feel that relevant media requests are in the spirit of Wikipedia's mission, but also, I know of no case in which anyone has made an information request to an organization on a Wikipedia talk page. I feel that my request is relevant because Pfizer holds public information which would help complete this Wikipedia article, and that this Wikipedia article is lacking without that information. I am asking for that information. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the information available to the public.

I am willing to engage with you to the extent of your interest or seek additional comment or oversight as you suggest, but it is not clear to me what is useful to do. You are right to ask questions but I am not sure what questions ought to be asked. Talk this through with me if you like - I am grateful for the feedback especially in this case because I expect you understand what I am doing better than most. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am very sympathetic to what you are trying to do, with respect to getting these forms! And I appreciate the creativity! And thank you for being open to talking this through and in a friendly way - I am not interested in dropping any hammers. And I am glad you acknowledge that there is no precedence for this. So, OK.. What you write above is "I am sharing this here so that there can be a public record of my seeking public information from Pfizer for the purpose of developing Wikipedia's presentation of Pfizer's research." I can only assume (and please please correct me if I am wrong) that the purpose creating a public record of the request, is to shame them if they fail to deliver. If there is a different reason why making the request public matters, please let me know. (that is a real question, not rhetorical) You write above, that you feel that the article is lacking without this information. Generally, in WP, we include content, and give weight to content, based on what reliable sources say, not based on how editors feel. So a set of relevant questions for WP are, what reliable sources can you bring that say that: a) it is significant at all whether a drug company makes its consent forms public; b) what details of those consent forms mean or do not mean with respect to the company's... (I don't know, corporate citizenship? ethics? not sure). The more difficult issue is, even if Pfizer does disclose the consent forms, those forms themselves would be primary sources, and it would be out of bounds for any editor to analyze them or comment on them as per WP:OR and within that, WP:SYN. You would need to wait until a third party analyzed them and published the results in a reliable source, to really do anything in the Pfizer article with the consent forms. All this together - the "shaming" aspect, the lack of sources for why this matters, and the fact that nobody will be able to do much with them, all makes me uncomfortable with this posting on this Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

These are all excellent comments and I expect many other Wikipedians would have the same response to seeing this. I will give short answers but could say more.

1. "I can only assume (and please please correct me if I am wrong) that the purpose creating a public record of the request, is to shame them if they fail to deliver." I am making the request on the premise that there is a polite way to make the request. Starting with that premise, I did everything I could to be polite, including having this version of the letter reviewed by multiple unrelated people and asking dozens more over the past year to comment on the idea of a request. I am a stakeholder asserting that I need this information for the development of Wikipedia articles. If my request has a shortcoming then it is my failure in ability to ask, and not a lack of intent to make a nice request.
2. "what reliable sources can you bring that say that: a) it is significant at all whether a drug company makes its consent forms public b) what details of those consent forms mean..." I interpret these questions to be asking how informed consent documents relate to what Wikipedia can present. Media files are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia when they are relevant to what is described in an article. These informed consent documents would be relevant in articles about the research in which they were used. Reliable sources which confirm the relevance of informed consent documents to discussions about any given clinical trial include any number of layman guides to clinical research for research participants. One recent example is "Getz, Kenneth; foreword by Rick Boucher (2014). The gift of participation : a guide to making informed decisions about volunteering for a clinical trial (2nd ed.). Bar Harbor, ME: Jerian Pub. ISBN 978-0615156644.".
3. "You would need to wait until a third party analyzed them and published the results in a reliable source, to really do anything in the Pfizer article with the consent forms" Third parties publish research papers in response to clinical research, and content derived from those papers would make the text of an encyclopedia entry. The informed consent document complements this. I have a demo of how this works at PARAMOUNT trial. Even with lots of sources, the Wikipedia article is improved when it can also provide the layman explanation of the research which exists in the informed consent document. No one needs to do original research or synthesize information from the consent document - that can come from the research papers. I am unsure whether the ICD is a primary source because it is not as self published as other papers, but since I also had the concern that this was debatable, in my demo I did not cite it at all and only used other sources.

Thoughts? To what extent do you feel that I am addressing the points you raised? I worry about whether I have understood you. Thanks for asking entirely appropriate and very thoughtful questions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this also. Its not just reporting public knowledge, but an act of trying to change corporate behavior and/or policy. If this, why not public letters to Putin asking for a detailed accounting of the Russian Federation's sale of anti-aircraft missiles, or a letter to Merck asking for a detailed accounting of their efforts to reduce the use of animals in preclinical testing? The Talk pages will fill up with political grandstanding. As Pfizer is extremely unlikely to respond to this request (at least in part because doing so would be cutting things pretty close with respect to Regulation FD), its hard to see how this serves the interests of Wikipedia rather than simply using Wikipedia to make a political point. 50.113.65.200 (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If someone wishes to ask a government agency for public documents for the purpose of integrating them into Wikipedia articles then making a note of the request on an appropriate and affected Wikipedia article talk page seems good to me because the talk pages are reserved for discussions about improving relevant Wikipedia articles.

I am asking for access to documents which already are public and which stakeholders in research are invited to request.

You describe an unwelcome request for secret media which has no relevance to developing Wikipedia. I am making a welcome request for public media for the purpose of developing Wikipedia. I too oppose the slippery slope of horrible outcomes that you describe but feel that my request is good. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to Talk Blueraspberry.

1. I said nothing about politeness or lack thereof. The question is why it is important - and why you emphasized - that you are making a "public record" of the request. Direct question - what is the purpose of making a "public record" of the request at all? I will have a follow up to that. But that first.
2. I am willing to let this one lie for now, based on 3.
3. The way you used the consent form in the PARAMOUNT trial is fine. You just posted it and made no comment on it. If that is your intention, that seems fine and useful to me. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are some reasons why I made this a public request.

1. I expect that the organization would like the public request.
2. A public request makes a record of the request which others can use to collaborate in this and similar projects.
3. A public request saves the trouble of me having to explain that I need a public response which I can share with others. Letters are copyrighted; if they replied to me personally I would be barred by copyright from sharing their words exactly.
4. Requests are more real when they are public. In lots of situations people choose to have public conversations because they tend to get more thoughtful responses.
5. It is part of Wikipedia culture for many editors to only want to speak about developing Wikipedia articles on-wiki and not by private email.
6. I want to find the other people who have made this request, if they exist, so that I can collaborate with them in Wikipedia.
7. I was inspired by Sue Gardner's award to MuckRock, which is an organization which also makes public requests for public information. While I am not imitating MuckRock, it was encouraging for me to see a prominent Wikipedian back the idea of public requests. Neither Gardner nor MuckRock have anything to do with my planning this.

What is the follow up question? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, those are useful answers. Some comments and the follow up question, which is "Why connect this specific public request to Wikipedia, in particular?

OK, your letter is a particular expression of a public request. There The way I read this, there are elements of your letter that go beyond a simple, neutral request for information. As follows:

• First paragraph, you make it clear that the way I read this, the purpose of the request is to "benefit Pfizer and communities which provide research participants." That is the "mission" (one that I understand is important to you.) That is not Wikipedia's mission. I see how they are compatible. They are not identical. And as the letter goes on, it become clear to me that Wikipedia's mission is not the driver here.
• Third paragraph, last line. One of your goals is that Pfizer's clinical trials be "open to public oversight." In my view, Wikipedia does not attempt to oversee anything.
• 4th paragraph the way I read this, this basically accuses Pfizer of breaking the letter and spirit of the law
• 5th paragraph (1st on 2nd page), you claim I read this as claiming that Pfizer is harming "research participants and communities"
• 6th paragraph: "If you need more time to consider this request, then in the meantime please inform those who bring a safety concern to you about any of your studies that this request has been made along with an offer to deliver your content to the people who wished to access it." I don't really understand this, but you ~seem~ to be asking Pfizer to inform any potential plaintiffs against them that this request has been made. (you may or may not have had litigation in mind when you wrote this, but you can bet that Pfizer willin my view Prizer is likely to read it that way)
• 6th paragraph: "The public has the right to public information." Again you arein my view the letter ismaking legal or moral claims. Not neutral.
• 7th paragraph, you explicitly make it clear that you are leveragingin my view the letter attempts to leverage Wikipedia's "permanent timestamped" system and make it clear to them that through Wikipedia, "the public has notice that you have received this request"

All these elements of this particular request make it activist-y in my reading - not a straightforward and neutral request for information. I very much appreciate your passion on issues of informed consent and your strong interest in facilitating clinical research (so important) conducted in a truly ethical way (also so important!!). But to the extent that you very clearly includedI find these advocacy elements in this letter, and used and are usingit uses WP to forward that agenda... I am pretty darn uncomfortable.

With regard to the question about why connect this particular public request to Wikipedia in particular, I can classify your answers above as follows:

• Irrelevant to Wikipedia, since posting at any public platform would do the same: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7.
• Directly relevant to Wikipedia 5 is true... but in my reading the point of this particular letter is not simply to obtain sources for Wikipedia. It would be a different letter if that were the goal.
• Against Wikipedia's mission and maybe an abuse of Wikipedia: 4 and to a certain extent, 7

With respect to 4 and 7 in particular.

• 4 I feel that this is maybe an abuse of Wikipedia, since it appears that you are tryingthe letter attempts to leverage the reputation of Wikipedia to get this particular request taken more seriously.
• 7 The award was to Sue personally (not an award to WMF). Her personal choice to give it to MuckRock is just that - a personal choice. In addition, MuckRock is a tool for investigative journalism. Wikipedia is not a tool for investigative journalism. To the extent investigative journalism is published in reliable sources, we use those sources.

So with all that said, why are you connecting this particular request to Wikipedia? Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC) (NOTE - amended to make it more clear that this is my reading of the letter and remove discussion of intent. my apologies for not being more careful and straying into incorrect territory Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC))

Excuse me - I do not expect to reply until EST (New York) Friday evening. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

it's ok, I appreciate the discussion very much, and slow and thoughtful is way better than kneejerk. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a formal place and it is okay to change one's mind here, so I think kneejerk responses are welcome. I would not want anyone to be intimidated and think that only studied comments should go in Wikipedia, because this is a conversation. Again, I am giving short replies, but could elaborate more.

You ask, "why are you connecting this particular request to Wikipedia?" I am making the request here and pointing to Wikipedia as the target for the media release because Wikipedia is the appropriate place to fulfill the request, and because other websites or forums are not appropriate places to fill the request. Some reasons why Wikipedia is the appropriate place to host the information I requested include the following:

1. Wikipedia is the most popular single source of information on most health topics, and already has an audience for the information I requested. No other site does.
2. Wikipedia has technology in place to accommodate the public management of the media I requested. No other website, library, or delivery system does.
3. Wikipedia has the bandwidth to deliver the media I requested to meet demand, so even if other factors were in place content delivery might not be.
4. Wikipedia is a socially appropriate place to put this media as it is non-profit. Other places, like government, university, foundation, or corporation websites would be much more troublesome in hosting this information if it were even possible for them to manage it, deliver it, and find an audience, which are unlikely things anyway.

Wikipedia is at least a suitable candidate for being steward of the media I requested. For this reason, I tied the request to Wikipedia. You said, "...posting at any public platform would do the same" - I feel that posting it elsewhere would not be the same. "The medium is the message" and the request for Wikipedia could not have been understood if not coming through the Wikimedia platform.

• You raise more points about seeming hostility to Pfizer - "basically accuses Pfizer "Pfizer is harming" and "making legal or moral claims". I deny that I want anything other than a friendly collaborative relationship with Pfizer and all other pharma companies. I make no accusations. I took what I consider to be reasonable effort to avoid creating barriers between the community and Pfizer. I want there to be no hostility here. I tried to make a polite request as I said above, but you said "I said nothing about politeness or lack thereof", so somehow I think we misunderstand each other about what I am interpreting as your comments about etiquette. Wikipedia has a policy on Wikipedia:Civility which defines a minimum but I actually want the best relationship here for Pfizer and Wikipedia together, and think politeness matters a lot. Hostility is impolite and if I was hostile then I regret it and am sorry and would make amends in a way that keeps the original request polite.
• You say "All these elements of this particular request make it activist-y - not a straightforward and neutral request" Yes, it was not a straightforward request but also an attempt to persuade. I see nothing wrong with this but trust your instinct and ask more if you like. Other organizations have contributed media to Wikimedia Commons, and they did this for the mutual benefit of doing so.
• You say "you very clearly included these advocacy elements in this letter" (citing WP:ADVOCACY) and "it become clear that Wikipedia's mission is not the driver here" WP:ADVOCACY talks about people harming Wikipedia in the process of sharing information. I showed you a demo that I made already - PARAMOUNT trial - and I made that with the intent to benefit Wikipedia. What about my request do you worry is not aligned with Wikipedia's mission?
• You say, "you are trying to leverage the reputation of Wikipedia to get this particular request taken more seriously" I regret that people who speak about Wikipedia are often inappropriately seen as speaking for Wikipedia. It is hard to explain the relationship between editors and Wikipedia, and is probably equally correct to say that no one represents Wikipedia or anyone represents Wikipedia. I regret the confusion, and do not want to misrepresent that I have any exclusive relationship with Wikipedia. I am leveraging the reputation of Wikipedia in the sense that Wikipedia is a nonprofit project which serves information of interest to Pfizer and everyone else who shares encyclopedic information. As I said before, Wikipedia is uniquely suited to host the media I requested, and those attributes are worth leveraging. I hope that I am not consuming public resources at the expense of others. What do you see? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, and carefully as well. I am very happy to acknowledge that you had no negative or coercive intentions - that your intention was to persuade Pfizer to enter into a friendly relationship with WP. I agree with you that there is nothing impolite in the letter. (One can say terrible things, very politely) I opened the letter and read it, and am giving you my interpretation of what I read there the first time, which only grew more clear to me with additional readings. I went through and carefully explained each element that I thought was threatening or advocate-like (each of which have nothing to do with what we do, in Wikipedia) and am not sure what to say in addition, without just repeating myself. Others may well read the letter differently. All I can ask is that you hear me and acknowledge that these are valid readings (not what you meant, surely, but open to be interpreted in this way). What is done is done with this letter, but going forward, I am requesting that if you do this again via Wikipedia, please leave out the elements that you consider persuasive and that I have interpreted as threatening or advocate-like. I would not have objected to a simple and direct request being posted at Wikipedia, without those elements. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I amended my comments above to make it clear that these are my readings of the letter - to keep my comments on the surface reading and remove discussion of intent. Possibly needs further work along those lines. I apologize. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog Thanks for understanding that I mean well. I regret that my words can seem threatening, and I do think that if I did another iteration of this that I would like to get help and more opinions about removing all parts of the request which have nothing to do with the mission of Wikipedia. Right now I think I am unable to digest your comments fully because I am so close to the request. I will think more about identifying and removing what does not belong and get comments from others on this. I have another draft and codification of the process of making requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical Trials, which is where I expect I will post any future requests.

It is completely my responsibility to make requests which minimize potential to be interpreted as threatening. I will take a break of at least weeks while I think about this, deconstruct the request, and make it as straightforward as possible. I am not sure that the request would be valid without some persuasive elements to confirm that I have standing to make the request and the ability act in response if it were fulfilled, but I will consider what you say and remove whatever is extra. I could say more, but yes, I not only confirm that your reading of the content is a valid interpretation but also that others might agree with it, and that I should modify future requests to make that interpretation less likely. Thanks for talking this through with me.

I also regret that you see my response as careful, but I imagine that is a valid reading too. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Careful is a good good thing to me. As in opposite of "careless", and is in very thoughtful and dialogue-full!! And I am just one editor. Others may read your letter very differently in this vasty place. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

edits of August 2014

Happy to discuss your concerns in a detailed way, or to see you re-add deleted material in a NPOV manner and with appropriate sourcing. The material I deleted had problems with sourcing or was obsolete. Admittedly I could hsve sesrched for better sources, but the article is unbalanced and my priority would be to add more information about the company's products. As it stands there is very little discussion in the article about what the company actually does to generate revenue, while the scandals it has beeninvolved kn are discussed in great detail. Thanks, Formerly 98 (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've undone two reversions of Trackinfo's edits that were erroneous. I apologize for the sloppy editing. I saw three edits following my three edits, and given the somewhat confrontational edit comment accompanying the first of these (and no edit summary on the next two), assumed incorrectly that these were just knee-jerk reversions of my edits. I apologize for this.

With respect to the Roth "Whistleblower" entry: I will come back at a later point to address the issue of whether including this table, including pictures of the persons involved, is undue weight. All of the scandals have already been covered in extreme detail. For the scandal involving Neurontin exposed by David Franklin, for example, we have

• An entry under Promotional Practices
• A separate article about Franklin vs. Pfizer, and a link to it under Promotional Practices
• A nearly identical article entitled "David Franklin" which says almost nothing about Franklin himself except for his role in the exposure of this scandal
• A summary of the scandal in a separate "Whistleblowers" table
• Another article entitled "Largest Pharmaceutical Settlements" that is nothing more than a list of such scandals that are already discussed in the articles about the individual companies
• It's discussed again in an article entitled "List of off-label promotion pharmaceutical settlements", which is mainly a rehash of the previous item
• Its discussed in the gabapentin article at great length

In contrast, Lipitor, the biggest selling drug in history, and one that has prevented many tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths by MI over the last 20 years, is mentioned but is not in any way described in this article.

I recognize that this is an "undue weight" argument, and it is unlikely that we will agree given the difference in our points of view, but in re-adding this I would like to point out the issue above, and that there is a serious issue of balance in this article. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

While I carried this discussion on (Formerly 98's talk page) talk page (which he chose to deleted as "unsupported accusations, WP:GF violations" I actually feel I did the right thing, supported by subsequent actions. In one block of deletion, Formerly98 removed over 8K, almost ⅛ of the article, some of it on what I considered flimsy excuses. New people to the discussion can find this sequence on August 9, 2014. After forcing the point, he and other editors have replaced almost half of the deleted material. I hope the other editors who have contributed this content will be aware of those deletions and will continue to review those edits. That was all I wanted in suggesting you take such a massive deletion to this talk page--put some thought into your editing, let other people do the same. As I found, there are sources that do support that content, and by doing what I suggested (use Google), so has Formerly98. Trackinfo (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

discussion is a good thing on wikipedia. however the above comment seems to be more about contributor than content. please discuss content. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Whistleblower Table

The first row of the table was completely redundant with the first paragraph of the previous "Promotional Practices" section.

The second row was redundant with the second paragraph of the Promotional Practices section.

The fourth row of the table was redundant with the 3rd paragraph of the Promotional Practices section.

Only the material on Rost was new. I combined this material with the previous section and deleted the table for redundancy and associated WP:UNDUE.

I do not believe that this edit led to the elimiation of any material that was not noted in the previous paragraph. If there was any new material in the table that I missed, I think the best way to incorporate it is to add it to the corresponding paragraph of Promotional Practices.

We have not described Pfizer's activities in support of developing world health in both prose and tabular form. Is there any particular reason we should repeat the information on illegal promotional practices in this way?

As of the time of completion of this edit, I count 47 paragraphs in this article that are purely neutral description, 19 that are negative, and 4 that are positive about the company. Of the 4, I added 3 this past week. I think the company's sins have been covered in pretty reasonable detail, and its time to add some information about the company's contributions in areas such as mass production of penicillin in WW2, the dramatic reduction in pneumococcal deaths that followed the introduction of the Prevnar vaccine, its development of the key antifungal drug fluconazole, mariviroc for multi-drug resistant HIV, etc. The article should be balanced, and the coverage of the company is currently very selectively negative.

I'm quite open to discussing this, but if we can keep the WP:GF violations to a minimum it will be helpful. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there some problem? I expect everyone would support reform like you are proposing. I assume negative information came piecewise when people had complaints, and that no one has worked over this article in entirety. That is usual for company articles. If someone wants to say positive things then they should. Pfizer gets a lot done. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, its been a little contentious as you can see from the comments in the section above. Pfizer, along with the other companies in the industry has done some bad stuff, and any changes with the paragraphs dealing with these issues often seem to bring up a lot of concern that they are being whitewashed by company lackeys. In this particular case I probably exacerbated those concerns with some early, sloppy editing.

I think at this time the article is reasonably close to providing a balanced picture, as it includes a thorough coverage of the company's many, many marketing scandals as well as a description of some of the very important drugs that have come out of its labs and some material on its charitable and environmental activities. I don't think that everyone is fully in agreement with this assessment, however. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Abdullahi v. Pfizer

A few minor adjustments here:

Per WP:SAY replaced the value-loaded word "claimed" with "stated".

Replaced "WikiLeaks released US diplomatic cables, which indicate that Pfizer had "used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout". The language here seems to indicate that the U.S. Embassy reached this conclusion. What the cable actually says is that "Pfizer had hired investigators to uncover corruption links to Federal Attorney General Michael Aondoakaa to expose him and put pressure on him to drop the federal cases." The conclusion that this was "dirty tricks" was that of Wikileaks.

Throughout the period 1997-2007 Nigeria consistently scored in the bottom 10% of Transparency International's international Corruption Perception Index Remarkably, in nearly half of these years scored dead last or second to last among lists of 100-185 rated countries. The Nigerian federal government was suing Pfizer for an amount equal to 10% of Nigeria's GDP, and under the circumstances, it seems questionable how much of that money would have actually gone to benefit the citizens of Kano or of Nigeria as a whole.

Under the circumstances, I think the "dirty tricks" characterization is debateable, and that it is better simply to state the facts and allow the reader to form their own opinion. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

depo-provera

77.249.241.14, you have now re-added this content to the article. (I had reverted it after you added it the first time. I just reverted it again) Please explain what this topic has to do with Pfizer, per se. I am not at this point addressing the violations of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:VERIFY in the actual content; I am just asking what the topic has to do with Pfizer at all. Please do respond. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)