This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Hi Rangoon, I see you're removing links to this in several places (example). Can you explain your objection, please? I've been adding it to a few of the key groups and issues the book discusses. SlimVirgin(talk)18:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for starting a talk page discussion. In my view the book is not specifically about the British pharmaceutical industry (although by a British author) so I feel including it in the See also section here to be too remote and POV. I can't see how the book would ever be mentioned in the text of the article even were it expanded to the maximum length possible and achieved FA status.
The book deals extensively with the pharmaceutical industry in the UK, and offers UK-based solutions. Goldacre writes that "this world" (the people and issues he is drawing attention to) "penetrates British academia and medicine to its absolute core" (p. 346). SlimVirgin(talk)19:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the book, just some reviews and synopses. None of them mentioned the UK specifically, the only country which they referred to was the US. I took it from that that the UK is not central to the premise of the work. Can you see a way that reference to the book, perhaps the issues which you touch on from around p 346, could be integrated into the article itself, maybe in the Regulation or R&D section? Rangoon11 (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What happens in the UK is central to the book. In fact he praises the situation in the US several times because, comparatively speaking, American institutions have made greater strides toward transparency. (He writes, for example, that the website of the American Medical Students Association, which grades institutions according to their COI policies, makes him "feel weepy.") Yes, I could write a section in this article using the book as a source, but that will take time. In the meantime I'd like to add it as a see also. I would also like to add it to the template that you removed it from. SlimVirgin(talk)00:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But not central enough for reviews and synopses to even mention the UK. I am completely against it going in the UK template, that is for articles which are closely related to the industry specifically in the UK. A book which was entirely or overwhelmingly about the industry in the UK could be relevant, one which is about the industry worldwide is not. On the other hand I have been thinking about the need for a template on the Pharmaceutical industry as a whole (similar to Template:Automotive industry) and I would not object to a link there.
One can think of all manner of books which have a WP article and secondarily address a topic which has a WP article, do you think that they should all be added in vast long lists in See also sections?
However, in order to give the new article a helping hand and as a compromise I will drop my objection to a link in the see also section, but not as regards the template.
I also hope that, if you have a knowledge and an interest in the topic of this article you will be able to help with its further expansion and development. Thus far I have been essentially the only editor despite this being an important and large topic. I am well aware that the article is far from complete.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll add the link, and over time I may try to add a section based on the book. I'll start a separate discussion on the template page. A great deal of the book is specifically about the UK, which is why the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry responded with a press release, and why its chief executive, Stephen Whitehead, discussed it with Goldacre on the Today programme. So in my view it does belong on that template. That is, after all, the whole point of links in See also sections and templates – to draw readers' attention to articles where they can find more information about the topic. SlimVirgin(talk)
