Talk:GSK plc/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Controversies section Reordering?

It looks like the Controversies section was written using a combination of alphabetical and chronological ordering, and then disorganized by additions and changes. When viewed as a whole, it is difficult to form a coherent picture, and I think it might make sense to totally reorganize the entire section. My thought is to redo in a strictly chronological order based on court ruling or other resolution for the date, followed by earlier background dates within each paragraph of a particular controversy if needed, with major sub-sections identified by year, and with the names of particular, existing named controversies (Avandia, Paroxetine, and Ribena,) listed in parentheses after the appropriate years, and then bullets for each controversy within that year. (This would also properly necessitate cleaning up any inbound links from other pages, which there are probably many.) As a partial example:

2006

• In March 2006, California Attorney General.... from Other
• On 12 September 2006 GSK settled the largest tax dispute.... later 2006 controversy from Other

2007 (Avandia)

• On 14 June 2007, an article was published.... Avandia controversy text, several paragraphs worth
• In February 2007, the Serious Fraud Office in the UK.... an earlier 2007 controversy from Other, placed later (than 14 June 2007) to keep the long, years-spanning Avandia controversy directly under its sub-head

(etc.)

It's a (relatively) big undertaking, and I want to see some WP:Consensus before I start. Comments? --Eliyahu S ^Talk 09:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I'd put Paroxetine under 2004, with the FDA black box ruling, Avandia in 2007, as shown above. In reviewing the (scant) history of the Ribena case, I'm not sure A) whether to place it under 2004, 2007, or somewhere in between (need to find more cites,) or else remove it as a separate subhead for "lack of interest," lack of background content, etc. Alternatively, I could create separate 2007 (Avandia) and 2007 (Ribena) sub-heads, and follow with other 2007 events before a 2008 sub-head. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 10:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that this is a good idea. Some of these are multi-year, such as Paroxetine and Ribena. Issues such as Paroxetine, Avandia and Ribena are more likely to be known by product name than year. And if we start down a year approach for the contents of the 'other' section we are going to end up with an excessive (and undue) number of sub headings).Rangoon11 (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to order the contents of the 'Other' section by date order however, although without extra subheadings.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My real problems with this is the Criminal charges of July 2012 sub-head, which is NOT a single-product name, and is even today's In The News piece. Rangoon11, I come up with eight year sub-heads to replace the existing five. And, the multi-year problem occurs in Other, also, where there would be some other spanning conflicts, too.--Eliyahu S ^Talk 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't like that particular sub heading either and would be happy to hear suggestions for alternatives. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Health-care fraud settlment would seem the obvious choice - at $3 billion - the largest health-care fraud settlement in the U.S. and the largest payment by a drug company - it obviously deserves at least it's own heading under Controversies. It is far more notable than the New Zealand Ribena controversy (costing $270,000) which has a heading - so I'm going to do that. Or is someone trying to delay to keep it out of the news - given that it is In The News today? SeventhHell (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversies section too big? Makes Wikipedia look like Wiked-pedia?

That section is about one-third of the article, in terms of height of the webpage.

If one-third of the article were criticisms for politicians, such as President Obama or Chancellor Merkel, you can bet that whoever did that would be accused of sockpuppetry, called a POV pushed, and maybe even banned. Yet, this is tolerated for companies, which are automatically all deemed evil and bad. Ha ha.

Seriously, let's be more fair. I don't give a (add expletive) about GSK so I won't do any of the re-writing. Auchansa (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that a few items that belong in the HISTORY section of this arcticle are being called controversies. It is not a controversy that they were fined billions, it is a fact, and an amazing fact. That belongs in the history and the lead, not in the controversy section. This might apply to others in that section as well. 2001:470:C157:0:201:2EFF:FE31:4AFF (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have shortened the Paroxetine section slightly, but am generally happy with the controversies coverage. Yes, prominent controversies needs to be covered in the lead, per WP:Lead. And, yes, some discussion could be moved to the history section where appropriate. Johnfos (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a manual of style guideline, not a requirement for "controversies" to be included in the lead.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If we keep controversies hidden (to use Susan's term) in the body of the article, but do not mention prominent controversies in the lead, how can the article ever be WP:NPOV? I say again, we must follow WP policy, and this is not up for negotiation. Johnfos (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The section in WP:NPOV which is most relevant is Due and undue weight - inclusion of this single "controversy" in a 10 line long lead, and certainly giving it two sentences or 2.5 lines, is undue. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You can certainly argue that it might be undue. Whether it really is however is still debatable, In any casy the easy solution is simply to extend the lead, then the problem becomes non existant.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Settlement

There is no mention of this yet Pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline is to pay the equivalent of 2.3 billion euros in the largest healthcare fraud settlement in US history.http://www.euronews.com/2012/07/03/gsk-settles-record-healthcare-fraud-case/ “Anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000 diabetics had unnecessary, unneeded heart attacks or death due to drug Avandia. This drug hurt a lot of people,”

I can't even buy headache tablets without putting money into the pockets of murderers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.184.58 (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There were a few additions on this to the "other" section at the bottom of the page. Though, considering the scope and significance of the settlement it might be wise to further expand that portion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FifthCrow (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This section belongs in the History section, and more prominantly it should probably be summarized before the table of contents. 2001:470:C157:0:201:2EFF:FE31:4AFF (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree it belongs in the History section rather than Controversies, and I went to move it and found that a lot of the content in Controversies should also be in History, and I didn't have time or inspiration to do it - in fact the whole article needs more editing than we have the energy for, I fear.SeventhHell (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 settlement in lead

Greetings. I don't think that settlement should be hidden and kept out of the lead. Obviously User:Rangoon11 disagrees with me. I don't plan to return here to argue with him. But at least you have my point of view to support you if you agree. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be grotesquely recentist and undue for the lead. I am really surprised that an established editor does not understand this. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Recentist or not since it was a "record breaking" process you can make at least a weak argument (based on policy) for including it in the lead. Very important recent information on the subject can it doubt always be included in the lead. Another thing is that the lead has a summary function as well and a large prominent part of the article deals with various scandals or controversies surrounding GLaxoSmitKline. However since the overall lead is currently rather short it might indeed appear a bit undue.

In general I think WP and this article are better served with investing time in lucid description of the topic in the controversy section rather spending it on a prolonged argument over 1 or 2 lines in the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The $3 billion 2012 settlement at least deserves it's own heading under "Controversies" - as the largest health-care fraud settlement in the U.S. and the largest payment by a drug company I think it is far more notable than the New Zealand Ribena controversy (costing $270,000) which has a heading - so I'm going to do that - especially given that it is In The News today. SeventhHell (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the 2012 $3 billion settlement info to the lead, was reverted, and have been referred here [1]. I agree with SusanLesch above, when she said that "I don't think that settlement should be hidden and kept out of the lead". WP:Lead says that notable controversies should be mentioned in the lead; this is not at all undue weight since this is such monumental settlement -- the largest ever as I understand it. Am restoring the info. Johnfos (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing here. Readding in the circumstances is therefore wholly inappropriate until the discussion has concluded. It clearly has not yet.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

When you make high-handed statements like: "I am really surprised that an established editor does not understand this" and "wholly inappropriate", I think you are getting carried away with yourself. I am simply following WP policy and summarizing the most prominent controversy in the lead, per WP:Lead. Johnfos (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Policies don't write articles, editors do. Whether this "controversy" belongs in the lead is a matter of editorial judgment and the subject of an open discussion. Attempting to force the change is not on.

In the context of GSK's business this settlement is actually not that large, less than a quarter of one year's profits. In a 10 line summary of the whole of GSK and the whole of its history, inclusion is undue, recentist and US-centric.

In the lead at present there is nothing about GSK's key pharmaceutical products, nothing about its facilities, nothing about acquisitions which the company has made, nothing about R&D and the pipeline, and yet you think that 2.5 lines should be devoted to this settlement. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If we keep controversies hidden (to use Susan's term) in the body of the article, but do not mention prominent controversies in the lead, how can the article ever be WP:NPOV? I say again, we must follow WP policy, and this is not up for negotiation. Johnfos (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Lead isn't policy, it is a memorandum of style. It would be nice you could actually reply to the points which I have made. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to your main point that: "Whether this "controversy" belongs in the lead is a matter of editorial judgment and the subject of an open discussion. Attempting to force the change is not on". My reply was: "If we keep controversies hidden (to use Susan's term) in the body of the article, but do not mention prominent controversies in the lead, how can the article ever be WP:NPOV? I say again, we must follow WP policy, and this is not up for negotiation". Johnfos (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You just don't seem to be listening to what I am saying. Perhaps you feel that you know it all? Maybe you are a very experienced editor with a string of FAs and GAs to your name? If so, let me know, as I would be interested to look at them. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I can't help but hear what you are saying as you keep repeating the same non-point again and again. Whilst failing to respond to virtually all points made in response.

Let me list again the points which I have made above which you have failed to respond to:

1. WP:Lead isn't policy, it is a memorandum of style
2. Even if it were a policy, policies don't write articles, editors do.
3. Despite a discussion on inclusion of this content being ongoing, you have simply attempted to force it in through edit warring
4. In the lead at present there is nothing about GSK's key pharmaceutical products, nothing about its facilities, nothing about acquisitions which the company has made, nothing about R&D and the pipeline, and yet you think that 2.5 lines should be devoted to this settlement.
5. In the context of GSK's business this settlement is actually not that large, less than a quarter of one year's profits. In a 10 line summary of the whole of GSK and the whole of its history, inclusion is undue, recentist and US-centric.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I note that Johnfos failed to respond to this post. Instead they went to the article and added a POV tag. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now added a POV-lead tag, see section below. Johnfos (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding a tag when you are failing to engage in a proper discussion is not the way forward here. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

However so far i haven't heard any argument from you against the inclusion other than being somewhat undue in a very short lead. While you got a point there, it is rather weak nevertheless as this easily can be fixed by extended the lead rather than deleteting the "record" scandal from it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

POV-lead tag

I have added a POV-lead tag, as the introduction is not in accord with WP:NPOV or WP:Lead, which says that prominent controversies should be mentioned in the lead. My considerable efforts to explain this in the sections above have met with stiff opposition from Rangoon11. At the very least, the GlaxoSmithKline $3bn settlement over rosiglitazone and other drugs needs to be mentioned in the introduction. Johnfos (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am hoping to expand the lead into a four paragraph version which deals with GSK's major products, history, acquisitions etc more appropriately. As part of this I am prepared to accept a brief reference to the settlement in the lead. I remain firmly of the opinion that a two sentence reference in the current version of the lead is out place and undue. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, well in the meantime how about something at the end of the lead like: "In 2012, GSK pleaded guilty to criminal charges and accepted a $3 billion settlement in the largest health care fraud case ever."? Do you think this one line undue weight? The lead is actually closer to 15 lines, not 10, so if $3 billion is a quarter of a year's profits then 1 line in 16 would seem the minimum you'd want to spend on an issue of this significance in the lead. SeventhHell (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that a 3-paragraph lead would have sufficed, but if we are to have 4 paragraphs, then one should be wholly devoted to controversies. Johnfos (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I support the idea that one of four paragraphs in the lead should be wholly devoted to controversies if the lead includes four paragraphs. --Psychiatrick (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

... as do I, and as is pointed out above under Settlement the recent health care fraud issue is not even a controversy anymore, GSK pleaded guilty so it is history, fact. As Rangoon11 is the only user with objections and has not responded to discussion I will make the small change proposed above, with apologies for not making the more substantial amendments the issue (and whole article) deserves, and hopefully others may be able to follow up.SeventhHell (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is my proposed lead which was reverted just now by Johnfos:

" GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) (LSE: GSK, NYSE: GSK) is a British multinational pharmaceutical, biologics, vaccines and consumer healthcare company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. It is the world's fourth-largest pharmaceutical company measured by 2009 prescription drug sales (after Pfizer, Novartis, and Sanofi).

GSK has a portfolio of products for major disease areas including asthma, cancer, virus control, infections, mental health, diabetes, and digestive conditions. Amongst its largest-selling pharmaceutical products are Advair/Seretide (Fluticasone and Salmeterol; used for Asthma), Avandia/Avandamet/Avandaryl (Rosiglitazone; used for Type 2 diabetes), Paxil/Seroxat (Paroxetine; used for depression and anxiety disorders) and Lamictal (Lamotrigine, used for seizures). It also has a large consumer healthcare division which produces and markets oral healthcare and nutritional products and over-the-counter medicines including Boost, Gaviscon, Horlicks, Lucozade and Sensodyne.

GSK was established in 2000 by the merger of GlaxoWellcome plc (formed from the acquisition of Wellcome plc by Glaxo plc) and SmithKline Beecham plc (formed from the merger of Beecham plc and SmithKline Beckman Corporation, which was itself formed by the combination of Smith Kline French and Beckman). Since its formation GSK has made a number of acquisitions, including of Block Drug, Stiefel Laboratories and Maxinutrition. In 2009 GSK and Pfizer combined their HIV therapy operations into the ViiV Healthcare joint venture, in which GSK holds an 85% stake. In July 2012, GSK pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed to a $3 billion settlement with the United States Department of Justice, the largest pharmaceutical settlement in the United States to date.

GSK has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. As of 6 July 2012, it had a market capitalisation of £74.8 billion, the fifth-largest of any company listed on the London Stock Exchange. It has a secondary listing on the New York Stock Exchange. "

I am struggling to see what the issue is with this text. It is not definitive or final, as nothing in WP is, but is a huge improvement on the current lead and adds a number of highly significant details which should be included in a proper introduction to the topic. The current lead I should add does not have consensus and is being sustained only through edit warring. WP does not operate by vote and consensus is clearly lacking for two sentences on the recent settlement in the US.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did restore the previous lead, with the edit summary: "Need for a 4-paragraph lead has not been established, but if we are to have one, consensus on Talk is for one of those paras to be entirely about controversies, for NPOV. Am reverting to previous lead." Once again it is the same old issue: Rangoon11 is trying to minimise discussion of controversies in the lead, which is against WP:NPOV and WP:Lead. Johnfos (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It is increasingly clear that you do not wish to actually engage in a discussion on this talk page, merely to edit war to try to sustain the current lead.

I have gone to the trouble of actually drafting a new lead. Your response has simply been to revert it your preferred (non stable, and non consenus) version, and then to post your above dross.

Zero engagement in the draft, or in the discussion. No constructive comments. No discussion. Pathetic. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Look it's great you have the energy, Rangoon, most of us don't have the time or energy to do PR work for multinationals, if you wish to put the issue out for wider discussion do so, because I think we all know what side consensus would fall on.SeventhHell (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to refuse to engage with good faith efforts to improve articles, nor to attempt to close discussions down with personal attacks and unfounded accusations. Either provide some definitive evidence that I am doing "PR work" or withdraw your comment.

A perfectly reasonable and balanced draft lead has been proposed, so far there is no effort from yourself and Johnfos to engage the draft. If you think that you will keep the lead in its current state through obstruction and refusal to discuss then you are mistaken. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And I feel I should note - the above draft actually includes reference to the recent settlement in the US. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if User Rangoon11 took anything the wrong way. Johnfos and myself are merely the only two users who have returned to respond to Rangoon11’s enthusiasm for the products of GSK - other users above who have been confounded by this include FifthCrow, Eliyahu S, and -Kmhkmh, and SusanLesch. The community has clearly rejected Rangoon11's viewpoint that the health care fraud settlement should be downplayed.

Looking at the existing lead and Rangoon11's draft lead side by side, they are identical except that Rangoon11's is:

• about 50 words longer
• deletes the explanatory sentence following the health care fraud settlement sentence: ("The settlement is related to the company's illegal promotion of best-selling anti-depressants and its failure to report safety data about a top diabetes drug"), and
• adds an additional three sentences before the health care fraud sentence, thereby pushing it further down the page: ("Amongst its largest-selling pharmaceutical products are Advair/Seretide (Fluticasone and Salmeterol; used for Asthma), Avandia/Avandamet/Avandaryl (Rosiglitazone; used for Type 2 diabetes), Paxil/Seroxat (Paroxetine; used for depression and anxiety disorders) and Lamictal (Lamotrigine, used for seizures)."), and ("Since its formation GSK has made a number of acquisitions, including of Block Drug, Stiefel Laboratories and Maxinutrition. In 2009 GSK and Pfizer combined their HIV therapy operations into the ViiV Healthcare joint venture, in which GSK holds an 85% stake.")

So, if Rangoon11 could explain why these three proposed sentences are more worthy of inclusion than the single sentence (which explains an issue which was notable enough to be In The News last week) then, assuming that Rangoon11 could find other editors supporting his/her thus far lone viewpoint on this issue, he or she could proceed to the various processes available for consensus-building (e.g. RfC or mediation).

Many thanks,SeventhHell (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually see two editors who have opposed the additions to the lead which I have proposed. Neither of whom have given any valid or constructive reasons for their rejecting of it. In fact thanks for just confirming that the real reason for your objection to the additions is that you feel that they would give less emphasis to your sole interest in this article - placing as much emphasis as possible on "controversies", in particular a single very recent controversy.

I would like to hear specific and valid reasons why you oppose the addition to the lead of the following highly relevant content:

*Mention of some of GSK's most notable and biggest selling pharmaceutical products.

*Mention of some of GSK's acquisitions of other companies.

*Mention of the ViiV Healthcare joint venture.

*Mention of Lucozade, one of the most notable and biggest selling consumer healthcare products.

I would also like to hear good reasons why the following is not an adequate description of the recent settlement:

In July 2012, GSK pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed to a $3 billion settlement with the United States Department of Justice, the largest pharmaceutical settlement in the United States to date.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No controversy about it, you are filibustering and we are ignoring you.SeventhHell (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To quote a German "no answer is also an answer". Personally I think the suggested text is competent and well-written. The key determinant is - does it summarize the content of the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies to butt in into a discussion, that has reached a consensus (or looks like). I was looking at the topic, and the related lead. And here are my thoughts,

1) In an user's reading experience point of view, a three para lead looks bit cluttered ( or is it only me ).

2) The four point lead proposed by Rangoon11 looks reasonable with due justice to all facets of the discussion, and acknowledge the century old (or more) history of a company ( products / acquisitions).

3) isnt better to say - "is a British multinational pharmaceutical and consumer healthcare company". A very concise desc of the company? Vaccine/biologics is a pharmaceutical, isnt ?

4) The merger part may look better on the second or third para, and atleast a para - as it an aspect of the evolution of the company with its acquisitions. Especially the recent one - US$ 3 Billion takeover of Human Genome on July 16 2012 ( which may be related to the settlement)

5) Products : a mention is more than enough. As an user, I normally navigate by clicking the Product data in the company infobox placed on the right side (out of a genuine inquisitiveness, rather than being compelled from the lead). Normally I seen the usage of code - " | products = [ [GlaxoSmithKline#Products|See products] ] " in the infobox

6) Now the burning issue - settlement. A line is all what is required. I even of the opinion, it shouldnt be there in the lead at all. If it is so required, it can be kept for a year and remove it, say by the year end. I feel wikipedia has become a forum to vent anger & frustration (in the leads). Yes, it is an medium of expression - the controversy section is the section an user navigates to get the full understanding of the details of a settlement or a controversy. In this case, more weight-age should be given to the history / formation / evolution of the company. Controversies / products in the respective section with a line of mention in the lead.

A line like

"In July 2012, GSK pleaded guilty to illegal promotion of two drugs and agreed to a $3 billion settlement with the US Department of Justice <<< or US authorities>>>."

or

"In July 2012, GSK agreed to a $3 billion settlement with US authorities << or DOJ or Department of Justice >> involving illegal promotion of two drugs << or two <<or best-selling>> anti-depressants>>> and failure to report drug-safety-data.

is what is required. As short as possible and in a line. Which drug, what is the history of the whole settlement - let the reader navigate down. Also, US$3 billion settlement - is it including the acquisition or is it related in the first place ( most likely not) . Hope I was able to articulate well. Cheers Jean Julius Vernal 17:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Products

I propose adding a table to the article which will provide expanded information on what is by far the most important aspect of GSK - its pharmaceutical products. I envisage the table having columns for information such as chemical name, medical useage, date of FDA approval and a Notes column. Any suggestions which others have for how best to implement this will be much appreciated.

I am unsure as to whether and how pipeline products should be included (i.e at what stage). Again any thoughts much appreciated. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Brand Name, usage, date of first approval - in whichever country it was licenced first - should suffice, but it would be wise to try and limit it to the most significant/notable products (eg where the GSK was first to market in that area) rather than attempt to list all. Listing all would be a case for a separate "List of ..." article. And I would list limit it to those that appeared first under GSK and leave out earlier products eg ampicillin which was Beecham product GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I should have been clearer - I was only proposing current products, and products which have a WP article. I agree that a comprehensive list would be too long for this article, as would a historic one (there is a case for a separate article for that however). Chemical name is I think vital.

What are your thoughts on significant products in the pipeline (which have a WP article)? Rangoon11 (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

One further point - personally I am neutral as to whether the date should be FDA approval or first country. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well to pick FDA alone would be US-centric/POV- its not the largest market with regard to precription drugs (a Central Marketing Authorization under the European Medicines Agency covers a population of 500 million, and then there's China and India of which I an unaware of their arrangements) and to list all authorisation dates would be excessive. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the advantage of a list over prose? I would have thought that prose would be better, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Prose versus lists, which says: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain". I would think that mentioning the key side-effects of each pharmaceutical product would be important. Johnfos (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Now why does the last sentence of your post not surprise me?

Prose for this type of information would be a mess, far harder to read, interpret and maintain. This is precisely the type of information which is suited to a table with columns. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The side effects listed in the Patient Information Leaflet for any given product run to paragraphs these days to cover from common to uncommon to rarely encountered. They would also belong under any article on the active ingredient/product itself not a general list. The list, or a table, would be my preference for setting out a number of items especially if there are wikilinks to more detail (compare Armstrong_Whitworth_Aircraft ) GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As we have seen in the sections above, there is an unfortunate pro-industry push here to ignore WP:MoS and WP:NPOV, and soldier on regardless. This flaunting of Wikipedia rules is just not on. Johnfos (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that there is intent to give a list of products that would be NPOV, the notes column would be the place to mention any singularly important point about a product - eg withdrawal from market, recalls, bans, selling on to another manufacturer etc. Any exceptional issues would have already been mentioned in the controversies, history sections. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is a lot of info about different products, without including discussion of basic side effects, that would be POV to me. We are not here to promote pharmaceutical company products. Johnfos (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to produce a cartoonish attack piece, which is your sole interest in this article. Puffing up and placing as much stress as possible on (what you perceive to be) negatives. This is not a table for the purposes of giving medical information, but for the purposes of understanding GSK as a topic. The side effects of products is utterly irrelevant to this article. I think you would be best served going off and setting up an anti-GSK blog, if you haven't already. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon, you are getting carried away with yourself again. I find it ironic that multi-blocked editors with limited experience with recognized content are often among the first to tell others how things should be done on Wikipedia.

I have consistently said that this article should better accord with WP:MoS and WP:NPOV. Just common sense I would have thought. Johnfos (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Authoritative sources on $3 billion settlement

• US Department of Justice
• US Department of Justice: Documents and Resources
• Editorial in Nature
• Coverage in BMJ

We should try to use more of these in the article. Johnfos (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar

{{GSKsidebar}} I've added this sidebar, rather than having lists of products and corporate officers in the text, which makes the article hard to read and scan, especially on a small screen. I've also tidied the writing a little (though it could use more), and I removed some of the repetitive refs – when the same ref covers several sentences, there's no need to add it after each sentence. Hope this is okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted this non standard change which in my view would significantly damage the article and hinder its proper development. The sections for Products and Corporate affairs are of great importance, absolutely fundamental to the topic, and their contents should not be shunted off into a tiny and rather bizarre side bar. Moving the contents there trivialises and marginalises this important information, makes the article significantly less user friendly as readers are then forced to open up the drop downs to view the information - shown in a tiny font - which is currently in the main body of the article, and would hinder or more likely completely stunt the further development of content on these aspects of the company.

Side bars are essentially navigation tools, they are not designed for large and key parts of articles to be moved into.

And in terms of navigation, there is already a GSK navbox. That should be expanded and developed through the addition of product links. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want the lists in the article, they ought to be moved to the end, and perhaps summarized in prose form nearer the top. But it isn't appropriate to have them right in the centre of the text. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, which explains why prose is preferred. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I see you reverted everything, including the clean-up of the writing. Can you say why you did that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Product and Corporate affairs sections as is are poor. The whole article is poor. In fact fairly dire. However this would not be a step in the right direction. Both those absolutely core sections need expansion, the addition of detail and a yes move more towards prose.

Corporate articles have a fairly standard section order which goes broadly Lead > Name > History > Products > Operations > Corporate affairs > Environmental record > Corporate social responsibility > Sponsorships > Controversies. The order of Products, Operations and Corporate affairs can vary but they do not go at the end of the article.

Re the reversions, this was unavoidable as the addition of the side bar was done in the same edit as the clean up edits. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I should also add, the whole issue of locations needs a rethink, GSK has a great many facilities worldwide. Simply presenting a selective list of a small proportion of its locations without any contextual information about facility mission and size is not the way to go. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article is poor. Do you mind if I restore the copy edit? I'll leave the lists where they are for now, and keep the sidebar out.

As for your proposed structure, I know this is how you structure articles, but I disagree that it's a good way to do it. The articles has to be readable. The intention is not to list every single thing the company has ever done, then leave the issues that most sources discuss as an afterthought. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not my proposed structure, it is the current and long standing structure of this article and of the majority of company articles.

"the issues that most sources discuss". What would they be per chance?

Feel free to restore your copy edits if they are mere tidy up. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll restore the copy edit. In future, I'd appreciate it if you would avoid wholesale reverts when possible. It would have been easy enough, I think, to restore the lists and leave the rest. Or rather, I'm about to find out how easy it would have been.

The structure you suggest is not the best way to write articles; it's often done to push controversy to the bottom of the page, which can look a bit silly – you end up with lists of officers, followed by lists of brands, and lists of buildings, and lists of locations, and lists of awards, and lists of corporate social responsibility initiatives, then buried away at the very end, in small print, there's one sentence about a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit and a criminal trial. I hope we can avoid that kind of thing here, and just write it in whatever way makes sense, flow-wise and source-wise.

As for what the body of source material focuses on, I don't know, I haven't read it yet. But whatever it is, that's the direction the article ought to take. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No it is done like that that because editors experienced in the area of companies have found it to be the most logical and appropriate structure. It also helps to give a consistency for readers and helps to guard against POV pushers who either want to give undue prominence to "Controversies" or to things like sponsorships or awards or charitiable activities.

This article already suffers from an excessive focus on "Controversies" (and such sections are in any case deprecated). I do hope that you are not here purely to try to make this article even more of a crude attack piece. Much of what you have said above gives that clear impression however. It now looks very much like your attempt to push core content into that rather bizarre sidebar was purely to give greater emphasis to "Controversies" in this article. That is very concerning.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not keen on separate criticism or controversies sections. Sometimes it can't be helped, but I try to avoid them when I can. What I would like the article to do is comply with the policies and guidelines, particularly NPOV, and basic rules about good writing. I can't say in advance how prominent each issue should be, because I haven't read the sources. Can you point me to where other experienced editors have agreed on this kind of structure? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We can agree one thing at least then. I would generally prefer to see those "controversies" which are genuinely of note integrated into the History section, and perhaps in the case of this article also the Products section for a few of them, and then to scrap the Controversies section altogether.

Re article structures, take a look at a cross section of a few thousand articles on major companies and you will see this broad structure used widely. It has therefore become established through convention. I will claim no credit for its creation, but I have come to be a supporter of it for the reasons given above, and because it is a logical approach and one which best serves neutrality in an area which is prone to a great deal of POV pushing both by those who edit purely to add or puff up controversies, or those who are paid by companies to add promotional content. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As there are things we agree and disagree on, I suggest that we stick closely to the policies and guidelines, then try to reach agreement between us for any issues they don't cover. I agree that merging controversies into the chronology would make more sense, or discussing them when the products are first mentioned. I can't suggest anything concrete yet, though, until I've done more of the reading. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's sidebar version yields superior readability. It helps quite a lot to push the bare lists into show/hide boxes which are hidden by default. With regard to controversy in the article, it definitely should be prominent, not ghettoized at the bottom. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon, it is unfortunate that you are still in the habit of suggesting that any editor that disagrees with you must be attempting to bias the article. I am referring to this statement:

I do hope that you are not here purely to try to make this article even more of a crude attack piece. Much of what you have said above gives that clear impression however. It now looks very much like your attempt to push core content into that rather bizarre sidebar was purely to give greater emphasis to "Controversies" in this article. That is very concerning.

Attacking other editors is irritating and frustrating. Wholesale deletions are as well. Gandydancer (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If there's agreement to swap the lists for the sidebar, I'd like to go ahead and do that. As things stand, when you scroll down the article, it seems as though it has ended once you get to the list of products. Then there's another list of corporate officers before you reach some of the issues a lot of readers will want to know about. With the sidebar in place, people who want that level of detail can click on it without disturbing the flow of the text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the reason I thought your sidebar was superior. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no good reason for the proposed change and there are multiple significant reasons against.

The arguments made in favour of moving the whole of the Products and Corporate affairs section and much of the Operations section into a sidebar amount to:

1. The current sections make the article "hard to read and scan especially on a small screen". - How? That is a mere opinion (assuming it is actually believed by the proposer) and a very curious one indeed. What is clear is that the text which is proposed to be moved to a side bar would be significantly harder to read and scan; it would be in a far smaller font and only accessible when drop downs are selected.

2. "when you scroll down the article, it seems as though it has ended once you get to the list of products" - Why? There is a list of contents at the start of the article, the Products section gives no indication that the article has finished, the text below it is visible, and it is clear from the side scroll bar that the reader is only part of the way down the page.

3. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists supports this change. - No it does not. It does say that articles should consist primarily of primarily of prose, which this one already does. It does say that while prose in general is preferred for the writing of articles, there are occasions when some form of list may be appropriate. It does say that in some cases a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence. It does not say that lists should be moved to the end of articles and nowhere does it mention embedded lists being moved to a sidebar. In fact it does not mention sidebars at all.

Arguments against this proposal include:

1. Wholly non-standard. I have never seen an article in Wikipedia where significant core content relating to the topic has been moved to a side bar instead of being in the main body of the article.

2. Misuse of the side bar as a feature. Sidebars are navigation features, they are not designed for the presentation of article content. Side bars are "vertically-aligned navigation templates." ([[2]])

3. Would stunt further development of content on GSK's Products and Corporate affairs, since there would be no means of adding prose to the side bar and the sections would have been removed.

4. Would make the article far harder to read, since the text in the side bar would be far smaller than text within the body of the article and would only be accessible by using drop downs.

5. Counter-intuitive and not user friendly. First-time readers would have no idea what the side bar contains until opening it up. And since this would be a completely non-standard approach readers would have no idea what to expect in advance.

6. Presentation of locations information would be crude and misleading. GSK has a very large number of facilities and those which would be included in the side bar are only a small proportion. Informaion about faciltity size and mission would be absent and there would be nowhere to detail it.

7. Would trivialise core content. Placing content in a side bar in this manner would present the information to readers as secondary and peripheral. However what the company produces is absolutely fundamental to what it is.

8. Would create an overlapping and duplicative navigation feature, since there is already a GSK navbox. Navboxes are the standard navigation feature for linking articles relating to a single company such as its products, connected people etc.

9. In so far as the Products, Corporate affairs and Operations sections currently contain a lack of prose, that is something which can be easily addressed by editing.

10. Has no basis in policy.

11. Content in the side bar would be significantly harder to edit and maintain, particularly for inexperienced or new editors.

As of yet there has been no attempt to address any of these issues. I therefore continue to strongly oppose this proposal. I also note that no consensus has been achieved for this change, since consensus is not established by vote, and the quality of argument in favour of change is so weak and no attempt has been made to address the multiple strong arguments against.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists cautions against these lists inside articles. We can write up the main products in prose in their own section; it's just the list style, especially the names of officers, that isn't appropriate. As there's consensus to restore the edit, and because it's MoS-compliant, I'm going to go ahead and do that. We can then discuss how to introduce the key products in prose within the text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this proposed change, this discussion is ongoing, in fact it has only just begun, and you are wholly failing to make any sort of convincing case. Please do not attempt to make this change to the article until this discussion has reached a clear consensus. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon has reverted all the changes, [3] including the copy edit that he agreed to, and the removal of the lists. I continued to edit the article but got an edit conflict when I tried to save because of the reverts. I've therefore saved my version at User:SlimVirgin/GSK. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The edits for which you used the edit summary "copy edit" included large scale non-substantive changes many of which I disagree with and will need separate threads to discuss, including the addition of text to the lead. I said "Feel free to restore your copy edits if they are mere tidy up". The series of edits which I reverted were far more than tidy up.

Please do not attempt to impose large scale changes which are under discussion. This shows a complete contempt towards other editors and towards the project in general. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind when people take control of articles when they're well-written, or where there are obvious efforts to improve them. But it isn't reasonable to ask people to get your blessing when the article's in such a poor state, and we certainly can't have a separate discussion over every single issue. You've restored poor writing, dead links, and lots of repetition. It makes no sense to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I wont stand by and watch an article be made significantly worse, especially not a high profile one. The lead warrants a separate thread. So does the "Controversies" section, which is a crude and bloated laundry list full of any and every negative piece of information that POV-pushers have been able to run to earth.

In so far as the article is poor it is primarily because the coverage of Products, Operations and Corporate affairs - which is the very core of the topic alongside the History - is far too thin and undeveloped. Your proposed changes would make those issues even worse.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Controversies" section

Leaving aside the fact that "Controversies" sections are generally deprecated, this article has one of the worst examples of a laundry list section of attack content that exists in WP.

Of course a number of the incidents mentioned in that section are notable for mention in this article somewhere, however at present many are given an excessive treatment, whilst a number of others are simply not of sufficient importance to justify mention in the article at all.

Large pharmaceutical companies have no shortage of enemies - such as opponents of animal testing and animal rights activists, opponents of anti-depressant medications, individuals and friends and relatives of those who may have been affected side effects of drugs etc - and it seems that such individuals have been given a free rein to turn this article into an attack piece.

The Controversies section at present contains more words than the entire History section, and dwarfs the sections on what the company actually produces (the Products section) and its actual business (the Operations section). Rangoon11 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to open up new discussions, we first have to decide about the lists, lead and copy edit. The version I would like to use as a base is at User:SlimVirgin/GSK. Then we can discuss how to improve it. But discussing how to fix the controversies section when you won't allow writing problems to be fixed or even dead links to be replaced can't work, because it means anyone who commits to doing the research might be wasting their time. So we first have to know that the article is open for editing, and that we have a cleaner baseline to start with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

These are all quite separate issues. Your seeking to shift large parts of the article into a sidebar is one issue. The current state of the lead, and attempts to edit it, are a second quite separate one. The Controversies section is a third, again quite separate. The fourth is the need to expand and develop the Products, Corporate affairs and Operations sections. For me that is actually the most important task and the one which will require the most skill and effort. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In order to speed this process up I have added in some of the text from your draft where I was in agreement. I don't agree with the changes to article structure which your draft envisages, and which are in my view not just non-standard but significantly less logical and user friendly (moving the entire history of the company post its formation out of the History section for example and lumping it together with Operations and Products would create a mess and I can see no advantages to such an approach; ditto making CSR a sub section of Operations - Operations in fact means the company's corporate operations).Rangoon11 (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon please do not just forge ahead as though other editors had as much time as you do to edit here. It makes it hard for other editors to follow what's going on. It can be argued that it is a way to push changes through so fast that others aren't able to raise objections. Gandydancer (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The lead of this article is in my view a mess, having been spoilt a few months ago by the clumsy and recentist addition of reference to a settlement in the US. Text on that settlement now takes up around a quarter of the lead, whilst the lead includes no mention of such significant aspects of GSK as its main R&D sites and its principal corporate acquisitions.

Not content with the lead in its current unbalanced form, SlimVirgin has attempted to make changes to the lead which add even more text about this settlement, such that this one incident would take up a whole five line paragraph, as follows:

"In July 2012 GSK pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the United States, and agreed to a $3 billion settlement, including a criminal fine of $1 billion, in what was the largest health-care fraud case to date in that country; it was also the largest settlement by a drug company.[6][7] The criminal charges were related to the company's illegal promotion of best-selling anti-depressants paroxetine (marketed in the United States as Paxil) and bupropion (Wellburtrin) for unapproved uses, and its failure to report safety data about a top diabetes drug, rosiglitazone (Avandia). Part of the rest of the settlement was related to the company's sales and marketing of an asthma drug, fluticasone/salmeterol (Advair)"

This has been reverted. The change would make an already unbalanced lead into essentially a crude attack piece. I also note that the edit summary for the attempted change was "copy edit".Rangoon11 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's version of the lead section was appropriate. The huge settlement was briefly summarized by breaking it down into its separate elements. By itself, the settlement is a summary of many years of GSK misbehavior. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangoon said:The lead of this article is in my view a mess, having been spoilt a few months ago by the clumsy and recentist addition of reference to a settlement in the US. Rangoon this is the very same argument that you made at the BParticle: The mention of the BP oil spill didn't belong in the lead because it happened too recently. On the other hand you argued that huge chunks of the article didn't belong because they had happened too long ago! For anyone to suggest that the largest settlement in history does not belong in the lead of this article(or as in the case of the BP article the largest oil spill plus the largest settlement) is just utterly astonishing. Gandydancer (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is clear on this point: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." It's difficult to know what a prominent controversy would entail if not a $1 billion criminal fine, a further $2 billion settlement and the largest health-care fraud case in US history. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

After talking with a number of Wikipedia readers and finding out that most of them do not read beyond the lead section, I came to believe strongly in adherence to the WP:LEAD guideline. As stated last summer at (2012 settlement in lead), Rangoon11 does not share my sentiment, apparently preferring to argue each element of the lead section, and to deny the mention of major facts in the lead section. Last summer Johnfos, SeventhHell, Kmhkmh and SusanLesch argued for adherence to LEAD, for inclusion of major negative information in the lead. Now, again, it appears that more editors wish to see something like SlimVirgin's example above. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Although a case can be made for inclusion of this settlement in the lead in some form - it can be argued either way, but there are good arguments against such as recentism and US-centricity - there is no valid case for a single settlement taking up a third of the whole lead. One sentence at most would be appropriate.92.24.134.114 (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How many years would you suggest it might take till it's been long enough that it's not too recent? Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ribena

I really enjoyed this section but does anyone else believe that it is much too detailed? Gandydancer (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I also note that the "Other" section needs a lot of work--this for instance (with no reference):

Later that year GSK also ran afoul of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and was facing a demand for $7.8 billion in backdated taxes and interest, the highest in IRS history. "Ran afoul"? :-) Gandydancer (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Ribena section has too much detail and yes, the "other" section needs a lot of work. Feel free to start tidying if you feel so inclined. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I find that I'm doing an awful lot of deleting... If other editors don't agree please free feel replace it or to speak out. Gandydancer (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Acquisitons

Apologies if this has been said before, and a decision made but I've just been reading the article out of interest and looking for some info on the company. I just wondered if the part that catalogues all of the acquisitons etc would be better displayed in a seperate page similar to how Apples is - List of mergers and acquisitions by Apple. Only it just seemed to be a bit of hard work reading through. Regards XyZAn (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

GlaxoSmithKline executives face China bribery probe

This should be added to the article:

GlaxoSmithKline executives face China bribery probe

GlaxoSmithKline staff 'confess' to China bribery charges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide (talk • contribs) 10:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an allegation and nothing concrete is available; the executives are being investigated, not sentenced. Any content included would be purely speculative and would include criminal accusations against living people, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Human experiments

Just noting here that the first paragraph of this section, added in August 2013, was more-or-less plagiarized from its source. I'm therefore assuming the rest of it was too, so I've removed it until someone has had a chance to check it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)