Talk:Eli Lilly controversies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Indiana, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Indiana. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
Eli Lilly controversies is within the scope of WikiProject Indianapolis, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of metropolitan Indianapolis, Indiana and related subjects in the Wikipedia. | |
| B | This article has been rating as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. | |
 |
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page. | |
[edit] Merge
In general, "criticism" articles or "controversy" articles are content forks or point-of-view forks, and should be avoided. I propose merging the relevant information (of which there is a significant amount) into the parent article on Eli Lilly, and describing the criticism (e.g. Zyprexa, Xigris) in that context. MastCell Talk 18:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- This was originally forked due to POV objections on Eli Lilly and Company but makes sense to have its own page due to length. (67.82.232.151 16:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC))
-
- But the solution to POV problems is not to farm them out to a forked article; it's to fix the POV problems. Criticism and controversy around Eli Lilly can be summed up in a much more concise and readable way which could be merged with the parent article. This article currently contains som significant controversy/scandal (e.g. Lilly's promotion of Zyprexa) with information that really is either non-notable or belongs in a different article (e.g. criticism of Bush's AIDS relief plan, or Mitch Daniels - the connection to Lilly there is much more tenuous). Right now the article reads like a laundry list of everything within 6 degrees of separation of Lilly, and it should be pruned a bit. MastCell Talk 17:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree completely. The parent Eli Lilly article also has the criticism part, so there is a duplication. Also this article is hard to find, and despite the bias it does contain some useful information.Paul gene 22:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. First, to state the obvious: this article is far too long to merge into the main article on Lilly, which is itself a lengthy article. Secondly, there's nothing unusual about creating an offshoot when the need arises. The summary of these controversies should be expanded somewhat, but the detailed discussions belong here in this article. Thirdly, whatever problems there may be with this article in terms of NPOV issues, etc. can and should be dealt with here. That's standard practice, it's done countless times every day.
- One last thing: the name of this article really should be changed to "Eli Lilly Controversies" to more accurately reflect the diverse contents. Cgingold 21:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fennress Shooting
I found that this section had neglected to add a link to the article that discussed the shooting in more detail. Also there seems to be some bad phrasing in there. For example the article refers to the incident as the Fennress shooting. While this is one aspect of the case, the wording seems to implicate the only one shot was Fennress. The article that I linked refrences the shooting was called the Standard Gravure shooting, and I would encorage the article to be more uniformed to this. 74.171.195.74 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Navi
[edit] NPOV
From my quick scan of this article, it seems biased; the tone does not hold to neutral point of view; and the Bush thing at the end is almost like reading a conspiracy webpage. Fisher4.wemo (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
