Talk:Pfizer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] Green Stone

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)