Talk:Lexicon Pharmaceuticals

Length of Article and Plagiarism

Much of this article has been cut and pasted in whole from the [company website]. Most of this material is promotional in nature, and cannot be independently verified. This article is also rather long when compared to industry leaders such as Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, or Pfizer. I suggest removing all of the contentious material that can not be independently sourced. Aderksen (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Random IP user who keeps removing the warning tags - you get one more month to either source or remove the plagiarized material. Should you fail to do so, fail to ask for an extension, or fail to provide some rationale to justify these sections, and I will be forced to delete them myself. I understand that you mean well, and I leave this warning here in good faith. Aderksen (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to make myself perfectly clear, at the start of August, I will delete everything in the "clinical trials" section. I have yet to hear any justification from the anonymous contributor, and no registered accounts have weighed in on this subject. If you have an opinion on this issue, now would be a good time to express it. Aderksen (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

talk - I understand that the Under Construction tag is for articles undergoing major reconstruction, if this is incorrect forgive me, but if this is the case then allow me to keep it up until revisions are finished. A major revamp of the article is currently under construction, though it is being done so offline. The revamp will include a completely remodeled "clinical trials" section per your suggestion, along with additional citations in each of the other sections. In regards to the length in comparison to major pharma companies, I believe you'll find that by character count, Bayer's page is roughly twice the length of Lexicon Pharmaceutical's page. However, I believe that it is inappropriate to compare the two, as both companies are at such different stages in their development. Thank you for your constructive criticism, and I hope that you will find the revamp satisfactory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.166.166.236 (talk) 15:38, (UTC)

First off, thank you, anonymous user, for contributing, and thank you again for joining the discussion!

"If this article has not been edited in several days, please remove this template." Apologies. Ten days without edit seemed to meet the acceptable definition of 'several days'. I will let that notice as well as the 'clinical trials' section stand while you and your team work up your authoritative revision. Please consider that a statement such as the now-deleted comment, "It is currently being peer edited by several members of the company," does not inspire a lot of confidence in your ability to escape the "third party publication" criticism, the "self-published" criticism, or the "advertisement" criticism - unless the corporate press release you eventually publish here is adequately cited by external sources. You're also going to have to be careful that you do not cut and paste from the company website - that is plagiarism. Even if you are the author of both documents, you would still be plagiarizing yourself or violating the company's copyright on their own press-releases. A link pointing to the external material should be sufficient to avoid copyright claims - especially if said claims about product efficacy or progress continue to be unverified by a reputable third-party publication. Last and not least, I strongly recommend that you get a registered account as opposed to the anonymous ones. I know Lexicon's sometime IP block (and I see at least two or three departments have contributed to this site over time), but I also see that historically, someone in the recent past has been editing anonymously from home in the Woodlands. Be transparent, and take pride in your work! Let other editors know who you are. Aderksen (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

External Validation

An excellent start! I approve of these contributions, and feel that they meet some of my concerns. I am glad to see what initially appear to be external citations on many of these statements, but most (if not all) of your "external" citations firmly declare "press release source: Lexicon Pharmaceuticals". A corporate press release does not constitute an independently verifiable resource as much as it reflects "forward looking statements" posted on a financial website. You need external validation from another resource (and a peer-reviewed publication would be nice), or you can not claim stated function for a given compound - only that the company alleges such a function might be possible. I'll be glad to give you the time to remove those in-house citations and find those independent publications. Then I will take down the "needs external validation" signpost.

My other concern is that you reference a pair of posters that may have been presented at a public meeting, but which are currently hosted on Lexicon servers. I'm sure that the conference sponsors have webspace to host such things, and in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, you should probably link to those documents on that organization's site instead of your own company.

Last and not least, why not register a wikipedia account? That IP really isn't all that anonymous, and to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I recommend full transparency! Aderksen (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am deleting all citations that are sourced to Lexicon press-releases. Aderksen (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705142646/http://www.lexgen.com/discovery/technology.html to http://www.lexgen.com/discovery/technology.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)