Wikipedia

Talk:GSK plc/Archive 4

< Talk:GSK plc
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Dormskirk in topic Nationality of the company
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Balance

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources, not proportional to revenue. The subject is not too big to criticize. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"Coverage in Wikipedia is proportional to coverage in reliable sources" EXACTLY!!!!
Pubmed citations referring to GSK drugs:
amoxicillin 15763 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.132.47 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
acyclovir 14490
cimetidine 12297
allopurinol 8951
ceftazidime  7668
paroxetine 5549
rosiglitazone 5381
albendazole 5005
Bupropion 3984
fluticasone 3613
Restored flag. 73.162.132.47 (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on GlaxoSmithKline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on GlaxoSmithKline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on GlaxoSmithKline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead image

Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Dormskirk, I would like to restore the image. It's a striking photograph of their head office, with the added benefit that it shows the logo too, so there's no need for a separate image of that. I always try to add striking lead images to articles I'm working on, when I can find them. There's nothing promotional about it; the point is simply to make the article look good. SarahSV (talk)

Hi - I certainly agree that it is striking but no other FTSE 100 or even FTSE 250 company has a photo like that in its infobox. It is completely over the top in my view. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I also see no reason to remove this image. I would not say that it makes the company look good or bad but it sure does show that this is a substantial corporation. Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
But I sure am open to more discussion as I am more than ready to change my mind... Gandydancer (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Dormskirk, it doesn't matter what other FTSE 100 articles have. There's no style guide for those articles that I know of. To me, it's just a question of aesthetics. We can have the logo alone, or we have the logo on a striking image of their head office. SarahSV (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi - I am not aware of any wikipedia guideline on this either and agree it is a matter of aesthetics. But it does open the door to other companies putting garish promotional photos at the top of their infoboxes. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't bother me if they did. Avoiding promotion doesn't mean hiding things in case it makes the company look good. They have a stunning head office, and this is an interesting photograph of it. It makes the lead look less drab. It shows the logo too. Everyone wins. SarahSV (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi - Again I agree with you about the stunning head office and the article being less drab with the photo. But a lot of people like to add promotional material to wikipedia articles and that's what concerns me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
That's not what's happening here. I've been careful to remove anything I felt was purely promotional. SarahSV (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi - I can see that's not the case here. And you are doing a good job of persuading me but I remain concerned about the precedent. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The picture was fine; agree with restoring it. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I sure would not call that pic "garish". I'd call it "striking"... Dormskirk, I've never seen Slim to allow "promotional material", if that's your concern. Gandydancer (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Gandydancer and Jytdog. Dormskirk, I assume from your last post that you have no strong objections now, so I'll go ahead and restore it shortly. SarahSV (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi SarahSV - I am impressed by your powers of persuasion. I confirm I have no strong objections now. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, many thanks, Dormskirk. SarahSV (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GlaxoSmithKline. 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:

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) 18:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory statements in first paragraph

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The opening paragraph says that Andrew Witty has been CEO of the company since 2008, and then says Emma Walmsley became CEO in 2017. Surely this is a contradiction - should it really either read Andrew Witty was CEO from 2008-2017, or read that Emma Walmsley was made CEO elect in 2017?Vorbee (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

handled. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Acquisition of Sanofi?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there an actual source for the "acquisition of Sanofi-Synthélabo in 2001" that's shown on the acquisitions/mergers tree? I've tried searching around for this as well as looking at Sanofi's wiki page, and can't find any evidence suggesting this is the case. Furthermore it's not mentioned anywhere in the actual text of this article. 73.69.145.211 (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Better Article Title

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

In my opinion the better name for the article would be "GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)" as it will incorporate GSK which people generally call the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulaymān Hercules (talk • contribs) 14:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Most readers know the company as GlaxoSmithKline and there is no compelling reason to change it. There will also be hundreds of incoming links to change. Dormskirk (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose not a normal contruct for article title, if the company is better known as GSK then propose an article move. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I only suggested in case as the medicine front only contains the logo which title "gsk". And all the investors, and stock analyst call the company as "gsk". That is why suggested to move the page to the "GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)", or move the page to "gsk". It is important that if a persons knows the legal name of the company, and he searched it on Google, then the top result should be Wikipedia page, that is why "GlaxoSmithKline (gsk)" is much better as it incorporate both the legal name and the name generally known and said by people. Sulaymān Hercules (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

GlaxoSmithKline changed their name officially to GSK on 16 May 2022. Announcement to London Stock Exchange: Change of name to GSK plc - https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/GSK/change-of-name-to-gsk-plc/15454280 198.28.69.11 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What's a sufficient summary of a $2 billion slap on the wrist?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As found:

In 2012, GSK pleaded guilty to promotion of drugs for unapproved uses, failure to report safety data, and kickbacks to physicians in the United States and agreed to pay a US$3 billion (£1.9bn) settlement. It was the largest health-care fraud case to date in that country and the largest settlement by a drug company.

Note how the only instance of "United States" is highly subordinate, and that referenced in the following sentence using the distancing language of "that country". Not a good structure. This was my trigger to dive into the citation.

As amended:

In 2012, under prosecution by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) based on combined investigations of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG), FDA and FBI, primarily concerning sales and marketing of the drugs Avandia, Paxil, and Wellbutrin, GSK pleaded guilty to promotion of drugs for unapproved uses failure to report safety data, and kickbacks to physicians in the United States and agreed to pay a US$3 billion (£1.9bn) settlement. It was the largest health-care fraud case to date in that country and the largest settlement by a drug company.

Is it too much to mention in the lead the name of the prosecuting jurisdiction, the investigative parties, and the primary scope of the investigation, as well the main charges and financial outcome?

I see this quite often where a billion dollar fine ends up with the most rudimentary summary sentence in the lead. Perhaps this is because it demands a rather large section later on. Or perhaps it's because financial supergiants don't entirely play by Wikipedia's editorial rules, making the same active efforts to tilt disclosure toward terse minimalism that they would in any other public-facing communication after the embarrassing fact.

In any case, I personally think a US $3 billion dollar fine can support quick mention of another seven pertinent parties to the epic settlement: DOJ, HHS, FDA, FBI, Avandia, Paxil, Wellbutrin.

On another note, I also think that auto-archiving on a 30-day basis removes past discussion from the talk page sooner than necessary, making it easy for edits like this one to disappear into the void again.

Perhaps I've packed too much into one sentence. If you think you can do better in two sentences, fill you boots. — MaxEnt 14:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why I've got this article on my watch list. Let's see if you get a response by others. Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

IPs pushing a nationalistic agenda

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A series of IPs continue to make out that this is a British-American company. Its corporate HQ is in the UK which in my view indicates that it is a British company. I am aware that there is an operational HQ in Philadelphia, that the group was born out of a merger with an American company, and also that there has been a similar debate over Astra-Zeneca. Rather than continual changes being made to the article to and fro, please can we come to a consensus here. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

GSK is a British company. It has to abide by the (admittedly self-regulation) ABPI code (which would not be the case if it was based in any other country), and is listed on the London Stock Exchange. 198.28.69.11 (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Change of name (official)

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Propose: change of name or change of page (see archive page 4) GlaxoSmithKline changed their name officially to GSK on 16 May 2022. Announcement to London Stock Exchange: Change of name to GSK plc - https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/GSK/change-of-name-to-gsk-plc/15454280

Support move to GSK plc. (GSK is already taken by a disambiguation page). Dormskirk (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Support - WP:BEBOLD TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Now moved. Dormskirk (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dormskirk and Timtempleton: Per WP:COMMONNAME I think the article should be titled GSK rather than "GSK plc", because people typically do not say "plc" or "Public limited company" with the names of organizations.
The name matters for categories including
Category:GlaxoSmithKline
Category:Clinical trials sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline
Category:GlaxoSmithKline litigation
Category:GlaxoSmithKline people
I think all of these should be GSK not GSK plc. Other thoughts? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ridwan97: You were managing the category name change. Thoughts? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I considered that idea and only rejected it because the article name "GSK" is currently taken by a disambiguation page. There seem to be a series of other things known as "GSK". Dormskirk (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of company articles that either say Inc. or (company) to disambiguate them. Nonetheless, you could go to the current GSK disambiguation page and propose renaming it to GSK (disambiguation), and making the GSK page the name for the pharmaceutical company. None of the other entries seem to be more notable. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, either that, or rename this article to GSK (company). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. For the record, as Adumbrativus points out, WP:NCCORP says both company suffix and (company) are acceptable for disambiguation. Considering that, this all seems to come down to irreconciliable personal preferences. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

GSK plc → GSK (company) – Per WP:NCCORP, GSK plc is always shortening the word "GSK". See the London Stock Exchange here: https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/GSK/change-of-name-to-gsk-plc/15454280 2001:448A:6000:D960:7DEB:6DC7:84A9:A834 (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 03:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose When disambiguation is needed, it is far preferable wherever possible to use natural disambiguation by way of the corporate form, rather than Wikipedia's artificial parenthetical (company). Though of course not universal, that preference is why this is the majority: DCC plc, Shell plc, Twitter, Inc., many other examples. And this one! UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose natural disambiguation is better. Dormskirk (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. We usually try to avoid using plc, Ltd, Inc, etc, in article titles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    Except when they are required for disambiguation, in which case they are far preferable: see the examples above. Plus Apple Inc. and Tesla, Inc., of course UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
    Not true. We have countless examples of "company" being used as a parenthetical disambiguator when a corporate abbreviation could have been used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    You misread my comment. I did not say that (company) was never used, only that there are many more examples of using the corporate form (thus making it "preferable") than of using the parenthetical. The number of uses of (company) is certainly not countless. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    That really is not true, as a look at any appropriate category or relevant RM will testify. The use of "(company)" is much commoner. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly. Please check facts. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose natural disambiguation is more logical and suitable. There may well be other GSK companies in the future also.Simonebeltrasse (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    • We don't disambiguate for the future, only for the now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Looking at the GSK disambiguation page I actually think GSK plc should take that page and simply be GSK, since the others are either not primarily/generally known as GSK and/or are much less notable. But having said that, GSK plc is much better than the unnecessary and sub optimal GSK (company).Simonebeltrasse (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems to me that WP:NCCORP just says that both ways are acceptable if disambiguation is needed. It would be helpful if anyone has reasons why natural disambiguation is particularly preferable in this instance, or why plc should be particularly avoided in this instance. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 7 July 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural close: bad faith request only 8 days after an identical request from the same IP range (2001:448A:6000:0:0:0:0:0/44) was rejected. Furthermore, they tried to pull a fast one by first submitting it as a technical request. Further requests within the next 3 months will be summarily rejected. Favonian (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

GSK plc → GSK (company) – WP:NCCORP 2001:448A:6000:884A:2D25:66CF:E8D:FB4F (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  • WP:SNOWCLOSE the last RM was closed just 8 days ago with no consensus. -- AxG / ✉  15:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Procedural close excessive renomination speed. Wait 3 months. No new rationale and same requested target, so it is a near identical request. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose For same reasons as above. Time wasting re-request.Simonebeltrasse (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nationality of the company

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This seems to be one of many British companies which has recently been targeted as part of a promotion by an IP or IPs to make out that they are British-American companies or American companies. Edit summaries generally include the words "tax inversion" or "merger of equals". This is the right place to reach a consensus on the matter. Dormskirk (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GSK_plc/Archive_4&oldid=1109637119"