This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
European Commission report about Pharmaceuticals
Currently, half the article is about what this report has to say, and the European Commission is far from a independent third-party on the subject of pharmaceutical patents. While there is use to include their POV in the article, the article itself should not be based on it. Because of this, the article reads as a Advocacy of a political nature on the POV of European Commission (2008). I seperated out the section to make this a bit more easier see and fix. Im sorry that I am just pointing out the problems and not fixing them, but currently thats the most I can do at this point of timeBelorn (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph was not meant to read as an advertisement of pharmaceutical patents, or even to present a particular opinion (point of view, advocacy) on pharmaceutical patents. I had only used the European Commission report as a source for reporting the reality out there. That "patents are [and are considered] particularly important in the pharmaceuticals industry" and that "patent protection has a huge bearing on the commercial success of a [pharmaceutical] company" seem to be established facts. Is it the source that you don't like, or the wording that is used, or both? Thanks for any hints so that I can address the issues. --Edcolins (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The reason I think the text looked so much like Advocacy is most because it comes from one and the same source. Independent third-party sources kind of exclude reports made by politicians or pharmaceuticals because they almost always push a specific agenda. Research articles about the report or reports from independent research groups should thus be used if any exist. As for established facts, any disputed fact must be sourced or it very easy breaks NPOV in a article. I wish I could do a bit more, but doing a bit of Google search only gave me some press releases from companies talking about the report. The article generic drug or patent looks like it has some interesting sources that might be useable here, but Im not sure. I made some minor changes and replaced the template with a more precise one to match the actually issue I have. Thanks for trying to improve the article and taking the critique serious.Belorn (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you for your critical eye and input! I have deleted the disputed section altogether and, instead, I have added one sentence supported by three different sources. The article, however, is still extremely short and would benefit from being expanded, such as to cover the topics mentioned in the "see also" section: e.g. compulsory licensing, criticism of pharmaceutical patents, evergreening, generic drug, generic companies and originator companies, Patients Not Patents, patent term extensions and supplementary protection certificates, etc. --Edcolins (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)