Revision as of 00:06, 23 June 2015

Skepticism Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Science Start‑class

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Start‑class

	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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article is neglecting other forms of usage of ″Big Pharma″

This article is misleading because it indirectly implies that the only existing use of ″Big Pharma″ is in the setting of a conspiracy theory.

The article is misleading because there is no other article on Wikipedia about ″Big Pharma″ used in the context outside of a conspiracy theory, which may indirectly mislead readers about the existence of other ways to use the term. Also, the article is negatively biased against the conspiracy theory, which may cause some individuals to become negatively biased against people who refer to the pharmaceutical business as ″big pharma″ even though they have very limited information about the way the term is used.

Because of these reasons I'm putting a warning label on the article.

Here are a few sources that are using ″Big Pharma″ in the context outside of a conspiracy theory. They were extremely easy to find by simply searching ″Big Pharma″ in Google Scholar, and there are a whole lot more examples other than the ones I chose.

Within journal articles:

(2003) The title of article: ″Why is Big Pharma getting out of antibacterial drug discovery?″ Found at the URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369527403001097

(2013) The title of article: ″Saving normal: An insider's revolt against out-of-control psychiatric diagnosis, DSM-5, big pharma and the medicalization of ordinary life″ Found at the URL http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=464019439257830;res=IELHEA

Non journal articles that use ″Big Pharma″ in a non-conspiracy setting.

(2010) The title of article: ″Big pharma moves from 'blockbusters' to 'niche busters'″ Found at the URL http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v16/n8/full/nm0810-837a.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnmillerr (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 This article is misleading because it ''indirectly'' implies that the only existing use of ″Big Pharma″ is in the setting of a conspiracy theory.
+The article is misleading because there is no other article on Wikipedia about ″Big Pharma″ used in the context outside of a conspiracy theory, which may indirectly mislead readers about the existence of other ways to use the term.  Also, the article is negatively biased against the conspiracy theory, which may cause some individuals to become negatively biased against people who refer to the pharmaceutical business as ″big pharma″ even though they have very limited information about the way the term is used.
-The article is misleading because:
-*There is no other article on wikepidia about ″Big Pharma″ used in the context outside of a conspiracy theory.
-*The article is negatively biased against it.
 Because of these reasons I'm putting a warning label on the article.