Talk:Ligand Pharmaceuticals

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... With respect, this seems premature. A quick search of google news shows that this NASDAQ listed company has over 2700 news stories. Some are in depth coverage pieces. FWIW, I'd let a little time run to see if the article improves. --Capitalismojo (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ligand 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/20150716012425/http://www.ligand.com/our-collaborations to http://www.ligand.com/our-collaborations

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing promotional content

[page] consisted almost entirely of information that either lacked reliable sources or was completely unsourced and appears to be a promotional page for the company possibly edited by COI editors. I have sourced reliable sources for the page including The New York Times, Bloomberg, The San Diego Union Tribune, Benzinga, Value Walk and others. I would like to create or axpand on a "history" section but unfortunately there is very little in the way of reliable sources available on the company's history. Any and all feedback is invited. Cypresscross (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The reports on the "lengthy scandal" here created by the company's tortured history with regulators and investors is key to the subject's notability and is supported by a highly reliable source. I'll see if it can be synthesized further, but it should remain in the SEC investigation section as a lead into the rest of the body. Cypresscross (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

meatsgains Please see WP policy on reliable sources. Most of the content on the page that was removed, and that you are adding back, appears to be promotional material derived from the company. Please discuss any changes on the talk page before making changes. Cypresscross (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Prior to your expansion, which information was unsourced? I created the page and have zero ties with the company. Can you also be more specific about what content was promotional? I'm very familiar with WP:RS so which of the sources I added is unreliable: Funding Universe, Forbes, or WallStreet.org?

Most of the content you added warrants inclusion but needs to be condensed to avoid WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Virtually all of the original sources do not meet WP guidelines for reliable sources. FundingUniverse, for example, does not meet the criteria for a reliable source according to WP guidelines as it has no editorial oversight, while the Forbes article appears to be an editorial and finally there is no article at "WallStreet.org. I appreciate the comments on synthesizing the article and have already made a few edits further to that end per your suggestion. Thanks. Cypresscross (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've posted on WP:RSN requesting other users' feedback on the reliability of Funding Universe. It seems you're taking WP:OWNERSHIP and turning it into an attack page. Yes, the content you've added is sourced but as it stands is WP:UNDUE. The lawsuits and allegations need to be condensed. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I have added an RFC below on the same issue so that all of the previous unreliable sources can be addressed, including the links that lead to nothing (per comments above). There is definitely no ownership of the page and it is certainly is not an attack page. The reality is the page previously was simply a highly promotional page, with no reliable sources for any of the claims made on the page. The page as it stands now is reliably sourced and is a balanced article written in an encyclopedic way from a NPOV, using highly reliable sources from global financial media outlets (New York Times, Bloomberg, etc.). All of the company's notability stems from the main points of the article, which are now well referenced. Cypresscross (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've tightened up the text considerably in every section per your suggestion - the article is now more encyclopedic. I've looked for reliable sources to flesh out the history section, and will continue to do so. Unfortunately Xconomy, appears also to be Op-ed. Cypresscross (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Removing Tag

The tag that was added to the page does not appear reasonable and does not belong on the page or was possibly added in error. The article is written from a NPOV using highly reliable sources from major global financial media outlets. Open to feedback. Thanks. Cypresscross (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on sources

There is a question about the reliability of sources used in a past version of this page and that have since been removed as well as a tag currently being used on this page. Please see discussion above on Funding Universe and WallStreet.org. Any and all feedback is appreciated. Cypresscross (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - The question regarding the reliability of sources more specifically pertains to this edit. The page's quality was poor prior to the recent activity however, now isn't not balanced. 90% of the page now covers investigations, lawsuits, fraud, and Deloitte being fined. While this information warrants inclusion, it should be condensed to avoid WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment::Per above, the text has been tightened considerably. According to highly reliable sources (and once the promotional material was removed), virtually the entire notability of this firm stems from investigations, lawsuits, fraud and regulatory actions.

NPOV tag

The article has a significantwp:WEIGHT problem with almost no neutrally objective information about the company itself and is entirely weighted towards negative material related to shorts, stock trades etc.. as if the authors of this article want to over-emphasize negative views. Furthermore, in that area it is missing a key and important case, namely the SEC investigation against Emmanuel Lemelson who allegedly published false information about Ligland in order to profit from shorting the stock. Multiple sock puppet accounts associated with Emmanuel Lemelson have a history of aggressively editing Wikipedia and been blocked. -- GreenC 14:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC) @Greyfell and Smalljim: -- GreenC 14:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Cypresscross began editing the page the same day the SEC investigation of Catholic priest Emmanuel Lemelson was announced. Cypresscross has a long history of editing Emmanuel Lemelson a promotional manner. Clearly it will help Lemelson's case against the SEC to portray this company in a negative light. I also believe Cypresscross's edits support Lemelson's contentions as to why the SEC case has no merit. There is a strong possibility this article is being manipulated in light of the SEC case against Emmanuel Lemelson. -- GreenC 14:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a baseless attack from GreenC. None of the edits have been promotional, all are well referenced and have been accepted. All of the reliable sources on Ligand are what was added to the page. If you can find some positive coverage from reliable secondary sources, I would invite the addition. Even Meatsgains(per above) agrees the content should be included. So there is already consensus. If you're going to make an accusation of "manipulation", why don't you point out where the edits violated any of WP policies. Cypresscross (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

---

References

Editor with undisclosed COI

@Cypresscross: in view of:

• yesterday's news about this company and Emmanuel Lemelson - [1], [2] and many other sources
• the edits you made yesterday to this article, discussed above
• your promotional edits at Emmanuel Lemelson, discussed at Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson#Improving readability etc
• earlier concerns expressed about your neutrality, here, here and here, etc.

it is evident that you have an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding these topics. On that basis, I've reverted the article to the version before your first edit and invite others to correct and update it appropriately. If you wish to propose any changes, please do so on this page using Template:Request_edit.  —SMALLJIM  14:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Baseless accusations

Making baseless accusations is a violation of WP policies, esp. AGF. The wholesale removal of an entire page that was written from a strictly NPOV using highly reliable secondary sources is also aginst WP guidelines, particularly since there is already consensus above with user Meatsgains that the material needs to be added. Given the fact the article is extremely well written and well sourced with significant secondary sources, as well as the consensus above, I am going to restore the page to its last version. I have invited any and all feedback and edits to the page and continue to do so. Please either make edits directly to the page according to WP guidlines or discuss on talk page. Cypresscross (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

To show that you are here in good faith, editing neutrally, you need to explain the timing of your edits to this article and also explain why you made no mention of Lemelson's involvement until prompted. Please do this instead of attacking your fellow editors.  —SMALLJIM  16:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Good faith should be "assumed" (not proven) per WP policies, nevertheless, I don't mind explaining. Most of the pages that have been edited are related in one way or another, editing one page has led to another. Checking out this page yesterday I noticed it was basically a promotional page with no reliable sources, that caused me to dig in. A huge amount of time was spent researching and editing this page and the results are a major improvement over what was here before. All of the reliable secondary sources date from a few months ago to a few years ago, so there is a clear picture of the subject's notability based on a large collection of reliable sources over time (none of which are positive, unfortunately). The recent event you mention are still just hours old and the sources are still developing. I had planned on adding more on recent developments, but after they came into clearer context with a little time (like 24 hours). I still plan on expanding the page and research is ongoing. To be clear no one "prompted" me to add anything, and there is certainly no "attack" on fellow editors as you say. The focus on this page, as with all WP pages should be on compliance with WP best practices and guidelines, in that sense any concerns raised about the edits (e.g. synthesizing further) have been addressed. I have repeatedly invited other editors feedback and still do. Cypresscross (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

AGF is not a permanent requirement and I'm afraid you don't persuade me at all. Your actions speak much louder: you have not explained the extraordinary coincidence of coming across this article just when the news was breaking, yet you made no mention of Lemelson's involvement. Your explanation of wanting to wait until the news matured holds no water in the light of your previous positive edits to Lemelson's article. If you really had Wikipedia's interests at heart, you would have allowed the edits made by editors with genuine concerns to stand and worked with them over time to create an agreed version. There is no urgency! Instead you have reverted five times now, and I have just reported you to the edit warring noticeboard for that. I don't doubt that you have put in a lot of work on this article, but in view of your obvious COI I will once again restore it to the earlier version, and repeat the strong recommendation that you do not edit it directly unless or until the community reaches a consensus that it is acceptable for you to do so. The other editors interested in this article can use your research to build an acceptable version, and you can make suggestions on this page, though if your primary concern is about Wikipedia it might be better if you simply walk away and edit or do something else while this works itself out.  —SMALLJIM  19:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Your comments above don't persuade me either and your actions also say much. The explanations above are thorough and concise, while you just continue to make accusations. The edits you mentioned above were removed because they lacked reliable sources and RFC on the topic has already been opened. Regarding the edits made to the Lemelson page, they were certainly not all positive (and most were confirmed by other editors), and when I tried to revert back to an edit that you yourself originally made (formatting of a footnote), you undid it, again with an accusation of bad faith. If the unreliable sources are added back (especially in light of the explanations and consensus above) they will need to be removed again. this page already has consensus on the content of the article so that is a moot point. If you really had WP interest at heart you would spend the time to research and make positive contributions to the article instead of attacking another editor with unfounded accusations. I would make the strong recommendation that you not revert the article and engage deliberately in an edit war on a page that you can not raise one legitimate issue with. Anyone who genuinely cares about WP would care about a subject and a page that they have invested significant time in (and would not want it vandalized) esp. when the article complies entirely with WP policies. I have had no violations of any WP policy, can you say the same? Cypresscross (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You have not given plausible responses to the important points. It's your work that's under scrutiny: please do not raise straw men to deflect material questions.  —SMALLJIM  21:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I've held off restoring the earlier version of the article because Cypresscross has been given the offer of self-reverting to avoid a 3RR sanction: see WP:AN/3.  —SMALLJIM  23:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning up

I'm hopeful that we can build on GreenC's latest edits to collaborate on cleaning up the article. Restoring the old version isn't now an option, but it does contain content that we can re-use to help restore NPOV.  —SMALLJIM  22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ensurnig Balance

I'm optimistic that we can work together to build on and improve on existing edits and collaborate to ensure the key elements of the subject's notability are included in the article in a balanced, encyclopedic way and from a NPOV. I am going to go ahead and restore a few critical elements that are key to the subject's notability and that are based on highly reliable secondary sources such as CNBC, The New York Times, etc. and ensure that the content involving key notability of the subject is incorporated into the context of new material that has recently been added. All feedback is invited. Cypresscross (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Glad to you have a positive attitude and are optimistic. You seem to be ignoring WP:WEIGHT issues (the reason for the NPOV tag). Also something may be in a reliable source that doesn't mean it needs to be or should be in an article, we have editorial oversight on what to include or not. "There is a reliable source" isn't really enough at this time, considering the extreme over-weighting of negative information in the article. -- GreenC 12:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Also primary sources are acceptable (see WP:PRIMARY) only a problem if they make a large portion of sources or are making extraordinary claims. A source that says "this is what we do as a company" is perfectly fine. -- GreenC 12:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What the company does needs to be given up-front in a section and without coloring it with negative information. -- GreenC 12:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Questions about WP:WEIGHT appear to have been resolved with the new content. I'm glad that other editors were able to flesh out certain sections of the article, an area I was also working on addressing. As my comment above states, highly notable content from extremely reliable sources needs to be included (consensus on the content was already reached - see discussion above) - particularly since it is key to the subjects notability. If it's not, the risk is that WP:WEIGHT will remain with highly promotional primary sources (press releases by the company etc.). The simple facts are that virtually all of the subject's notability is an outgrowth of very public controversies over allegations of securities fraud and major regulatory actions, including (and notably) those brought against the company's auditors which resulted in a record fine by a government agency. So I will be working to restore those critical points in an encyclopedic way, from a NPOV and with highly reliable secondary sources (which are obviously preferable to primary ones). Thanks for the clarification on primary sources. Cypresscross (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)