Jump to content

Talk:LegitScript

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion debate

[edit]

Reason for this entry not being subject to speedy deletion: LegitScript is the only organization whose online pharmacy verification standards are recognized by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy. The original entry, which mistakenly referred to the website (LegitScript.com) rather than the organization (LegitScript) has been edited appropriately.

LegitScript has been in the news several times over the last few months. It is similar to KnujOn as being a business that primarily does business through its website.

Please note that Legitscript LLC is a private, profit-based company. Thousands of webmasters think that Legitscipt LLC is financed by large US based drug companies who want to avoid that cheaper offers (re-import etc) enter the US.

Only a handful ICANN registrars work together with Legitscript LLC. Most major player in the US like Godaddy, Bluehost don't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.157.29 (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


How does the mere endorsement of a new Web site by the NABP make the Web site worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? Please elaborate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbaradell (talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Before vandalising my updates please take a look at.. <spammed link removed> and <spammed link removed> I think soon much more of this will swim up.. and yes.. how do they make money.. who is funding them?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.102.30.243 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of scumbags being lionized by scumbags on wikipedia.. pathetic as always.

The information that was added and has been removed was unverifiable (and in fact factually inaccurate), and was presented in a way that posed questions about the organization, rather than presenting information per Wikipedia rules. In its place, a sentence was added indicating that those concerns were raised by bloggers (a fact that is verifiable by the link to one of those blogs). However, concerns being raised are not verifiable proof that those concerns are true -- hence the reason for the most recent edits.

Indeed. So is every website owner now allowed to create a wiki article on this site for his business? Is this wiki or the yellow pages?? I do not see a wiki article for Pharmacy Checker. Perhaps we should create one and have references to the article linking from legitscript article.

Note from John Horton, LegitScript President: This page has been vandalized several times with factually incorrect and unverifiable information. We have cleaned it up: none of the information that is currently one our page is "biased" toward our company; it's simply a factual reporting of it. The information that was added was incorrect, unverifiable and defamatory, and was not a presentation of facts.

Note from Garth Bruen, KnujOn.com CEO: Knujon's Wiki page has also been vandalized in the past, mostly by anonymous critics and Internet criminals we've confronted. Merely having a website does not enough qualification to have a Wiki entry, but these Wiki articles are not just about websites, they are about the work of LegitScript and Knujon. There are hundreds of recent articles about KnujOn and Legitscript. The work we do is newsworthy, current and yes, controversial. One must look at the motivations behind anyone trying to silence or censor us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbruen (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.135.86 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the citations that referenced the company's own website were replaced with other verifiable sources. The company's role as a certification authority within an industry makes it noteworthy. The article is factual, not self-promoting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millikin07 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this entry has been the subject of continued vandalism attempts and attempts to remove it. Please refer to KnujOn's entry above on this discussion page for the background on the reasons for the vandalism and attempts to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millikin07 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A verifiably false statement was made regarding LegitScript; namely, that any pharmacy outside of the United States is designated as "rogue." This is a false statement. See legitscript.com/faqs, which contains the correct definition. Moreover, a search for some foreign pharmacies does not result in a designation as rogue, and the website lists numerous pharmacies that are foreign but do not ship to countries where they lack a license, and are hence not "rogue." This correction was made by LegitScript staff. While we recognize the principle that companies should generally refrain from creating their own pages, continued abuse and false information regarding this page has required some level of attention to prevent the intentional dissemination of false information. LegitScript (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As before, this page has been subject to vandalism. The recent changes were "undone" because they fell into this category, and did not cite any verifiable content (indeed, the most recent one was not a true statement) or simply pointed to blog links that did not serve to verify a relevant point. While we recognize the importance of not creating or editing our own entry, somebody has to undo vandalism.LegitScript (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I tried linking to an article in financial times [1] that outlines criticism towards legitscript,but it keeps getting deleted. Legitscript is editing the wikipedia article like their personal blog. Somebody should stop this. Olavthunny (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LegitScript has removed legitimate and well-cited criticism of their company from the page (even anonymously - this edit was probably made by them), which should be the first sign that they are a shady company. Taking a look at their website just affirms this: Lookups of online pharmacies are limited to 3 per week per IP address (!!!), download links to "research" lead nowhere, and the overall vibe is that of a fake company trying to seem like they do legitimate business (from the weird stock photos all over the place to the articles written by apparently non-existent persons like "Pim Pratt"). The pharmacies they verify are often just as suspicious as the ones they don't, but you wouldn't know, since they don't list them anywhere and actively prohibit you from finding them (outside of badges on said websites). Their only good points come from allegedly being trusted by a bunch of tech giants; these claims are (surprisingly enough) actually true for Google[2], Amazon[3], and perhaps even more. That said, even without doing our own research, we can see that this page is definitely one-sided, and I'm going to mark it as such.

References

  1. ^ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9d0bd394-c41c-11df-b827-00144feab49a.html
  2. ^ https://support.google.com/adspolicy/answer/9841715?hl=en
  3. ^ https://sellercentral.amazon.com/help/hub/reference/external/200164490?locale=en-US

NPOV Discussion

[edit]

It seems edits have been made and undone anonymously, so we should have an official discussion regarding this.

The following paragraph has been added and removed. It contains some claims regarding the authorship of this article. Indeed it should have been added to the talk page, so I've put it here appropriately.

The following article seem to have been written solely by John Horton. On September 16, 2010 the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform were asked to to investigate possible violations of government ethics laws by John Horton, president and founder of LegitScript.com, while he was Associate Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
John Horton, owner of LegitSript has been accused of using his post with the government for person gain. [1]

Mystere (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Above claims are not linked or referenced and should be removed --Gbruen (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to unverified claims above

"John Horton, owner of LegitSript has been accused of using his post with the government for person gain." - Accused by whom? LegitScript is under DOS attack, has been threatened, smeared, and had all variety of unsuccessful maliciousness launched against it since assisting certain Registrars with policy improvements concerning unlicensed pharmacies. The websites and domains reviewed by LegitScript violated laws and regulations. Registrars and ISPs have voluntarily removed content and sponsorship for sites connected with illegal sales of drugs. Persons who have problems with this should address it with the Registrars or the U.S. government. Anyone who wants to have an open debate about this issues is welcome to step out of the shadows and debate them properly and not launch undocumented Wikipedia claims.

--Gbruen (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC) (Garth Bruen of Knujon.com) -- "Additionally, in September 2010, the United States Congress was requested by Tod Cooperman, MD, President, PharmacyChecker.com, and Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com to investigate possible illegal behaviors by John Horton, President and Founder of LegitScript.com for abusing his position while he was Associate Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). "[reply]

There is in my mind no question at all that Legitscript has very close ties to Big Pharma. We should allow for a Sub Title to be created in their Wiki called "Public critiscm" or similar. Yet every attempt to raise this fact has been subject to deletion by unknown users. Olavthunny (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on LegitScript. 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: 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) 05:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LegitScript&oldid=1169768466"