Talk:Parexel

note

The article focuses on a clinical trial run by PAREXEL International on behalf of TeGenero. This article should focus on the company and reads like bad press, rather than an unbaised description of the company. 82.44.145.95 17:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the last sentence about refusal to engage with victim of botched tests. That was what the tag referred to. There was absolutely no evidence to substantiate these claims which are serious. Can somebody remove the tag

Templates

Hi, I removed the "verify" template because it seems to me that there is enough sources. However, I leave the "neutrality" template because of the importance given to one source (Brian Deer's reportage) and because I agree that this article should not focus only on the tragical trial, which already has an article (TGN1412). Maybe we should just remove this section (after tranfering into the TGN1412 article) and replace it by a short reference, with a link to TGN1412. What do you think? Polletfa 10:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree - stupid to focus on this one trial in a company of 6,500 staff conducting studies for over 25 years, leading to the registration of most of the new medicines in the USA, Europe and Japan. The bias towards the ambulance chasers suing the company and delaying payment to the victims is the real scandal here.

Also agree - the whole TGN1412 episode has enough to be its very own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.43.7 (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

==

I agree I think the scandal on TGN1412 could make up an article of its own. Its just ridiculous to insert such issue as representative of the company. It should be mentioned shortly when the company is discussed, but then a link better be inserted to the full blown page on the incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayaluaklilu (talk • contribs) 13:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

TGN1412

The section about TGN1412 appears grossly non-neutral, as it doesn't reflect the reliable sources and appears to be consciously written with the intention of placing blame on TeGenero. Hence the pov-section tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Its a complex issue for several reasons, which include WP:CRIT, which states that

"Generally, criticisms within an article (other than a "Criticism of ..." article) should in total be well under half of the article, even if sourcing supports filling almost every line of the article with criticism. The minimum is that required by neutrality but the maximum should, in a neutral way, leave a majority of the article as not criticism."

This is a $1.7B company with 15K employees. The article discusses the company in a general way for 3 sentences and then launches into a discussion of the TGN1412 trial that is more than half of the article. A considered and balanced discussion of that trial would involve overweighting it even further. I'd suggest simply summarizing in a sentence and hyperlinking to the article about this incident until the article is increased to mor than a stub. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. I think a few sentences summarizing the TGN1412 controversy could be written in a much more balanced way than the current content. FWIW there was a lot of uncritical content in this article that I blanked yesterday due to it being unsourced and blatantly promotional. I'll bet there are independent sources out there about Parexel that aren't about the TGN1412 controversy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)