![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on October 27, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
In the AfD linked above, the following news sources were found [1] [2] [3]. If someone could make these references, that'd be great. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:Emergent logo s1 rgb.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Crap Daveychops (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
((Request edit))
To whom it may concern: I am writing here on behalf of Emergent BioSolutions (EBS), the subject of this article. They would like to see it better organized and updated, and have asked me to represent them. In so doing, I have researched and written a proposed replacement draft, which is available here: User:Stellatarum/Emergent_BioSolutions
The problem with the current version should be apparent. Chiefly, the article is almost entirely unsupported by citations and the few references used now are not true third-party citations. Furthermore, the article is not very well organized. For example, the entire body of the article is listed under "History", and includes some details that aren't really germane to an encyclopedia entry about the company.
My draft aims to address these issues, and give a more accurate picture of the company. The new draft contains 26 citations, from general press and industry journal sources, is more logically organized, and is roughly the same length. I'll note here that if you see a turn of phrase that sounds odd, it's likely because EBS is mindful of FDA regulations regarding their view of what constitutes promotional product information and we want to follow those. For example, in order to make certain statements I would be obliged to include FDA-required "small print" which I'm well aware Wikipedia does not wish to include. I hope this isn't a problem; if another editor makes changes later on with Wikipedia guidelines in mind, I won't object. I just can't be the one to do that.
So I invite all constructive comments, and if you agree this draft is better than the current one, please feel free to move it over, or give me the OK to do so. Thank you. --Stellatarum (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
((Request edit))
Hello, I would like to ask on behalf of the company that the article be updated to reflect the announcement that Fuad El-Hibri has retired as the head of the company. While the transition has been planned since December, it becomes official this weekend, and has already been the subject of third-party news coverage.
There are two specific updates that are needed:
Both changes can be cited to The Washington Post's Capital Business Blog, Washington Business Journal and Gazette.Net.
The wording I would propose for the "Overview" section is:
If you agree to these changes, please can you update the article. Thank you.
References
Michigan
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).--Stellatarum (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello, on behalf of Emergent BioSolutions, I would like to ask for an update to this article to reflect the company's partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I have written a proposed draft for a new subsection, to add under "History":
If this draft looks to be ok, please can you move it into the article. Thank you. --Stellatarum (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
References
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. See discussion. |
The lead section is a bit outdated, and doesn't reflect Emergent's current activities, particularly regarding its government partnerships. I would suggest changing this portion:
It would be more accurate as follows:
Specialty pharmaceutical company is not a marketing term but an industry sector, as this Research and Markets report shows, and the term is applied to other firms on Wikipedia. The phrase is similar to how Emergent describes itself in press releases, though the wording is necessarily specific, and non-promotional. I am open to alternative wording or quotation marks if others deem it necessary. Stellatarum (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is the blurb provided for the company by the Wall Street Journal:
Collapse summary |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"Emergent BioSolutions, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company. It focuses on the research, development, and manufacture of novel vaccines and related products for prophylactic and therapeutic use against common diseases and biological weapons of mass destruction. The company operates through two segments: Biodefense and Biosciences. The Biodefense segment provides vaccines and antibody therapies for use against the infectious disease anthrax. The Biosciences segment provides vaccines and antibody therapies for use against infectious diseases and protein therapies to treat certain types of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders and cancer. The company was founded in May 1998 and is headquartered in Rockville, MD" |
We can't take their prose for reasons of copyright, but in my opinion their capsule is more informative and sounds better than our current lead section. They don't say the company is 'multinational'. They also separate Biodefense and Biosciences which is helpful. Otherwise making an anthrax vaccine and creating anticancer drugs might appear to be unrelated activities. Emergent is mentioned a lot in Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed and perhaps a way can be found to integrate a few things from that article to help our readers understand the company. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The first edits I made with a COI were embarrassingly awful (really really embarrassing), though if you asked me at the time, I would have sworn up and down that they were improvements. Take a deep breath and really put things in perspective. Would you debate the merits of the word "specialty" with a journalist who wrote about the company, because a BusinessWeek blurb (most likely re-written from a press release) used the word? Would you ask the New York Times to make their language mirror the company website?
The point of Request Edit is not to fulfill every request, but to borrow the judgement of an impartial editor to make sure the proposed edits are indeed an improvement. In this case they are not, though they may seem as though they are from your position. This is the nature of conflict of interest. They appear to be improvements from the company's perspective, but they are not improvements for Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 20:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I looked at this article. It doesn't really read like a news release. It doesn't seem to violate anything listed here (which would be the requirements for the article to read like a news release): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS.
User:DGG can you please offer supporting evidence for your tag? Otherwise, we need to remove that tag. Thanks. Trendyrandy7290 (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nhj78992 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Heart2heartjennifer (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Emergent BioSolutions. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Currently at the top of this article are two template messages: 1) "This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (August 2018)" 2) "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (August 2018)"
I have no connection to this company. But I have to say, after reading this page, it seems that these claims are false. First, the article relies on dozens of secondary news stories, which are not primary sources. Second, the article - which I re-read in full - is written in a very matter-of-fact, neutral way. It does not promote the company. There is no marketing-type language. So this claim does not make sense.
I hope someone can address why these template messages are there. Thanks. --Sean06889 (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I've read this article and find it of interest. I agree that the template messages are not accurate. I looked at the sources used in the first 25 citations. They include: WTOP News Radio, New Haven Register, The Michigan Daily, The Washington Business Journal, The Washington Post, Gazette, American Journal of Public Health, RTT News, US Food & Drug Administration, Paul Erlich Institute, Homeland Preparedness News, BioPrepWatch, Wall Street Journal, Seeking Alpha, CNBC, Mayo Clinic Proceedings (journal), Journal of the American Medical Association, and the American Chemical Society.
Not one of these sources is a primary source. They are all secondary sources. If one checks the next 50 citations, I'm certain one will find the same thing. Thus, the accusation that "This article relies too much on references to primary sources" is wrong and should be removed.
The other statement in the template("This article contains content that is written like an advertisement") lacks any merit. Nowhere does it appear to attempt to sell or market products to Wikipedia readers. The definition of advertisement is, "a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy." This article does none of that. This is a unique corporation; it manufactures biopharmaceuticals that are mostly sold to the governments (local and national) and that we hope we never need, e.g., anti-biological terrorist vaccines and other medications. The only thing, I think, that a reader of Wikipedia might actually purchase is Narcan, and the section on Narcan deals specifically with its history and efficacy, without any claims of superiority or exhortations to buy. It is a public service to let people know that one can get this stuff without a prescription.
Therefore, the template message at the top that "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" is not true and needs to be removed.
The instructions on deleting the template say to "boldly" address the issues. But, because I firmly believe that Wikipedia is a collective effort, I'll wait a couple of days and see if I've missed anything.Evilleavenger (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The second sentence is ungrammatical:
"Emergent BioSolutions Inc. is an American multinational specialty biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland. It develops vaccines and antibody therapeutics for infectious diseases, opioid overdoses, and provides medical devices for biodefense purposes." 128.120.251.7 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I have added an ((undisclosed paid)) tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost joyce for evidence. Users relevant to this page include: Nhj78992 (talk · contribs), Trendyrandy7290 (talk · contribs), RepordRider (talk · contribs), Sarahsheng (talk · contribs), Brendapallister (talk · contribs), Joshuathewriter (talk · contribs), Bkcunningham (talk · contribs), Heart2heartjennifer (talk · contribs), Paultimothyjones714 (talk · contribs), Stephenthrompson (talk · contribs), Harris195622 (talk · contribs), Biodefenseguy (talk · contribs), Laslo krebs (talk · contribs), Evilleavenger (talk · contribs), Letita Bodicia (talk · contribs), Bert Bowler (talk · contribs) The article will need a thorough review ensuring due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. MarioGom (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)