Talk:List of largest pharmaceutical settlements

Title

This was moved (I believe without discussion) to List of largest pharmaceutical settlements in the United States, which gives the impression that this was all about the US, when some of the companies involved were British. So I have moved it back to List of largest pharmaceutical settlements, and removed the upper case. Also, these are the largest settlements, period, so we should include any non-US settlements. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The list is exclusively US and the title should reflect this. What does "in the United States" have to do with whether the companies involved have their HQ in the UK? That is completely irrelevant as the title clearly refers to the location of the settlement.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, SlimVirgin. Why are all the settlements in U.S. dollars? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because that is the currency of the United States, which is the country imposing the fine in each case? If you doubt this then please refer to the column showing the relevant act - it is all US legislation. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

We should list large settlements elsewhere, so that the page is comprehensive; it isn't long enough to split into different countries. Also, see the policy on article titles about not adding extra unnecessary words to titles. These are the largest of any settlements anywhere, not only the largest in the United States, which is what the title implied. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to make this article international. But note that you have erased the record of the United States Department of Justice who earned a mention in the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll restore a mention of them to the lead. I removed it because it suggested the article focused entirely on them; it was added when the article was moved to the US title. I'll also add non-US settlements as I find them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Most countries and regulators don't have "settlements" in the same way, the EU has a fines system. As does China. "Settlements" is a particularly US-centric concept and wording. I therefore see little chance of any non-US "settlements" being of a size necessary to be included here. Can you please also explain your comment above "which gives the impression that this was all about the US, when some of the companies involved were British." How is that relevant to the location of the settlement? Rangoon11 (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that this move was premature? Unless you have material to add from outside the United States, I think it's almost vandalism as it stands now. Of course an internationalized article would be preferable but not just in theory. All you need to do is add one example from outside the U.S. and I'm with you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you do a Google search you will find that "settlements" of this sort do not generally apply to the other large pharmaceutical markets, where fines or enforcement actions are used, and are generally of a much smaller size (the US seems to specialise in large punitive fines, particularly of foreign companies). Rangoon11 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article states that these are the "largest" pharmaceutical settlements, but with 2 or 3 exceptions, there is no source that these are in fact the largest, only that they occurred and the amounts. List should be trimmed to include only those for which we have a source stating their rank. We could rename tje article "notable" settlements I suppose, but that will require sources other than the DOJ press releases, per WP:SELFPUBLISHED and WP:THIRDPARTY Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 14:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of largest pharmaceutical settlements. 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/20131102113937/http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2005/October/05_civ_545.html to http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2005/October/05_civ_545.html

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) 00:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)