Tbd-r1

Covance

(copied from SV talk)

Hi SV, Over time several content providers have been editing content on the page to make it a fair representation of the company and their activities. Your edits last week basically broad it back to it's unbalanced state of 2 yrs ago. repeating content, with a main focus on the Covance Research Products and as a result the animal testing. I was reading their 2011 report section where the revenue associated with this unit within the company is only a small % of their total revenue. Please consider reverting your edits accordingly.Tbd-r1 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tbd, I'm relying here to make sure you see it. I did some tidying of the article last week -- you can see the difference here -- but didn't add or remove anything, except for tightening of language and cleaning up of refs/links. The one thing I did do, which is perhaps what you're referring to, is restore the animal welfare issues to the lead, which someone had removed:

Under the name Covance Research Products Inc., based in Denver, Pennsylvania, the company also deals in the import and sale of laboratory animals. It runs dog-breeding facilities, a rabbit-breeding facility, and the largest non-human primate laboratory in Europe. The company has been the subject of controversy following allegations of primate abuse in its laboratories in Germany and the United States in 2003–2005.

No matter how small a percent of revenue it is, it's a major issue, and it's what the name Covance means to a lot of people (2005 CNN story here, 2006 story about local opposition to expansion because of it here, Paul McCartney involved here, 2010 Washington Post story here about the cancellation of other expansion plans, possibly in part because of it). Can you direct me to the 2011 report that you mentioned? We can add details about the revenue generated from this part of the company, if that would balance things out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(copied from SV talk) I removed the CRP head section in Jan 2011 as a more detailed copy was provided below under the separate header or Research Products. Duplicating content in the same article was not the best scenario. Additionally Turn685 created a separate Covance controversies page, with a link from the main page. That section with the reference has been removed, and the full controversies content is now on 2 the main as well as the controversies page. Duplicating content can not be considered best practice in the encyclopedia.Based on your extensive background editing and creating articles can you please review the page one more time and consider removing the duplicated content?, Thanks!Tbd-r1 (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As I see there's discussion on the article talk page too, I suggest we copy this discussion to that page, and continue there. Is that okay with you?

First, about the lead, we have a guideline on how these should be written, which you can read at WP:LEAD. Basically it should offer an overview of the article, and should include any prominent controversies. So that's why that material is there.

The Covance controversies article has been redirected to this one; as you said, it was just repetition. We're not supposed to create article forks where criticism is on a separate page (see WP:POVFORK, though I realize that Turn685 created it in good faith to save the material), unless the article has become so long that it needs to be split for that reason. Each article should be neutral, reflecting different points of view as expressed by reliable published sources.

Is there anything in the article that in your view is inaccurate or misleading in the way it's written? If so, details would be helpful, and sources if you have them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've requested uninvolved opinions at our neutrality board. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Covance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Envigologo-for-wiki.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Envigologo-for-wiki.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.