Talk:AstraZeneca

message: I have removed references to AstraZeneca not promoting "prevention" of breast cancer, as this was unreferrenced and the biggest causes of the cancer are inhertited defective tumour suppressor genes and somatic mutation, not environmental factors which could be controlled and lead to prevention. I believe placing this juxtaposed with the fact that AZ is a big producer of chemotherapeutic drugs used to treat the cancer was a POV comment upon a diliberate strategy by the company to prevent it being caught earlier and hence use their drugs. Since there was no reference for this (or indeed any evidence) it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.162.20 (talk)  (31 May 2006)
: Given that AZ produces known carcinogens, profits off of the treatment of cancer, and that the majority of cancers are linked to the environment...your comment seems highly skewed in favor of the company and against the complete body of information available relevant to this article.  It would be POV to directly accuse AZ.  It is also POV to remove legitimate facts that paint the company in an unrealistically positive light. Youngea (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed references

message: This is a total POV page. Will edit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.195.11.58 (talk)  (1 Nov 2006)
:This anon editor essentially removed all negative statements about the company from the article - a frankly POV deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I am adding a comment about Breast Cancer Awareness Month's lack of focus on prevention in the criticism section. Source is given. Don't remove it unless you give a valid reason. -Fendersmasher 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And where is your assumption of good faith, Fender? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain the AGF issue so we're on the same wavelength. -Fendersmasher 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming good faith would mean assuming that editors will behave in a manner consistent to what you have stated pre-emptively - that they will not remove something without reason and that they will explain the reason for removal at least in their edit summary if not on this page.  You've made an assumption that editors will behave otherwise. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. My comment may have been somewhat unfair to other editors. I'm still new to editing WP, please excuse. -Fendersmasher 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Breat Cancer Awareness Month

message: The most recent contribution, under the heading "Free Medicines..." seems like an ad to me. It's just needless info provided from AZ's website. Should this be removed. -Fendersmasher 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Medicines Ad 

message: *      --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference / Note for consideration 

message: AstraZeneca has been mentioned in several news articles in recent days (See the London Times  here,  in an article picked up by Fox News; Pharmalot here, and a good blogger description here, among others). The firm is caught up in the scandal stemming from the invention of a Wikipedia data-mining service (from Cal Tech graduate student Virgil Griffith) allowing Internet users the ability to discover which companies are self-editing in embarrassing/incriminating ways on Wikipedia. I had already noted sockpuppet tendencies on the Seroquel talk page on 16 July 2007, before this scandal broke, and mentioned the possibility of a pharmaceutical self-edit.
An anonymous Internet user discovered that AstraZeneca apparently deleted references to its own safety information. AstraZeneca has said it is investigating itself, but also questions whether IP addresses can be faked... Seroquel has been a problem drug for AstraZeneca in various ways. I believe the Seroquel issue should be introduced to the AstraZeneca page as a new controversy, in addition to the current Wikipedia scandal. Sandover 06:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: new AstraZeneca controversy: Wikipedia self-editing (August 2007)

message: raggedly deleted the entire section regarding the 'Controversy over Nexium' section without explanation either on the talk page or in edit summary; this is the only visible edit from this IP address. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user claims removing POV, it may be worht having a good look at the article and see if there is any basis for that. From what I can see it all looks farly unbiased to me though. RaseaC (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained ragged section removal 

message: Most of the ELs are not proper - see WP:EL. They should be changed into footnotes within the article or deleted. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: As per suggestions above, I have included references to the "self-edit" controversy.  A third link caused the entire section to automatically be deleted:   so I have left it out for the time being.  Although it is fully cited and appears to be very detailed and clear -- are there exceptions to including blogs or do we just never include blogs in wikipedia entries regardless of the quality of information they provide? Youngea (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section 

message: New user Stephenr410 deleted parts of the controversy section without explanation.  I have reverted the edits, and am currently NOT assuming good faith from this user until further explanation. Youngea (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexplained controversial modifications/deletions

message: I have attempted a minor clean up. In particular I have changed all references to reflist format and removed all dead links. There is a lot more to do - you can help Dormskirk (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I'm not seeing any references for the section titled "Malaria Drugs". 98.209.119.113 (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on antimalarials 

message: "Brennan is paid $1,574,144 for his role as chief executive officer"
so?  Is that supposed to make the reader believe his salary is not deserved?  you should look up the payscale for University of California medical educators (EG doctors who teach at the Med schools).  20+ get paid 2 million dollars a year.  over 100 get paid more than 1 million.  do you think that the combined total number of patients (and patients of the students who were educated by these doctors) would compare with the number of people benefiting from pharmaceuticals marketed by ANY large pharmaceutical company? "yeah, but they hurt many more"  do you think that they WANTED TO HURT THOSE PEOPLE?  you would be beyond naive and insane to believe so.68.6.76.141 (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Executive Officer Section

message: would like some reference to the company being british/swedish. on the website they call themself multinational. where is the comapny registered?
--Andrgust (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  brit-swed company? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on AstraZeneca. 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  tag to http://articles.marketwatch.com/2007-02-01/news/30828561_1_astrazeneca-anglo-swedish-therapies
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013162711/http://www.stern.de/magazin/heft/595225.html to http://www.stern.de/magazin/heft/595225.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is earlier to read, and therefore maintain the 2015 section using list defined references. Consider the following diff
:Support - as proposer. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: waste of time.  We do not use differing ref styles in the same article. Again MOS reads as it does specifically to prevent this kind of dispute.  This is as irresolvable as ERA or ENGVAR which is why you need to leave this alone. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again it is not a different reference style. It is a different way of coding which happily coexists with inline defined. This is purely a source code change – the actual display of the citation in the text to a reader is unaffected. WP:LDR.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again it certainly is.  You like the style, which keeps the citation out of the content when you edit.  Others don't want to have to change things in two places if they change the ref.   It is 100% a style thing, exactly with no change in substance. This is the kind of argument over nothing that the MOS kills and buries in the ground so people don't have to waste time with this kind of utter waste of time argument. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its not a style difference for the reader. If you think it is a waste of time changing styles, why did you change the reference I added to your preferred style? I added content to the article, and you tweaked the style. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See every reply i have made here but I will add that I reverted b/c of WP:CITESTYLE.  It is not "my preferred style" it was the existing style.  I am not responding further here. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not the existing code 'style' for the content I added, see diff. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:LDR inline and list defined are compatible not either-or. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Another misconception is that there is an "either-or" choice between use of list-defined footnotes and in-line footnotes, and that all citations in an article must follow only one of the styles. In fact,  is entirely compatible with the use of in-line footnotes in the form  or . Although use of both systems in the same article might appear confusing or undesirable, it is a fact that the two systems can be mixed indiscriminately with the template .
.  quoting (diff) from a help page with less than thirty watchers and trying to use that to trump MOS is the definition of wikilawyering.  That will get you no where.  And to respond to the call in MOS to be consistent throughout articles with   (diff) also gets you no where.  Just taking notes. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to trump anything just trying to get to the bottom of way you tweaked the code to content I added. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on AstraZeneca. 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/20160603121038/http://www.astrazeneca-annualreports.com/2014/assets/pdf/Principal_Subsidiaries.pdf to http://www.astrazeneca-annualreports.com/2014/assets/pdf/Principal_Subsidiaries.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813064614/http://www.astrazeneca.se/om_oss/verksamheten-i-Sverige/Forskning/ to http://www.astrazeneca.se/om_oss/verksamheten-i-Sverige/Forskning/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on AstraZeneca. 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/20100211155349/http://www.astrazeneca-annualreports.com/2008/remuneration_report/exec_directors_exec_team.html to http://www.astrazeneca-annualreports.com/2008/remuneration_report/exec_directors_exec_team.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: <Start of discussion>
 I propose that section AstraZeneca#Coronavirus (COVID-19) response be split into a separate page called AZD1222. The AstraZeneca page is large enough (64,415 bytes), and is expected that the vaccine information is going to grow as the phase III results seem promising (79% to 90% effectivity) and the EU has reserved 300M dosis. Other vaccine candidates (as Pfizer and Moderna) already have their own page. Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, seem to be a good idea. --Devokewater (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I go ahead then.Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting proposal for AZD1222 vaccine 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Adverse reactions exceed what would be expected in general population.
Please see link below and update article and lead accordingly. Thank you. 
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/dhpc/direct-healthcare-professional-communication-dhpc-vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_en-0.pdf
Huasteca (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: EMA official position as of 13th of April: Causal relationship is now "plausible" not possible

message: Update. This seems to be a little more strongly confirmed now, so it's worth keeping an eye on it, and updating the article if necessary. Here is a UK report updated 21 October 2021. Storye book (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: GBS as a rare side-effect of AZ vaccination (UK)

message: Update main photo as is outdated. Main Cambridge building is now the AstraZeneca Corporate HQ building called the Discovery Centre (DISC) in Cambridge, UK. 
Ref. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/astrazeneca-unveils-the-discovery-centre-disc-in-cambridge.html#!
Grace8888 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update main photo - outdated