Talk:The Constant Gardener

message: In the credits, there was something like ‘thanks to all that lived and died giving a damn – John Le Carré’ but they rolled by too quickly.  Does anyone have the full transcript?  Cheers. – Kaihsu 11:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: JOHN LE CARRE  
cheers, friend --Haris 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no current system in which the plot is not open to the criticism.  The Nazis tested drugs on POWs and concentration camp victims I suppose.  But without some sort of dictatorial bad guys around, there is no way you would systematically test and refine drugs at toxic levels on humans in the current international community.  The counter-critcism mentions Trovan and that is retained in the section.  Even that event was pretty well documented as a crooked principal investigator as opposed to a massive conspiracy aided by a western government or british aristocrat.  Trovan was recalled and the financial damage was massive.  The lawsuits and financial impact of encountered side effects in clinical trils are far too enormous to make this plot realistic, or so the critics have said (I tend to agree). But the wikipedia policy is a neutral POV, only restating work from other sources.  Other sources document this criticism and counter criticism - the section is very well balanced IMHO.Sandwich Eater 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the film?

message: Totally unsourced and mostly rambled on about the film, while this article is about the book. POV and unsourced comments about the book aren't needed. --MattShepherd 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This editor is POV anti-pharma.  Sandwich Eater 02:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? No, I'm pro-keeping-book-critcism-in-book-reviews-and-leaving-film-criticism-out. Reverting. Please assume good faith and follow Wikipedia policies on using reputable sources and including only relevant material. Perhaps you should review Wikipedia policies before attempting to "contribute," but thanks for your interest. --MattShepherd 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you delete all but the line about the film's supporters pointing out the Trovan issue?  You are POV anti-pharma.  The *plot* criticism is quite clear.  Sandwich Eater 18:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulled "Criticism" section 

message: Hi all, just happened to see this listed at RFC.  I've actually seen neither the movie nor the book so maybe coming at this with a fresh pair of eyes will be helpful.  I take it from the history that the following paragraph is what's at issue:
Critics contend that both the movie and book failed to use the opportunity to level realistic and needed criticism of the pharmaceutical industry and the plight of Africa. Instead, they argue, both mediums created an unrealistic, naive and almost laughable plot typical of many in the paranoid thriller genre but less entertaining or believable than the best of them 1. Equally adamant, the films supporters point out tragic corruption such as that depicted in a Washington Post article from December 2000 2, wherein a clinical trial conducted by Pfizer in Nigeria in 1996 allegedly used children to test Trovan, which had been proven efficacious in adults but not in children. In turn, critics of the movie point out that a company still has no profit motive in purposely developing a dangerous drug, particularly in light of the lawsuits that would result in the West. Other critics point to pro-Third World measures that pharmaceutical companies have enacted, such as "Merck's Gift," wherein billions of free drugs were donated to cure River Blindness in Africa 3, or Pfizer's gift of free/discounted fluconazole and other drugs in AIDS-ravaged South Africa 4, or GSK's development of a treatment for chloroquine-resistant malaria, despite the lack of profit potential 5. Sonia Shah, a very vocal critic of the drug industry and an investigative reporter describes a more realistic portrait of the ethical dilemmas facing the industry and the developing world, as published in The Nation. 6 
::Here are my thoughts.  In general the language is overly hyperbolic, contains scare words, opinion words and weasel words. Additionally, many of the sources do not support the points that are being made. The first link goes to a blog, which aren't considered reliable sources as a general rule. The Washington Post article mentions nothing about the Constant Gardener and so I'm not sure how it's useful to mention in this article (perhaps in Pfizer or Trovafloxacin). It seems to me to be much more verbiage critical of this drug than critical of the movie/book itself (for which there are no sources provided). It references vague "critics" but does not adequately cite any such critics.  I'm not saying there can't be criticism included in the article, naturally there can be. But it has to be presented properly. As it stands this text doesn't meet WP's editorial standards. — ripley/talk 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just "See film page for more information" and link the reader there.Sandwich Eater 17:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From RFC 

message: article cites no sources... tagged for failing WP:V.--Isotope23 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tagged for verification

message: The tags are not necessary as the article looks now. And by the way, this is a fictional novel. The main article on the subject is now about the film. If yoo want to debate the issue and use the POV tags it should be done on the film article. MaxPont 11:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove POV tag

message: I changed the title of the adaptation section to simply "Film Adaptation" because it only discusses that one version. Having "Film, TV, and theatical adaptations" in there seemed unnecessary seeing as how they didn't exist. 64.90.217.245 22:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Film adaptation

message: I'm removing "According to the IMDB, Tessa was based on Yvette Pierpaoli, famous social activist and charity worker killed in 1999," because the book was finished by 2000, and in the Author's Note Le Carre wrote "With one exception nobody in this story, and no outfit or corporation, thank God, is based on an actual person or outfit in the real world..." and went on to say that the one exception is "the great and good Wolfgang of the Oasis Lodge."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.69.185 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Based on Yvette Pierpaoli 

message: I removed the line regarding the movie being "a wholesale ripoff of The Fugitive" as it isn't consistent with a neutral article format, nor was it in the context of any quote or source. Opinions are for the talk page. 
- 99.42.92.7 (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup