Talk:Cepheid (company)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cepheid Inc. 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/20140529122645/http://ir.cepheid.com/faq.cfm to http://ir.cepheid.com/faq.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531124050/http://laboratory-manager.advanceweb.com/Article/Cepheids-Xpert-GBSTM-Test-Receives-510k-Clearance-From-FDA.aspx to http://laboratory-manager.advanceweb.com/Article/Cepheids-Xpert-GBSTM-Test-Receives-510k-Clearance-From-FDA.aspx

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) 21:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Editing of this article from Cepheid
Flagged because it seems that someone at Cepheid removed content from the Cepheid article. The removal was reverted. HLHJ (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources banner
Went ahead and removed it, as the referencing is sufficient now with the vast majority being from reliable sources. - Indefensible (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Planning to rename this soon to Cepheid (company)
The official name of the company at the time of its founding [https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/Document/RetrievePDF?Id=01962219-4542093 had no "Inc." in it]. The company name is simply Cepheid. That is still true as of January 2020. Yes, that is legal in California.

The common name and the official name of the company are the same. Since the term Cepheid is more commonly used to refer to Cepheid variable and is currently a redirect to that article, I propose to rename this article to Cepheid (company). Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hearing none, it's done. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Coolcaesar! I'm more surprized that someone can call a company a common noun. HLHJ (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Detail in lede
Drmies, in this edit, you shortened the lede. I think, subject to correction, that part your earlier edit comment "restored information, in main text--too wordy for the lead" was intended to refer to it, but you accidentally edit-conflicted SunDawn's revert?

I named and cited a specific accuser because I suspected, based on content earlier in this talk page, that the content might be challenged. I'm perfectly willing to leave that detail for the body. I thinkit would be useful to indicate that the company makes single-use cartridges and the associated testing machines, and that the specific accusation is that the company is using vendor lock-in and to charge many times the production cost of the cartridges; the lede's not terribly long, and the cartridge/machine structure seems fairly integral to the company. But my original phrasing:

"The cartridges used in Cepheid's testing machines are single-use and must be bought from the manufacturer. The company has been accused of profiteering, with a Doctors without Borders analysis claiming that Cephid is charging over six times the cost of production for COVID-19 test cartridges sold to developing countries."

...is rather clumsy. Would you be okay with a shortened form?

"The cartridges used in Cepheid's testing machines are single-use and must be bought from the manufacturer. The company has been accused of profiteering, particularly in developing countries, by overpricing the cartridges at many times the cost of production, and engaging in price discrimination."

Well, that's not much shorter, but wiklinked. Any better suggestions? HLHJ (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is indeed what happened. I don't mind your improved version. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Less fashed about this now, since I've reordered the sections to put what the company does earlier, instead of info on its corporate status. I'll think and come back to this. HLHJ (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio?
There seems to be some WP:copyvio, in one direction or the other, with https://www.zippia.com/cepheid-careers-18696/history/ according to Earwig. No idea if the source is even independent. HLHJ (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * HLHJ, this looks like just another website that simply publishes or republishes company-supplied information, in this cases larded with a bit stolen from Wikipedia--thought it's not clear which bits all came from us. The thing to do here is to see when sus information was added, with which diff(s), and then check with the date on the website--but this is not a waterproof method. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you; the plagiarism was probably Zippia's on balance of probabilities. There's no overt date on the Zippia webpage, and the Wayback Machine is having issues. But it appears that the duplicate phrases were added to the article at different times by different people citing different sources (e.g. the bit about the Reagent Bead Dispenser was in the very first article version, and was later rephrased into the Zippia form; and this edit adding the Northrop Grumman content was 2014 and citing & paraphrasing a 2003 source; peacock but not copyvio). HLHJ (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by education program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2013 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)