Talk:Ligand Pharmaceuticals

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... With respect, this seems premature. A quick search of google news shows that this NASDAQ listed company has over 2700 news stories. Some are in depth coverage pieces. FWIW, I'd let a little time run to see if the article improves. --Capitalismojo (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ligand Pharmaceuticals. 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/20150716012425/http://www.ligand.com/our-collaborations to http://www.ligand.com/our-collaborations

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) 16:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing promotional content
This page consisted almost entirely of information that either lacked reliable sources or was completely unsourced and appears to be a promotional page for the company possibly edited by COI editors. I have sourced reliable sources for the page including The New York Times, Bloomberg, The San Diego Union Tribune, Benzinga, Value Walk and others. I would like to create or axpand on a "history" section but unfortunately there is very little in the way of reliable sources available on the company's history. Any and all feedback is invited. Cypresscross (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The reports on the "lengthy scandal" here created by the company's tortured history with regulators and investors is key to the subject's notability and is supported by a highly reliable source. I'll see if it can be synthesized further, but it should remain in the SEC investigation section as a lead into the rest of the body. Cypresscross (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP policy on reliable sources. Most of the content on the page that was removed, and that you are adding back, appears to be promotional material derived from the company. Please discuss any changes on the talk page before making changes. Cypresscross (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Prior to your expansion, which information was unsourced? I created the page and have zero ties with the company. Can you also be more specific about what content was promotional? I'm very familiar with WP:RS so which of the sources I added is unreliable: Funding Universe, Forbes, or WallStreet.org?
 * Most of the content you added warrants inclusion but needs to be condensed to avoid WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Virtually all of the original sources do not meet WP guidelines for reliable sources. FundingUniverse, for example, does not meet the criteria for a reliable source according to WP guidelines as it has no editorial oversight, while the Forbes article appears to be an editorial and finally there is no article at "WallStreet.org. I appreciate the comments on synthesizing the article and have already made a few edits further to that end per your suggestion.  Thanks. Cypresscross (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've posted on WP:RSN requesting other users' feedback on the reliability of Funding Universe. It seems you're taking WP:OWNERSHIP and turning it into an attack page. Yes, the content you've added is sourced but as it stands is WP:UNDUE. The lawsuits and allegations need to be condensed. Meatsgains (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added an RFC below on the same issue so that all of the previous unreliable sources can be addressed, including the links that lead to nothing (per comments above). There is definitely no ownership of the page and it is certainly is not an attack page.  The reality is the page previously was simply a highly promotional page, with no reliable sources for any of the claims made on the page.  The page as it stands now is reliably sourced and is a balanced article written in an encyclopedic way from a NPOV, using highly reliable sources from global financial media outlets (New York Times, Bloomberg, etc.).  All of the company's notability stems from the main points of the article, which are now well referenced. Cypresscross (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've tightened up the text considerably in every section per your suggestion - the article is now more encyclopedic. I've looked for reliable sources to flesh out the history section, and will continue to do so.  Unfortunately Xconomy, appears also to be Op-ed. Cypresscross (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on sources
There is a question about the reliability of sources used in a past version of this page and that have since been removed as well as a tag currently being used on this page. Please see discussion above on Funding Universe and WallStreet.org. Any and all feedback is appreciated. Cypresscross (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - The question regarding the reliability of sources more specifically pertains to this edit. The page's quality was poor prior to the recent activity however, now isn't not balanced. 90% of the page now covers investigations, lawsuits, fraud, and Deloitte being fined. While this information warrants inclusion, it should be condensed to avoid WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment::Per above, the text has been tightened considerably. According to highly reliable sources (and once the promotional material was removed), virtually the entire notability of this firm stems from investigations, lawsuits, fraud and regulatory actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypresscross (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. Work is underway to rewrite the article into a balanced form and away from the wholly negative version into which Cypresscross converted it. The work is proceeding despite that editor's efforts to thwart the process (see below and the article history). The real issue here is Cypresscross's obvious but undisclosed conflict of interest. —S MALL  JIM   21:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Removing Tag
The tag that was added to the page does not appear reasonable and does not belong on the page or was possibly added in error. The article is written from a NPOV using highly reliable sources from major global financial media outlets. Open to feedback. Thanks. Cypresscross (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tag
The article has a significantwp:WEIGHT problem with almost no neutrally objective information about the company itself and is entirely weighted towards negative material related to shorts, stock trades etc.. as if the authors of this article want to over-emphasize negative views. Furthermore, in that area it is missing a key and important case, namely the SEC investigation against Emmanuel Lemelson who allegedly published false information about Ligland in order to profit from shorting the stock. Multiple sock puppet accounts associated with Emmanuel Lemelson have a history of aggressively editing Wikipedia and been blocked. -- Green  C  14:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)  --  Green  C  14:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Cypresscross began editing the page the same day the SEC investigation of Catholic priest Emmanuel Lemelson was announced. Cypresscross has a long history of editing Emmanuel Lemelson a promotional manner. Clearly it will help Lemelson's case against the SEC to portray this company in a negative light. I also believe Cypresscross's edits support Lemelson's contentions as to why the SEC case has no merit. There is a strong possibility this article is being manipulated in light of the SEC case against Emmanuel Lemelson. -- Green  C  14:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a baseless attack from Green  C .   None of the edits have been promotional, all are well referenced and have been accepted.  All of the reliable sources on Ligand are what was added to the page.   If you can find some positive coverage from reliable secondary sources, I would invite the addition.  Even  Meatsgains (per above) agrees the content should be included.  So there is already consensus.  If you're going to make an accusation of "manipulation", why don't you point out where the edits violated any of WP policies. Cypresscross (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Editor with undisclosed COI
in view of: it is evident that you have an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding these topics. On that basis, I've reverted the article to the version before your first edit and invite others to correct and update it appropriately. If you wish to propose any changes, please do so on this page using Template:Request_edit. —S MALL JIM   14:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * yesterday's news about this company and Emmanuel Lemelson -, and many other sources
 * the edits you made yesterday to this article, discussed above
 * your promotional edits at Emmanuel Lemelson, discussed at Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson
 * earlier concerns expressed about your neutrality, here, here and here, etc.

Baseless accusations
Making baseless accusations is a violation of WP policies, esp. AGF. The wholesale removal of an entire page that was written from a strictly NPOV using highly reliable secondary sources is also aginst WP guidelines, particularly since there is already consensus above with user Meatsgains  that the material needs to be added. Given the fact the article is extremely well written and well sourced with significant secondary sources, as well as the consensus above, I am going to restore the page to its last version. I have invited any and all feedback and edits to the page and continue to do so. Please either make edits directly to the page according to WP guidlines or discuss on talk page. Cypresscross (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * To show that you are here in good faith, editing neutrally, you need to explain the timing of your edits to this article and also explain why you made no mention of Lemelson's involvement until prompted. Please do this instead of attacking your fellow editors. —S MALL  JIM   16:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Good faith should be "assumed" (not proven) per WP policies, nevertheless, I don't mind explaining. Most of the pages that have been edited are related in one way or another, editing one page has led to another.  Checking out this page yesterday I noticed it was basically a promotional page with no reliable sources, that caused me to dig in.  A huge amount of time was spent researching and editing this page and the results are a major improvement over what was here before.  All of the reliable secondary sources date from a few months ago to a few years ago, so there is a clear picture of the subject's notability based on a large collection of reliable sources over time (none of which are positive, unfortunately).  The recent event you mention are still just hours old and the sources are still developing.  I had planned on adding more on recent developments, but after they came into clearer context with a little time (like 24 hours).  I still plan on expanding the page and research is ongoing.  To be clear no one "prompted" me to add anything, and there is certainly no "attack" on fellow editors as you say.  The focus on this page, as with all WP pages should be on compliance with WP best practices and guidelines, in that sense any concerns raised about the edits (e.g. synthesizing further) have been addressed.  I have repeatedly invited other editors feedback and still do.  Cypresscross (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a permanent requirement and I'm afraid you don't persuade me at all. Your actions speak much louder: you have not explained the extraordinary coincidence of coming across this article just when the news was breaking, yet you made no mention of Lemelson's involvement. Your explanation of wanting to wait until the news matured holds no water in the light of your previous positive edits to Lemelson's article. If you really had Wikipedia's interests at heart, you would have allowed the edits made by editors with genuine concerns to stand and worked with them over time to create an agreed version. There is no urgency! Instead you have reverted five times now, and I have just reported you to the edit warring noticeboard for that. I don't doubt that you have put in a lot of work on this article, but in view of your obvious COI I will once again restore it to the earlier version, and repeat the strong recommendation that you do not edit it directly unless or until the community reaches a consensus that it is acceptable for you to do so. The other editors interested in this article can use your research to build an acceptable version, and you can make suggestions on this page, though if your primary concern is about Wikipedia it might be better if you simply walk away and edit or do something else while this works itself out. —S MALL  JIM   19:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Your comments above don't persuade me either and your actions also say much. The explanations above are thorough and concise, while you just continue to make accusations.  The edits you mentioned above were removed because they lacked reliable sources and RFC on the topic has already been opened. Regarding the edits made to the Lemelson page, they were certainly not all positive (and most were confirmed by other editors), and when I tried to revert back to an edit that you yourself originally made (formatting of a footnote), you undid it, again with an accusation of bad faith.  If the unreliable sources are added back (especially in light of the explanations and consensus above) they will need to be removed again.  this page already has consensus on the content of the article so that is a moot point.    If you really had WP interest at heart you would spend the time to research and make positive contributions to the article instead of attacking another editor with unfounded accusations.   I would make the strong recommendation that you not revert the article and engage deliberately in an edit war on a page that you can not raise one legitimate issue with.  Anyone who genuinely cares about WP would care about a subject and a page that they have invested significant time in (and would not want it vandalized) esp. when the article complies entirely with WP policies. I have had no violations of any WP policy, can you say the same? Cypresscross (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You have not given plausible responses to the important points. It's your work that's under scrutiny: please do not raise straw men to deflect material questions. —S MALL  JIM   21:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: I've held off restoring the earlier version of the article because Cypresscross has been given the offer of self-reverting to avoid a 3RR sanction: see WP:AN/3. —S MALL  JIM   23:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm hopeful that we can build on GreenC's latest edits to collaborate on cleaning up the article. Restoring the old version isn't now an option, but it does contain content that we can re-use to help restore NPOV. —S MALL JIM   22:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Ensuring Balance
I'm optimistic that we can work together to build on and improve on existing edits and collaborate to ensure the key elements of the subject's notability are included in the article in a balanced, encyclopedic way and from a NPOV. I am going to go ahead and restore a few critical elements that are key to the subject's notability and that are based on highly reliable secondary sources such as CNBC, The New York Times, etc. and ensure that the content involving key notability of the subject is incorporated into the context of new material that has recently been added. All feedback is invited. Cypresscross (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Glad to you have a positive attitude and are optimistic. You seem to be ignoring WP:WEIGHT issues (the reason for the NPOV tag). Also something may be in a reliable source that doesn't mean it needs to be or should be in an article, we have editorial oversight on what to include or not. "There is a reliable source" isn't really enough at this time, considering the extreme over-weighting of negative information in the article. -- Green  C  12:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Also primary sources are acceptable (see WP:PRIMARY) only a problem if they make a large portion of sources or are making extraordinary claims. A source that says "this is what we do as a company" is perfectly fine. -- Green  C  12:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * What the company does needs to be given up-front in a section and without coloring it with negative information. -- Green  C  12:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Questions about WP:WEIGHT appear to have been resolved with the new content. I'm glad that other editors were able to flesh out certain sections of the article, an area I was also working on addressing.  As my comment above states, highly notable content from extremely reliable sources needs to be included (consensus on the content was already reached - see discussion above) - particularly since it is key to the subjects notability.  If it's not, the risk is that WP:WEIGHT will remain with highly promotional primary sources (press releases by the company etc.).  The simple facts are that virtually all of the subject's notability is an outgrowth of very public controversies over allegations of securities fraud and major regulatory actions, including (and notably) those brought against the company's auditors which resulted in a record fine by a government agency.  So I will be working to restore those critical points in an encyclopedic way, from a NPOV and with highly reliable secondary sources (which are obviously preferable to primary ones).  Thanks for the clarification on primary sources.  Cypresscross (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The Lede as it stands now is the most neutral description of the company's notability based on its history and according to highly reliable secondary sources. If the company had gained notability for discovering a new drug, for example, that should certainly be a consideration for the lede, but as it stands the overwhelming common theme of virtually all the reliable secondary sources is that this is a company that has gained notability for being the subject of multiple regulatory investigations and class-action lawsuits amid allegations of fraud. Cypresscross (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I've left in the allegation of stock manipulation and agree they are relevant to the article, however including a lawsuit between two third parties is not relevant to the article so I have undone that edit. Also, using the defendant in the lawsuit as a source is not reliable given the obvious COI. Cypresscross (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * WEIGHT has not been resolved. The article is overweighted with negative information. I would suggest working to restore balance to the article by describing what the company does without the injection of negative spins and coloring. Ligand: My Favorite Biotech Stock suggests there are sentiments other than what you are focused on. -- Green  C  13:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh look the stock is at an all time high, profits are soaring, the company has never been doing better. Who would know that reading Wikipedia. --  Green  C  13:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to see more content added if reliable sources can be found. The article is not overweighted with negative information, its just that the information that is available from reliable sources and there simply may not be anything else from reliable sources.  If reliable sources can be found that describe what the company does why should they not be added?  I am hoping that they can be found (I've already been looking for quite some time).  The way the key elements were written was extremely encyclopedic and from a NPOV.  Obviously, the blog post from SeekingAlpha you reference above is neither neutral nor are in any way acceptable to any of WP guidelines on sources.  Cypresscross (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add to my comments above about the SeekingAlpha blog post you reference, that the author also appears to be a stockholder, "talking his book" so hardly reliable sources (aside from a being a blog). Cypresscross (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there a reliable source that can be found that says "...the stock is at an all-time high, profits are soaring, the company has never been doing better"? If so, by all means, add the edits and leave it open to other editors to decide if or how the content should be included in the article. Cypresscross (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying what I saw when doing a first-pass Google search. I've already added one source to MarketWatch and will probably can find more. -- Green  C  13:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I get the "first glance Google search" thing, I thought the same thing initially, but as I dug deeper I realized there are virtually no reliable secondary or tertiary sources to support any of the claims coming from primary sources (despite the long history as a publicly traded company). However, there are many highly reliable sources regarding the company's involvement in multiple controversies, almost all (over decades) related to allegations of securities fraud.  If there were really good news about this company, wouldn't reliable secondary sources have written about it by now (hasn't it been like 30 years?) Cypresscross (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In case you doubt this company is doing extremely well, Zacks research. I'm not sure if Zacks is reliable or not, I think so because mainstream reliable sources cite it, but regardless this should tell you there is more to the story that Wikipedia is missing. --  Green  C  14:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the hard work and contributions to this page you have made, I also have been working hard to ensure the page is balanced. However, our job as editors is not to report one way or another on the performance of the company, it is to utilized the available reliable sources to write encyclopedic text, from a NPOV that constitutes the key elements of the notability of the subject.  Zacks, a private company that sells investment research, is not a reliable source, and you'll note the article you reference, accordingly, has no editorial oversight. Cypresscross (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I really do appreciate all the excellent work and positive attitude you are displaying. I'm glad we can continue working together to improve the article. I will be here every day as I have been for 13 years and counting. I enjoy a good challenge and this one has gained my attention for some reason. Look forward to a long and continued working relationship! -- Green  C  14:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Lede
Green C  Thanks for your comments above and for also catching important corrections to edits I made. The addition of the new sentence in the lede (here) is not reliable content about the subject. Nowhere does the editor in the article make the claims about Ligand that were included in the Lede. Also, the source is not MarketWatch / WSJ, it is FactSet (a financial data and software company) according to WP. WP policy state "to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material..." (see here). It appears that there is no primary or secondary or tertiary source for this bold claim by FactSet. The risk is that the data (which is likely self-reported by the company) has never been confirmed by any other source, despite the extraordinary claims it makes. Can you explain if you have found anything to support this claim and if you agree that it doesn't meet WP guidelines for RS - thanks. Cypresscross (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No. The article is by a MarketWatch columnist. If he chose to incorporate data from FactSet into his article, it is not up to us to decide it is unreliable, unless you have some clear reason why FactSet is not reliable, or why MarketWatch itself is unreliable. -- Green  C  13:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you point out where any part of the columnist article makes any claim about Ligand? Based on this reference alone, there is no reliable source for these extraordinary claims. In order for it to be included as a source, it would have had to have something written about it (and implicitly verified the claims).  The FactSet data is nothing more than self-reported information from Ligand which the columnist did not reference in what he actually wrote.  Also if the claim were verifiable, and given its extraordinary nature, wouldn't a reliable (even a minor one) source have covered it? Cypresscross (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also nowhere in the article is the claim made that "ligand is one of the 10 fast-growing companies in the healthcare sector" The self-reported FactSet data only references "sales per share" which is much different than "fast-growing" - for example, this could mean the companies sales per share increased, because large numbers of shares were repurchased by the company (hence the company did not actually grow). Cypresscross (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the author of article includes a chart with Ligand listed and states "Here are the 10 that have increased sales per share the most". -- Green  C  14:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Importantly the columnist never once uses the word Ligand and the article is not about Ligand, it is about health care indexes and his personal approach to screening stocks in that sector. Specifically, the columnist uses a personal approach to stock screening that uses a data company with self-reported data from companies (FactSet) to narrow his screens.   With regards to the table you reference, the columnist makes it clear that he used several procedures to narrow down the list from 74 to ten to include only "companies that had expanded their gross profit margins over the same period".  This is an extremely subjective list, provided by a columnist writing an article about his personal approach to screening stocks that resulted in a list being pared down from 74 to just ten.   Further, the entire piece is editorial / Op-Ed and I hope you'll agree, has no place on WP.  Cypresscross (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's framed appropriately "according to MarketWatch". The important thing is MarketWatch thought it significant. Of course any such list will have list criteria, it would be impossible not to have criteria, that is normal. There's no indication of an "op ed". -- Green  C  14:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also since Fortune ranks the company so highly, among the fastest growing companies of any type (#6 in 2016) the MarketWatch claim of 10 fastest growing in the health care sector only is not only un-extraordinary it is to be expected. The MW piece isn't making stuff up, unless you have contradictory evidence. --  Green  C  14:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I've created a new section for "stock performance" and moved the new content into it and added an explanation of the MarketWatch columnists findings. I also updated the Forbes data with the most recent ranking.  The section was moved to the bottom because 1) there is a dispute over the reliability of the MarketWatch piece (I have the same reservations about the Forbes piece which has no editorial oversight either) and 2) because stock prices are nebulous and fluid (unless tied to a major event like the CNBC piece which I am going to add it that section. I am hoping new editors who haven't worked on the page yet, will chime in on the question of the reliability of the MarketWatch source.  Importantly Forbes only refers to stock price performance and not the company's growth (which is a totally separate thing). Cypresscross (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The MarketWatch and Forbes pieces refer to two totally different things (one talks about a personal approach to screen stocks based on sales per share and margins, the other stock price performance over a finite period of time). Also, there is no editorial or editorial oversight on the Forbes piece and so it really doesn't qualify for inclusion as a RS. Cypresscross (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a "piece" it's a listing of Forbes top-ranked companies. Forbes is a reliable source, sorry.-- Green  C  14:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

CNBC Reporting
CNBC is one of the largest news sources to report on the company. Since the article has already establsihed that Kyprolis is one of two approved indications the company collects royalties on, the CNBC reporting on Kyprolis is central to the notability of the article, so I am gonig add this section back. Cypresscross (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Stock performance has nothing to do with what the company does, the purpose of the Business section. Also missing a study goal is hardly encyclopedic. Finally your are framing it as being relevant by adding that "however," as if missing a goal nullifies the previous statements which it doesn't. Are you trying to purposefully smear this company? I can't see any other rationale for these edits. I'll strike that in Good Faith. -- Green  C  15:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have already included references (Forbes) that speak to stock performance and establish the link to Kyprolis. Missing a late-stage study is hugely important since Kyprolis is only one of two approved drugs the company receives royalty revenue from. The purpose of the edits is to utilize the highly reliable sources that are available, including CNBC so that the article doesn't rely on company press releases and highly questionable sources. Cypresscross (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Forbes is more than stock performance, it includes revenue growth in the metrics. I'm not convinced we need to highlight stock drops, any more than we need to highlight stock pops. This is an encyclopedia with a long-term perspective, the stock will naturally go up and down with news. -- Green  C  15:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Useful resources
—S MALL JIM   16:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's an in-depth early history of the company (to 2000) at http://www.company-histories.com/Ligand-Pharmaceuticals-Incorporated-Company-History.html
 * A search for Ligand Pharmaceuticals on FDAnews returns 69 hits: https://www.fdanews.com/search?Submit=Submit&datatype=&page=1&q=ligand+pharmaceuticals&restricted=false&sort=relevancy&utf8=%E2%9C%93
 * JSTOR has 80 hits on the company, though many are brief mentions.

Removing NPOV tag
I've rewritten much of the article to restore what I see as balance. It's been stable for a few days now, so I wonder if there's consensus to remove the NPOV tag. All those in favour say "Aye"! —S MALL JIM   08:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The work you did is great and needed. I think more needs to be said about what the company does to better explain it's unusual and notable growth rates, Yahoo Financial estimates they will double in size this year alone, and the profit margins for 40 employees is impressive (no wonder he is the highest paid CEO). But the sourcing is difficult, probably need to look in more specialized trade literature that may not be available online. If you want to remove the NPOV tag for now that is OK. -- Green  C  14:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I should have credited your work too - sorry, and thanks. I see you've removed the tag. As you've pointed out, a WP editor's aim should be to write articles that cover all the encyclopedic aspects of the topic, not just the easily-sourced material. I agree that if anything more is to be added it should expand on what the company does and its history. A mention of its "as of 2018" growth rate would be appropriate if it can be well sourced, but we must be careful to retain that all-important balance.
 * Incidentally, I've just removed the sentence about the July 2018 $3.8 billion lawsuit because once again it's too sensationalist: a more thoughtful description at https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-31/sometimes-the-documents-are-wrong makes it rather a non-story. If the end result is in favour of the plaintiff, then it may be worth mentioning. —S MALL  JIM   23:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hah. good find. The more one looks, the less sinister events appear to be. -- Green  C  00:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Aye - Thanks for take the time to rewrite the page. Its for more balanced now. Meatsgains (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)