Talk:European Medicines Agency

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

78.141.41.99 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EMEA logo.svg

Image:EMEA logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:City of London Arms.png

The image Image:City of London Arms.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Oldham Kelsey

What's the rationale behind linking Frances Oldham Kelsey in the See also section? →Alfie^±Talk 23:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, since no response for one month. →Alfie^±Talk 20:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drug search markup

The EMA's website url for searching for a drug has become more complex. For the likes of {{Drugbox}} and {{Chembox}}, I have created a subtemplate to provide the url for links - see {{EMA-EPAR}}. David Ruben ^Talk 15:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New EMA structure

A new EMA organisational structure was announced on 16 September 2013. There are four new Divisions dealing with human medicines: Human Medicines Research and Development Support, Human Medicines Evaluation, Procedure Management and Business Support, Inspections and Human Medicines Pharmacovigilance. So the description in 'Operations' could do with updating as it is a bit out of date: ["The Secretariat is organised into five units: Directorate, Human Medicines Development and Evaluation, Patient Health Protection, Veterinary Medicines and Product Data Management, Information and Communications Technology and Administration"].

Full details are on the EMA website: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/about_us/general/general_content_000112.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580028c2c EMA webteam (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit

Can someone sort out the end of Brexit section? It's being used as a dumping ground for irrelevant 'reports' or random/non citations to promote specific country applications for the EMA relocation. The EMA has carried out an internal preference audit but the countries were anonymized (although that hasn't stopped people speculating). I strongly suggest we cut out the Copenhagen paragraph (no citation save a Danish blog or newspaper of some kind where I couldn't find the original report, I did find a CRA report on the EFPIA site, but it doesn't go into country applications) and the absurd Italy section. I've seen a report suggesting Amsterdam doing the rounds as well. We should keep clear of all of these, the EU will decide, period.

see, http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/general/general_content_001707.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580a809a7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carba (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very much supported. An encyclopedia speculating in advance of the outcome of political decisions loses in my view credibility. In particular the bullshit on the endocannabinoid system should be removed. I lack the time to do it myself right now, but maybe later if no one else can have mercy on it.Axel Fredrik (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the Italian nonsense. However, the Danish insertion is still unsupported. Currently a Danish site (newspaper? blog?), in Danish? If someone can cite the original report, fine. Otherwise this has to go as well. The only Charles River Associates report for the EFPIA I can find is this one 'Assessing the impact of the disruption from the relocation of the European Medicines Agency (September 2017), and no bidding city is mentioned. Is there another? https://efpia.eu/news-events/the-efpia-view/statements-press-releases/28092017-destination-ema-making-the-right-choice-for-patients/ Carba (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added both Amsterdam and Copenhagen as speculation with appropriate references, ultimately the EU will decide. Someone keeps adding the Italian madness (which, if nothing else, detracts form Milan's respectable bid), can we find out who this is?Carba (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish treason

Swedish politicians voted anonymously against Denmark as the place of relocation of EMA after Brexit. Scandinavic countries considered this a treason against Denmark in particular and Scandinavia as a unity. According to international experts, Sweden voted against its own interests; a relocation to Denmark would mean more jobs for South Sweden as well — both Sweden and Denmark has plans of making the Copenhagen region a "Medicon Valley". Swedish politicians used harsh tones against the Swedish anti-Denmark voters and the government has started a research on how this treason could happen. It was very big in Scandinavian media, so it's a sentence worth in the Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.108.221 (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European Medicines Agency. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Could better sources, and if possible also English ones, be found to support this material? Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 01:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]