Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:11, 17 February 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pittsburgh Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: West Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as Low-importance).

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. CorporateM (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Draft

I have a COI/financial connection/affiliation with Ms. Bresch's employer Mylan. I've put together a draft revised article at User:CorporateM/Heather Bresch for consideration by a disinterested editor that I believe presents a more reasonable balance between many of the glowing sources about her business accomplishments, as well as the more critical and controversial ones about the MBA controversy. The idea is to consolidate Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy here. As a matter of neutral notification, I've previously pinged User:FreeRangeFrog, who is interested in BLP issues, as well as User:MrBill3, who attended the school during the MBA controversy.

I appreciate your time and attention on this article in advance! CorporateM (Talk) 17:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well -- one of the key things I notice about your revision of the degree controversy section is that it omits any mention of Garrison and Mylan... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

He's mentioned a couple times, but as "the university president" as oppose to being spelled out by name. CorporateM (Talk) 18:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Worth naming. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Done CorporateM (Talk) 19:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Leaves the Mylan question. Not thrilled that stuff like this has to be dealt with in this manner; slightly hard to take in good faith. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Like this? Not sure what you mean. Is there other stuff about Mylan that I missed relevant to her bio? CorporateM (Talk) 22:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• If the goal is to reflect the stuff that's meant to be merged in, then this already reflects the content of Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy. The company is only mentioned twice; once in the lead, and once when giving context for Bresch's employment. Unless there was impact on the company or negative commentary in RSes, I don't see what more can be added (though I should note that I am unfamiliar with the case). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A piece of text that CorporateM's draft omits is: "Michael Garrison, WVU President at the time, was reported to be "a family friend and former business associate of Bresch" and a former consultant and lobbyist for Mylan." I don't think a good reason has been given for its removal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Process

I am opposed to wholesale replacement of the current article with a draft written by a PR consultant. I appreciate that the draft was offered for discussion here; this accords with policy on COI at least in some respects. But as a matter of process more generally I don't see why we should do it that way. Apart from the concern about omission of the Garrison/Mylan sentence above, I would prefer that changes be proposed here, with reference to the defects of the current version and/or the merits of the changes desired. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The proposed draft said "Bresch was friends and former colleagues with the university president Michael Garrison" but did not make clear that they were former colleagues at Mylan; I fixed it. My suggestion would be that we do the more mundane stuff about the job titles she held, what she did there, etc. as a copy/paste, then go through the controversy separately and more slowly. My main concern is that there is a separate article that covers it in extensive depth, then rather than using Summary Style here, it's more than half the length of the full article and not much is filled out regarding the rest of her bio. If you're willing to spend the time with me hammering out the controversy one item at-a-time, instead of in a copy/paste, this is overwhelmingly the preferred approach to avoid the appearance of impropriety that can occur when even minor mistakes are revealed. Meanwhile, the rest of the article is much more routine and a copy/paste is probably the most sensible way to fill out the more mundane aspects of the page. CorporateM (Talk) 17:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Even fuller disclosure

I trimmed the explanation of the controversy down to a hyper-dense bare-bones synopsis, along with a link to the much-more-detailed article about the controversy itself. This is because we don't really need that much detail here, when we already have it there. I did this as the result of a chat on IRC with user:CorporateM, with whom I have never (to the best of my recollection) previously interacted; CorporateM is making an effort to do this properly. DS (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @DS. DS summarized the Controversy section more concisely, since there is a separate, dedicated article (probably even more concisely than I would have gone with), but said that he didn't have the time/interest to review the entire draft at User:CorporateM/Heather Bresch, which should make the page GAN-ready by filling out the rest of the page (I usually bring pages where I have a COI up to GA). If someone has the time/interest to consider my draft, it would be greatly appreciated! Meanwhile, I think it was ideal that an non-affiliated editor took a shot at the controversy to avoid accusations of slanting. CorporateM (Talk) 20:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The only things I can see that seem missing right off are birth date and, maybe, any particular details about early, pre-college, life, and possibly the name of her current husband. Saying "she is married to a lawyer" or anything like that almost comes across as accusing her of some form of interspecies relationship. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter I added her husband's full name and a sentence about growing up in a politically charged household. Unfortunately I don't have any good reliable sources with her birthdate. CorporateM (Talk) 21:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• The current draft is not acceptable. I can see why a PR consultant paid by Mylan (or is it Bresch?) would want it to appear that way, but it's not consistent with NPOV. There is no lack of electrons here; the existence of greater detail elsewhere doesn't mean we ought to eliminate most of the story here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nomoskedasticity. I kind of had this thought in the back of my head, that you may have missed the ping I gave you at BLPN, because I was surprised you didn't comment there. The discussion is here if you'd like to take a look. You can also see some other discussions on user Talk pages here and here. Between BLPN, IRC and the two user Talk pages, there's about 4 or 5 editors that may disagree on some details or did not get that detailed, but seem to support something more along the lines of Dragonfly's version. CorporateM (Talk) 01:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw it; the point was to get other input and I saw no need to respond. User talk pages are not the place to form a consensus on a change that does not have agreement on the article talk page. As for "agreement" from other editors, your sense of that is quite selective: Ronz, for example, said the section should be shorter but also that it should say that she apparently lied about her degree. You've gone for "shorter" but omitted the other bit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree completely with Nomoskedasticity. This is a bridge too far. Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose that the "degree controversy" article be merged into this article. I've never been in favour of having a separate article on this issue. There are of course sources to document it, but it doesn't have independent notability. Having a separate article here goes against WP:POVFORK, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The controversy is mostly about West Virginia University, not about her. She has many notable accomplishments separate from the controversy, which is a blemish on her life story, but primarily involves others. IMHO her article should definitely mention the MBA issue, give it a sentence or two, and link to the article about the controversy, which can/does include the gory details about WVU, its president and his resignation, the suspicion of political involvement by her father, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely reasonable to take the view that the affair deserves its own article (though of course it's a view that I disagree with). But the section here is almost entirely about her -- the only passage that isn't about her at all is the final paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify that last statement. If you are saying that the section about the degree controversy here is more or less entirely about her, well, yes, that would make sense in my eyes, because this article is a biography about her, and the aspects of the controversy irrelevant to her are not really relevant to her biography. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm only saying that the section about the degree here is almost entirely about her. I made that point because others (e.g. Lou Sander just above) seem to have said differently (and I think they're incorrect). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I just looked more carefully at this article. The section about the degree IS almost entirely about her. IMHO it should be shortened to a few sentences. The controversy is only a small part of her life, but is a big part of the history of WVU, has its own notability, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm hearing a pretty strong consensus that this article currently fails to meet our standards for a biography of a living person due to the question of undue weight. Like others, I'm uncomfortable with a cut-and-paste of CorporateM's version due to the COI issue. (And kudos to him for doing this the right way and engaging us in a discussion). One thing that I think we can do is bring some of the expanded material he's written over, one sentence at a time, carefully vetting it for personal endorsement. I'll do a little bit of that now. But there are obviously other steps that need to be taken, and reducing the size of the controversy section, even as a potentially temporary measure, would at least improve the article for the moment as we then take the time to review the whole thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Merging would be a bad idea because there are aspects of the controversy, such as political ramifications and resignations of other people that don't belong in this biography. Keep them separate and keep the section of the he biography short. Expand other aspects of the biography to present a more balanced view. Jehochman 14:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please link to anyone who is not being paid to puff up the public appearance of this person saying that the current article violates our BLP policy? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Me. And just because somebody is a paid PR person doesn't mean that they are wrong or that they are unethical. Please retract your personal attacks. Jehochman 15:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree about the ethics of a paid pr person arguing with unpaid volunteers to burnish the bio of their employers, I think. Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think article subjects should be allowed to request help if their bio violates policy? Surely you'd allow that. What's wrong with sending a minion to do the job. The lady is a busy CEO and she doesn't have the first idea how our policies work. It's very nice that she sent somebody polite and knowledgeable as her agent. Jehochman 20:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that all goes out the window when you could literally burn $100,000 with no life impact. You should rename this Cokeapedia, brought to you by Apple. So, no, it's not ethical for a billion dollar corporation to do anything more than say "please look at this article" once. Of course, if they were paying me, I'd think differently. I'll leave this topic area for $1,000, and argue whatever the subject wants for $5,000. Contact me via email this user for Bitcoin details! Wait, is that ethical? I'm so confused where the line is drawn. Hipocrite (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's some news. This topic has political ramifications which means there are paid consultants on all sides doing opposition research trying to spin the article this way and that way. We can throw our hands up and quit, or we can try to moderate the discussion and get a fair (or less unfair) result. At least CorporateM has disclosed his involvement so that we can review things fully and do our best to maintain neutral point of view. Jehochman 14:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I strongly suspect you're wrong. I'm highly confident that CorporateM is the only paid consultant trying to spin this article. If there's evidence that I'm wrong, then fine -- but I don't see any sign of paid editing by anyone else on this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. CorporateM's canvassing on this issue includes: , , , , , -- all on top of the original BLPN post. When one does that much canvassing, what's notable about the outcome is how few (not how many)editors come to the article talk page to express agreement.

If I were writing this article now, I would omit certain items I included several years ago -- especially, anything that doesn't explicitly mention Bresch. I don't mind a shorter presentation. But I'm quite minded to restore the paragraph that makes the point about political/business connections among Bresch, Manchin, Garrison, and Mylan. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a link to the controversy article where any reader can go see all the details. We should not bloat the biography with all that material. Jehochman 15:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Categorically opposed to merging the article on the controversy to this one because of the obvious weight violations such would cause. The individual won a rather significant award on her patriotism and is a leader of a huge company. Even if the award itself is less than "major," the actions which led to such recognition are. I haven't checked all the business journals out there, but I have to assume that her significance is much more related to her lobbying and corporate work than to the rather flash-in-a-pan controversy perpetrated by individuals other than herself and in which she herself might not have been directly involved. Merger would in my eyes almost certainly lead to extremely serious BLP concerns regarding WEIGHT, and I cannot see making a merge which would violate that core policy. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Wrong merge, the degree controversy should be merged to WVU - to the extent that living persons played a role in it, it can also be mentioned with appropriate weight in their bio articles. Having an article like this about one event is, yes, POV forking. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (But I'll support this merge as a step in the right direction, even though there is a better target per Drmies) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are too many facts about how WVU reacted to the situation that basically have nothing to do with Bresch to want to see it merged here. I doubt it should be merged to WVU either, because there are aspects to this - her family relationship - that aren't directly relevant to WVU. It's notable enough to be a stand-alone article. Wnt (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know the ins and outs of the scandal behind all of this, if there is one. CorpM didn't ping me this time (thanks!), but it doesn't take more than a quick unpaid glance to see that the "controversy" article is undue and skirting a BLP violation, to put it mildly. Merge, in a condensed version. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Merge to West Virginia University with appropriate weight to that article. Not worth a separate entry. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Not here. Merge with History of West Virginia University. It is not significant enough to justify a stand-alone article, but giving it adequate coverage here, in her biography, would be giving it too much weight for a BLP. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose because Bresch wasn't the lone bad actor or even the primary bad actor in this controversy, she was just the primary beneficiary. The scandal seems to be well-documented and covers the actions of multiple parties, so dropping the whole thing into one person's bio seems pretty unfair. Townlake (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Manchin's Daughter

The fact that she is Joe Manchin's daughter is important, and not just with respect to the controversy. Right now it is mentioned only in the controversy section of the article. IMHO it should be in the opening paragraph, and should be removed from the controversy section. Such a basic fact probably doesn't also need to be mentioned in the body of the article, but it wouldn't be hard to do that if somebody felt strongly about it. Lou Sander (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

An Early life section would definitely be in order. Born in X, the daughter of Y. Raised in Z, attended W high school, graduated in V from WVU. No need to mention her MBA in this section, since it was rescinded and is mentioned in the Controversy section. I would do this myself, but am extremely busy with another project, and don't have time to research it. Lou Sander (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This page at least mentions her having graduated Fairmont, W.Va., West High School in 1987 and West Virginia University in 1991, apparent with Garrison. Such could probably be included in an "early life" section. This article describes her early family life a little, and relates to her receiving a Patriot award. I suppose it might be possible to find some material relating to her father which might mention in passing some further data of her early life, perhaps particularly news stories of that era, but I acknowledge I ain't found much more in a quick search. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is concern regarding copy/pasting a COI-created draft of an early life section, you can still find sources for much of this here if it's helpful. CorporateM (Talk) 17:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I shoulda looked there too. I sowwy. That section looks pretty damn good to me, actually, except for maybe and I mean only maybe not mentioning going to school with Garrison, who was involved in the MBA controversy later. That might really be trivia, I dunno, but it might be relevant. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the Early life and family section of CorporateM's draft. Assuming that the references check out, IMHO it is an ideal section of its type. I can't detect anything in it that could be attributed to CorporateM's conflict of interest. If CM had asked me to vet it before he posted it, it would have passed my scrutiny. (But I admit to only reading it a couple of times, and not looking at all at the references.) Lou Sander (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move of related article

Please see Talk:Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy#Requested move 24 January 2015. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Move Proposal for MBA Controversy section

The material about the MBA controversy has been discussed at length and finally moved to West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy. It seems as though the proposal to move this section is now moot, or at least needs a new link (where its "Discuss" link leads now doesn't make a lot of sense). I would be in favor of just removing the tag from this section. Lou Sander (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As the person who first made the merge proposal, I'd happily agree to that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Lou Sander (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Early life and family

I wanted to submit a formal request that an editor consider implementing the "Early life and family" section I drafted here (or a modified version of it if warranted). It's mostly the pretty standard stuff that goes into these types of sections: birthdate, life growing up, the High School she attended, married with kids, etc. @Lou Sander: reviewed the material a bit already and I believe may take a closer look if/when they have time. If anyone has questions or would like PDF copies of any sources that are not available online, please let me know. CorporateM (Talk) 18:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Career

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at A. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

FYI - though it was with different section-titles, sources and some trimming, an IP just added most of the content from the Early Life draft. Therefore, I'd like to request we move on to the Career section. The current article's "Career" section begins with the COO title, where she was appointed in 2007, whereas her first position at Mylan was in 1992 as a data entry clerk. Below is the proposed "Early work" sub-section for review, consideration and/or modification if a disinterested editor has time to take a look. The sources and wiki-code are located on the user-page, but I've also pasted the text below.

Bresch's father introduced her to Milan Puskar, who was then the CEO of Mylan, and persuaded her to accept a low-level data entry position with the company. She started as a data entry clerk for pharmaceutical labels at the company's manufacturing facility in Morgantown, West Virginia in 1992. She was repeatedly promoted throughout the years. According to Bresch, she held fifteen different roles at the company. She also attended MBA classes at West Virginia University on nights and weekends in the late 1990s.

CorporateM (Talk) 20:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the reference work. §FreeRangeFrog 04:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Government relations

It is requested that edits be made to the following semi-protected articles: D (edit · history · last · links · protection log) T (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Working on the article from the top-down, I'd like to suggest a "Government relations" sub-section next after the new Early work section. One of the main things Bresch seems to be notable for is pushing through new legislation to regulate the pharmaceutical industry. I've put a draft together for consideration at: User:CorporateM/sandbox. I should point out that some of the sources in the draft are not about Bresch, but are used to provide context about laws she contributed to. CorporateM (Talk) 05:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not NPOV. I'm not being paid enough to engage in stale argumentation with someone paid to puff up this biography. Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with that. I wouldn't have presumed to decline this on my own, but in agreement with another editor I'm content to do that. The proposed additions are already covered under "Early work" and don't merit further detail. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the second paragraph of the "Early work" section, which has not been given a separate header yet, I think we can just remove that. It's cited exclusively or almost exclusively to primary sources. It has promotional language like "and provide greater assurance for pharmaceutical product safety". Taking a look at the content only and not the article's edit history, it is the type of thing I often associate with poor COI editing from the article-subject. The same goes for the dedicated section on "Acknowledgement" (formerly "honors"). You can see my opinion on these types of sources at WP:ORGAWARDS. It is unlikely for example that being listed by FiercePharma is significant. For both of these sections similar information can be presented using proper secondary sources and in a less promotional manner.

Regarding chronology, the first paragraph ends at "late 1990s" and my draft picks up around 2002, whereas the current article skips ahead to 2010ish or so. CorporateM (Talk) 21:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Whoa. Corp asked me to have a look, since I'm well-known for being on the take to the highest bidder; sad to say, no one has ever offered me a single dollar.

  Whoa, I said, as in not so fast. Corp's draft is superior in many ways, if only because the current version has really poor since primary sourcing--look at notes 17 through 23, which are precisely about this subject matter. Now, we can quibble over whether the EpiPen ought to be in--the best source is the Barron's article, which pays it little attention, and I'm inclined to say that gives her too much credit based on too few in-depth secondary sourcing. The same goes, IMO, for the MMA mention: we shouldn't base such praise on one (regional) publication. But the second and third paragraph of Corp's draft look well-sourced and neutral enough to me, and again, the sourcing is a lot better than the current article's. Newyorkbrad, I'll make you some chicken soup (apparently it really helps) if you are willing to have another look at this. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The one way it's not superior is is the weight. Looking at other CEO articles, how much text do you see about them lobbying congress to the benefit of the company the are leading? The proposal here is to add 300 words to an article that currently consists of 600 words about the following lobbying activities: 1. Supporting the government remove all price considerations from the companies product for old people. 2. Having the government require all overseas manufacturing to cost more - Mylan is largely US concentrated in manufacturing. 3. Requiring specific categories of purchasers to own a product that her company dominates the marketplace for. No comment on Etomidate contimation. No comment on Paxil exclusivity lawsuits. No comment on the FDA warning letter. Those aren't government relations because they're not pretty, right? Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, don't you "right?" me as if I am somehow involved or related or on the take. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• You're not. He is. We both know why no negative government interactions made it into the section. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The draft is representative of what I found in the source material. Note that I am proactively adding controversies where I find them, such as the conflict of interest concerns with her ex-husband and the tax inversion strategy, which have both made it into profiles on Bresch. Regarding the incidences described above, I have never heard of them before and didn't see them in any of the articles about Bresch. It might help if you shared some sources? CorporateM (Talk) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the part where I say "sure, if you share some money." Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The last sentence (about "41 states") comes with two references, neither one of which mentions Bresch at all. The paragraph is obviously intended to give Bresch credit for the fact that 41 states now have the requirement. It's completely bogus in that respect -- and it shows exactly why it's a problem to have a paid editor attempting to engage in puffery on an article like this. There are similar problems with other paragraphs. I understand that the guy asks nicely, but that shouldn't be a reason... If it's possible to improve over the sources we currently have, then fine -- but I'm troubled by a blanket judgement that says the proposed version is better on that basis, when in fact the text is problematic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I see CorporateM has now removed the "41 states" sentence , no doubt acknowledging the specific problem about that sentence. But other similar problems remain in other parts of the proposal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Nomoskedasticity, I specifically said I see the merit of the second and third paragraph--the EpiPen is the fourth paragraph. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the things that comes up often in GA reviews is whether the article contains enough context for the reader, who may not be familiar with the subject-matter, such as the pieces of legislation discussed in the article. For example, cite 4 also does not mention Bresch, but I felt had a clearer description of the legislation than the source that does and is a more reliable source. From what I've gathered in reliable sources it was the federal law that Mylan/Bresch helped push through that encouraged states to create individual state laws, so that sentence was more or less a definition of the federal law as "the law that encouraged states to create laws." Maybe it could have been better-written to make the connection more clear, but I removed as a matter of WP:COIMICRO. One editor would call the sentence common sense and another would call it SYNTH and it's not a good use of anybody's time to argue about something that GA reviewers could reasonably disagree on. CorporateM (Talk) 09:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Low-importance Pennsylvania articles
• Start-Class Pittsburgh articles
• Low-importance Pittsburgh articles
• WikiProject Pittsburgh articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class West Virginia articles
• Low-importance West Virginia articles
• WikiProject West Virginia articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Articles with connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests