Talk:BD (company)

Untitled
At least some of this is copyvio from BD's own website, e.g., "That critical information is used to aid the discovery and development of new drugs and vaccines and to improve the diagnosis and management of diseases." --Lukobe 23:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this article some kind of joke? The words POW violation don't really describe it. --217.231.23.62 12:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The financial stats in the sidebar are WAY off. 70.52.216.172 (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not likely that a company with $6m revenue would have over 20,000 employees. 76.204.149.122 (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although many of the edits made recently have been good (especially regarding the history), I have reason to believe that the major contributor Filiplempa has made edits in the guise of expansion suited for a positive viewpoint of the company, one edit, here and the fact that they have only edited for this article I found to be quite obvious of said accusations. Not that all contributions are not acceptable, but it definitely requires further investigation. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

To quote an article that fully acknowledges that the main proponent therein is two cards shy of a flower, even in a non-mainstream publication, I think makes it somewhat disreputable. If BD is indeed threatening health-care workers by not adopting this particular safety device, a more mainstream publication should suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.108.56 (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This article provides a lot of information, but it reads very much like a corporate brochure, not an encyclopedia article. I think it is less than ideal that the Wikipedia article on BD is essentially a cut-and-paste of the corporate brochure. --Westwind273 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ascites mice use?
Does anyone know how many ascites mice are used by BD for MAb production? Or are they using cell culture? inquiring minds want to know. 217.144.100.18 (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Clean Up & reasons
Greetings all, I have done the cleanup of the page because of the following reasons... please don't revert them until you find other sources. Citation number 6 (https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BDX:NYSE) is removed because the website used Wikipedia as a source of information and Wikipedia Uses it as a source of information, which, paradoxically, invalid. Citation Number 7 (https://investors.bd.com/static-files/759c8ae1-c56b-4346-9365-1a56c06873ee) is removed because it has been taken from primary source. The company’s annual report. Citation number 10 has been removed as the article doesn’t exists anymore. Citation Number 11 (https://www.bd.com/aboutbd/history/) was removed because of two reasons, first because of being a primary source (of the company) and the second reason, it is not accessible, which implies the source is not in public domain. Even if the second reason is sorted out the issue of a primary source is still there. Citation Number 15 (http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/64/64106/reports/AR09/index.html) has been removed because it’s the company’s annual report, and hence, a primary source. Citation Number 16 (https://www.bdbiosciences.com/documents/tube_pipet_brochure.pdf) is not found. Citation Number 25 (https://web.archive.org/web/20100323174508/http://www.bd.com/contentmanager/b_article.asp?Item_ID=24179&ContentType_ID=1&BusinessCode=20001&d=BD+Worldwide&s=&dTitle=&dc=&dcTitle=) has been deleted as it’s a press release. Citation Number 26 (https://www.dziennik.pl/Default.aspx?TabId=96&ShowArticleId=54999) Has been removed as the source is not found. The source has been deleted not the content. Citation Number 29 (https://www.bd.com/contentmanager/b_article.asp?Item_ID=24486&ContentType_ID=1&BusinessCode=20001&d=BD+Worldwide&s=&dTitle=&dc=&dcTitle=) has been removed, because of it being a primary source (Company’s own website) and a press release. MrOllie would you be kind to review my changes and let me know if I have done anything wrong? Furthermore, I have seen someone just added the same primary source just as I removed it... please guide me in this regard. Thanks. Zed J Alexander (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you have pinged me here, I have never edited this article nor have I had anything to do with this topic so far as I can recall. MrOllie (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well,MrOllie when I joined Wikipedia, a few months ago, I learned a lot from you about reliable and notable sources. Afterward, I read all the policies, and this is my first edit regarding the sources, which is why I wanted you to supervise it a bit, please. Zed J Alexander (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Even after all these years Wikipedia's documentation of when to use primary sources is not developed into any set of rules. Your removal of sources is correct by the rules as is some of your content. If I had to try to describe a rule about when to put in content from primary sources, it is when a fact is very likely correct when self-reported, major, and necessary for understanding the subject. Here is some content that I recommend for readding -
 * In April 2017, Becton Dickinson agreed to acquire C. R. Bard for US$24 billion. - reason: this is a lot of money
 * BD was founded in 1897 by Maxwell W. Becton and Fairleigh S. Dickinson, two American businessmen who met on a sales trip. - reason: these people have wiki articles and this is probably undisputed
 * In 1948, BD faced new leadership as Fairleigh S. Dickinson, Jr. and Henry P. Becton, sons of the founders, took over the company. reason: same as before for the one person
 * Under the new leadership the company also went public (1962) reason: major event
 * The debate between the two companies was partially the basis for the 2011 movie Puncture. reason - interesting if true and if there is any kind of source. When possible, retain information which links to other topics meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria
 * Citation Number 26 (https://www.dziennik.pl/Default.aspx?TabId=96&ShowArticleId=54999) Has been removed as the source is not found. The source has been deleted not the content. reason - check the wayback machine at internet archive. Online sources can rot but the info is still valid - https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015124/https://www.dziennik.pl/Default.aspx?TabId=96&ShowArticleId=54999 - try running it through Google translate polish to English

Mostly - this is great cleanup. You are doing great.

 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  02:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Bluerasberry Thanks a lot... I was having second thoughts about my edits. I do consider the points that you have raised, and I will sure keep them in mind. However, I have a question, regarding what you wrote, "try running it through Google translate polish to English". It was my understanding that as editors of one language, we were not allowed to use the source of another language. Maybe, I am wrong... but this was my understanding. If you could direct me in this regard... I would highly appreciate it. Again, Thanks a lot. Zed J Alexander (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Help
I was trying to add a reference, but there are 22, soon to be 23 references, but when you go to edit only 18 references show up. Daddy (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)