Talk:BioMarin Pharmaceutical

Entry regarding Andrea Sloan
While the facts seem legit, the language and tone seem hostile toward BioMarin. I feel this should be checked by someone with greater skill than I.

Cjmartin65 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog: I think the characterization of my addition as a "coatrack" is incorrect. The page you linked in defines a "coatrack" as biased and irrelvent material.

1) Its not biased. It took no sides at all. There is not a single sentence in there that says or implies "Biomarin should have given her the drug" or that "Elizabeth Sloan was unfairly trying to jump the queue".

2) Its not tangental or undue weight. You may think that this company is about orphan drugs and that's the whole story.  But to a lot of people the Sloan story is the first time they ever heard about Biomarin, and it pretty much all they know about the company. While the news coverage may have been biased and uniformed (I am not a supporter of Ms. Sloan), the fact that it was extensive makes it "notable" and thus suitable for inclusion in the article.

I do think the article could benefit from a longer discussion of the company's R&D focus, its current products, and its R&D pipeline. At this point there is not even any discussion of how the company was founded or whether it is currently profitable. If these sections were fleshed out, the discussion of Sloan would at that point be only 5% of the article, which to my POV, is about the correct amount of weight to give it.

In my opinion the best way to reduce any "undue weight" you feel that these seven sentences represent is not to delete them, but to finish the article, which in its current form is pretty much a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.21.76 (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to note here that this edit was reverted a second time, and without any reason being given or any response to my request to engage on the this Talk page. I don't think this is productive or helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.21.76 (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the section on Sloan was too long, but it does belong here. I edited it down a bit and did some other re-org work. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you did a nice job with the edits. No objections here. 98.155.21.76 (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)