Talk:Heather Bresch/Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016
Bresch has also advocated for broader availability of EpiPens in public places to treat anaphylaxis (severe allergic reactions),[17]

This is inaccurate as Heather Bresch has actually made it more difficult for families to have access to EpiPens by hiking the price over 600%

Here are a few sources: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mylan-ceo-600-pay-increase-epipen-price-raise-article-1.2762769 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/mylan-execs-gave-themselves-raises-they-hiked-epipen-prices-n636591 http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-mylan-inversion-20160823-snap-story.html 96.84.133.145 (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Varun FEB2003   I am Offline 15:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The price information was already in the article. I've made some edits which join the epipen information together. SmartSE (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Birth date
Should have her birth date June 27, 1969. 50.79.227.209 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Source? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's public record and used to be in the article. Article has her year of birth in categories but I don't know why they take it out of the infobox except she doesn't want people to know how old she is. Maybe I'm wrong and confusing it with someone else, but I seem to remember this article used to have her appearing younger than she actually is. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been unable to confirm Bresch's birthdate. I have no idea where the June 27, 1969 date exactly came from, some sources even state "circa 1972".  She did graduate from a high school in Fairmont WV (either East High School or West High School depending on the source) in 1987, but in my opinion, even *that* year doesn't seem to have enough reliable sources to back it up firmly.  Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2016
I am listed as an author used to contribute to the article on Heather Bresch, but my name is wrong. It should be Burnside, Mary Wade, not Burnside, Mary.

YogaCat (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the ref. It was redundant everywhere it appeared, and was less useful than others since it cannot be found online to verify content.  Plus I couldn't verify the whole name of the author to address your concern. Plus it wasn't complete, lacking a year/volume/issue/number.  probably not the outcome you wanted but problem solved. Jytdog (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That was introduced here, responding to this. Jytdog (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not the person who added the content or reference in the first place. I would have gotten my name correct. Thank you.YogaCat (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wan't implying that you were! Thanks for calling our attention to the error, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Epipen
I'm thinking that this is no longer a "good" article. All the negative stuff about Epipens applies pretty directly to the company, but I don't see any connection to Heather Bresch. Also there is a sentence fragment about Epipens in the introduction. Lou Sander (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I've reverted the recent additions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bresch heads the company and EpiPens were her special baby. Totally relevant. Wormcast (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it certainly should be in this article. It was discussed at length on PBS news this evening.  Gandydancer (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I thought the initial attempt at adding material about this incident was pretty poor -- but I agree that it should be covered, and the current version seems pretty good. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I respect CorporateM but I have a problem with an article that is so heavily worked on by a paid contributor being pushed to Good Article status. There is nothing remarkable about the article - it just has lots of citations. —Мандичка YO 😜 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Her comments about the Epipen certainly should be included. Jadeslair (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nomo above. The earlier Epipen stuff was poorly done. The recent stuff is much better. Lou Sander (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Quote from Bresch
The following content was added here. I removed it here. The original editor restored it here. I removed it again here, and have opened this discussion.

Bresch defended the EpiPen price hike, telling the 'New York Times: "I think we mean what we say: You can do good and do well, and I think we strike that balance around the globe ... I am running a business. I am a for-profit business. I am not hiding from that." Bresch pointed out that the list price of EpiPens does not accurately reflect Mylar's sales price since intermediaries (wholesalers, retailers, pharmacy benefit managers, etc.) add to the final cost. She added that the price hikes serve to subsidize the lower costs of EpiPens outside of the United States.

In my view the content provided by the editor, "Bresch defended the EpiPen price hike" doesn't accurately reflect the source and is OR. The NYT never says that she defended the price hike.

What the NYT actually says is "Still, she was unapologetic that Mylan’s actions were driven by profit. “I am running a business. I am a for-profit business. I am not hiding from that.”"

The article does present three things she had to say (two of which which are not actually defenses) she offered: 1) "the company’s latest actions would do the most to help patients where it mattered, by reducing their out-of-pocket costs." 2)  "And she said that the $600 list price was necessary for the company to recoup its investment in the EpiPen, which includes raising awareness for severe allergic reaction and making improvements to the way the product works." (this is the actual defense): 3) "But she also sought to shift blame away from Mylan, saying that patients are feeling the pain in part because insurers have increased the amount that customers must pay in recent years."

I am not opposed to including some content about what Bresch had to say but it needs to be accurate and what Mylan has to say needs to be contextualized. Let's work something out. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, @Jytdog -- Let's all calm down. I thanked you for your edits. Didn't realize my tweaking constituted "edit warring". Sorry. Quis separabit?  02:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Breaking up the epipen paragraph
User:Rms125a@hotmail.com please stop breaking up the paragraph on the epipen as you did here and then edit warred back in here.

As I noted in my edit note here:  this is all one idea in the article; the lead sentence of the paragraph serves the purpose of saying what is coming. There is a lot of other stuff going on in this section and breaking the epipen stuff into multiple paragraphs mushes it with the rest of the content there. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, @Jytdog, let's all calm down. As I said, I thanked you for your edits and didn't realize my tweaking constituted "edit warring". Sorry. I will leave it alone. Let's all cool down. Quis separabit?  02:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

referring to "(unearned) degree"
When we use a term such as "unearned" in Wikipedia's voice, we are making a leap here. Proper policy is to cite sources, not to editorially assert this as simple fact. And using parenthetical comments about any such case is against common sense. Collect (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no ambiguity at all about whether the degree was earned; it wasn't, and so in the end it was rescinded. It's a simple fact.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * fwiw... I added content to the lead here; it was strange to me that it wasn't there. To avoid setting off bombs I worded it carefully: "In 2007 there was a controversy over an MBA degree in her resume."   In 2007 there was indeed a controversy about the MBA in her resume; this is entirely accurate.  It is also accurate that it was subsequently figured out, that the MBA was not earned, was wrongly (a couple of ways) granted, and then was rescinded, but my goal was not to get into all of that in lead.   I feel that adding the "(unearned)" is kind of sticking it to her - the putting it in parentheses is especially weird.  In my view it is fine as I originally added it; the article body and the WLed article make it absolutely clear what the outcome was.   If we must have content in the lead about the outcome, I suggest it be added as a subsequent sentence; something like "The outcome was that she didn't earn the degree, and after it was improperly granted it was rescinded."  Something like that.  Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh -- it's so easy to avoid all that extra verbiage. If you feel better removing the parentheses, then fine; the point of them is that she didn't have an "unearned degree" on her cv -- i.e., the cv didn't actually say "unearned MBA", it just said "MBA".  But perhaps that's too subtle...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * the content was changed here to the redundant " a controversy over an asserted MBA degree that Bresch had been claiming on her resume at that time. " which I changed to "a controversy over an unearned MBA degree that Bresch had been claiming on her resume at that time".  Maybe that will do. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks fine. Redundantly, Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS - and still...Ms Bresch told Fortune magazine in 2015 "I certainly to this day believe I did everything I needed to do to get my degree." Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Given what we know about how things played out, does that claim seem plausible to you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, WVU and its investigational panel certainly didn't think so... Shearonink (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

known for
There have been two edits recently adding and then reverting the "Known for" line of the infobox with "Raising the prices of EpiPens by 400%". Realizing we must be mindful of WP:BLP, this appears accurate to include, to me. In a quick google news search, both recent and older  references refer to this event. Even references to Heather Bresch in articles not primarily about her refer to this fact. I don't think there is a "standard" for being Known for, but I believe there is sufficient reliable sources for it's use here. Hopefully we can find a consensus here.

(This isn't a particularly active article, notifying editors who have worked on the article recently:, , , , , , ) Dbsseven (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed: this is why she's famous. Maybe use more generic or neutral terminology like "medical device pricing controversy". ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is what she is best known for, though the fake MBA might be a close #2. I've reverted the removal by the anon. "Raising the prices of EpiPens by 400%" is direct and true, so much better than trying to compromise with "medical device pricing controversy". Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there has been extensive press coverage of this and the fake MBA, and we should seek to summarise what has most been written about in reliable sources. Edwardx (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox person describes "Known for" as "A brief description of what the person is notable for". So, what is Bresch notable for?...
 * CEO of Mylan Pharma including Mylan controversies 1)raising the price of EpiPens by 400% + 2)buying out Abbott Pharma for that corporate tax inversion
 * A rescinded MBA from WVU
 * Looking at the article, all of these items are prominently covered - the MBA controversy even has its own article West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy. In addition, the two main Mylan Pharma controversies are prominently featured in the lede - which is supposed to be a summary of the main points of the article. I do think the "occupation" is incorrect - her occupation is CEO of Mylan Pharma (not necessarily being a businesswoman, but if people insist on that being included that should be changed to "Businessperson").  I looked at Martin Shkreli for someone who was a controversial businessperson & yeah yeah, I know don't cite OTHERTHINGSEXIST but his known-for & Occupation both cite Turing Pharma.  I changed my mind during the course of my research into this matter - I think the Heather Bresch "Known-for" should just be deleted & Occupation should be "CEO Mylan Pharma". Shearonink (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your points and agree about the Occupation portion. However, all or almost-all of the content of "any" infobox is covered in the article. Removing content already covered in the article would almost entirely negate the purpose of infoboxes. Rather the infobox is a consistently formatted summary of an article, in this case a person where this even (or events) are relevant to that summary (IMO). Dbsseven (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The infobox title field already has "CEO, Mylan Pharma", so having "Businesswoman" in the occupation field seems reasonable. Edwardx (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of things...
 * According to Template:Infobox "Occupation" is supposed to be "Occupation(s) as given in the lead". Looking at similar BLPs (for CEOs of Fortune 500 companies for instance) all of them list the actual job - "CEO of [whatever]" not businessperson, businessman, or businesswoman (See Rex Tillerson, Jack Welch, Ginni Rometty, Oprah Winfrey, etc., though Meg Whitman's article has neither "Known for" nor "Occupation".)  It would seem to me that being in business, being a "Businessperson" is not an occupation, it's not a job - it's a descriptor of a person. The occupation would seem to be what Heather Bresch is paid for, what she is paid to do....and that is being CEO of Mylan.  Others may differ in their assessment and that's ok - but this usage seems "off" and odd to me. At the very least the descriptor should be changed to "Businessperson" being a woman is not part of her occupation/job.
 * An additional point about Bresch - is it possible that Wikipedia is treating her differently because of her gender? I can't find a similar usage of the Known For parameter in other BLPs or even just WP:BIOS (doesn't mean they don't exist, just that in the course of looking for about 20 or 30 minutes I couldn't find similar/corresponding usage)...looking at other notorious individuals, in the news because of controversies - no "Known for" on Randi Zuckerberg or Martha Stewart (or on notorious males such as  (again) Martin Shkreli or even Charles Manson etc.  Keeping NPOV in mind I think that WP should try to treat WP:BLPs & BIOS the same across the board regardless of what they might possibly be Known For. Shearonink (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Significant press coverage may not be enough to deem something "encyclopedic" - doesn't context also play a role? Obviously her involvement with the EpiPen was significant, but the addition of this information to the infobox seems a bit too time-dependent (let alone personal). The Wikipedia page was up for 8 years prior to the controversy, so this "Known for" is really only relevant now, which is not exactly in keeping with the general goals of Wikipedia. It also leaves an opening for multiple updates in the future, which I haven't seen a precedent for elsewhere. 37.26.146.202 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (Re-tagging involved editors, , , , , , , to seek continued discussion and resolution one way or another) Hi there, sorry for jumping the gun by reverting this controversial edit before a consensus was reached - I saw that the last two comments in support of removal were not answered for the past 2+ weeks, and I thought that meant that the discussion was over. Either way, it seems that this episode began with the addition of this controversial information, not its removal. While discussion is ongoing, shouldn't it revert to the original form which did not include this statement until there is clear agreement that it belongs? 185.51.228.246 (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Her initial notability came via the WVU MBA affair. If we're not happy with "known for Epipen price-gouging", we could use "known for using political influence to get an unmerited MBA".  Better?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If anything the EpiPen and MBA stuff should appear earlier in the lead too, as this is what she is best known for. There are Fortune 500 CEOs without any article, and but for being a woman, might not have come to our attention without the MBA and EpiPen incidents. Edwardx (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest leaving "known for" in the infobox blank since there are a couple things she is known for (Mylan inversion, Epipen pricing, MBA scandal, being Joe Manchin's daughter). It's hard to effectively address them all in the infobox. Bitmapped (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We could add the fake MBA to "known for". Her father is already linked to in the infobox. Edwardx (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Multiple "known fors"
She has three controversial/noteworthy things that she is "known for". Instead of trying to cover them in an infobox, IMHO it would be better to have a Controversy section or similar. Lou Sander (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancy in her Start of Work at Mylan
Hi. Either Heather Bresch started working for Mylan in 1991 or in 1992 - both stories cannot be correct, as written... This needs to be definitively cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenmitchell (talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Education
Discrepancy. Her resume in the right-hand column of the article states that she received a BA from Harvard Law, whereas the text of the article states that she received a BA from WV University. And, isn’t a law degree is a JD? 72.227.105.116 (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that vandalism. It's been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Is or was married?
Summary and personal life sections are in disagreement. 152.44.208.181 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)