Talk:Johnson & Johnson/Archives/2021

JNJ COVID-19 section
Hello again Grand'mere Eugene, I recently made some suggestions about Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 section on the Johnson & Johnson talk page. Would you be open to taking a look these suggestions?--Chefmikesf (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC){U|
 * , I made the changes you've suggested, no problem. Some of the text above the vaccine subheader also refers to vaccine development-- please review the edits I made, and let me know if more text needs moving. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I left the first two paragraphs in the response section because that was the companies initial response. To me it made sense, but I'm open to hear other ideas. What do you think?
 * Second, I see one minor edit to the article. Back when we worked on the early history I think the History section's name was imported from my sandbox. It's my mistake for not clarifying the History section's title. Do you mind updated Foundation and early history to History?--Chefmikesf (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, done. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Probable copyvio - can’t find in page text
I was just reading this article and came across a sentence in the fourth paragraph of the babypowder section that says something like a jury on “Tuesday” ... “date” followed by a quotation. Two things struck me. First, fairly obviously, the specific day of the week doesn’t belong in the article, but that also, this reads as if copied and pasted from a source, but it is not part of the quote so is likely a copyright violation. I was going to remove it myself, but when I clicked edit, the sentence doesn’t appear the same in edit mode. I don’t understand the reason for that. In any event, if someone else could take a look, that would be good. Thanks. 108.21.51.204 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The text does read the same in edit mode. It says "In October 2017, the Missouri Eastern District appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $72 million jury verdict." when rendered, & " In October 2017, the Missouri Eastern District appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $72 million jury verdict. " in the wikitext.  --David Biddulph (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Earwig copyvio detector
, I ran a copyvio check which identified the 2010 hip-replacement recall section as a copyright issue which needs paraphrasing, summarizing, or deletion. It's not a huge section, but it is significant. Thoughts? Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Updates to the COVID-19 content
Hello, The Covid-19 section on the article became unorganized lately. First, the Momenta Pharmaceuticals content is irrelevant to this COVID-19 subsection and the content already exists in the 2010 onwards subsection. I suggest removing it from the COVID-19 subsection. Second, I see two distinct themes with the content. The company made an initial response to the pandemic. They developed the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. I suggest breaking the subsection into two subsections, seen below, COVID-19 response and COVID-19 vaccine.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) response
Johnson & Johnson committed over $1 billion toward the development of a not-for-profit COVID-19 vaccine in partnership with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Paul Stoffels of Johnson & Johnson said, "In order to go fast, the people of Johnson & Johnson are committed to do this and all together we say we're going to do this not for profit. That's the fastest and the best way to find all the collaborations in the world to make this happen so we commit to bring this at a not-for-profit level."

Janssen Vaccines, in partnership with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), is responsible for developing the vaccine candidate, based on the same technology used to make its Ebola vaccine. The vaccine candidate is expected to enter phase 1 human clinical study in September 2020.

Demand for the product Tylenol surged two to four times normal levels in March 2020. In response, the company increased production globally. For example, the Tylenol plant in Puerto Rico ran 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

In response to the shortage of ventilators, Ethicon, with Prisma Health, made and distributed the VESper Ventilator Expansion Splitter, which uses 3D printing technology, to allow one ventilator to support two patients.

Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine
In April 2020, Johnson & Johnson entered a partnership with Catalent who will provide large-scale manufacturing of J&J's vaccine at Catalent's Bloomington facility. The partnership was expanded to include Catalent's Italian facility in July 2020.

In June 2020, Johnson & Johnson and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) confirmed its intention to start a clinical trials of J&J's vaccine in September 2020, with the possibility of Phase 1/2a human clinical trials starting at an accelerated pace in the second half of July.

In July 2020, Johnson & Johnson pledged to deliver up to 300 million doses of its vaccine to the U.S., with 100 million upfront and an option for 200 million more. The deal, worth more than $1 billion, will be funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the U.S. Defense Department.

On 5 August 2020, the US government agreed to pay more than $1 billion to Johnson and Johnson (medical device company) for the production of 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine. As part of the agreed-upon deal, the U.S. can order up to 200 million additional doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

In September 2020, Johnson & Johnson started its 60,000-person phase 3 adenovirus-based vaccine trial. The trial was paused on October 12, 2020, because a volunteer became ill, but the company said it found no evidence that the vaccine had caused the illness and announced on October 23, 2020, that it would resume the trial.

In September 2020, Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing agreed with Johnson & Johnson, to support the manufacture of its SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate, including technology transfer and fill and finish manufacture.

On 29 January 2021, Johnson & Johnson released an efficacy report that is based on data from the Phase 3 trial of its vaccine According to the data, the company's new vaccine, which is a single shot compared to Pfizer/BioNTech's or Moderna's two-shot treatment, is 66% effective overall regarding preventing moderate to severe forms of COVID-19 in people who received the shot, and 85% effective regarding its ability to prevent severe forms of the disease.

In March 2021, workers at an Emergent BioSolutions plant in Baltimore, Maryland conflated the ingredients of two COVID-19 vaccines, causing about 15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson's vaccine to be ruined. The mix-up, which federal officials attributed to human error, delayed future shipments of the vaccine.

In April 2021, federal health agencies called for a halt in distributing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to the emergence of a rare blood clotting in six recipients. These cases were determined as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (a "rare and severe" blood clot) in combination with low levels of blood platelets (thrombocytopenia) and affected six women between the ages of 18 and 48 who had recently received the vaccine. Their symptoms occurred 6–13 days after they had received the vaccination, and it was reported that one woman had died and a second woman had been hospitalized in critical condition. The agencies stated that these adverse events "appear to be extremely rare", but the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) would convene on April 14 to investigate the reports.

As of April 2021, the company's Covid-19 vaccine has booked them $100 million for their first quarter sales, accounting for less than 1% of its total revenue.

On June 11, 2021, the FDA announced that approximately 60 million J&J vaccine doses from a troubled plant in Baltimore must be disposed of. A remaining 10 million doses from the plant are still allowed for distribution; however, this comes with a warning that "regulators cannot guarantee that Emergent BioSolutions, the company that operates the plant, followed good manufacturing practices."

Cilag
There are multiple requests for "citation needed" in the section on Cilag. Could those be served by the info on Cilag’s own website? Or, if not, would the Cilag book (see below) qualify?

Underneath quotes copied from the slideshow on that page. Sorry for the space I’m taking up, but this seems the most efficient way to solve the question.

Cilag Book The “Geschichte eines Schaffhauser Pharmaunternehmens” (history of a Schaffhausen pharmaceutical enterprise) was written in 2006 on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the company’s existence.

This volume of more than 300 pages describes the remarkable growth of Cilag AG, embedded in its economic, political and technological context. The “Geschichte eines Schaffhauser Pharmaunternehmens” has been published by Chronos Verlag, Zurich, and is available in bookstores or can be obtained directly from Cilag AG.

Since October 2015, Cilag AG’s market presence has been associated with the image of the Janssen trademark. By adopting the Janssen image, Cilag takes its long-standing membership of the Johnson & Johnson Group and its strategic significance within the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies’ supply chain into account. Geke (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , I've added the citations to the Cilag section, removed the Cut-an-paste text from this talk page, and left you a note on your talk page. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

2021 Factual Updates
Hi Grand'mere Eugene, Hope all is well. I noticed a few factual updates on the article based on 2020 numbers. What do you think about these? ✅ Second, the subsection we added to the COVID-19 section were reverted. What are your thoughts on this?--Chefmikesf (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC) ✅ Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk)


 * Location: Infobox


 * Current Content:
 * num_employees = 132,200 (2019)
 * Proposed Content:
 * num_employees = 134,500 (2020)


 * Location: Lead

Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the company is ranked No. 37 on the 2018 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by total revenue.
 * Current Content:

Its common stock is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the company is ranked No. 36 on the 2021 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by total revenue.
 * Proposed Content:


 * Location: Lead

Johnson & Johnson had worldwide sales of $70.1 billion during calendar year 2015.
 * Current Content:

Johnson & Johnson had worldwide sales of $82.6 billion during calendar year 2020.
 * Proposed Content:

Chefmikesf (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Grand'mere Eugene, Thanks for the updates to the lead!

For the COVID-19 section, I should have been more clear. Sorry about that!

An editor removed the subsection "COVID-19 Vaccine" a month ago. I think all the content belongs in the section and needs two subsections. I copied the proposed sections below for your review. Could you add this back to the article? Also, could you let me know if you have any questions?--Chefmikesf (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for he clarification. I thought the vaccine section was being replaced by the referral to the separate J&J vaccine article. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Coronavirus (COVID-19) response
Johnson & Johnson committed over $1 billion toward the development of a not-for-profit COVID-19 vaccine in partnership with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Paul Stoffels of Johnson & Johnson said, "In order to go fast, the people of Johnson & Johnson are committed to do this and all together we say we're going to do this not for profit. That's the fastest and the best way to find all the collaborations in the world to make this happen so we commit to bring this at a not-for-profit level."

Janssen Vaccines, in partnership with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), is responsible for developing the vaccine candidate, based on the same technology used to make its Ebola vaccine. The vaccine candidate is expected to enter phase 1 human clinical study in September 2020.

Demand for the product Tylenol surged two to four times normal levels in March 2020. In response, the company increased production globally. For example, the Tylenol plant in Puerto Rico ran 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

In response to the shortage of ventilators, Ethicon, with Prisma Health, made and distributed the VESper Ventilator Expansion Splitter, which uses 3D printing technology, to allow one ventilator to support two patients.

Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine
In April 2020, Johnson & Johnson entered a partnership with Catalent who will provide large-scale manufacturing of J&J's vaccine at Catalent's Bloomington facility. The partnership was expanded to include Catalent's Italian facility in July 2020.

In June 2020, Johnson & Johnson and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) confirmed its intention to start a clinical trials of J&J's vaccine in September 2020, with the possibility of Phase 1/2a human clinical trials starting at an accelerated pace in the second half of July.

In July 2020, Johnson & Johnson pledged to deliver up to 300 million doses of its vaccine to the U.S., with 100 million upfront and an option for 200 million more. The deal, worth more than $1 billion, will be funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and the U.S. Defense Department.

On 5 August 2020, the US government agreed to pay more than $1 billion to Johnson and Johnson (medical device company) for the production of 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine. As part of the agreed-upon deal, the U.S. can order up to 200 million additional doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

In September 2020, Johnson & Johnson started its 60,000-person phase 3 adenovirus-based vaccine trial. The trial was paused on October 12, 2020, because a volunteer became ill, but the company said it found no evidence that the vaccine had caused the illness and announced on October 23, 2020, that it would resume the trial.

In September 2020, Grand River Aseptic Manufacturing agreed with Johnson & Johnson, to support the manufacture of its SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate, including technology transfer and fill and finish manufacture.

On 29 January 2021, Johnson & Johnson released an efficacy report that is based on data from the Phase 3 trial of its vaccine According to the data, the company's new vaccine, which is a single shot compared to Pfizer/BioNTech's or Moderna's two-shot treatment, is 66% effective overall regarding preventing moderate to severe forms of COVID-19 in people who received the shot, and 85% effective regarding its ability to prevent severe forms of the disease.

In March 2021, workers at an Emergent BioSolutions plant in Baltimore, Maryland conflated the ingredients of two COVID-19 vaccines, causing about 15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson's vaccine to be ruined. The mix-up, which federal officials attributed to human error, delayed future shipments of the vaccine.

In April 2021, federal health agencies called for a halt in distributing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to the emergence of a rare blood clotting in six recipients. These cases were determined as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (a "rare and severe" blood clot) in combination with low levels of blood platelets (thrombocytopenia) and affected six women between the ages of 18 and 48 who had recently received the vaccine. Their symptoms occurred 6–13 days after they had received the vaccination, and it was reported that one woman had died and a second woman had been hospitalized in critical condition. The agencies stated that these adverse events "appear to be extremely rare", but the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) would convene on April 14 to investigate the reports.

As of April 2021, the company's Covid-19 vaccine has booked them $100 million for their first quarter sales, accounting for less than 1% of its total revenue.

On June 11, 2021, the FDA announced that approximately 60 million J&J vaccine doses from a troubled plant in Baltimore must be disposed of. A remaining 10 million doses from the plant are still allowed for distribution; however, this comes with a warning that "regulators cannot guarantee that Emergent BioSolutions, the company that operates the plant, followed good manufacturing practices."

Improving a company's early history section
(Moved discussion from user talk page)

Hello Grand'mere Eugene, I noticed you are interested in improving family-owned company articles. I am working on updating the Early History of a company which the family owned until the 1940s. The current history section is deficient of content during the family owned era. Since I am familiar with the subject and I have COI, If I present content and verifiable secondary sources, would you be open to collaborating? What are your thoughts on this?--Chefmikesf (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello,, I'd be glad to help, but keep in mind I may also uncover RS using newpapers.com. Just send me the link to the article, and leave any urls and proposed conten on the article's talk page. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Grand'mere Eugene, Thanks for your help. Here is the link to the talk page (Early History Updates (Early History 1873-1942)) with the suggested sections. I found about 60 references to support the content. Also, I folded in the existing 4-5 sentences from the live article, then found new sources for them. Let me know what you think!--Chefmikesf (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - I've added most of the text you requested on the talk page, and modified the format of repeating references, especially the book refs with varying page citations. One issue: the article is 115 kB, WP:TOOBIG. See the guideline on WP:Article size for suggestions on what to do. Let me know how I can help. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Grand'mere Eugene, I appreciate your collaboration. Like I said, I'm working on researching and validating sources for the rest of the history section. In my search I came across some inconsistencies with one sentence in the early history. Although the sources validate the statement, "Robert Wood Johnson's granddaughter, Mary Lea Johnson Richards, was the first baby to appear on a Johnson & Johnson baby powder label.", it maybe inaccurate. Artifacts from the time period show possible misinformation within the cited sources. Take a look at these two searches:


 * Search for Johnson & Johnson vintage baby powder tin images: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS823US823&sxsrf=ALeKk02bNEgHryjMNPyivX6a0k_g0CKBDg:1602595375626&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=johnson+%26+johnson+vintage+baby+powder+tin+images&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidodSA1bHsAhXlQ98KHWlcD4cQ7Al6BAgKECw&biw=1536&bih=722&dpr=1.25


 * Search for Mennen vintage baby powder tin images: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS823US823&sxsrf=ALeKk00rLenotH47XZ1L22zNEXPFBPM7Iw:1602595345110&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=mennen+vintage+baby+powder+tin+images&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjh6o3y1LHsAhWsnOAKHePaAXUQ7Al6BAgKEEE&biw=1536&bih=722


 * While I researched historical records and artifact images, my research show Johnson & Johnson never had a baby on their label. The vintage brand, Mennen, used a baby on its baby powder label. I can do some further digging on second hand sources from the time period. What are your thoughts on this?--Chefmikesf (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an interesting dilemma. I checked Mary Lea Johnson Richards' obit and it doesn't mention her being the baby on J&J's early baby powder tin. But I did find 2 images that could be her: here, and here. But I think our best solution is to remove the questionable text until we can verify it is accurate. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 05:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Grand'mere Eugene, those are some interesting photos. I'm by far no expert but, the photos you found look like historical replicas, aged to look like an original. For me, the give away is the date range "1930-2005". I don't think an original bottle would have the date 2005 on the label. What are your thoughts?--Chefmikesf (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , You're right, the images may replicas, or they may have been commemorative issue tin. I did delet the text related to Mary Lea Johnson Richards, so if you find another source (that preferably includes her image on a baby powder tin) we can add it back. Ordinarily I consider The New York Times and New York Magzine impeccable resources regarding fact-checking, but this would not be the first time I've discovered errors in a book review. Fact-checkers live in the hard news departments, whereas reviews are published as opinions, and unfortunately can slide by fact-checking. Good on you for catching what seems to be a rumor presented as fact. Chers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Grand'mere Eugene, I just moved this to the correct talk page. Best --Chefmikesf (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Chefmikesf. File this error in "The faster I go, the behinder I get" folder. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Response to WP:TOOBIG


 * Hi Grand&#39;mere Eugene,


 * I put a lot of thought into your comment regarding WP:TOOBIG. I have a concept that may help fix this problem.


 * I noticed many instances of outdated, unsourced, and inaccurate content in the Structure and Product sections.


 * The Structure section contains an inconsistent mix of product categories, subsidiaries, and Business sectors. The section lacks references. The Johnson & Johnson Structure tree list has no secondary sources and is wildly inaccurate.


 * The Products section has similar issues, such as a mix of product categories and subsidiaries and a lack of references. The content in the Pharmaceuticals section is a limited overview with no order. The content fits better in the Janssen or 2010 and onwards section of the History. The Medical Devices and Consumer health sections duplicate the structure section.


 * My concept is to merge the sections into one section, preferably following the History section. This proposed section will provide the reader all the same information:


 * The    company's Business Sectors
 * Major    franchises of each Sector
 * A    high-level description of the products for each Business Sector all in a     concise section


 * In the future, Wikipedia may benefit from a Johnson & Johnson Products and Services article and Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries article. Still, I think it's best to improve this article first.


 * Would you be open to review an outline of this concept?--Chefmikesf (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes,, I think it would be logical to first improve the content in the sections you mention, especially the lack of sources! A caution, though: those sections are usually difficult to compose with neutrality, the most likely to suffer from promotional text. Let me know when you have outlined the text you propose. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Grand&#39;mere Eugene, thanks for your input. I will work on the outline for you.


 * One think I noticed, in the Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine section: "FDA (U.S Food & Drug Association)" is incorrect. Could you update it to the Food and Drug Administration?--Chefmikesf (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Grand&#39;mere Eugene, Below is the request broken into two parts. In the collapsible content box, I have the proposed the new Business Sectors section. Second, I outlined the steps to update the article, so the Structure and Products section are merged into one section and removes the unsourced content from the article. What are your thoughts on this?--

Proposed actions to update the section:
 * 1)   Rename the Structure section to Business Sectors.
 * 2) 	Update sentence one to the proposed sentence in the collapsible content box.
 * 3) 	Update the table to the proposed table in the sandbox.
 * 4) 	Remove the Unsourced Structure section content and tree chart.
 * 5) 	Remove paragraph one of products section. Contains the same information of in the Business Sectors section.
 * 6) 	Remove paragraph one of the pharmaceutical subsection. The content lacks sufficient sources and is outdated.
 * 7) 	Move paragraph two of the pharmaceutical subsection to the Janssen section of the History section.
 * 8) 	Move paragraph three and four of the pharmaceutical subsection to the pharmaceutical subsection of Business Sectors.
 * 9) 	Merge the last sentence in the 2010-onward section of the article.
 * 10) 	Remove the unsourced Medical Devices subsection.
 * 11) 	Remove the unsourced Consumer Health subsection.
 * 12) 	Remove the Products section heading.

--Chefmikesf (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Business Sectors

The company's business is divided into three major Business Sectors, Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, and Consumer Health. In 2020, these segments contributed 55%, 28%, and 17%, respectively, of the company's total revenues.

Pharmaceuticals

The company's major franchises in the Pharmaceuticals segment include Immunology, Neuroscience, Infectious Disease and Vaccines, Oncology, Cardiovascular and Metabolism, and Pulmonary Hypertension.

Medical Devices

The company's major franchises in the Medical Devices segment include Interventional Solutions, Orthopaedics, Surgery (General & Advanced), and Vision.

Consumer Health

The company's major franchises in the Consumer Health segment include Baby Care, Oral Care, Over the Counter Medicines, Skin Health, Women’s Health, and Wound Care.


 * , the detailed outline of changes looks strong (and a LOT of work), on first pass. I'll need some time with the update list. The "Business sectors" and table seem clear and helpful, but are there any secondary sources for info in the table, or only J&J sites? Regardless, I do think it's not controversial info, and meets WP:PRIMARY as "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". It just seems proportionally like a lot of info cited to primary sources only. I will try to start with the changes this weekend, but be patient, as Spring break, grandkids, the Oregon Coast all beckon... Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Grand'mere Eugene,


 * Sorry if the post came off strong, I’m open to feedback and suggestions, my intention was to make the post to be as clear as possible. I will work over the next few days to find more sources for the table and sector descriptions. I see you made one of the edits already, just a few clarifications.


 * Can you replace the apostrophes around the Business Sectors section title with == == so it’s its own section? Also for each of the business sectors, can you replace the apostrophes with === === so they are subsections of the section? I used apostrophes on the talk page so I did not create more subsections.--Chefmikesf (talk) 03:48, 20 March

2021 (UTC)


 * No worries,, the changes went pretty quickly. I did change the subheader capitalizations to conform with sentenece-style, and re-ordered the subsections of Business sectors to correspond with the order of the preceding table. I look forward to your further thoughts on dividing the article. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Grand'mere Eugene, I found some additional sources for the section; let me know if any of these are relevant.


 * The JNJ 10-k also supports the table of segments and the first sentence of each paragraph. In the 10-K, please see Part one, Item one, Segments of Business.


 * I agree to capitalize the subheadings per your updates, but could we take another look at the capitalization of the Business Sectors in the text? The segments are capitalized in all of its written materials because they are proper names for each segment. Can we capitalize Medical Devices and Consumer Health in the first sentence and the table?


 * Instead of putting each of the Business Sectors in quotes in the first sentence, what are your thoughts on making them bold?


 * I had an afterthought about the title of the table too. Johnson & Johnson Business Sectors Segments is repetitive, how about we trim it to Johnson & Johnson Business Sectors?--Chefmikesf (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I like the 4 news sources, as they potentially can improve the secondary to primary source ratio, and I made a correction to the Reuters url in your note above; the 10-k filing is a primary source but carries the weight of a legal document, so if you want to use it I agree it's informative. I did make the other cosmetic changes except for bolding the sectors in the first sentence-- I think we also don't need quotation marks there, either. If you feel strongly about it, it's a trivial edit that we can revisit. Let me know your suggestions to add from the news sources and the 10-k. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Grand'mere Eugene! I noticed there was a typo on the proposed content for the Consumer health section. Could you take another look at the proposed content above? I updated it for accuracy.
 * Second, someone added a COVID-19 vaccine subsection to recalls and litigations. the content is neither a recall nor litigation. What are your thoughts if we move that content to the COVID-19 and dissolving the subsection in recalls and litigations?--Chefmikesf (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again I was able to put together a short, factual  piece of content for the Consumer Health subsection of the Business sectors section. Here is the Sandbox. I also copied the proposed content below. Can you let me know your thoughts?
 * The Consumer Health Business Sector includes a broad range of products focused on personal healthcare used in the skin health/beauty, over-the-counter medicines, baby care, oral care, women’s health, and wound care markets. It comprises skin health/beauty, self-care, and essential health categories.
 * The skin health/beauty category includes personalized skin health assessments, treatments for acne, eczema and aging signs, and cleansers, moisturizers, and sunscreens. Major skin health/beauty brands include the Aveeno, Dabao, Dr. Ci:Labo , Le Petit Marseillais , Neutrogena , NeoStrata and OGX products. Regional skin health/beauty brands include BeBe Young Care, Clean & Clear, Exuviance, Labo Labo, Lubriderm, Piz Buin, Regaine, Rogaine, and Sundown.
 * The self-care category includes medicines for pain relief, smoking cessation, allergy, anti-diarrheal, antacids, nasal decongestants, and cough and colds. This category includes brands such as Tylenol, Benadryl, Zyrtec, Motrin , Nicorette , and Zarbee’s . Regional self-care brands include Calpol, Codral, Doktor Mom, Dolormin, Frenadol, Imodium, ORSL, Pepcid, Sudafed, and Visine.
 * The essential health category includes products for wound care, oral care, baby care and women’s health. Major essential health products include Johnson’s Baby, Listerine, Stayfree , Carefree , BAND-AID and Neosporin. Regional essential health brands include Aveeno Baby, Desitin, Polysporin, Penaten, and O.B.
 * Chefmikesf (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Chefmikesf (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Chefmikesf (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Business Sectors: Consumer Health
Hi , I'm okay describing the products in general, as you have listed them. Naming each of he the products by brand name, thought, is not only unnecessary (since they are all listed in the J&J annual report), it begins to be promotional. I'll add the general statements, and if you have other thoughts about listing individual products, let's talk more. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Thanks for your input on the sandbox.


 * Based on the Products and services notability on company articles(see the products and services section), I interrupted the content would pass Wikipedia guidelines.
 * In general, I see editors interpret this guideline and add a bulleted list of products and services to a company article. If the company article becomes unwieldy, I've observed Wikipedians use WikiProject Lists to create a new list article e.g. list of the products and services.


 * J&J has thousands of products and services, a few dozen have Wikipedia articles. In this section, I proposed adding the products with articles and a few more notable products. Large company articles often have a bulleted list of products or brands. I thought that a narrative is better for the reader.


 * That said, I'm open to others joining the conversation or other policies I may have missed while researching. What are your thoughts?--Best--Chefmikesf (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I like the option of a new list article covering the products per WP:SPLITLIST. Many of the products are already notable with their own articles, and I've seen (and created) list articles with red links that have a good chance to demonstrate notability for future articles, with accompanying secondary ref citations.


 * That solution would also start the process of splitting off parts of this very large article (now > 119 kB) into several < 50 kB articles, per WP:SIZESPLIT. The section, "Recalls and litigation" could also be split off into a new article, as that topic can easily stand on its own.


 * I, too, welcome other editors to join this conversation. Cheers, and stay safe! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, I like your idea and took time to outline the content so its easy for you to review. Below is the updated content for the Pharmaceuticals and Medical devices subsections for the Business sectors section. What do you think?

Also, I will send you a separate ping for my proposed "List of J&J products and services" article.--Chefmikesf (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)



Pharmaceuticals
The Pharmaceutical segment is focused on six therapeutic areas: Immunology (rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis); Infectious Diseases (HIV/AIDS); Neuroscience (mood disorders, neurodegenerative disorders and schizophrenia); Oncology (prostate cancer and hematologic malignancies); Cardiovascular, Metabolism, & Retina (thrombosis and diabetes), and Pulmonary Hypertension (Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension).

Medical devices
The Cardiovascular & Specialty Solutions Group includes electrophysiology products (Biosense Webster) that diagnose and treat cardiac arrhythmias; devices used in the endovascular treatment of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke (Cerenovus); solutions that focus on breast reconstruction and aesthetics (Mentor), and ear, nose and throat (Acclarent) procedures. The Orthopaedics portfolio (DePuy Synthes) is comprised of specialties including joint reconstruction, trauma, extremities, craniomaxillofacial, spinal surgery and sports medicine, in addition to the VELY Digital Surgery portfolio.

The Surgery portfolio (Ethicon) includes advanced surgical innovations and solutions such as sutures, staplers, energy devices, and advanced hemostats along with interventional ablation, surgical robotics, and digital solutions.

The Johnson & Johnson Vision portfolio includes contact lens, intraocular lens, automated treatment for dry eye, and laser vision correction system in brands Acuvue, Tecnis, TearScience, and iDesign, respectively.

Hi , Sorry to be slow in replying, as I have been taking a little break from Wikipedia. I updated the Pharmaceuticals section pretty much as you had written it, but I changed the proposed Medical Devices update to avoid naming brands in the visible text, moving them instead to wikilinks with more generic referents pointing to other articles, or leaving the citations to the specific products. It's a fine line between being informative and being promotional... and in this section I think we need to be more general. Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Hope your enjoying your time away from Wikipedia! Thanks for your update the the article. When you get a chance, I created another article draft based on your suggestion for the a new list article covering the products per WP:SPLITLIST. I'm not sure your saw my ping but whenever you have time, feel free to review it. Many of the products have there their own articles, and I found over 100 secondary ref citations to support all the products. All the Best--Chefmikesf (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Nov. 2021

Hi! Thanks for catching the edit on the J&J article last week. Also, did you had a chance to review the article draft I created for the products and services article you suggested. Hope all is well--Chefmikesf (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Name
Who is company named after? As the article is written now, it isn't clear which two of the three are referred to by the name of the firm. With three brothers one would expect it to have been called Johnson, Johnson & Johnson. Or Johnson Brothers.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)