Talk:Heather Bresch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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"[13] and a former consultant and lobbyist for Mylan.[19]" 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)

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)

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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^Talk 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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] -- 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 ^Talk 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)

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

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.[2][4] She started as a data entry clerk for pharmaceutical labels at the company's manufacturing facility in Morgantown, West Virginia in 1992.[1][2][9][10] She was repeatedly promoted throughout the years.[9] According to Bresch, she held fifteen different roles at the company.[11] She also attended MBA classes at West Virginia University on nights and weekends in the late 1990s.[12]

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

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

Government relations

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 [7], 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[8][9] 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)

School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act

Including this as party of her lobbying effort without mentioning that she runs the category-dominant manufacturer of the product in question is not NPOV. This is repeating the spin of the paid advocate. Just because he was fed sources to puff up the article doesn't mean that the sources he used (which were uniformly laudatory) were the totality of sources. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: The epinephrine bill was signed by the president, and the photo etc. are at whitehouse.gov -- does anyone remotely find the story improper in this BLP? [10] "Today in the Oval Office, President Obama signed into law the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act, which will encourage schools to plan for severe asthma attacks and allergic reactions, and provide millions of families with greater peace of mind.." Bresch is behind Obama in photo. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's incomplete not to note that she heads the largest manufacture of the devices in question. Hipocrite (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No puff -- see [11], [12], [13], [14], and so on. I can not believe any editor would find a problem with this one. Collect (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not NPOV to merely mentioned that she lobbied for a huge government purchase program for the product her company creates without noting it was a huge government purchase program for the product her company creates. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Huge government purchase program"? Really?

Summary:

School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act - Amends the Public Health Service Act, with respect to asthma-related grants for child health services, to give an additional preference to a state that allows self-administration of asthma and anaphylaxis medication and makes a certification concerning the adequacy of the state's civil liability protection law to protect trained school personnel who may administer epinephrine to a student reasonably believed to be having an anaphylactic reaction.

Requires elementary and secondary schools in such a state to: (1) permit trained personnel to administer epinephrine to a student reasonably believed to be having such a reaction, (2) maintain a supply of epinephrine in a secure location that is easily accessible to trained personnel for such treatment, and (3) have in place a plan for having on the school premises during operating hours one or more designated personnel trained in administration of epinephrine.

Show me the huge government purchase program. T'aint there, McGee. Collect (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Requires elementary and secondary schools in such a state to ... maintain a supply of epinephrine." Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Or read [15] from the House -- looks like the same and not anything like what you assert as a fact. When one asserts a fact which ain't a fact, one ought to apologize. By the way saying they need to have something on hand they intend to administer is a no-brainer. It does not make this a "huge government purchase program" no way no how. No more than saying that a hospital is required to have medical supplies, or that a football team has to have footballs. I can not believe you seriously are objecting to this. Collect (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Define "huge government purchase program." I'd say "requiring every single school in the state to stock your product," is a "huge government purchase program." Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect:, I think @Wnt: also brought up making her non-philanthropic motives more clear (a government relations person basically advocates for laws that benefit the corporation) and this is a very easy fix. Both Fortune and West Virginia Living both mention in the context of this law that Mylan produces the EpiPen product and will profit from the legislation.

From Fortune: "which will both boost Mylan’s profits and save children’s lives"

From West Virginia Living: "Heather believes that consumer protection can make good business sense... Mylan markets EpiPen® auto-injector, a retractable syringe that quickly and easily injects epinephrine into someone suffering from a life-threatening allergic reaction... Today, Mylan is advocating for legislation that would allow undesignated epinephrine auto-injectors in schools, and such legislation has already passed in certain states."

Of course they also both indicate that the legislation is expected to save lives and so it becomes one of those "well if you want to include XYZ from the source ABC should be included as well" type of issues CorporateM (Talk) 21:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

But one editor says it is not notable for the BLP - so I posed the question properly at WP:BLP/N. If the bill is unimportant, then it should not be in the BLP. If it is, it should. Collect (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no comment about notability. Could you please link and quote it? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Great - if we are all agreed it is notable and sourced there is no problem now in adding it. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:N is not the only policy in the encyclopedia. WP:NPOV is separate. Hipocrite (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Super unless you feel the edit you made is violative of WP:NPOV -- was it a violation on your part? Collect (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Take two

As stated previously there was some feedback that the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act should be added with more context about her motives and how the legislation benefits Mylan. This seems perfectly reasonable and easy to fix. I've thrown something together below as a potential starting point.

As Director of Government Relations for Mylan, Bresch has supported broader availability of epinephrine injectors in public places to treat anaphylaxis (severe allergic reactions) and lobbied for legislation that made epihephine more accessible in schools. According to Fortune Magazine, she helped get the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act passed, which is expected to save children's lives and increase sales of Mylan's EpiPen auto-injector.

CorporateM (Talk) 01:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment CorporateM asked that I look at this. If my understanding is correct, please say if not, he is working for Ms. Bresch and/or her employer. If so, that makes this proposal unacceptable to me. I don't believe paid editors should be engaged in this kind of text drafting for reasons I've frequently stated in the past. But putting that aside and looking at it without regard for origin, my problem is that it reads like a press release, and also that it tends to be somewhat self-serving given that the subject of the article works for a generic drug maker. This wording gives the impression that she's doing it out of the goodness of her heart, serving the public in an altruistic fashion, when in fact she is doing her job to advance her company's corporate purpose. I also question whether this particular advocacy is significant enough to her bio per WP:UNDUE. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this comment. It's worth noting that the version proposed here is the one that was intended (by CorporateM) to respond to concerns raised about earlier versions. I've refrained from commenting until know (given previous involvement), but I agree with what you say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Her advocacy for the act is in the first paragraph of a Fortune interview, as well as some other lesser sources[16][17][18]. I point out the New York Times piece as a "lesser" source, because it's mostly about Mylan, rather than Bresch. Her notability is marginal-enough such that I would include just about anything there is a good source for, but if you don't think it warrants inclusion, I'm happy to move on. I wouldn't say it should sound like it was philanthropic, but I do think the sources support that it was generally a good idea and beneficial to the public. CorporateM (Talk) 19:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, but as I go through this article again, I find a more immediate concern, which is excessive attention devoted to that "MBA controversy." That should be smaller, given the size of the article. She is CEO of a large company and excessive attention to either positive or negative is inappropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Meh. I don't see that section as being any worse-off than the dedicated "Acknowledgements" section. It is excessive given the length of the article, but only because the rest of the article needs expansion. An ideal section would be written based on sources where Bresch is the subject of the article, leaving the selection of information, level of detail, etc. in the hands of the sources. Also, it says the university denied her claim to having a degree, whereas the sources say the university provided contradicting answers. Any discussion on it seems likely to blow up and I'm not sure I have the patience for it. CorporateM (Talk) 21:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"MBA controversy"

It bothers me to see this as an entire subsection in an article of modest length. If this became much longer it would be different. But in my opinion it should be condensed to a single paragraph at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI - my comments from above here. CorporateM (Talk) 21:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your concern about a discussion here, keeping in mind that talk pages are protected by BLP as much as main space. I'm going to tweak it a bit, and if anyone feels strongly about it they can revert. If the article is expanded, same thing. I don't believe we ordinarily leave disproportionate segments because we expect it is going to be expanded. Coretheapple (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

OK I shortened it. If anyone wants, they can revert, but I didn't cut out much. This is a short bio. If it gets bigger, the reference to this grimy little "scandal" can get bigger too. Coretheapple (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

More job titles

Currently the article has a bit of a gap from her early work in the 1990s, then jumping to President and board of directors in 2011. I'd like to suggest adding some of her other job titles:

From 2002 to 2005, Bresch served as Mylan's director of government relations. She was promoted to Senior Vice President of Corporate Strategic Development in May 2005. The following year she held the title of Head of North American Operations. Bresch served as Mylan's Chief Operating Officer and Chief Integration Officer from 2007 to 2009.

References

Some of the sources are pretty weak, just briefly mentioning her job title, but my understanding is that weak sources are ok for job titles and dates, which are generally not considered to be a weight problem. CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The proposed text looks a little choppy to me, so I might not oppose some copyediting for flow, but I can't see any objections to the inclusion of the information in the article. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It does read a little like an annual report, and I guess could be in one sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• How about: "Bresch served successively as Mylan's director of government relations, Senior Vice President of Corporate Strategic Development, Head of North American Operations, and then Chief Operating Officer and Chief Integration Officer." This sentence retains all information except the dates, which really do seem superfluous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• That might be workable, although personally I would probably include at least the first and last date of the jobs listed. So maybe something like "Starting in 2002, Bresch served successively as..., through 2009" with maybe an end to the effect of "when she became (whatever it was she became at that point)." John Carter (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the way to go. Coretheapple (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it (while also replacing a sentence that would now be redundant, and removing a redundant mention of her having been an MBA student). There are six references for the one sentence; that might not be necessary. If anyone has a clear sense of which ones could go... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Barron's

This Barron's source is the most comprehensive source about Bresch I have found in reliable sources. In the above discussion about this source, it wasn't clear what to do about it, so I mined the source for content and summarized it below. I figured an editor can either use my summary for cliff notes for their own re-write if they are not comfortable with copy/pasting COI-created content and have the interest level, or I can create a more polished version for copy/paste depending on the discussion and editors' comfort level. I whipped it up just now (it's 5 am) so I make no claim to perfection; The summary is very positive, but I think if an editor reads the source, they will find that it is representative of the source. I've included a lot of quotes and excessive material just to provide reviewers with more information about what exactly is in the source. CorporateM (Talk) 09:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Content from Barron's

Under Career/Government Relations Bresch (source says this is what made her "famous") supported increased regulatory oversight of the pharmaceutical industry starting in 2005. She helped get the Generic Drug User Fee Act of 2012 passed. The legislation resulted in more inspections by the Food and Drug Administration of foreign pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities that are importing into the US. According to Barron's, the law was expected to "level the playing field for all drug makers, enhance the attraction of manufacturing in the U.S., and raise costs for overseas factories that want to sell pharmaceutical products here, including many Mylan rivals." The New York Times "singled out Bresch for credit" in getting the law passed and Esquire magazine named her in their list of "Americans of the Year". (these are in the Barron's source and the Esquire award meets the criteria at WP:ORGAWARDS) According to Barron's, Bresch has also been "crusading" for the wider availability of EpiPens. (more detail/context on this in the "IN THE MID-2000S" section of the source) Under Career/Executive or similar After a $6.7 billion acquisition of Merck's generics business, Bresch helped separate the generics and branded operations of the company in collaboration with the Boston Consulting Group. MBA controversy; Just FYI, there's a summary in this source as follows: "Not everything went smoothly in these years. In 2008, following a newspaper investigation, Bresch's alma mater, West Virginia University, found that she hadn't fulfilled all academic requirements for an executive MBA degree listed on her resume. She claimed at the time that the university had allowed her to substitute fieldwork for academic experience. The school subsequently granted her the degree after changing various "incompletes" to grades, but the president and several other administrators were forced out amid charges of caving to political pressure. Later, West Virginia revoked the degree, and Bresch didn't challenge it."

Replaced the lead

I just replaced the lead. It is short, descriptive and accurate, and has been widely discussed on this page, without significant objections. I included an approximate birth year, based on a source citing her age as 43 in early 2015. Lou Sander (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Good job.HGilbert (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. I could ask her handler to verify her birthdate, but it would just be blatant original research. CorporateM (Talk) 17:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, she was born in a small state to a politically prominent family. Maybe some tiny West Virginia paper covered one of her childhood birthday parties. ;-)

Personal anecdote: Years ago I was driving on I-79 in the vicinity of Fairmont, WV, a fairly small town in a fairly backward state. The local radio station was promoting some sort of bake sale-like event to help a local athlete get to the Olympics. I remember thinking how quaint and borderline pathetic it all was -- West Virginians thought to be toothless, shoeless hillbillies, after all. No way one of 'em would ever be an Olympian. Later I learned that the kid was Mary Lou Retton. Sheesh! Lou Sander (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Early work

I don't think we need six references, one of them duplicated, to verify that her dad introduced her to a friend and that she started as a clerk. Lou Sander (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've trimmed two of them as a non-controversial COI edit. One of the sources I trimmed just briefly mentioned that she started as a data-entry clerk, while the other was an interview coming from her. The in-depth description of her first job in this extensive biography is certainly the better source over a brief mention or interview. CorporateM (Talk) 20:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead

What with so much controversy going on I'm not quite ready to jump in here and edit the article, however I'd like to point out that recent WP discussions related to the fact that we have an imbalance of female WP editors may result in a lead that suggests that a women's "accomplishments" are her notable parent (father) rather than her own. I note that the lead in this case makes no note what-so-ever of this woman's accomplishments, but only makes mention of her accomplished father. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really think the Lede is sexist per se, rather than incomplete in general; most sources prominently point out that she is the daughter of a well-known politician. However, she is the first female CEO of a large pharmaceutical company and one of 18 female CEOs in the Fortune 500 (one of Fortune's 50 Most Powerful Women). So certainly if we had a stronger female demographic, there would probably be more of an interest in successful female business executives that are involved in getting more women into math and science.[19] CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that you're rather splitting hairs here. Certainly there is nothing wrong with including a parent's importance as do most sources and as do most leads of both male and female bios here on WP. But when this particular bio lead includes nothing else, even while she has some pretty impressive accomplishments as you mention, I'd call that sexist per se. Gandydancer (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yah - fair enough. I'm just not accusing any editors of being sexist; I think it occurred as a circumstance of other issues. If it's of any help, I wrote a more complete, non-sexist Lead here if you want to borrow anything from it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to this lead? Gandydancer (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No opposition, but I think a better lead would be the first paragraph of CorporateM's draft, plus "She was named one of Fortune's "50 Most Powerful Women In Business" in 2012 and 2013." from the Acknowledgements section of the existing article. I don't think the second paragraph of CorporateM's draft is necessary at all. Her Manchin connection is in the very first sentence of the next paragraph of the existing article, so I'm comfortable that it isn't mentioned in the lead. Lou Sander (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Lou's comments and  Done the edits on the draft page, however IMO - and this is a minor quip - it now emphasizes being a woman too much and the "50 most powerful women" bit is not really needed when it already says "first female CEO of a major pharmaceutical company". Although the 50 ranking could reaosnably by justified by sources that included it near the top[20], I would replace it with other material that is relevant to her biography and not specifically about her gender, such as government lobbying, leading the company's acquisitions and inversion strategy, growing up in West Virginia, and even being the daughter of Joe Manchin. CorporateM (Talk) 19:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I support the new version. Gandydancer (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

My best effort at the lead is:

Heather Manchin Bresch is an American business executive and public policy advocate. She is currently the Chief Executive Officer of Mylan, a global pharmaceutical company based in Pennsylvania. She was named one of Fortune's "50 Most Powerful Women In Business" in 2012 and 2013.

It says, simply, what she is and where she does it, and gives a brief indication of her stature in the world at large. It could be followed by other paragraphs if people think that's appropriate. Often lead paragraphs like this will follow the person's name with their birth name and date of birth. I think that should be included here, but I don't have the date. If I had it, my best paragraph would be:

Heather Bresch (born Heather Middlename Manchin; DOB spelled out) is an American business executive and public policy advocate. She is currently the Chief Executive Officer of Mylan, a global pharmaceutical company based in Pennsylvania. She was named one of Fortune's "50 Most Powerful Women In Business" in 2012 and 2013.

This more or less follows the pattern of Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Mary Barra, Maggie Wilderotter and (I think) other CEOs who use a name different than their birth name.

Getting into the fine points, there might be a better location than just "Pennsylvania", since there are many pharmaceutical companies based near Philadelphia, on the other side of the state. The company's actual location is a small place that most readers wouldn't know. Maybe near Pittsburgh or something like that would be good. For now, I'm happiest with "Pennsylvania". Lou Sander (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSINTRO, the Lead is suppose to define the subject and her primary claim to notability, as well as include the most significant aspects of the article as a summary, such that a reader wouldn't necessarily have to read the article to get an overview. As a guideline it's suggested to write a sentence or two summarizing each section and sub-section. I don't think three sentences does the trick; WP:LEAD says four paragraphs is a recommended maximum (I usually shoot for two).Out of the six business biographies that are FA rated[21][22][23][24][25][26][27], all of them have three paragraphs or more. CorporateM (Talk) 22:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll look at that. I do think the article is more balanced now that it doesn't excessively overweight the "MBA controversy" as a separate section. Coretheapple (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Good work on collecting those FAs! I'm agnostic about the length of the lead here, but it might be hard to avoid having the lead repeat everything in the article. I think/hope we are all in agreement that the present lead is too short, misses some important points, and maybe says too much about her father.

Full disclosure: I'm not real familiar with multiparagraph leads. I start a lot of articles about entertainers of the past. IMHO they are pretty complete given their subjects, but many are so short they don't have separate lead sections. Those that do, have very short leads. Examples of the latter are Tex Owens, Buck Ramsey, John B. Sollenberger, and Ken Carson. Ms. Bresch's article is a lot longer than they are, but a lot shorter than any or most of the FAs. Lou Sander (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a quick second take at a Lede that I think mentions the most important part of each section of a filled-out article (except personal life and early life) in two short paragraphs. For reference here is the version @Gandydancer: supported. I think it should include the legislation, because Barron's says this is what made her "famous" - seems to be one of her primary claims to notability. Just to be clear - anybody's version of the Lede would be just fine and an improvement over the current. I'm content with someone just taking a shot at it and discussion can continue if necessary. Hopefully I'm not dragging out a very in-the-weeds discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 03:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear - I did not mean that I felt that the proposal was complete, I meant that I thought that it was OK as far as it went. I had hoped for/expected further discussion. The lead has been called the most important part of our articles and it's worth spending a little time on them to get them right. I note that you don't include any acknowledgements in the second version. Gandydancer (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done By acknowledgements, I presume you mean the awards and rankings (50 most powerful women and esquire, etc.). I would typically consider such awards and rankings to be promotion, but I have put them back in the draft Lead for now (lets see if @Lou Sander: has an opinion?) These awards do meet the criteria for inclusion I wrote at WP:ORGAWARDS, but I don't think they bubble up to being Lead-worthy. CorporateM (Talk) 14:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is not a long article, and I don't think it needs an extended lead. I'd support one of the versions offered by LouSander above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I want to see what s/he has to say as well. But moving forward, on to the hard part... What about including the MBA controversy in the lead? I can be convinced either way. On one hand it could be seen as minor considering her accomplishments, but on the other hand it was such an apparently blatant abuse of position that it possibly deserves mention. It is not at all uncommon for people to claim degrees that they do not have, but the way that she defended it was really quite problematic, at least to me. Gandydancer (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the extent of coverage in good sources would justify it. Someone else removed most of the sources a couple of months ago, but in fact it was widely covered. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The MBA controversy is more notable than Bresch and has its own article.[28] Bresch was one of many relevant parties in the controversy and if we weighed it by the press it got, it would become the primary subject of the article. Typically how I handle cases like this is by relying primarily on sources where Bresch is the subject of the article; each in-depth RS biography on her tends to have a paragraph on it.[29][30] In this way we defer to the sources to evaluate how much weight and what details are relevant to her biography, as oppose to the controversy in general and the separate article on it. CorporateM (Talk) 17:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. If the article were long with a corresponding lead of three or four paras it might fit, but that's not the case. Gandydancer (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal life

I cleaned up the wording and references in the Personal life section. The references support the claims about marriages and residence. They make clear that she lives with four children, but don't seem to mention which one Kirby fathered, or whether he fathered a different one. They do not confirm that she has four children in total, either. I'd be in favor of removing those two (so far) unreferenced minor personal details. Lou Sander (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, BLP requires we immediately remove unsourced content about a BLP, even if it's trivial. CorporateM (Talk) 20:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Good thinking. I've fixed it. I said that Douglas Kirby was a West Virginia businessman, but I'm not sure it's in the references cited. I did see it in a previous reference about the state school superintendent or something. It was a minor part of an article about political finagling at high levels, as I recall. Too much trouble to run down, IMHO. Also, I'm not thrilled about the reference for the residence including a quote about how much the house cost. Seems unimportant. Lou Sander (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. Including the cost of her house seems like a privacy issue to me and totally irrelevant to an encyclopedic biography. I'll try to sort out the references in a bit. CorporateM (Talk) 21:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Career

I broke this section into meaningful but too short sections. Previously it had run-on sentences and was hard to figure out. I'm aware that much has been said up above about this material, but I haven't read it and don't intend to.

Early career could use a sentence or two about her positions before becoming an executive. We are not her résumé, but a small amount of information would provide some continuity.

Executive career probably has unnecessary references. It doesn't mention anything about her promotion to CEO.

Advocacy is pretty light, considering what I think might be her heavyweight contributions in this area. Some of the references give great information about this stuff. If I recall correctly, she has not only been an executive at her company, but has advocated for many causes that are worthy but typically business-building for Mylan. IMHO she should get credit for that stuff.

Acknowledgements seems to be an unsuitable name, but the contents are worthy, provided the references are accurate. Maybe Recognition would be a better name, but I don't love it enough to use it. Oh, well. Ten minutes later I changed it to Recognition. Lou Sander (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Early career

To tackle your comments one section at a time; The article previously contained the following to bridge the gap between being a data-entry clerk in 1992, to being an executive ten years later:

Bresch was repeatedly promoted throughout the years,<ref name="two"/> serving in 15 different roles according to Bresch.<ref name="eleven"/><ref>{{cite news|title=Heather Bresch - Mylan: The most influential people in biopharma today|date=February 12, 2014|url=http://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-reports/heather-bresch-mylan-2014-influentials|publisher=FierceBioTech|accessdate=March 17, 2015|first=Emily |last=Mullin }}</ref> She also attended MBA classes at West Virginia University on nights and weekends in the late 1990s.<ref name="mystery">{{cite news|title=MBA Mystery in Morgantown|date=December 21, 2007|first1=Patricia|last1=Sabatini|first2=Len|last2=Boselovic|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2007/12/21/MBA-mystery-in-Morgantown/stories/200712210224|newspaper=Pittsburg Post Gazette|accessdate=September 26, 2014}}</ref>

This was removed by @Nomoskedasticity:, who said he removed it for being promotional and redundant. CorporateM (Talk) 21:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I reworked the Early career section, copyediting and fixing references. I added a few words about MBA studies. As far as I can see, every claim in this section is backed by a reference that specifically refers to the claim. IMHO, this section is finished now. It is a brief, accurate, adequately-referenced summary of her first ten years after graduation. The next task, IMHO, is to flesh out the Executive career section, which has loads of references and not very much content. Lou Sander (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A few very tiny nit-pick notes:

• "At a WVU" - I figured I'd either spell-out "West Virginia University" or add "(WVU)" upon first reference, depending on the preference.
• Do we want to include her brief move to California after graduating? It's in the first paragraph here.
• Saying her father "advised" feels awkward - I'd suggest "encouraged"
• "working hard and learning the industry inside out" - Doesn't come off as encyclopedic to me. I'd suggest something like "and learned the industry"
• "She also worked toward an MBA degree from WVU" - I'd prefer "attended classes" over "worked toward an MBA" to avoid making it sound like she was awarded on.

Very nit-picky items; take em or leave em. Let me take a look and see if there's any way I can help with your next point in the original string. CorporateM (Talk) 00:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed here in a profile story in Corridor Magazine that she worked at her grandfather's market and her father's carpet store. Taking a look around, I see a lot of sources do mention specifically that she worked hard and cover it in-depth, going back to her childhood, so that may be more warranted than I believed. Thanks for all your hard-work on the page! CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy

According to this source, Bresch was the "head of Mylan’s government relations" from 2002 to 2005. While much of her public policy advocacy bleeds over into her executive career, I think the advocacy starts earlier in the chronology and should probably go before the executive section. The current section relies exclusively on primary sources, broken links, and other junk sources; I think it can reasonably be blown up and started from scratch using proper, reliable, secondary sources. Below are the sources I know of that contain a substantial amount of information on the topic.

• Norton, Leslie (March 2, 2013). "Medicine Woman". Barron's. Retrieved September 26, 2014.
• Burnside, Mary. "Leading Ladies". Corridor Magazine. pp. 16–20.
• Clemons, Steve (June 12, 2012). "What it really takes to change Washington". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 16, 2014.
• Harris, Gardiner (August 13, 2011). "Deal in Place for Inspecting Foreign Drugs". The New York Times. Retrieved September 26, 2014.
• "Mylan to continue fast pace of growth under Bresch". The State Journal. May 31, 2012. Retrieved September 27, 2014.
• Bottom two paragraphs of page 2 here.

I've uploaded the Corridor Magazine profile on DropBox here temporarily, but for copyright purposes will take it down as soon as folks have had a chance to see it. Let me know if there's any way I can be of further assistance! CorporateM (Talk) 00:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Generic Drug User Fee Act

The current article contains the following, which appears to be sourced to a primary source from the FDA that I cannot access (gives me a timeout error):

Bresch also testified before the Food and Drug Administration in September 2010 on the issue of generic drug user fees, proposing a new user fee structure that aims to generate more funding for the FDA and provide greater assurance for pharmaceutical product safety, regardless of where in the world the product or its ingredients come from.[24]

In comparison, Barron's did a 1,700+ word profile on Bresch heavily focused on her work on this legislation and a quick Google search turns up a couple other secondary sources.[31][32] CorporateM (Talk) 23:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarification, are you proposing replacing the FDA source with one of the secondary sources? John Carter (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The primary source is probably giving undue weight to a trivial detail. None of the secondary sources I spotted actually discuss her testimony specifically. Probably needs to be trimmed entirely and replaced with content from secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no question that there needs to be more on her work on that law, but it can't read like a PR spin job or receive excess weight. I had the same concern in the opposite direction with that "MBA controversy." Coretheapple (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I've been MIA for about a month. I still want to bring this page up to GA, but that is hard to do if content that is both reliably sourced and representative of the sources is called "spin". Even when her job titles were added, other sourced content was removed[33] as if to avoid allowing me to actually add sourced content. If I take a shot at summarizing the sources listed above, would someone be willing to review the content constructively and consider it fairly? CorporateM (Talk) 14:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But of course -- I will happily review it constructively and consider it fairly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• CorporateM, what content do you believe was removed in the edit you linked to? The goal -- supported by other editors in the discussion two sections up -- was simply to be more concise. I don't think anything was removed, unless it was redundant vis-a-vis material present elsewhere (e.g. attending MBA classes). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears the following content was removed:

Bresch was repeatedly promoted throughout the years, serving in 15 different roles according to Bresch. She also attended MBA classes at West Virginia University on nights and weekends in the late 1990s.

This is especially frustrating, because I had spent a good bit of effort chasing down the correct citations for this after @Wikimandia:'s correctly pointed out that I had accidentally used the wrong ones. I don't see how this is redundant with mentioning a few of her specific job titles. GA/FA status requires the article be reasonably comprehensive. CorporateM (Talk) 09:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The MBA sentence could reasonably be redundant with the education section, though it would be better to merge the two, since the education section only mentions an end-date. I don't have an exact start date handy. CorporateM (Talk) 09:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

But "repeatedly promoted throughout the years" is perfectly evident via "served successively as Mylan's director of government relations, Senior Vice President of Corporate Strategic Development, Head of North American Operations, and then (in 2009) Chief Operating Officer and Chief Integration Officer". Also using "repeatedly promoted throughout the years" would be gilding the lily, no? This is exactly why articles are best done without direct eating by COI editors... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think listing a series of job titles without dates or context is actually a good way to do it, but meh. "Promoted throughout the years" is certainly trimmable, but mostly unimportant either way. She started as a data-entry clerk, so presumably she was promoted many times (or served different roles or however one wants to say it) before becoming director of government relations, which is the first title listed. CorporateM (Talk) 09:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear, then, that there was no removal of content... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, except a neutral and well-sourced summary of 10+ job titles was removed, so the article now jumps from 1992 as a data-entry clerk to 2002 as a director of government relations. What happened in-between? Do you feel there is some more neutral way of describing it besides holding 15 different roles and being promoted throughout the years? CorporateM (Talk) 19:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why this sentence about her being promoted through 15 different roles was chucked. I think it's required information - otherwise we have no idea how she jumped from entry level to CEO. I don't don't think we need all the job titles, but a few (eg, "she was continually promoted through the years, including to xyz manager, director of xyz, etc). The phrase "continually promoted through the years" is not fluff, but key to understanding her career trajectory. She didn't have a dozen different low-level jobs and then was made an executive. (Fluff would be, "Bresch's amazing dedication and skills continually impressed senior management and resulted in promotion after promotion! And parties with cake and ice cream for everyone!") Without this information that shows she actually worked her way up the ladder, it lowers her credibility; in my opinion, without this info, it paints the impression that she got where she is because of daddy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree (obviously): in giving a progression of career titles/roles, we make it quite clear that she was promoted. The text as currently doesn't remotely give the impression that she jumped from entry level to CEO; it gives a few titles and again thereby makes it clear she was promoted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section

I boldly moved the material about Tygart Technologies and the MBA to a new Controversy section, placing it right before Personal life. I'm tempted to delete the stuff about Tygart, since it seems she was exonerated, but I yield to the judgment of whatever editor put it in the article in the first place. Lou Sander (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Aren't controversy sections now considered better avoided? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think so, but we have two controversies here, and it's problematic where to put them. If the Tygart controversy is removed, which might be in order, then the other one can find a home. It might not fit so well under education, since the degree was rescinded. Lou Sander (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:CRITICISM. They are discouraged, though there are some circumstances where they can be done neutrally with a descriptive, neutral title (Example). Chronologically, it occurred when she was appointed COO, so I think it could reasonably be incorporated into the chronology of the careers section, or it could have its own section following Summary Style with a more neutral section title. CorporateM (Talk) 17:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but THIS. And what about the Tygart stuff? Putting it all in the "right" places might make it seem that controversy has followed this woman wherever she has gone. Lou Sander (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal life I would think - as it is so closely related to family (her father, ex-husband, etc.); As to the question of inclusion, I am somewhat ambivalent. CorporateM (Talk) 18:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Give us a break on neutral point of view! If somebody thinks there is some non-neutral stuff in the article, please point it out. Otherwise, the weasel-worded NPOV tag should be removed ("MAY compromise the NPOV", indeed!). IMHO she has been treated more than fairly here. It is not helpful to try burying her problems in the fine print. Lou Sander (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The tag is relevant, but if we tagged every problem on the article, there would be more tags than article-content. I love the one in the career section that says stuff like "The information may have been removed or included by an editor as a result" (translation, this page has been edited). The tag was added with the edit-summary "My fav "this section is shit" tag!)" It says the relevance of some of the information is disputed, though I'm not really sure what is meant by that. The section may have plenty of problems (primary sources, trivial awards, generally being incomplete), but that tag does not identify any of them.CorporateM (Talk) 20:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

They who say that weasel-worded tags about NPOV are relevant owe us the favor of pointing out the NPOV aspects of the article. Lou Sander (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for the tag. As for a Controversy section rather than working it into the article, I figure that if it's important enough to have its own article, its important enough to have it's own section in the article. If there is no objection I'm going to remove the tag unless someone else does it first. Gandydancer (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think it can be incorporated into the chronology of her career, which is more or less the tone I get from how the sources about her have handled it. However, editors could reasonably argue either way and the tag is not helpful. What I would suggest however, is that the minimum needed to arguably meet the advice at WP:Criticism would be to give it a descriptive title, like "WVU MBA Controversy" or "MBA Degree Issue" - this way the section is about a specific topic, as oppose to a bucket for anything negative or controversial that can be said about her. For example, there is also a bit of controversy about the tax inversion strategy she implemented at Mylan and that should definitely go in the Career section and not into a bucket Controversy section as was the direction things were heading by just creating a dedicated section for controversial material. CorporateM (Talk) 14:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Tygart Technology

I read all of the sources and I can't find a reason to include this info. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree ; it's scuttlebutt. HGilbert (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering that she had severed all ties to this organization seven years previously, I removed mention of it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being removed, but I was kind of waiting for a few more people to weigh in. After all, somebody previously thought it was important Lou Sander (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one that suggested adding it originally. It is sourced and there are not many sources about her, so it is not unreasonable to scrounge a bit. Then again it is not clear how relevant/significant it is to her biography. I operate on an ethics policy that forbids me from knowingly withholding sources or the information contained therein that may be material to editorial decisions. So I would still include it again, if for no other reason than to let others decide. CorporateM (Talk) 15:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Lou Sorry, I missed that. Hopefully they may restate their position here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I was going to restore it but it no longer fits. IMO the changes that moved the controversy to education with "MBA" added were good ideas and I don't want to monkey with them. Here's the old wording:

Bresch founded Tygart Technology in 1991 with her first husband Douglas Kirby. Though Bresch had severed all financial ties to the company in 1999, conflict of interest questions were raised regarding work sub-contracted to Tygart in 2006 for the Office of the Secretary of State, an office held by her father at the time.

I will say again, how does this have anything to do with her when she had left the company several years previously? It's not even on her dad's page, who actually was involved.Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You are probably correct - I included it primarily to avoid the remote appearance of hiding criticisms and controversies with a COI. I also noticed that whoever physically added the content (based on your pasted version above) did not do so neutrally, since it doesn't include that an investigation found no basis for the accusations, which was included in my original. In any case, there is clear consensus to take it out and I have no meaningful opposition to its removal, except to explain why it was included, which has more to do with avoiding COI perception than any argument that could actually be used as an argument to justify edits. CorporateM (Talk) 16:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have forever and a day to spend on this article. Lou can put it back until you and he feels it should be left/removed if that is the best way to go. I would have appreciated it if you had spoken up before I removed it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being in or out. It probably belongs out, but there might be somebody around with a strong opinion that it should be in. If it's out, as I think it is right now, that person is free to show up and complain. Like Gandy, I don't have forever and a day to spend on this article. I think I work on it just because I'm addicted to improving things. I have confidence that there's a good upside to the article, and I'm thinkin' it might be realized sooner rather than later.

As I recall (and I'm old, so my recollection isn't that great any more) a couple of weeks ago this article was mainly about the MBA controversy. After a lot of good faith back and forth, the controversy stuff ended up where it should be, and its mention here is IMHO appropriate to its importance to Heather Bresch. Maybe the Tygart stuff came in in the "old days," when it was fashionable to criticize her. Lou Sander (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit

Here @Nomoskedasticity: removed sourced content about Bresch attending MBA classes at WVU in the '90s. Since the controversy began in 2007, about 15 years later in her life, I think the Early Career section should mention that she attended classes; then the controversy can be covered later on in the chronology when it occured. I did mention here along the same lines as Nomo's edit-summary that it could be re-worded a bit, but I don't think that warrants deleting sourced content, nor is it redundant with the controversy section. CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I gave my reason, and I continue to think it's valid. As an alternative: we could put the MBA bit back in the education section. It's quite relevant there -- and now that the Tygart portion is gone I'd prefer to get rid of "Controversy" altogether. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Best would be if we could get some consensus before eliminating properly-sourced claims.

I agree with keeping some mention of her MBA coursework in the section about her early career. It doesn't matter too much to me how it is framed in that section. At the same time, I don't think the criticisms of saying that she was "working toward an MBA degree" are valid. That's what she was doing. She wasn't just "attending classes". The true and well-sourced situation is that she was working toward a degree, failed to complete the required number of courses, and didn't graduate. According to the sources, she was part of her MBA cohort right up until the end. Years later, contemporaneously with an important promotion, she falsely claimed that she HAD graduated. As I recall the sources, she has never acknowledged that her claim was false, even though extensive investigations have shown it to be so. The big scandal at WVU arose because the school took improper actions in dealing with a well-connected person's false claims. As to her claims, she is similar to the better-known Dan Rather incident and Brian Williams incidents , both of whom made claims that were later investigated and shown to be false. Like them, as I recall from reading the sources, Heather Bresch continued to insist that her claim was true. Powerful people do that sometimes. Sometimes they get away with it for a while. Think The Emperor's New Clothes.

I think that, as the skimpy sections of the article are developed, it will become clearer just where the mentions of the MBA coursework, her false degree claim, and the ensuing scandal should go. Right now, I'm happy with the controversy section, but not with the COI-introduced idea that having such a section means the article isn't NPOV. Maybe rename it "MBA controversy" or something, but please don't try to bury it. Lou Sander (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bury it. Perhaps if we make it a sub-section of Education... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Clarification: @Coretheapple: originally moved it out of a dedicated controversy section without my mentioning it and @TheRedPenOfDoom: added a tag when the Controversy section was re-created. Nomo asked something along the lines of "Aren't dedicated controversy sections discouraged?", which is indeed true, that they are discouraged (but not prohibited). So saying that avoiding a dedicated section was a "COI-introduced" concept - that just isn't true. I am the only editor here with a disclosed COI and my comments here are just one of many on the topic. A little frustrated that this would be used to discredit a viewpoint, when it is not actually accurate. I did say however that dedicated sections are discouraged and when they are created they should have descriptive titles, like the one proposed by Lou above. CorporateM (Talk) 15:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I lost track of who did what. Not all editors explain their actions here, let alone get consensus for them before taking them. Both those things are very useful when there is any sort of controversy. Lou Sander (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think these edits are representative of the discussion either, which wasn't heading in that direction at all. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I dont see why we wouldnt just include it in the executive section as part of the historical chronology. she got a highly visible job, people investigated, people did dumb things and then dumber things to try and cover up the dumb things. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There was no consensus in this RFC. The opinions are pretty evenly split. AlbinoFerret 21:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Currently the article has a paragraph that reads as follows:

Extended content

Bresch has been Mylan's president, chief operating officer, head of North American operations and chief integration officer. She joined Mylan's Board of Directors in March 2011. She has been active in attempts to prevent brand-name pharmaceuticals from delaying the release of generic drugs and appeared before a special United States Senate committee on the issue in 2006 and again in 2009. Bresch also testified before the Food and Drug Administration in September 2010 on the issue of generic drug user fees, proposing a new user fee structure that aims to generate more funding for the FDA and provide greater assurance for pharmaceutical product safety, regardless of where in the world the product or its ingredients come from. On February 9, 2012, Bresch testified before the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce in relation to drug supply chain integrity, drug shortages and the Generic Industry's Drug User Fee proposal (GDUFA). References

Should it be replaced with the COI-generated draft copy (or some modified version of it?). The COI-created copy is as follows:

Extended content

Government relations and advocacy From 2002 to 2005, Bresch served as Mylan's director of government relations. She contributed to the development of the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA), which provided medical coverage for prescription drugs to seniors through medicare. When Mylan expanded internationally, Bresch noticed that Mylan's US-based pharmaceutical manufacturing plant had full-time staff from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) devoted to it, whereas facilities abroad had not been inspected by the FDA for more than a decade. This was because the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was written before the advent of mass manufacturing of U.S. prescription drugs in other countries and didn't give the FDA authority or resources to inspect foreign pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. Bresch persuaded several of Mylan's competitors to support what became the Generic Drug User Fee Act, which she proposed to lawmakers in 2010. Under the law the pharmaceutical industry would pay fees of $300 million in order to fund FDA inspections of foreign drug manufacturing facilities at the same rate as US-based facilities. Bresch made regular visits to Washington, D.C. and lobbied aggressively for the law, arguing that a lack of regulation put U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage over unregulated manufacturers abroad. The Generic Drug User Fee Act of 2012 was passed on July 9, 2012. Bresch has also advocated for broader availability of EpiPens in public places to treat anaphylaxis (severe allergic reactions), and has been active in raising awareness of HIV/AIDS treatment in developing nations. She helped facilitate the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act, which made epinephrine more accessible in schools. References

• Comment I am the COI author of the proposed replacement. The current article-text is supported by primary sources[34][35], broken links[36][37] and other low-quality sources. It includes promotional language like "greater assurance for pharmaceutical product safety" and does not include very much information about her career between being a labeling clerk to joining the C-suite. Because prior discussions have been combative regarding my COI disclosure[38] my hope is that getting additional input will attract a more thoughtful discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 01:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Without having parsed every word in the two versions, and without having checked any of the references, I am in favor of CorporateM's version. It is better sourced, better written, and explains things much better than the existing one. (To repeat, I haven't parsed everytihing -- this is just after a moderately quick comparison. You don't have to parse everything to tell the difference between weak and strong, encyclopedic and not, etc.) Lou Sander (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Not NPOV. Gives undue credence to self-serving explanations of behavior that basically involved padding Mylan's bottom line. Ignores other negative governmental interactions. Has been conclusively rejected before. Perhaps it's time for CorporateM to be banned from this article? Hipocrite (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Some support It needs a little depuffing, but saying that a person working for a company is also seeking to work for the company seems useless. "padding" is a very strong comment above. Will try to depuff. Collect (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Not so fast. There may be something here, but the first part I checked seems to come up short. The entire comment about EpiPens in Barron's article is Bresch, meanwhile, is crusading for wider distribution of EpiPens, which carry an injectable antidote to allergic reactions. She maintains they should be as widely available as cardiac defibrillators. For anyone who doesn't have a personal association with the subject, drawing the conclusion that this means public places would be WP:OR. I understand it's probably true, but I'm feeling grumpy here because EpiPen is a brand name for an Epinephrine autoinjector, and perhaps not coincidentally specifically the registered trademark for a Mylan product.[39] So the language taken up by Barron's and echoed here appears to put this company's specific well-promoted brand on an even footing with an entire class of medical product (defibrillator). It is, of course, a great sales strategy whenever you can make your product synonymous with its entire market, or sell your product to those who won't use it... Anyway, I don't think this one blurb, by itself, justifies a mention in the biography. There should be substantial sourcing - enough that we can look up the details of exactly what she wants put where, and indeed, whether this brand specifically is the one to be placed or whether there would be a competitive market. If it is an ongoing political issue, there should be some representation of the opposing opinion. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• On a similar note, the statement about "active in raising awareness of HIV/AIDS treatment in developing nations" is a nice spin to put on it, but according to the source [40]:

Bresch also has made use of her position at Mylan to work toward the treatment and eventual eradication of AIDS.

"Out of 33 million people around the world afflicted by HIV/AIDS, only about 3 to 4 million were being treated" at the time of the Matrix acquisition. "It became very much a passionate interest."

If victims began taking medication at the time of diagnosis, she said, it would cut the spread of AIDS by 99 percent.

Her visits to villages in sub-Saharan Africa showed her the value of innovation in dosage forms... [followed by explanation about problems with clean drinking water to dissolve the pills]

Now it's not like she's trying to do something wrong here, but come off it with the spin! She bought Matrix Laboratories in India, which apparently owns Matrix Pharma in China, which makes anti-HIV drugs [41] and now she wants to make them as marketable as possible. And I'm getting the impression that thanks to user fees in the U.S. the FDA can certify this offshore production as being up to American standards, so they should have a top-quality product to sell. But I don't really see "active in raising awareness" as a good summary of the situation. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

And the depuffed version below? Collect (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the current version would benefit from substitution of better sources (though the ones currently used are merely primary, rather than failing RS). But I strongly disagree that we need more detail, and I think Hipocrite is right on target by saying that there's an NPOV problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Summoned by bot. Agree with Nomo and Hipocrite on all points, and add that I don't think that COI editors should be drafting text for adoption or non-adoption by editors. If they want to suggest sources, fine. But PR people don't draft text for Wikipedia, even acceptable or perfect text, which the proposed text is not, because readers have a right to expect that Wikipedia is written by independent editors not by paid reps of the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

proposed depuff

Government relations and advocacy

From 2002 to 2005, Bresch was Mylan's director of government relations. Mylan supported medical coverage for prescription drugs to seniors through Medicare.

She noted that Mylan factories had full-time FDA employees, and that many overseas factories were rarely inspected or never inspected as the FDA had limited authority over overseas plants. This resulted in a co-ordinated effort by the US drug companies to support the Generic Drug User Fee Act giving the FDA the resources to inspect the foreign producers at the same level as US producers. The Generic Drug User Fee Act of 2012 was passed on July 9, 2012.

She lobbied to support the School Access to Emergency Epinephrine Act, which made epinephrine more accessible in schools, and supports increased availability of EpiPens emergency epinephrine injectors in public places to treat anaphylaxis (severe allergic reactions).

References

-end depuff-

Which I suggest and hope should meet any objections. The HIV part does not appear to be all that strong, and we need not detail every project she has been involved in. Collect (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• No objection Per WP:COIMICRO. I often find when I do GA reviews editors write very detailed BLP pages, but when I have a COI, editors allege the same level of detail is a COI issue. However, both detailed and more concise versions can pass GA. One small nit-pick: stuff like "co-ordinated effort by the US drug companies" does not make it clear why it's on her page, because it doesn't explain her involvement. CorporateM (Talk) 14:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Def of "coordinate" applicable here to bring the different elements of (a complex activity or organization) into a relationship that will ensure efficiency or harmony. which seems apt to me. Collect (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Removed trademark name. Collect (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Erm, this is actually a step in the wrong direction. The source says "EpiPens", her company makes EpiPens, so how do you know she meant the generic? The real problem was that the brief mention in the source just doesn't tell us enough to know what is really meant at all. Wnt (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Then just put in "(her company owns the trademark on EpiPens)" or ", her company's product EpiPens" with a cite, if that is the case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Erm-- the Act does not mention a trademarked product - it says "emergency epinephrine" in its title, so this is actually correct. No need to use the trademarked name as a result. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

And [42] does not use "EpiPen" in it either. Collect (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I was not referring to the word "co-ordinated" but that nothing in the sentence refers to anything Bresch did, as oppose to "US Drug companies" who are not the subject of the article.

@Wnt:The draft was not intended to imply that her government lobbying was philanthropic; her epinephrine lobbying was to boost sales of EpiPens, which are market-dominant and sold by Mylan. The last paragraph of the second page of this source has some context if you or someone else feels like adding it to make her non-philanthropic motivations more clear. CorporateM (Talk) 17:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Not every sentence has to use her name- the statement is in line with the succeeding statement - without multiple companies backing it, it would likely have failed. She was not prime mover AFAICT. Collect (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a myriad of copyedits and added citations to @Collect:'s version here, then reverted myself, so Collect or others can either restore the copyedited version, reject it, or review the changes individually (or just ignore, because either version would be fine). I also added a mention that Mylan sells epinephrine (EpiPen) to make her motives more clear and corrected that she lobbied for epinephrine in schools specifically, as oppose to "public places" per WNT's comments. I have not seen any sources that made the same connection regarding her motives for HIV/AIDS treatments however. CorporateM (Talk) 18:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The source mentioned that she noticed them at Disney - and while the Act mentions "schools" clearly, the source stated she liked them being available not just in schools. I went with the source on that one. Collect (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I must have missed the source link to the Act (what Act?) - if RSes link her to it, we definitely should provide suitable references. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot. I like the depuff somewhat. However it still seems a mystery to me how she went from data entry to director of government relations.... This is a massive leap. Is there no reliable information about her career path? Are we to read between the lines and assume she was promoted because her father was governor/senator? Also not a fan of the sentence that begins, "She noted that Mylan factories ..." This is too observational in nature. Stick to her actual actions eg testifying. Final suggestion is that she needs an additional sentence or two added to her introduction, as it seems short. Wikimandia (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt: The name of the Act is the Generic Drug User Fee Act. Barron's describes Bresch's lobbying efforts for it here near the bolded text that says "BRESCH MADE HUNDREDS"

@Wikimandia: I lost track of if there was a reason it's not included, but in my original draft, I had something like this, which might be suitable based on your feedback: "Bresch was repeatedly promoted throughout the years, serving in fifteen different roles according to Bresch. " I have not seen an abundance of source material about this early work, presumably because it was not as significant, but a sentence like that would at least concisely fill in the gap in the chronology. CorporateM (Talk) 17:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Thanks for the reply and ping. I would be in favor of something simple like, "During her years with the company, Bresch has served in 15 different roles" except I can't find the reference to this quote in either the NYT or Atlantic articles. Can you check again? Thanks! Wikimandia (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia:Oops; I found it again here in West Virginia Living (ref name "eleven"), page 2, about halfway down: "I’ve held about 15 different positions in the company,” she says." Note we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to source it, but as discussed, it's the best source I came across to fill that part of the chronology. CorporateM (Talk) 23:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: I also just came across the same reference to 15 different roles here. CorporateM (Talk) 04:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM (Talk) 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC) (note COI disclosure)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References in the article

I've been consolidating the numerous and often repetitive references in the article. I think it's pretty uncontroversial to do that, but some might disagree. That's why I'm mentioning it here. I'd like to delete the "relevant quotation" in reference [2], which is the only reference confirming that she lives in Sewickley Heights. We need the reference, but I don't think it's necessary to tell readers what she paid for her mansion, who she bought it from, etc. Unless somebody objects, I will wait a day or two then delete it. BTW, it's not the most expensive house in Sewickley Heights -- just the most expensive one that sold during the year in question. Lou Sander (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick search at BLPN and found an in-depth discussion on a similar issue here. The discussion is far too long to read in its entirety, but I got the impression the price and details of a BLP's house was only included if there was something significant about it (if it was a historic home, or bought for a large amount of money). That discussion is over three years old, but maybe one or of the more prolific contributors to that page (@Will Beback:, @AndyTheGrump:, @Bus stop: and @Wikidemon:) will get my ping and chime in here. CorporateM (Talk) 19:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I really do wish you would not have done that. There is no need to create controversy when none exists. Gandydancer (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the controversy? Lou Sander (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the concern was that pinging them would start a huge debate about what is a very trivial issue not warranting of such extensive discussion. This concern was probably prompted by a misunderstanding higher up in the discussion, where it seems as though Gandy thought I was opposing the removal of the COI concerns, leading to an uneccessary extension of that discussion. Anyway, nobody has registered a strong view, so I figure you are free to do whatever you think is best, assuming nobody pipes up eventually. CorporateM (Talk) 18:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Order

I suggest we move the Advocacy section to be above the Executive Career section, seeing as she was a Director of Government Relations starting in 2002[43], but didn't join the C-level until 2009 as COO[44]. CorporateM (Talk) 19:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Early life and career

Regarding the Early Life and Early Career sections, there are a few minor items I think would be worth taking a quick look at before stamping it as  Done:

1. Should we include that she felt motivated to succeed in business, because her grandfather said women didn't have a place in business? (Source).
2. Should we include that she worked at her father's carpet store and her grandfather's market as a child?(Source)
3. Should it include the non-controversial fact that she attended MBA classes?
4. Should the MBA controversy be located under Early Life and Education or somewhere else?

Regarding the Controversy section, I think it would be worthwhile to have an RfC on it at some point, to see if consensus can be established. Right now I'm counting 4 against a dedicated section and 3 in favor of it; no clear opinions given on where it should go if it is kept in a dedicated section, except that Nomo supports having it where it is. Possibly something to save for later after more significant aspects of the article are worked out. CorporateM (Talk) 18:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I don't have an opinion right now on the other points (no time), but I do have one on the controversy section. I think that when the Executive career section is fleshed out, there will be a place where her promotion to Chief Operating Officer is mentioned. I think that THAT is where the controversy stuff belongs. Rationale: She was appointed COO and at that time claimed to have an MBA. The Post-Gazette inquired at WVU, which started the chain of events that led to the M.B.A. controversy. Lou Sander (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: 1) Include the anecdote about her grandfather's comment; this is a biography and it sounds like that motivated her significantly. 2) Childhood jobs = no 3) The part about taking MBA classes is relevant for the MBA degree/controversy section. (I don't know how many credits she has to go but if I were this woman I would do whatever it takes to finish that degree.) 4) I think the MBA thing should stay under education: it was a controversy about whether or not she has an advanced degree. I don't think it belongs under any kind of chronology section, like it would if she were a lot older and it happened later in her life (eg going back to school). WP guidelines for BLP (WP:CRITS) guard against against "Controversy" sections. It should be as brief as possible and link to the main article. I've only glanced at it but it seems a lot of the blame fell on the school and was not the result of her direct actions. Lying about having an MBA (or letting people believe you had a degree), in the big scheme of things, while it shows extremely poor choice, it doesn't affect that many people. She's a private citizen; if she were running for political office then it would be more significant. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I would lean towards the opposite of Wikimanida (including her childhood jobs, but not her grandfather's comments), but I don't have a strong opinion. It feels like a BLP issue if the only thing we include about her grandfather is being sexist. I don't think the mundane fact that she attended classes should be in a "MBA controversy" section - as this is not controversial or a part of the controversy. Regarding the controversy itself, better to revisit after the rest of the article is improved. Currently it would create a massive undue issue in any section it was moved to anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I see no problem with #1 so long as we say what the source says and don't give it too much weight. No problem with #2 or #3. As far as #4, it's part of her education so why are we even discussing where that goes? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment For 1, 2, 3: As repeated above, let's wait for the rest to be fleshed out before dwelling on whether these issues would be undue or not. As such, the subsections seem to stubby to warrant such splitting and all three additions would seem out of context and a bit undue. For 4, erk...this one is a tricky. I would again say the same thing. Judging by what I read in the MBA controversy page, I am a little inclined against summarising it to the main controversy page, as she doesn't seem to be very much at the center of it compared to the university. Summarising would require us to go into a lot of details. A shorter mention is probably enough. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy section

I'd like to remove the primary sources from the Advocacy section and replace them with secondary sources. Here's some suggestions/comments/notes giving the section a quick look-over. Currently most of the section's content relies on primary sources about trivial things and it does not include the things she is primarily notable for based on the sources.

1. I suggest we delete what is currently citation 10 (press release), 13 and 14 (primary sources) and any corresponding content not supported by a secondary source
2. I don't think Bresch testifying to congress is that significant, at least from the viewpoint of the sources. I don't think any of the in-depth profiles about her mention it[45][46][47][48] I suggest replacing those primary sources with what secondary sources suggest are significant, which is lobbying for things like the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act, increasing FDA regulation of out-sourced pharmaceutical manufacturing and the Generic Drug User Fee Act, lobbying for epinephrine in schools, etc. I have a quick first-draft I put together a while back[49] (bolded means might be trimmable context) As previously discussed, all of laws she lobbied for benefit her employer Mylan as she was lobbying for their interests.
3. I think the ideal start of this section would be to include the relevant job title: "From 2002 to 2005, Bresch served as Mylan's director of government relations."

CorporateM (Talk) 17:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, taking a first look at your draft section "Government relations and advocacy": It's an improvement but not yet ready for prime time.

• We need a good strong source (reference 3 is currently blank) to support the very strong claim that she "was influential" in the passage of the Medicare drug bill. We can't include this claim without a good source. Reference 4 is not necessary.

 Done Some of the references had stuff like "ref name='four'" where the area where the full citation was had been trimmed as we covered other subjects. I've restored them. I disagree about cite 4; it's awkward to say she helped get a law passed and not describe what that law was, but I've removed it anyway. I also toned down the "influential" to "contributed to" CorporateM (Talk) 16:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reference 5 is a good strong source for the fact that she proposed the foreign drug bill to congress. It should be appended to the sentence that says so, since that is a strong claim. The paragraph includes several other blank references (1, 6) which should be completed or removed. Reference 7 also supports the claim, but in kind of a puffery way; I guess it's OK as a second reference for her role there. Reference 8 is good. Those two paragraphs should be combined into one.

 Done Added cite 5 to the suggested location; Did a bit of trimming to combine the two paragraphs. Coding issue fixed to fill-in the citations. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that most of the bolded stuff can be left out; you can keep "To advocate for the new law, she made regular visits to Washington, D.C., and sponsored a whitepaper", which is well supported by reference 8.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 17:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that particular testimony to Congress is trivial compared to the lobbying you describe, and that the current "advocacy" section should be scrapped. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @MelanieN:. I've made all your suggested edits to the draft. There were a couple I would have done slightly differently, but I think fall under WP:COIMICRO and are not important enough to be worthwhile to debate. Nomo I think may oppose a copy/paste approach or have other content objections. I suggest we give him time to chime-in. I'll give it a fresh look too, just to make sure everything is directly supported by the source and whatnot. CorporateM (Talk) 17:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

All OK except for the first paragraph. (BTW I misplaced the link for your draft; it is here if anyone else wants to help evaluate it.) I still have a bit of a problem with the role, if any, she played in Medicare Part D. You've toned it down to "contributed to the development". I actually find evidence for even that much to be lacking. Your link says she played a "vital role" but I'm dubious; that article is from 10 years after the act was passed and it is a bit of a puff piece - an interview than sourced reporting. But a more contemporary (2006) article about Part D in her hometown paper, which quoted her extensively, didn't say anything at all about any role she may have played in writing it or getting it passed.[50] (That's also a good source for her title as Senior Vice President for Strategic Planning during that time.) Can you suggest how we should handle this?

It's good that we now have a solid paragraph about her contributions to the overseas inspection act, because it is well documented that she was the prime mover - the act was basically her doing and is her main claim to notability. I would be OK with copy-pasting your proposed section "Government relations and advocacy" into the article in place of the current section. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool; that is a reasonable point regarding MMA. However you or others prefer to handle it would be A-ok by me. I could imagine just adding "According to" so that it's not in Wikipedia's voice, leaving it as-is, as a toned down version of the source (the source is promotional, but I don't think it contains outright lies, as would be the case if she wasn't involved at all), or just trimming it entirely. Maybe someone else like @Drmies: will pop in with a suggestion of great wisdom. CorporateM (Talk) 18:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't do wisdom in the summer: it's too hot. Thanks Corp, and thanks MelanieN for your work. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I was going to move the section "Government relations and advocacy" from your draft to this article, replacing the "Advocacy" section. But Wikipedia complained that some of your sources are not defined. The sources must have the full citation elsewhere in your draft, and an undefined name in this one section. Can you fix this? and then I will move the section into the article. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I can't tell for sure from your comments, but just in case you need a good way to format references, I've found this to be a very good one: https://tools.wmflabs.org/makeref/ . Lou Sander (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Lou, but I was just going to be lazy and let CorporateM do it- since it's their draft. --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'm excited about the visual editor getting an auto-fill feature. All the sources in the draft are already in Cite News templates though. CorporateM (Talk) 18:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, try it yourself and use Page Preview. It gives a message saying "Warning: Heather Bresch is calling Template:Cite news with more than one value for the "newspaper" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used." And it claims that the refs named "barrons" and "uhioq" have not been defined. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN:  Done Oh I see. I've fixed it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that took care of the undefined references. But it is still giving the message "Warning: Heather Bresch is calling Template:Cite news with more than one value for the "newspaper" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used." I could ignore that and go ahead and paste it in, or you could figure out what the problem is and fix it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Oops, it should actually be fixed now. I fixed one citation that had two "newspaper" parameters, but there was apparently a second one I missed. I'm always happy to fix citation errors in article-space too as a non-controversial COI edit. CorporateM (Talk) 15:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, now we've got it! I inserted the revised section. I just didn't want to put it in article-space with an error. Too proud, I guess. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. Do you have any interest in taking a look at the business executive section as well? It is intended to also replace the current Recognition section, which has a lot of sources I consider to be primary sources, per WP:ORGAWARDS. The current article also doesn't include very much, once again, about what she is primarily notable for, such as being one of few female CEOs of a big company and leading the company's controversial tax inversion strategy. CorporateM (Talk) 17:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

EpiPens

EpiPens, mentioned in the article, are proprietary to Mylan. Especially since there is a self-serving side to her advocating their deployment, and since a COI editor is involved in this article, I think this needs to be pointed out somehow. In following the various EpiPen links, I also see that the photo of the EpiPen is of a non-current version, and that there isn't much mention of the fact that EpiPens are particularly important in treating serious anaphylactic episodes of peanut allergy. I can take care of the latter stuff, but I'd prefer that somebody else takes on the delicate task of mentioning the self-interest side of Bresch's involvement in this noble cause. Lou Sander (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Lou Sander: Sorry nobody responded to this string. I had provided some source material previously that would make it more clear how Mylan benefits from the EpiPen legislation and have re-pasted it again below if it's helpful:

• "which will both boost Mylan’s profits and save children’s lives" - Fortune Magazine
• This Financial Times article covers Bresch's EpiPen lobbying in-depth
• "Mylan Specialty L.P. is among at least three manufacturers of self-administered injectable doses of epinephrine" - BizJournals
• "A lobbying effort backed by Mylan, which markets the most commonly used injector, the EpiPen, made by Pfizer, led to the introduction last year of a federal bill that would encourage states to pass such laws." - The New York Times (though this is NYT, it is actually a weak source, since Bresch is merely quoted, but the article is not about her. It is probably usable, but I think FT is probably the best source).

CorporateM (Talk) 23:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Executive careers and Recognition sections

Currently the article contains a dedicated "Recognition" section that includes trivial awards like being listed as an "Emerging Pharma Leader" or listed as a leading female by FiercePharma. It's unlikely these awards carry any significance; I believe their inclusion is promotional and having a dedicated Awards section is just as bad as dedicated Controversy sections. What I'd like to suggest is we eliminate these awards and include only ones that are supported by secondary sources (as defined by WP:ORGAWARDS) whereby the source is independent of the award organizers and the content is incorporated into relevant topic areas, rather than in a dedicated section.

This is what I've taken a shot at here in addition to adding more information about what she's done asa a CEO thus far, such as the controversial tax inversion strategy. Open to discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 03:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I would keep the Fortune and Esquire awards as I found independent sources covering the awards themselves. The other two do not seem to have much independent coverage. As for your text, I would specify the year for the Fortune ranking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @NeilN:. I agree - those are the only two awards I found strong sources for. I double-checked the sources and added the date (2014) of the Fortune list and added that she's been on the list since its inception. Does anyone else have comments about this section in general or the awards in particular? CorporateM (Talk) 17:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I added a Request Edit to request someone merge the less promotional draft version into article-space. CorporateM (Talk) 18:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, done except for, "and has been on the list since it was started in 1955.". This makes no sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @NeilN:! I don't see what was awkward about the wording there, but no bother. WP:COIMICRO. With that addition, I dare say the article is starting to look like a proper page, devoid of any blatant promotion or attacks. CorporateM (Talk) 21:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, how can she be on the list since 1955? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see. We would need "on the list each year since 1955" CorporateM (Talk) 21:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Okay, one of us is really, really confused. Your sentence: "She was ranked 31 in Fortune Magazine's 2014 "50 Most Powerful Women" list and has been on the list since it was started in 1955." The subject was born around 1972. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That doesn't make sense! I double-checked the source and what it actually says is that she was the first woman from West Virginia to be on the list since it was created in 1955. This probably isn't worth including. Nice catch! CorporateM (Talk) 23:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two questions:

1. Should the MBA Controversy have a dedicated sub-section as it does now, or be integrated into another section.
2. Should it rely primarily on sources about the controversy, as it does now, or would it be preferable to rely primarily on sources about Bresch[51][52] that establish what information about the controversy is most relevant to her profile.

Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest with this BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Keep it as it is. It may also need to be expanded to include that her false claims were part of an SEC filing, and other investor information, per the original Post-Gazette article. This is serious stuff. Lou Sander (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

2. Don't change the sources. The proposed new ones are nothing more than Heather Bresch maintaining her innocence, minimizing the importance of the controversy, citing "privacy", and claiming that investigation of these matters is "offensive". IMHO, these are classic ploys recommended by professional damage control PR advisors. Lou Sander (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lou Sander: Your original response was added to the middle of the RfC post, which is not proper. I've moved it to the appropriate place. I reviewed the Post Gazette article that broke the story that you mentioned, but the only thing I saw about the SEC was that "Mylan did not respond to calls" on whether it would file an updated annual report that doesn't include Bresch's alleged degree.

@CorporateM: "Whether or not she had earned the degree wasn't an issue until her promotion to COO this fall. The MBA was listed in an Oct. 2 press release announcing her promotion to the $500,000 a year post, a document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Her MBA also was mentioned in materials Mylan presented at an investors' conference in New York City the next day." appears HERE. This article is from 12/21/07. The one where you didn't find it is from 4/24/08. Lou Sander (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Barrons has an in-depth biography on Bresch that includes the following summary of the MBA controversy:

"In 2008, following a newspaper investigation, Bresch's alma mater, West Virginia University, found that she hadn't fulfilled all academic requirements for an executive MBA degree listed on her resume. She claimed at the time that the university had allowed her to substitute fieldwork for academic experience. The school subsequently granted her the degree after changing various "incompletes" to grades, but the president and several other administrators were forced out amid charges of caving to political pressure. Later, West Virginia revoked the degree, and Bresch didn't challenge it."

Can you explain what it is about this summary you feel is a "classic ploy" of "damage control"? I agree that the article-subject's POV is a fringe one and some sources about the controversy may need to be incorporated for subtle balancing in terms of WP:FRINGE and NPOV, but your claims/tone seem a bit far-fetched. There has already been strong consensus in the past that while the controversy is significant, her role in it is less so, compared to the academics that tampered with her records, which is covered in a separate, dedicated article on the controversy. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM:Look at what this nice lady said in the other proposed reference, to newspapers, etc. I can't find every single example, but this one might suffice: "And of course there was the “Heather Bresch Situation,” as she calls it. Heather says that although the handling of the ordeal, and the impact on those involved, still concerns her—and how could it not?—she’s moved past it. According to Heather, she mentioned to then-WVU president Neil Bucklew during a meeting in the early 1990s with Mike Puskar that the university should consider an executive MBA program. When she enrolled in the program, she could not have foreseen the turn of events. “I pursued my Master’s for personal enrichment, not because I needed it to further my career, and I believe I did what I needed to do to earn my degree. I couldn’t get sucked into all the drama. I had to put the interests of Mylan first and continue to do my job. I had a multi-billion dollar company to help run and I was responsible for integrating the acquisition of a company two times our size. The only way I could prove the critics wrong and overcome this was to be successful. Did it hurt? Sure. Do I hate that this happened at the institution that I dearly love? Yes. People will hold on to what they want to hold on to. But I had to keep persevering. I needed to focus on growing Mylan and moving forward, and that is what I’ve done.” The WVU part of the scandal is the bigger part, but we shouldn't try to erase her never-admitted involvement. Lou Sander (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lou Sander: Much of this appears to be primary sources and original research, but regarding the source you are referring to, I think it is completely appropriate to contest using it for controversial claims. It's one of the most in-depth biographies on her, but it's clearly not terribly neutral. Barrons is definitely the better source and its summary is pretty similar to the one we have currently. Anyways, once the RFC is done and the predictable ruling is passed down, I'll go ahead and take the GA route. I think it's ready though a bit on the skimpy side. My COI GAs are always a bit slimmer than most volunteer submissions due to the community's double-standards. CorporateM (Talk) 19:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Keep it as is - CorpM - you may once have had a case, but you've presented it several times in several guises. Time to move on. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think your depiction is fair. I brought it up here and the discussion seemed to be leaning against a dedicated controversy section. Even Lou opposed a dedicated section header[53] and out of the other participating editors (@Wikimandia:, @FreeRangeFrog:, and @Ugog Nizdast:) none of them expressed support for it and most opposed it, but most also said it would be better to wait until the rest of the article is fleshed out, which is what I did. Also, the only reason the article still has a dedicated section for the Controversy is because Nomo keeps restoring it even when discussion is going the other way. It's disingenuous to vote oppose merely because you feel I have banged the drum too long, when I was just fleshing out the rest of the article, as suggested. CorporateM (Talk) 03:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• keep as is, i.e. as a sub-section. It's odd to suggest that the material should be integrated into another section -- it already is a part of a section, i.e. "Early life and education". A sub-section makes sense here, and even if it were put in a different section (which?) it would make sense to have it be a sub-section therein. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest closing: There are enough "keep as is" votes already such that even if every new participant voted the other way, it would still be a "no consensus" outcome, so there is no point in continuing the RFC. CorporateM (Talk) 19:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as is - sorry I'm late to the party. Looks fine to me. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mylan Corporate Misinformation

Mylan, NV is not a US-based business. It was founded in the U.S. in the 1950s but has not been based here in the U.S. for some time. This needs to be corrected. It may be that she is head of a business subsidiary of Mylan located in the U.S. but I have not researched that as of yet. Otherwise, the information listed here is not only misleading, it is categorically wrong... Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Steven. Do you know of any online reliable sources that confirm that? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Anthony, yes actually. I am in the process of doing this but on their own website (as well as the Wikipedia main article on Mylan. I just checked the political contributions of Mylan on their website section and they disclose that Mylan Inc. is a subsidiary of Mylan NV (NV being a corporate designation of a Dutch company)... She is the CEO but apparently Mylan is organized structurally on a business basis to avoid taxes in the U.S. so that may be the initial basis for the confusion... I will post and rewrite this article as the day progresses... Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Mylan recently performed a tax inversion, which involved re-incorporating into the Netherlands to reduce their taxes. Fortune covered it in the context of Bresch specifically here. It was pretty controversial. The current article says "The New York Times said there was something "disconcerting" about a company that benefits from large government contracts renouncing their citizenship for tax benefits, but Mylan would eventually save almost 10 percent of its revenues in taxes each year.[31]"

I don't believe this subject was covered at all before my involvement. I could be wrong, but I think back when the article was GA-rated, the tax inversion was being discussed, but wasn't officially executed yet, so at the time it was still US-based. The "based in Pennsylvania" part of the Lead should probably be updated to say "based in the Netherlands", which is where they are officially headquartered now. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 17:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• David, yes, I stand corrected in that I think the actual phrase would be domiciled in the Netherlands (for tax purposes) while still headquartered in the U.S. Kind of like living in New York City but claiming your tax residence in Florida or another state which has no individual income tax. Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)