Talk:Bristol Myers Squibb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pension plan citation[edit]

This sentence seems to provide evidence that pension plans were frozen in 2009: "Pension settlements / curtailments were primarily attributed to amendments which will eliminate the crediting of future benefits related to service for U.S. pension plan participants effective January 1, 2010" from the SEC 10-K filing [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.12.99.4 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ConvaTec[edit]

ConvaTec was sold to Nordic Capital and Avista Capital Partners. The transaction is to close on August 1st. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS194760+02-May-2008+BW20080502 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.248.32.227 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagarism / Advertising[edit]

Large sections of this page seem to be lifted directly from the BMS website (as evident by the links asking you to "click here for the safety warnings" of different medicines. 129.2.200.166 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph removed[edit]

I removed the following paragraph from the allegiation section: .........

This material is unsourced; the point of the whole paragraph is unclear; it seems somewhat rambling as if were written by or on behalf of Lynchehaun. Please put back after editing for clarity and once a proper source can be located. AxelBoldt 19:34, 7 September

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/companyprofile.asp?guid=86A2800A-36A5-4B33-90B5-9AFB0A8FCCB4
    Triggered by -business-review\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

This was supposedly the result of a 1989 merger in which the original company dates to 1887, yet the "History" section of this article covers absolutely nothing before 1999. Worse yet, the titles Bristol-Myers and Squibb redirect here, even though this article contains no pre-merger history. Was this an oversight? K7L (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it was, but has since been corrected. The pre-merger history gave short shrift to Bristol-Meyers, and I attempted to correct that. Since each pre-merger company now has its own section, I believe the redirects should now be made more precise. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of November 16[edit]

@Thue: what exactly is it you want to do here? According to WP:BRD the cycle is to be bold, and if people don't agree with your change, discuss. Simply reverting a reversion without opening discussion on the Talk page is the initiation of an edit war if the person on the other side of the argument responds in kind.

According to WP:CON, which is and official Wikipedia policy, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.", with the sole exception being contentious issues related to the biography of a living person. So you need to discuss this. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I though you would not seriously consider standing by your revert, since it seemed very extreme to me. As for the edit, morality here can be determined by seeing that there are a lot of outraged newspaper articles about the Luxembourg tax avoidance. That is an objective measure of scandals-ness, for the purpose of deciding what to include on Wikipedia. Sure, some people will not consider it scandalous, as is true of almost everything; in this case objectivists would think that, since they consider tax avoidance perfectly moral. But it seems quite clear to me that this level of tax avoidance is considered scandalous among the majority of Europeans at least. Thue (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thue: My issue here is that corporate articles rapidly become dumping grounds for every negative item that shows up in the news, and that is unbalanced according to Wikipedia standards and what constitutes a good encylopedia. On this particular article, for example, we have some boring historical facts followed by a simple list of products (with no information about what they are even used for), followed by "Scandals and Allegations" as the only section that contains any real substance. Yes, I could add more material myself, but I only have so much time and there needs to be some sensitivity to balance on the part of all editors wanting to add new material.
Like most, this company has done good things and bad ones. The bad ones are nicely listed out in the article. It also developed what to the best of my knowledge is the first effective treatment for a metastatic cancer (melanoma), a component of the most widely used HIV therapy in the world, several important drugs for multi-drug resistant HIV infection, an important antibiotic that is widely used for multi-drug resistant antibacterial infections, several important breast cancer drugs, and one of the drugs that cured my cousin of Hodgkin's disease (when I was 12 I was told he would be dead before age 18).
There is a lot more to this company that "Complaints and Allegations", but you really wouldn't know it by reading this article, and I believe your edit exacerbates the problem.

The presence of a Criticism section at all here violates several policies and associated guidelines.

  • WP:NPOV: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize"
  • WP:CRIT:
  • "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints."
  • "Integrate negative material into sections that cover all viewpoints of the event, product, or policy that is being criticized, rather than in a dedicated "criticism" section"
  • " So perhaps an article about a murderer who is otherwise not notable may inevitably be mostly criticism, but for an article about a genocidal head of state we should report both good and bad histories of the person for the necessary neutrality." Where are the positive remarks about Bristol Myers in this article? And why are we adding more criticism when it is already unbalanced?

" (my emphasis)

Realistically, would you have been willing to flirt with an edit war in order to assert your right to add information about BMY's revenues falling by 25% over the last 3 years or how it has 35% fewer employees than 5 years ago? As an article about a corporation, there are major, major issues. But no one gets worked up about adding them because they aren't POV topics. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd raised the question of the pre-1989 history being missing back in July and was pointedly ignored, so certainly the article leaves much to be desired, but how does this justify removing valid, sourced info about the tax issues? K7L (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. WP:NPOV strongly discourages raising issues of behavior that one editor or another, or even outside sources consider "immoral" if there is no criminal prosecution. You think its immoral that BMS uses legal means to reduce its taxes. I think its immoral that Dianne Feinstein lives in a 15 room house and doesn't make the extra 12 rooms available to homeless people living on the streets of California. Its in the eye of the beholder and Wikipedia is not here for purposes of WP:SOAPBOX, for advocacy, or righting great wrongs. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You propose a very bizarre standard here, as the burden of proof in a criminal case is far higher than in a civil case, or a tax case. K7L (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its bizarre, it seems to be pretty much enshrined in the WP:NPOV guideline. I wouldn't mind if there was a civil case that they lost, because at least in that case a competent and neutral court has dispassionately reviewed the evidence on some issue of law and ruled against them. But if companies are to be repeatedly tried in 100,000 single editor "courts" and, and a guilty verdict entered into the corresponding Wikipedia article whenever even one of those individuals decide they think the company's behavior was inappropriate, these articles will rapidly roll downhill into little more than anti-company screeds. I don't think we want that. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bristol-Myers Squibb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol-Myers Squibb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol-Myers Squibb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable" sources[edit]

Sometimes we have to take "reliable sources" with a grain of salt; hence WP:RSN. Bert Rosenbloom's book Marketing Channels says Bristol Laboratories (penicillin plant) was in "Syracuse, New York". I know from personal knowledge that it is actually located in East Syracuse, New York, not the city of Syracuse; a detail the author overlooked. This is easily verifiable (e.g., Google Maps). Penecillin production was stopped in 2005 when it became more economical to produce it overseas, but BMS kept the facility (office?) there at 6000 Thompson Road. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't add content to WP without a source based on what you say is personal knowledge. This place would be even more of a slagheap than it is, if that were OK. Think about it. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm well aware of WP:Verify and WP:OR and appreciate preventing the "slagheap". But I'm not just using my personal knowledge here; it is well-verifiable, by the company's own website. Some people (even on the company's website) might say "Syracuse" because that's the greater metropolitan area, but there is a school of thought that says accuracy is important, and they do say East Syracuse. My point is just that we have to be careful; just because it's in a secondary source doesn't always mean "you can take it to the bank."
I got the bit about penicillin production stopped in 2005 from the East Syracuse page (someone else put that in w/o citation, not me!) but again, it's verifiable because the company's web page confirms they tore down unused penicillin production buildings and gave the place a face lift in 2013, and looking at the plant in Google Street View, I barely recognized the place, though I can see empty spaces where the old buildings would have been. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can provide a source. great. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol-Myers Squibb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How much cost of doing this[edit]

Plx 2405:204:328D:34B8:1D67:BFA5:E144:1602 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Caforio[edit]

I would like to propose splitting off an article for Giovanni Caforio who is now one of the most influential CEO of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies. That sounds like a notable reason for its own article. Chrisvanlang (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eliquis coupons[edit]

I need to get some coupons for Eliquis. This medicine is so expensive but necessary to stay alive. Please assist me in finding discount coupons for this medication. People on Medicare cannot afford this cost.

Thank You, 2604:CB00:D0A:E900:59BA:20B7:2528:F60D (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bristol_Myers_Squibb&oldid=1206436487"