Talk:Johnson & Johnson/Archives/2016

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

Unbalanced Flag

Without the references and Table of Contents, this is a 2929 word article of which 952 pages deal with litigation and prosecutions, 600 words deal with product recalls, and discussion of the company's products is limited to a simple bullet point list of 136 words. This is a $71B annual revenue company. They didn't get there by being sued or by recalling products. Surely they must be doing something right, and at least some readers would be interested to know where the revenues are coming from that will be used to pay the fines and make payment to plantiffs :>).

The article needs to be reworked to give readers some idea of what this company produces, and to cut back the very detailed coverage of the scandals and lawsuits until the companies primary business activities and the scandals associated with those activities are covered at least in a one to one ratio. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • @Formerly 98: goood point, except… I checked your last four edits to the article and all you have done is remove other's editors contributions. How about adding information instead? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Go back a little further. According to the contribution summary about half way down the page here, I am the single top contributor to this article as ranked by added text. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
without wishing to be facetious, the focus on negative matters in company articles seems to be a WP standard. If a company article is positive, it typically gets slapped with the "advertisement" tag. I agree that the J&J article is an egregious case, but fundamentally, successful long-lived companies make good products and serve customers well - actions speak louder than words, but that doesn't make WP copy. The remedy IMO is to cut down the criticism/litigation sections, which I'll look at here. The Recalls material is mainly positive, but I agree it's too detailed even so Chrismorey (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I've now reduced the bulk and removed loaded language. I feel more could be done but will leave this for someone else Chrismorey (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the article still focuses too heavily on Recalls and Litigation and remains unbalanced. Moretto (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Content for review

The content below was added in these difs by User:Enmeshed . Their contribs: Special:Contributions/Enmeshed

I think this should be reviewed for NPOV and sourcing:

Ethicon Gynecare Prolift Pelvic Mesh

On May 24, 2016 Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a consumer protection lawsuit today against Ethicon's parent company, Johnson & Johnson. In the suit, the Johnson & Johnson is accused of knowingly concealing the risks associated with Ethicon's surgical mesh designed to treat pelvic floor issues in women. As a result of their deceit, thousands of Washington women face urinary and defecatory dysfunction, chronic inflammation, chronic pain, and risk of chronic infection, and loss of sexual function. “It’s difficult to put into words the horrific injuries and pain many women are still suffering as a result of Johnson & Johnson’s deception,” Ferguson said. “They believed they were making informed medical decisions, but that was impossible when Johnson & Johnson was spreading inaccurate information about its products’ risks, essentially duping doctors into using their own patients as clinical trials. This is an unacceptable way of doing business, and I will hold the company accountable.” [1]

On the same day, California's Attorney General Kamala D. Harris also filed a lawsuit against Ethicon's parent company, Johnson & Johnson, for false advertising and deceptive marketing of Ethicon's surgical mesh products for women.  The complaint filed by Attorney General Harris on alleges that Ethicon's parent company misrepresented the frequency and severity of risks and neglected to inform both patients and doctors of possibility of severe complications. "Johnson & Johnson [Ethicon's parent company] put millions of women at risk of severe health problems by failing to provide critical information to doctors and patients about its surgical mesh products" [manufactured by Ethicon], said Attorney General Harris. “Johnson & Johnson’s deception denied women the ability to make informed decisions about their health and well-being.  My office will continue to hold companies accountable for misleading consumers and patients for financial gain.”[2]

From 2008 to 2014, 787,232 devices were sold by Ethicon in the United States alone. It is estimated that over 2,000,000 women across the globe were implanted with Ethicon's Gynecare pelvic mesh.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

Does anyone else feel that there's an incredible amount of derogatory information in this article? Compared to the non-derogatory content, I think there's undue weight given to the derogatory information. More specifically, J&J has been around for over 100 years. It's hard to believe that well over half the things worth mentions about J&J are specific lawsuits and recalls. I don't understand how an article about such a large company even got to this point.

I'm not sure that I have a solution at this point but I also couldn't find any previous discussion on this topic. I don't know that I would enjoy protecting a company as large as J&J but have special interest groups taken things too far, or something?

Off-the-bat, I'm thinking that separating the extensive derogatory sections into their own controversy section would be beneficial but WP:CRIT (an essay) has been used on some of WP's biggest (hits/importance) articles to suggest that those sections be placed in prose throughout the article as they would be the same as a "Praise" section.

Maybe splitting J&J litigation into its own article would make sense? I'm just spitballing here. If no one else is interested in this issue, I'll start making some changes but even then, it won't be soon. OlYeller21Talktome 19:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call lawsuits (about formaldehyde carcinogens in their products, for example) derogatory. Removing it would be censorship which I would consider to be more dangerous. Also I don't follow the logic that large companies should somehow have less information about lawsuits against them. It sounds natural for there to be more content, including lawsuits, the larger the company and the longer its history is. --Saledomo (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

subsidiaries

moving here, as this was entirely unsourced, per WP:PRESERVE

Johnson & Johnson is a highly diversified company with at least 250 subsidiaries, which it refers to as the "Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies". Some of these subsidiaries include as follows:

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johnson_%26_Johnson/Archives/2016&oldid=1075506452"