Talk:Sackler family

POV

This reads like a puff piece, minimizing their role in the opioid epidemic.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I am perhaps one of the last people who would waste my time writing a "puff piece". This article is about the Sackler family as a whole, specifically how they relate to each other, basically their genealogy. It is not about individual persons and their deeds, and the major players have or could have their own WP article that details or could detail their individual role in the opioid epidemic. It would be a mistake, I believe, to paint everybody with the same brush.Ekem (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I, I believe, am perhaps of the opinion that you're burying the lead my good fellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.215.60 (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The lede at least is not currently buried, but the main History section seems to only report wonderful things in the manner of a puff piece. I don't know enough to say it's inaccurate. I'm merely reporting it has that puff piece vibe. Swiss Frank (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Opioid lawsuits

I think lawsuits against Purdue Pharma belong in that article and that the lawsuits section should be limited to lawsuits against family members. (Disclaimer: I'm the one who authored the section.) El_C 15:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Also the family’s company had controlled by the Sackler’s is just bad grammar. El_C 15:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Philanthropy and Mass Murder

The controversies and lawsuits section is the most noteworthy part of the family. It should be before the philanthropy section, especially since the family doesn't seem to have made any great philanthropy. We are talking less than 1% of the family wealth given to charity, that is a smaller gift by % than the average plumber.

The Family isn't notable for philanthropy. They are notable as pill pushers. We wouldn't lead an article about Chapo or Escabar with their philanthropy.

Seconded Hugomikhailov (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I see: Pablo Escobar (Colombian drug lord, 1949-1993). It isn't: Escabar but Escobar. Ciao! --Pla y Grande Covián (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Institutions

Why are closed institutions color coded in green and open ones color coded in red? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.255.53.99 (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I was confused by this too, given that green=open, red=close would be the expected colouring. I will remove the colours. Cai (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Religion in the intro sentence

Shadybabs, you seem to be pushing to keep the word "Jewish" prominently displayed in the opening sentence. Would you care to explain why that is even more important than their nationality (where the courts have jurisdiction over them)? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I was undoing what looked to be like disruptive IP/MAC address edits, but after looking at comparable articles I agree that it shouldn't be in the first line of the lead. However it should remain in the History section (where it was previously removed). Shadybabs (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Nan Goldin

In the subsection "Reputation laundering," the artist Nan Goldin is introduced and linked twice. This reads awkwardly, and the linkage is superfluous by Wikipedia standards. Wondering if a rewrite is warranted? Zyploc (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence is factually wrong

"The Sackler family is an American family who founded and owned the pharmaceutical companies Purdue Pharma and Mundipharma." They owned Purdue and Mundipharma. They only founded Mundipharma. If the first sentence is factually wrong, it puts the whole article in doubt. 2001:A61:A9B:B101:30B5:EC50:4810:5F00 (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023

The Supreme Court did not reverse the Second Circuit's ruling in the opioid case instead it granted certiorari and agreed to hear the appeal and stayed the Second Circuit's decision pending that appeal:

Dallacuse (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

"The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a controversial bankruptcy case involving Purdue Pharma, the maker of Oxycontin, and members of the Sackler family who own the company.

"Justices on Thursday temporarily blocked implementation of the $6 billion deal while the appeal is heard. Arguments in the case have been scheduled for December."

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/10/1193304383/purdue-scotus-bankruptcy-oxycontin

Change "This ruling was overturned in August 2023 by the U.S. Supreme Court, agreeing with the previous lower court decision that the family couldn’t be granted immunity in civil cases."

to: "In August 2023 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the appeal. Arguments have been scheduled for December."

Please use the NPR citation above. Jeanius reklaw (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2023

The article mentions a political donation to the Democratic Party in Connecticut by the Sackler family but fails to mention their preferred and majority of their political donation.

The article should change:

From: “ The Sackler family contributed about $116,000 to the Connecticut Democratic Party.”

To: “ Overall, the family has favored Republican and conservative causes which have received 52 percent of the family’s total contributions. Some family members mostly favor Republicans, while others support Democrats. The overall top recipient of the 12 family members’ contributions was the Republican National Committee (RNC) with $252,700.” Hiltonrio (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Recoil16 (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2023

The article wrongly states that the Supreme Court "overturned" the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and "agree[d] with the previous lower court decision that the family couldn’t be granted immunity in civil cases." That is incorrect. The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case (i.e., it agreed to hear the case), but it has not made a decision on the merits. See Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 23-124. Itoldyouthat (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Change "This ruling was overturned in August 2023 by the U.S. Supreme Court, agreeing with the previous lower court decision that the family couldn’t be granted immunity in civil cases."

to:

"In August 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review the case. Arguments have been scheduled for December." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itoldyouthat (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Add 2020 Netflix Documentary the Pharmacist 2603:6080:A040:822:D476:883D:7F79:75AC (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Bestagon ⬡ 18:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

History

Oxycodone was never removed from the market in the United States, least of all for addictive potential. 172.56.70.154 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)