Talk:Teva Pharmaceuticals

raising capital

says 1951 on their website, but seems odd because TASE was founded in 1953.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

Current structure:

• (lead)
• (infobox company)
• History
  • Operations
  • Mergers and acquisitions
• Research and Development
• Subsidiaries
• Pharmaceutical Products

Suggested structure based on discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies/Guidelines#Suggested Structure:

• (lead)
• (infobox company)
• History
  • Mergers and acquisitions
• Corporate Structure
  • Subsidiaries
• Products, Services & Brands
  • Research and Development
  • Pharmaceutical Products
• Business Operations (operations)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement. Where did you think to put the info from the current "legal issues" section? As it appears product related I'd suggest role it into that section. --Icerat (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Resource

Teva Names a New Chief Executive by Bloomberg News published New York Times January 2, 2012 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Has already been added -- see citation 1, attached to CEO in the infobox. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

See Key people, currently reference [1]. 99.181.147.68 (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120314145028/http://www.tevausa.com/assets/base/products/Gianvi_Letter_7-1-10.pdf to http://www.tevausa.com/assets/base/products/Gianvi_Letter_7-1-10.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121102222426/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100318/bs_nm/us_ratiopharm to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100318/bs_nm/us_ratiopharm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103015518/http://pharma.bayer.com:80/scripts/pages/en/news_room/news_room/news_room95.php to http://pharma.bayer.com/scripts/pages/en/news_room/news_room/news_room95.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.biojerusalem.org.il/database_company.asp?ID=76
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229041600/http://www.tevapharm.com:80/pr/2007/pr_708.asp to http://www.tevapharm.com/pr/2007/pr_708.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fiercepharma.com/special-reports/top-10-generic-drug-companies-2010/teva-top-10-generic-drug-companies-2010
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pharmatimes.com/Article/11-05-05/Teva_plans_500_million_Japan_acquisition_-_Nikkei.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104152001/http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000889846 to http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000889846
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575129240833529842.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124234703/http://tevapharm.com:80/pr/2008/pr_813.asp to http://www.tevapharm.com/pr/2008/pr_813.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marketwatch.com/story/teva-near-478-bln-deal-for-ratiopharm-reports-2010-03-18
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5798338.PN.&OS=PN/5798338&RS=PN/5798338

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107105957/http://www.tevapharm.com/media/news/pages/2006/1557278.aspx to http://www.tevapharm.com/media/news/pages/2006/1557278.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317230702/http://www.tevapharm.com/about/history.asp to http://www.tevapharm.com/about/history.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 05:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries → Teva Pharmaceuticals – Commonly used, more concise, and less stilted. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• TevaPharm.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of claim as US-Israeli company

Changed nationality from American-Israeli to Israeli. Teva's global headquarters are in Israel. As the company's home website states: "Our global headquarters are based in Israel." https://www.tevapharm.com/our-company/teva-facts-figures/ Teva's US subsidiary is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. That is not its global headquarters.

Even the article cited by the writer as support for the US base of operations does not claim a US global headquarters, only that Teva was moving its US subsidiary to a new US location (Parsippany, New Jersey). This was the information cited as support that was deleted:

Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey|Parsippany, New Jersey]], United States<ref>{{cite web|url=https://businessfacilities.com/2018/07/teva-pharmaceuticals-moving-u-s-headquarters-parsippany-troy-hills-new-jersey/|title=Teva Pharmaceuticals Moving U.S. Headquarters To New Jersey|work=businessfacilities.com|access-date=November 28, 2019

Vincristine criticism

The criticism surrounding Vincristine appears twice on the page. Is this an example of WP:Undue? If so, should it be consolidated into once place? Saintpats (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Neutrality and Section Structure of "Controversies"

"Hi Cyclopia, I noticed you reverted my recent edit on the 'Controversies' section. I’ve opened this thread because I’d like to better understand your perspective and see if we can find a shared, neutral wording that follows WP:NPOV.

While I completely understand the importance of including these topics and the related sources, I’m a little concerned that the current wording might be moving away from Wikipedia's neutral tone. Specifically, the phrases "as a benefiter" and the direct connection between "taxes and military support" feel a bit more like an advocacy-based perspective rather than a neutral summary of the facts.

I was wondering if we could returning to the previous version or consider a more "encyclopedic" approach, rather than stating them as a direct fact from Wikipedia's own voice. This would help us stick to WP:NPOV while still keeping all the relevant information and sources.

What do you think about slightly softening the tone to ensure it stays as balanced as possible? Marcpir (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but I'd like to understand what is not NPOV about the current wording. cyclopia^speak! 16:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick reply.

My concern regarding WP:NPOV is mainly about WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The current wording states that Teva is a "benefiter on the expanding market from the illegally-occupied Palestinian territories" as an objective encyclopedic fact (using Wikipedia's own voice).

According to WP:NEUTRAL, "the tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." Terms like "benefiter" and "illegally-occupied" in this context are value-laden and reflect the perspective of the activists/source provided, rather than a neutral consensus.

By reverting to the previous version, we maintain a neutral stance. If we want to include these specific points, they should be framed as: "Critics/BDS movement claim that..." rather than stated as absolute facts.

What do you think about restoring the stable version while we refine a wording that attributes these claims to their respective sources?

Best, Marcpir (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Um, hard disagree. That Teva benefits economically from being the only supplier of West Bank and Gaza is a trivial fact; that the territories are illegally occupied is also the scholarly consensual opinion. As such, neither of the two wordings are POV.

However I notice that sourcing is rather weak to support the wording (even if factual, it needs robust sourcing). It's OK for me to go back to the previous wording until better sources are found. cyclopia^speak! 18:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Cyclopia, for the constructive exchange and for agreeing to restore the previous version for now. I appreciate your focus on sourcing standards. Best regards, ~~~~ Marcpir (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cyclopia,

Thanks for providing those further sources; the Ghent and Monza cases are certainly valuable additions to the article's coverage.

However, I’m concerned that the current structure—with multiple sub-headers and the block quote—might be creating a WP:WEIGHT issue, making this section look a bit cluttered compared to the rest of the entry. To reach a consensus, I’ve tried to synthesize all the points (Russia, Ghent, Monza, and the Zemor case) into a single, cohesive paragraph. This keeps the facts but maintains a more concise, encyclopedic flow:

Proposed Version: "Following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Teva was criticized for maintaining its Russian operations to ensure medicine supply, which some argued weakened international sanctions.[99][100] The company has also been the target of boycott campaigns by Palestine solidarity activists, such as the BDS movement and the Who Profits Research Center, who criticize its market position in the West Bank and its economic role in Israel.[103][105] These calls have been noted by local entities, including GPs in Ghent (2023) and the Monza city council (2026).[vrt][repubblica] Additionally, in 2022, French activist Olivia Zemor was acquitted of defamation charges in a lawsuit filed by Teva regarding her boycott calls.[elsc]"

I believe this covers all the information you added while staying more aligned with WP:NPOV and WP:CONCISE. What do you think about using this version to keep the section streamlined?

Best, Marcpir (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how this vague, shorter paragraph is an improvement. If anything that section needs a significant expansion. It's currently a couple of very short paragraphs in a large article that gives a lot of detailed coverage to things such as a table of CEOs and divestments. The social and political impacts and reactions to the company surely deserve at least as much space, if not more. cyclopia^speak! 15:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about the newly added “Controversies” material per WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and WP:NOTNEWS.

The issue is not whether criticism of Teva exists, but whether this specific content is due, neutrally framed, and supported by high-quality independent secondary sources.

Several parts of the added text seem problematic:

1. “As an Israeli company whose taxes support the country’s military...” is not really specific to Teva and reads more like argumentative framing than encyclopedic summary.

2. The section appears to give undue weight to recent activist and political reactions (e.g. local boycott calls, municipal motions, protest activity) that may not be significant enough for a global company article unless broader and lasting significance is shown in strong secondary sources.

3. Who Profits is an advocacy source and should not be used in Wikipedia’s voice for evaluative claims. If mentioned at all, it should be clearly attributed and balanced with stronger independent sourcing.

4. Per RSP, TASS is generally unreliable for factual claims outside attributed official statements, so it is a weak source for framing the Russia subsection. Likewise, Morning Star is considered biased/partisan and should be attributed, while The Jerusalem Post requires extra caution on Israeli–Palestinian conflict claims.

5. More broadly, standalone controversy sections can easily become a magnet for recentist and selectively negative material. If any of this is truly due, it should be summarized briefly, neutrally, and based on stronger independent sourcing, ideally integrated into the relevant history/legal/regulatory context rather than expanded as a catch-all controversy list.

Unless stronger sourcing and clearer due weight are shown, I would support trimming or removing most of this material.

Verifiability alone is not enough for inclusion; the material also has to be due, neutral in tone, and encyclopedically relevant to the subject. ~2026-23011-10 (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

IP users should not be involved in WP:CT, such as the AIC, @~2026-23011-10. Besides, the message seems AI-generated. Arbokran (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I was logged out at the time. If this discussion falls under the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic restrictions, I will step back and not continue participating while logged out.

The underlying concern remains one of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. ~2026-23011-10 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Undue weight and sourcing concerns in the "Controversies" section

Building on the discussion above, I believe wider input would be useful on whether the current section is due, neutrally framed, and supported by sufficiently strong sourcing.

Does the current "Controversies" section give undue weight to recent activist/political material and rely on sourcing that is not strong enough for such a serious framing of the company? ~2026-23011-10 (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to find better sources, no need of a RfC for that. cyclopia^speak! 15:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

(summoned here by a bot) - Agree about not needing an RfC for what you are asking and the way it is worded will likely not get you a result. You are asking if it gives proper weight but does not give an option for what content should go and what content should remain. I will point out that this was the original entry and until there is consensus, WP:ONUS applies. WP:NOCRIT also applies so regardless of it being DUE or UNDUE, it should be placed within a proper heading. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair point. To be clearer, I am not saying that all criticism should be removed. What concerns me here is the sentence about Teva's taxes supporting the military, the use of advocacy or partisan sources for evaluative claims, and the weight given to recent local episodes like Ghent and Monza. I think those parts should be trimmed, attributed more carefully, or left out unless stronger independent secondary sources show that they really have broader and lasting significance. If any of this material is kept, I would prefer to see it integrated briefly into the relevant existing sections, rather than kept under a broad catch-all "Controversies" heading. Fedmat (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment: RfC question seems neutral to me. I’d encourage respondents to answer the question. @~2026-23011-10, do you have any Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with this company? Dw31415 (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I notice that User:Marcpir and User:Fedmat show striking similarities. Both users are Italian, both user pages are very similar, both joined en.wiki January 3,2020 but suddenly became active only recently, both user names seem an abbreviation of name ("Marco", "Federica") and surname. The Italian user page of Fedmat tells that they are interested in economy, business and industry, while the English user page of Marcpir states that they have a degree in economy, business and finance. I smell WP:SOCK. --cyclopia^speak! 13:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets#What NOT to do and earlier instructions. (Although I’m surprised there’s not a tool to click on. Dw31415 (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Apologies and thanks for pointing the instructions to me. Should I remove the comment? cyclopia^speak! 21:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't - what's done is done and is generally not supposed to be undone (in discussions :). If you do retract what you said, you can strike it, but that would imply you no longer think they're socks. ~2026-23890-25 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

thanks :) cyclopia^speak! 15:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I propose removing the "Controversies" section. The statement that the company committed to stopping new investments in Russia as a result of the Ukraine war can go in the History section. The unsuccessful lawsuit against Olivia Zemor can go in the Legal Issues section. Everything else is just extra publicity for various NGOs, "Palestine solidarity activists" a research center, "several GPs in Ghent" and the City Council of Monza. These organizations have had no effect on the company and have not been acknowledged in any way. Their political opinions should go in their own articles.

The existing Controversies section violates these guidelines:

WP:CRIT editors should avoid devoting a section to criticisms or controversies, as this violates neutral point of view. These sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints by giving them their own header; are not balanced, because they exclude positive information about the topic; create the appearance of a controversy, even if there isn't one; and often devolve into "laundry lists" of complaints, without regard for their notability or validity.

WP:CORG organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then sections and subarticles about them may be justified, but only within the limitations of WP:BLPGROUPS. Julian in LA (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Um, no. That this company has been the subject of "well-documented controversies" and "significant criticism" is well documented by RS, this means that WP:CORG is satisfied, not violated. WP:CRIT is a random essay, not a guideline, as such it is ok to cite it to present a point of view but it is by no means binding. That they had an 'effect on the company' is not really relevant and I don't think it is known either way. cyclopia^speak! 08:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Please cite the "substantial coverage." Who devoted a headline to the action of the City Council of Monza? Julian in LA (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

"substantial coverage" is not necessarily of a single episode: it is on the whole of several controversies related to the corporation. We have multiple WP:RS related to multiple episodes. Not only WP:NPOV but also meaningful encyclopedic coverage ask us to cover the impact and reaction of society to this company, in good and bad. There is no reason to hide what is relevant and covered by public WP:RS. cyclopia^speak! 08:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)