Talk:Bayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Bayer, has edited Wikipedia as
192.122.250.250 (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] More about HIV

Found this one on Digg today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY&search=Bayer

[edit] Anyone know why there's no mention of the blood clot drug / HIV controversy on the Bayer page?

Suspicious... has there been gov't meddling?

Some mention of the AIDS scandal should be made for purposes of completeness: http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php Gs19 06:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

huh? i've never heard of any connection between HIV and Bayer. Mapetite526 21:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


I came to this article looking for information on this HIV controversy, but which I saw discussed on a clip from "Scarbarough Country" (of all places). For now, the interview with Mike Papantonio, Attorney, is available here: http://www.dump.com/jgvve/ Any more info on this charge would be a useful addition to the article.ThaddeusFrye 01:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I am surprised this is not mentioned in the article itself since there is a legal reference to this controversy(Warning: You have to register(for free) to view this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/business/22BLOO.html?ex=1166590800&en=d70924c958d9ccab&ei=5070 More coming soon Sakamura --12.144.116.172 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that the information on the Bayer scandal was deleted (again) from the hemophilia article. I recommended it for protection [[1]], but was turned down. I think that the user that has been flagged for being associated with Bayer or someone else must be monitoring these articles. There is also a lot of vandalism on the hemophilia page. But I do think that it is very fishy how little there is on Wikipedia about this widespread infection. Chexmix53 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Help us out here: What, exactly, is your beef here? There is a section in the controversies about Contaminated Blood Products. So isn't that your topic? If not, could you outline your topic more exactly and mention which version of the article included it? Maybe you could put your blurb (with references) here in the talk section so we could see it and discuss it. Jtnet (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV problems

This need work to become NPOV

Agreed!! gzuckier 7/2/2004


Which specific points are not Npov ? SweetLittleFluffyThing

Specifically? ? I just think the problem is its focus on the Gaucho case. In the ideal Wikipedia, that will have its own page and the Bayer page will be more general. Seems to me. gzuckier 7/6/2004

Oh, then it is best to use the right semantic. This page does not suffer from pov. This page just suffers severely from uncompleteness. The solution is not to npov it, it is just to complete it :-) And here, I also agree ;-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Uh, no. I'm sorry, but claiming that a page on a major corporation that hardly discusses its present corporate structure, gives only the briefest overview of its current lines of business, doesn't discuss its management, but does "helpfully" devote almost 90% of its length to a formulaic list of corporate "sins" just isn't NPOV. The existence of heavy POV in the article is supported by most of the content of this Talk page itself, which focuses on other evils of Bayer that -- unfortunately, one is evidently supposed to think -- aren't adequately discussed in the article itself. This is a page on a major pharmaceutical corporation that doesn't even make an effort to provide a comprehensive list of its products -- instead, it mentions only the ones that have been controversial. Such omissions are prima facie evidence of a POV issue.

If you want articles on various controversies associated with Bayer, create them -- as ant notes, most of those mentioned here already have them. Then cross-reference them from a brief section on "Controversies" in the article body of this article. That, accompanied with a revision of the article structure and content to be a neutral and comprehensive overview of facts about the corporation, would fix the POV issue. The fact that you happen to agree with the POV embedded in the current article contents (in some respects, I do, too) is no excuse for pretending it's not there. Tls 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

note : there is a gaucho page. I know, because I wrote most of it :-) ant
I agree, this page has serious NPOV problems. (I suppose it is to be expected of a page on a large corporation [with lots of enemies], which is also a chemical company, and then, to put the icing on the cake, an ex-IG Farben company that is also involved in genetic engineering.) It appears as if the main purpose of the page is currently to be misused as a propaganda tool against Bayer. While the points may be true, they must be referenced to be effective; otherwise it just looks like a venting spot for the personal agenda of Bayer-haters, most of whom (unsurprisingly) also do not do their editing with a user name, but just with an IP address.
The surprising thing to me is, if you have a valid point that can be correctly and completely referenced, it is so much more effective than just claiming something or just writing something with a particular negative "spin" or slant. Jtnet 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, I might also add that the "Animal Health" section is also not NPOV, but this time appears to be written by a Bayer Animal Health marketing manager. It is more of an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry. Jtnet 11:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I just read below in topic "Bayer Animal Health" that that section actually was written by a marketing manager (of sorts). POV problems very evident. Jtnet (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move to Bayer

For consistency, this entry should be called Bayer, which currently redirects to Bayer AG. DocendoDiscimus 11:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but there's Bayer (disambiguation) - are we sure that this should be a case of primary topic disambiguation (assuming the company is the primary topic)? (I think probably yes.) Rd232 16:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed - though looking at Bayer (disambiguation), none of these are called Bayer - there are entries with Bayer in their name, such as Bayer Leverkusen and Bayer designation, but none of these would actually be referred to as Bayer. A notice on the top of the Bayer page pointing to the disambig page should be enough. DocendoDiscimus 19:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bayer (US) ownership between WW 1 and WW 2

It is my general understanding from books that I have read that Bayer (Germany or controlling corp.) bought the US "Bayer" trademark back from whoever purchased it sometime during the interwar period. It was again seized by the US Government during WW 2 and sold to Sterling at that time. Does anybody know about that? TGC55 12:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sterling acquired holdings of Bayer after World War I (all holdings, trademarks and patents of Bayer had been impounded) and divided its pharma business into the Bayer Company (US), selling only Aspirine, and Winthrop, selling all other pharmaceuticals. But Bayer regained the US rights for its name in 1994... (according to the Bayer homepage)

Hopefully someone will expand the page on Alien Property Custodian to encompass this topic (and provide a link on the Bayer page), as there is significant confusion. From what I know, not only was Sterling Drug able to purchase the US assets of Bayer during WWI (which were never returned until repurchased in 1994), Merck & Co. was created from the US assets of Merck KGaA during WWI as well, and recent Bayer acquisition Schering AG was forced to cough up Schering-Plough in WWII for the same reason. I'm sure pharmaceuticals/chemicals was not the only German industry affected in this way. 192.122.250.250 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark

Not so much that Bayer couldn't protect the Aspirin trademark, rather that the Allies considered it "war booty," and a way to recover war losses from defeated Germany, I understand. In most of Europe it's still a registered trademark.Guille 20:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'in US usually pronounced "BAY-er"'

Is it really important how people mispronounce the name in a particular country? 194.109.232.21 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

yes Gzuckier 15:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

no Mapetite526 21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayer & Holocaust

Okay, I am searching the internet, but I remember watching a tv program a few years ago, one of those news shows like dateline nbc, that said that Bayer experimented on the Jews during the Holocaust. Anyone heard of this? Mapetite526 21:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

About both Bayer's (IG Farben back then) involvement in experiments and slave labor, use John Cornwell,2004, "Hitler's scientists : science, war, and the devil's pact", Penguin, New York. This is also the citation needed on the page itself. I'm not yet a user and I don't feel eligible to edit the page yet. So if necessary, use this citation. 85.107.59.59 17:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bayer to Close West Haven Plant

http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17445624&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=590581&rfi=6

[edit] Steiff and Bayer moth chemicals?

I have a Steiff animal whose tag says on the back "MOTTENECHT DURCH BAYER" and the name of the city Leverkusen, and a hand with fingers spread. Was Steiff objecting to moth-resistant chemicals being used on the cloth they used? Do you know when this was, and what the real story was? Joy Joypulv 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While I have no knowledge of this particular case, there is no reason evident in the wording that would lead anyone to believe that Steiff was trying to say anything negative. Actually, I would say they were advertising that their animal is protected by Bayer -- in a positive way. Kind of like Kellogg's or Post advertising on a box of cereal that their cranberries come from Ocean Spray. Jtnet (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bayer tablets?

If Bayer only came out with Aspirin pills in 1915, how could the cross trademark be stamped on them in 1904? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.71.29.98 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Until 1915 it was just sold as a powder as far as I'm aware.

[edit] Bayer and heroin

I wonder why the facts that Bayer designed heroin and marketed tons of it aren't pointed out. Many years heroin was sold over the counter, while they were calling it an antitussive, suppressing evidence about addiction, using it for morphine addiction "treatment", etc. Bayer must be proud to be the "father" of Aspirin, the most successful drug, and heroin, the most successful and addictive illegal drug.

Bayer should be praised as a provider of recreational drugs. Only right-wing nuts oppose [some] drugs.

[edit] Baby Bio

Are these are the people who make Baby Bio houseplant food? Bastie 10:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bayer Animal Health

I would like to add a section about Bayer Animal Health using the following copy. I work for Fleishman-Hillard, the PR firm that represents Bayer Animal Health.

About Bayer Animal Health Bayer HealthCare's Animal Health Division is the maker of Advantage flea control for cats and dogs and K9 Advantix®, a flea, tick, and mosquito control product for dogs. K9 Advantix® and Advantage are trademarks of Bayer. The division is a worldwide leader in parasite control and prescription pharmaceuticals for dogs, cats, horses, and cattle. North American operation for the Animal Health Division are headquartered in Shawnee, Kansas. Bayer Animal Health is a division of Bayer HealthCare LLC, one of the world's leading healthcare companies.

68.91.224.47 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: As bad as the rest of this article is from a POV standpoint, this is a case of two wrongs not making a right. This section of the article sounds like what it is, text from a PR company. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a PR site either for or against Bayer. However, until the other problems are cleaned up a bit, I would only point this out.
A neutral way of presenting this would be to give a short history of HealthCare, then talk about its various divisions (Bayer Schering Pharma, Animal Health, Consumer Care, etc.) and to avoid opening with how the company is "the maker of Advantage flea control"/"registered trademark" etc., which sounds like a This blurb was sponsored by... comment. The rest, although obviously positive for the company, does not sound particularly like blatant PR material, though the "worldwide leader" stuff would have to be backed up with a reference. The products could be listed in a separate list, if this fits the style of the rest of the article. Jtnet (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Proposal

I do not see any reason why the companies logo deserves it's on article and thus propose to merge Bayer cross here. Million_Moments (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree. Why its own article? I'd merge them right now, but I'm not sure what is the accepted protocol for when to merge. Like, how many opinions do we need before closing this discussion? Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 21:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've carried out the merge, although I'm not entirely happy with where I put the new "Logo" section of the Bayer article. --RFBailey (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Was this vandalism? I can't tell... --W2bh (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)