Talk:Bayer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[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)
-
[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
[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)
[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)
[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.
Are these are the people who make Baby Bio houseplant food? Bastie 10:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
