Talk:Bayer/Archive 1

Archive 1

More about HIV

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

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)

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)

In the section about Liberty Link rice, the viewpoint that genetically modified food is somehow "bad" is very evident. An encyclopedia is not an appropriate forum for this. Pygmypony (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

Bayer to Close West Haven Plant

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

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)

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.

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.

-- I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. As much as I think this company is not very decent, the information simply wasn't available at the time.

You need to learn the history of addiction I'm afraid, you see in Victorian Britain certain people noticed that people who drank a lot of alcohol were sick when they didn't drink. They thought that they had contracted a disease and the alcohol was fighting it. They named this disease "Alcoholism" (Hence why alcohol addiction has it's own name).

Then they realised that opium drinkers were sick very often when they had been drinking, then it occurred to someone than they were addicted to the opium and the alcohol drinkers were addicted to alcohol.

They started to treat the opium addicts by giving them laudanum (a mixture of both opium and alcohol), they did this because they thought a more addictive substance could make them less addicted to opium. It didn't work, so then they made the laudanum addicts inject morphine because that was more addictive.

Then Bayer invented heroin and the people trying to cure morphine addiction (Which ironically would never have existed had people not been told to inject morphine) told the morphine addicts to inject heroin.

Unsurprisingly this didn't work either and a problem that wasn't really that bad (Opium drinking) had now become terrible (Heroin injection).

Then some nazis invented methodone, decided that it was a horrific drug that "Not even the Jews should have to endure" and then several years later the British Government decided to carry on their idiotic policy and give people more addictive drugs to cure less addictive drugs.

Given the British Governments track history, the methodone addicts will probably be prescribed crystal meth in the next ten years or so. (Yes there are now methodone addicts, the heroin addicts get free methodone and sell it for heroin.)

I don't actually know of any recreational drug use that wasn't caused by a government somewhere, sorry, but it's true!

77.44.47.20 (talk)

Baby Bio

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

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)

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)

Vandalism?

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

Archive 1

Divisions

Hi, I came here looking for the division "Material Science", but its not here. Can this and any other divisions please be added? Wizard191 (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

→Yes, Material Science should be listed but not sure what "Bayer Birth Control" is - can someone clarify? I understood Yaz & other contraceptives to be Bayer Healthcare products. Also the Animal Health division is part of Bayer Healthcare too TomorrowsDream (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing I G Farben ownership of Zyklon producing company

I tried to add a citation but failed miserably. Here is the info:

Hayes, Peter (1987), Industry and Ideology: IG Farben in the Nazi Era, New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 361, ISBN 978-0521786386

Here is the line that needed a citation:

IG Farben owned 42.5% of the company that manufactured Zyklon B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.235.41.167 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you. You were close; all you needed were <ref></ref> tags around the citation template and you'd have been all set. Wizard191 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Third Largest Pharmaceutical Company

This is a rather inaccurate statement. It doesn't have the third highest pharmaceutical sales it is only when you add in the material science and crop science business does this become anything close to accurate. Can we remove it? Spudbynight (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, because it is unreferenced. Wizard191 (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hazardous Waste in Nepal

This should be entered into the article (source http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=320) Sarcelles (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Greenpeace source would be better (source http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/toxics/2002jan21.html) as the source for Corporatewatch is an organisation called "Coalition Against Bayer Dangers" which might not be very reliable(the link is also broken). TomorrowsDream (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

History of the company

This section needs work. Acetyl salicylic acid was not the company's first product, it was introduced more then thirty years after the company was founded in 1863. The first products were dyes.Ajrocke (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Political Economy Research Institute

The Political Economy Research Institute ranks Marathon Oil 1st among corporations emitting airborne pollutants in the United States. I don't know what made me type what I did. I must have misread something.

Yes, bigger companies produce more product, resulting in (generally) more pollution. It would be interesting to see a comparison of fines levied by government agencies for excessive pollution. I'm not sure what Marathon Oil has to do with this since it's #80 on the list you posted? --CliffC (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Clothianidin

Can someone stick up a section on the leaked EPA report on clothianidin, and how it is toxic to honey bees. The already burgeoning controversies section, needs further expansion.92.3.72.57 (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

link: http://www.fastcompany.com/1708896/wiki-bee-leaks-epa-document-reveals-agency-knowingly-allowed-use-of-bee-toxic-pesticide92.3.72.57 (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

material that I tried to add. What's wrong with it? please advise. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer

Eduard Wirths, as chief doctor, was the Auschwitz sponsor and facilitator of most of these experiments, particularly those in which there was interest from Berlin at a higher level. An example here is the continuous experimental activity of SS Captain Dr. Helmuth Vetter, a key figure in pharmacological “trials” in Auschwitz and elsewhere. He was employed for many years with Bayer Group WII of the I. G. Farben Industry, Inc., Leverkusen, and, at Auschwitz, retained his connections. He ran medical trials for Bayer in Auschwitz and Mauthausen (and possibly in other camps) on several therapeutic agents, including sulfa medications and other preparations whose content is not exactly known. [18]

Carl-Ludwig Lautenschläger was arrested by the U.S. military government in 1946, and one year later he was charged with enslavement and mass murder in the I.G. Farben Trial at Nuremberg, but was acquitted in 1948; though the court was convinced that the pharmaceutical department had conveyed to the SS medications to be tested on prisoners, no individual guilt on Lautenschläger’s part could be proven. After that, he was employed as a research associate at Bayer Elberfeld, where Ulrich Haberland helped many former I.G. Farben colleagues find new jobs. Carl-Ludwig Lautenschläger retired in 1952. He died in Karlsruhe on December 6, 1962. [19]74.239.209.92 (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The material is better added to Wiki articles specificaly about these two individuals assuming they meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Including the many arguably notorius individuals who worked for IG Farben before and during the war, and for Bayer after the war is beyond the scope of the Bayer article. Sandcherry (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Miles Canada

I would like to utilize information here however, without the sources I can't be sure that this is accurate.

I'm seeking sources for the information pertaining to Canada.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.227.207 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Once a day Selenium Lawsuit

The lawsuit mentioned in the text for claiming selenium prevents prostate cancer was dropped. A similar lawsuit filed by State Attorneys General was settled for $3M, which probably amounted to little more than the payment of the plaintiff's legal fees. The actual infraction was not a prolonged false advertising campaign, but failure to recall bottles with an older, broader claim when the FDA narrowed the permitted claims for selenium and cancer prevention. I've removed this as non-notable, and to give a little more balance to the article, which is already heavily weighted toward discussion of litigation over other aspects of the conpany.Formerly 98 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sponsorship section

Hi, yesterday I added a section for 'Sponsorship' and noted with citation that Bayer Australia is a major supporter of Australian Geographic, the magazine of the Australian Geographic Society. The citation was to the Australian Geographic Society's official list of sponsors and supporters. My edit was reverted within hours, and the reason given was that the content was not sufficiently noteworthy. I read WP:NOTABLE as suggested, which told me that 'Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article'. Could any of the other editors working on this page share their perspectives on this please? I don't see why this section should not be created and expanded upon in the future, as it establishes Bayer's network of relationships with other notable entities and should be a matter of public interest. Danimations (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you for coming and talking! You are correct that I mentioned WP:NOTABLE and I also mentioned WP:TRIVIA which is closer to the issue. What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information is also relevant here. Probably the most relevant is WP:UNDUE. What I am getting it, is the "who cares" question. In general, we answer questions about WP:WEIGHT (which is what UNDUE is about) - how much space to give a certain topic in an article (if any) - by looking at how important that topic is, in independent, secondary, reliable sources. In other words, does somebody think the idea is important enough (outside of the parties involved - in this case, Bayer and AG - to write something about it, in the larger content of Bayer (Bayer in this case, since this article is about Bayer) There are literally millions of factoids we could include in this article about Bayer. What makes this one important? The answer to that, is to be found in some independent, secondary source. Are there any that discuss this? thxJytdog (talk)

you are under no obligation to tell me, but I am curious as to why this is important to you. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Auschwitz quote

So I don't really understand what you are trying to accomplish by adding this to the article. Clearly this was a horrific episode and the participation of the company in war crimes is noteworthy. But the invention of the world's first antibiotic is noteworthy too, and we have not included dramatic, emotional passages in the article about how many children were saved by Protosil during the years in which it was the only antibiotic available.

These are historical facts. The company is not run by the same people that experimented on humans during WW2, nor is it run by the people who invented the first antibiotic. They are important and noteworthy, but including content intended mainly for emotional content is not encyclopedic. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What I was trying to do by adding this section to the article was provide readers with information about the role Beyer played in perpetrating the holocaust, something that was completely lacking. Until my edit there was little more than a brief mention of IG Farben and Zyklon B. There was no factual information about what Beyer actually did during World War II, which is what that section is meant to be about. I provided accurate and properly sourced information that related exactly to the topic. What I don’t really understand is why you feel it necessary to minimize the role Beyer played in this horrific episode. There are several examples of edits that have been made to this article relating to World War II and other controversies that you have removed, which is somewhat suspect.

You give the impression that because these events took place over 70 years ago that they are more or less irrelevant, which is bizarre. My post may have been dramatic but it was completely factual and properly sourced. Oftentimes facts, particularly ones that deal with sensitive and horrific events, will be emotional. Why you feel that that makes them irrelevant is something else I do not understand. Perhaps some information should be included about the benefits that Prontosil has brought to the world.

This might be a little off topic but, related to the information in the article about Prontosil, which I believe you added, I believe the section you added it in is inappropriate. The section with the information about Prontosil is about the company’s history in World War I and World War II. The discovery of Prontosil is important, but it has nothing to do with the company’s history during either war. That information belongs in the discovery section. By including it in this section the only thing you are doing is distracting the reader from the fact that Beyer was apart of IG Farben and was responsible for committing horrific crimes. I find it very odd that you would include the information about Prontosil in this section but remove something that actually belongs. While I appreciate that this information demonstrates that not everyone associated with Beyer was “evil”, I am sure you must be fully aware that including this information, in the way you that you have, only further supports the impression that you are aiming to gloss over the role Beyer had in the murder of thousands of people by attempting to shine a positive light on a absolutely horrible period in the companies history.

I do not believe that the Bayer of today is the same company that existed in the 1940’s. I simply feel that readers of this article deserve the right to have a proper understanding of what happened at Beyer during WWII. I appreciate your attempt to include the information I provided along with the information that was already there, but in all honesty your “reference to the episode” is rather insulting. I, and I’m sure many others, feel that what happened during this time is more than noteworthy and a proper encyclopedia would include this information. Shauck12 (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify my position with an analogy. Slavery was legal in the United States up until the 1860s, and until 1820, Africans were still being kidnapped and brought to the U.S. under horrific conditions to be sold into slavery. This is clearly a very, very important part of American history and no description of that history would be complete without a discussion of slavery. It was horrific by any standards. But our general article about the United States is a summary, and does not include horrific vignettes about the conditions in the slave ships, the statistics on slave life expectancy and the like. These are covered in detail on the Wikipedia article on Slavery in the United States.

I understand your position on the importance of including these events in the article, but I struggle a little bit with the level of detail. Would it be possible to include more of this in the article on Nazi human experimentation? I was quite surprised to see that Bayer is not even mentioned in that article.Formerly 98 (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I get the point you are trying to make with your analogy but I just don't think it is a fair comparison. Besides, at the very least at least slavery is mentioned over 70 times in the article about the United States and Gaza is mentioned over 40 times. In the Bayer article, the world Nazi is never mentioned, the world Holocaust is never mentioned, murder, crime, torture are all not mentioned. Until my edit nobody reading this page would have any idea what Bayer did during WWII. Simply referring to IG Farben isn't adequate as it makes it appear that as though IG Farben was responsible for the horrible crimes committed during this period when in fact they were committed by the people who ran the Bayer company. It is simply a distraction that makes it appear as though Bayer is not responsible for what they did. If anything, the information in this article about Zyklon B should probably be removed, since, as far as I can tell, Bayer itself actually didn't have a significant role in the invention and distribution of Zyklon B. The patent for Zyklon B belonged to another company (Degesch).

The information I wrote doesn't need to be in the article exactly as I wrote it. I understand your reluctance to have overly specific details in the article. I don't completely agree with that, I believe that an article about a specific company should contain specific information, not broad or general comments that don't properly address the history of the company. When a claim as severe as mass murder is made, I believe it is important to provide specific examples to support such a claim. You are probably correct that this information should be in the page on human experimentation, I appreciate that suggestion. However, I still feel that 1 sentence in this article isn't enough to adequately address this issue of Bayer's role in the murder of innocent people during WWII. The section of the article that I wrote in is meant to contain information on what happened at Bayer during WWI and WWII. All I did was add specific and accurate information about what happened at Bayer during WWII.

I would appreciate it if you moved your info on Prontosil to the proper section. I do not believe this information is in the correct section and maintain my earlier comment that having it in the WWI and WWII section, while at the same time not including any information about what actually happened during the war, only serves to gloss over this horrific period in Bayer's history. I won't move it myself at this time, as I believe that removing interesting, accurate and relevant information that other people have added to an article just because I disagree with something about it isn't an overly constructive way of doing things. Shauck12 (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I appreciate your thoughts and concerns. Let me offer my own.

First - I don't think its a matter so much of glossing over past atrocities so much as as recognizing and acknowledging complexity. The same company that engaged in the worst sort of human experimentation during WW2 also introduced the era of antibiotics. Its hard to wrap one's head around this. But the company has done both great things and incredibly atrocious things. In that regard it is very simlar to

• The United States, which slaughtered the native Americans, maintained 25% of its population as slave labor for nearly half of its history, served as the prototype for modern democracy, and played a major role in defeating the fascists in WWII.
• The British Empire, which enslaved the Indian subcontinent, imported opium into China to pay its bills, and maintained a squadron off the coast of Africa to suppress the slave trade.
• Just about every other organization/nation in existence if you look far enough back in their history.

Personally, rather than separate out Prontosil, I'd rather blend the drug discovery section completely into the history. Companies exist to invent, manufacture, and sell products, so it seems to me that the history of the company is deeply tied to the products it discovered.

If you were to add some of the more detailed info to the Nazi Human Experimentation article, I would certainly have no objection to include a hyperlink in this article to that one. Just a suggestion.

My thought: Take a look at the Wikipedia articles on Germany, BMW, Mercedes, Merck KG, the History of the United States, and the History of the British Empire and see how other historical atrocities have been covered in Wikipedia. Write something that fits with the precedents established in other articles. Put in in the article and we can discuss it some more here and hopefully reach agreement. I will commit not to revert in a knee jerk manner and will hope that you will write something that reflects my concerns. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I did look a several other Germany companies who profited from the war and I think it is shameful that in many cases there is very little reference to their specific roles in the war. But, the fact the companies are so reluctant to share information about this horrible period is exactly why it needs to be shared. The WWII section on BMW is quite large, and contains many specific details, but there is nothing in there about the use of slave labour that the Quandt family, BMW's majority stakeholders, used during the war. The actual IBM Wikipedia page contains absolutely no information about how the company not only participated in but actually aided the Nazis in carrying out the final solution. There are separate Wikipedia pages win this information, but nothing in the main IBM page. These are not precedents that I believe we should be following.

I agree that the discovery section should be enlarged. It is already a sub heading under the history section, but I think we would both agree that the information there doesn't adequately address the significance of Bayer's work. I don't dispute for a moment that Bayer is reasonable for some great discoveries that have made a massive difference in the world. But, if you are going to allow specific details on all the good that Bayer did in it's history, particularly during the first 50 years of the 20th century, then it is essential that you include a significant amount of information on the horrible things Bayer did as well. To do so would be glossing over the negative aspects of the companies history and creates and an uneven and biased article. It is very complex, which is one reason it is so interesting. In order for people to understand how complex it is they need to be given the appropriate information.

The Wikipedia page for a company like Dow Chemical is a good comparison of what I'd like to see. Dow Chemical was responsible some impressive discoveries, but was also responsible for a horrific disaster in India. Instead of briefly mentioning it in vague and general terms in the history section, about 1/4 of the history section is dedicated to this extremely significant event along with specific information on what happened and hyperlinks to a more detailed page.

I'll have a look at a few more articles and try and come up with something else. I've actually quite enjoyed this debate and hope that I haven't come across as too rude.

"Weighing" in here... we have to think about WP:WEIGHT for content. Shauck12 you introduced a very specific incident and described it in some detail. It is hard for me to understand why that specific incident deserves to be mentioned at all, much less given the space it was given (in other words WP:WEIGHT). Shauck, you brought a source we can use to verify that it happened, sure... but not a source that says that this specific incident has great importance compared to everything else that happened. I think that Formerly 98's edit (dif is here) is appropriately general and encyclopedic (and covers a lot more ground than Shauck's did) I think Formerly's edit should stick, and should satisfy Shauck. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Clever pun! You won't be surprised that I disagree with you on this though. I don't believe I've given excess weight to this "incident". I made a 83 world edit to a fairly large article, so it's hard to argue I went into excess detail. That specific incident deserves to be mentioned because it is an example of the work Bayer did during WWII, which is exactly what that section of the article is meant to be about. Why have a section on the history of Bayer during WWII if you won't allow any information about Bayer during WWII to be mentioned? Why is the fact that IG Farben produced Zyklon B (which Bayer itself wasn't involved in) more relevant to this article than actual information about what Bayer did? I'm not sure how you can argue that Bayers role in the murder of innocent people is so insignificant that it should not be discussed, at least not in any detail. I merely provided information that is the viewpoint of the majority and that information is easily substantiated 'with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.' This is an Important aspect of Bayers history and deserves to be mentioned, and I believe 83 words is an appropriate amount of detail given the signifance of the subject matter. I'm not trying to imply that 'this specific incident' has greater, or lesser, importance than everything else that happened during the war. I am merely providing the information for anyone who is interested. Also, when you visit the Wikipedia page that lists the companies that profited from the Holocaust, Bayer is listed. When you click on the Bayer link, which I'm sure many people would as it is a fairly well known company, there should be information on how Bayer participated in the Holocaust.

Getting back to the issue of weight, there are more words dedicated to Bayer's acquisition of the 'Auckland-based animal health company Bomac Group,' than there are to the crimes Bayer committed during WWII. Since my information was removed but something like this is permitted, am I safe to assume that you feel that acquiring an animal health company is more of a significant issue than what happened during WWII? I hope you would agree that buying women and then torturing and murdering them is a more significant issue than Bayer paying a $14 million penalty or a contaminated rice crop. These are of course important issues that deserve their spot in this page, but I think just about any decent person would agree that they aren't on the same level as genocide.

Where do you draw the line on when specific information is okay and when it is not, and what right do you have to arbitrarily make those decisions? Should the entire controversy section be removed because it deals with specific information? Why is Prontosol allowed such a significant amount of detail when the other Bayer discoveries hardly get mentioned? 62 words to discuss the Bayer logo, yet next to nothing is allowed to be written about Bayer being compliciant in the murder of so many people? Perhaps you would prefer if this article simply read "Bayer, a company that does stuff." I would like to add information on the use of slave labour in Bayer factories during the war (which comes directly from the Bayer website!) or that the former head of Bayer, Helge Wehmeier, publicly apologized for Bayers involvement in the Holocaust, though I'm sure I'd find that you would quickly remove any such information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shauck12 (talk • contribs) 18 August 2014 23:09 (UTC)

I'd maybe throw out 2 points. While murders during WW2 obviously have far greater moral significance from a historical viewpoint than the acquisition of an animal health business, from a practical point of view, the latter is actionable and the former is not. You can't really characterize Bayer as "evil", nor does it make any sense to boycott it based on events of 65 years ago because it is not now run by those who did those things. There are few or no perpetrators alive to punish, and few surviving victims to compensate. It was horrible, but it is now inactionable.t

In contrast the acqisition of an animal health business is morally trivial, but the information is actionable. You use it to decide whether to look for a job there, to decide whether the stock is a good buy, or even to keep an eye out and make sure you don't accidently buy these products because you are boycotting the company over its pesticde production.

The second point is that as it stands, the article is about 70% neutral descriptive facts, about 20% criticism/ negative, and about 5% positive material. Given that it is already seriously NNPOV, there is a higher threshold for adding more negative material.

I know you don't agree, but that is how I see the situation.Formerly 98 (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I appreciate your perspective. I do feel that the fact that horrible events of WWII are not actionable is completely irrelevant. Just because there are few, if any, perpetrators left and few victims has nothing to do with the significance of an issue. If anything, this makes the information more relevant than ever. As time passes and these events fade from memory it is essential that what happened 75 years ago isn't forgotten. Perhaps people would be interested in the fact that Bayer perpetrated these crimes and then seek more information on what they have done to acknowledge what happened and how they have compensated the victims of their crimes. The IG Farben company was only delisted on German stock exchanges in 2011 as it sought to provide funds to victims. Just last year the German Government agreed to pay 800 million Euros for the care of elderly holocaust survivors. There is still relevance to this information, beyond the fact that it is historically significant and an important part if the companies history. I don't think you can say it is I inactionable simply because so much time has passed. Also, if you were a family member of a holocaust victim or had some connection to what happened I think it would be understandable to boycott companies that were complacent in the murder of so many people. There is a reason so few companies actually acknowledge their role in the final solution, but there really is no acceptable reason for allowing them to get away with that. I agree that somebody looking for a job or looking for information that will determine their shopping habits will find some of the information in this article very relevant and have no use for what I added. But, at the same time, somebody looking into the history of Bayer will have absolutely no use of 90% of the information in this article. That persons has just as much of a right to find what they are looking for as the person who is trying to decide whether the stock is a good buy.

I agree there should be a higher threshold for adding negative material, and I believe that Bayer's role in the Holocaust meets that threshold. It's not like I'm writing a piece on how I don't like the design of aspirin bottles or something ridiculous like that.

I've enjoyed this back and forth. You've given me some good suggestions and I appreciate that. Shauck12 (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

respectfully, Shauck12 please actually read WP:WEIGHT. What you write above, doesn't take it into account. This is not about what I want or what you want - it is about trying to create an encyclopedia article that describes Bayer, as demonstrated in reliable sources. Wikipedia's policies came into being as the community tried to solve common disputes, just like this one. Without some guiding concept of how much detail to go into, and which detail to give, articles would have descended into random collections of details. That is not what we are about here. Please don't personalize this. Please provide a reliable source that says that the particular incident you want to describe in the article, deserves to be there, more than a general statement (like Formerly provided), and more than the many other details we could include. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's my perspective as a non-expert reader: the reference to the "IG Farben Military Tribunal at Nuremburg" raises a red flag in my mind. Bayer was part of IG Farben! Was the Bayer division involved in the war crimes trial? Were Bayer employees walled off from the parts of the company that engaged criminal activity? From reading these talk pages, the answer is no, they were not walled off, Bayer people participated war crimes! How could it be a violation of NPV to address this? Articles about other companies certainly do discuss alleged criminal activities, why not here? I am left wondering whether modern Bayer employees are involved in editing the article to whitewash any role they had. As a non-expert reader, that's my impression.

BTW, in the IG Farben article, which has some detail on that company's war-crimes activities, the inventors of Prontosil are listed as employees of IG Farben. No mention of Bayer. Here, they are listed as Bayer employees. As a reader, I see that war crimes of employees of defunct companies can be discussed in wikipedia articles, but not those of existing companies. This further tempts me to draw the conclusion that the Bayer article is being "sanitized". Is that what is required by NPV? I'm confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israelgale (talk • contribs) 20:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Israelgale you are an inexperienced user. Some info on how WP works:

1) your general opinion doesn't matter any more than mine or anyone else's. See the policies WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NPOV.  :::::2) it is a typical (and ugly) mistake for inexperienced editors to make personal attacks on other editors when they don't agree about content. Do not continue making personal attacks on other editors - comment on content, not contributors. See the policy WP:NPA.

3) This article is about Bayer - all of it, through its whole history. The question here (as discussed above your comment) is whether the expansion of this section is WP:UNDUE (part of the NPOV policy) based on what reliable sources (see WP:RS) say about the company overall. That is how we work through questions like this - not based on how people feel nor based on personal attacks. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added back the slave labor / human experimentation material that was present in my last edit of the article and which was deleted earlier this month. I think the point about mentioning Prontosil but not the slave labor, both of which occurred under IB Farben, was a good one. I think the attacks on editor motives was a poor choice and such things are rarely productive. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Since Bayer did not exist from 1925 to until after WWII as per the citation, I changed Bayer to IG Farben in the WWI and WWII section. The IG Farben material in this section is probably better located in the IG Farben article. Move? Sandcherry (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

complicated issue. We presumably know that "Bayer" was involved in the discovery of sulfonamides, as they were the only real pharmaceuutical group merged in. I believe the Bayer website acknowledges the slave labor ties and I don't think we should say less than they do. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This issue does not seem complicated. The Bayer website mentions IG Farben's use of forced labor. Former Bayer researchers discovered sulfonamides while working for IG Farben. Therefore, saying Bayer used forced labor or discovered sulfonamides is technically incorrect as Bayer did not exist at the time as per the listed citation and Bayer's website.Sandcherry (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think that the fact that the Bayer website mentions IG Farben's use of slave labor has to be interpreted in light of the fact that they don't mention the use of slave labor by Henkel, Messchersmidt, or Volkswagen. They are clearly acknowledging these actions as part of the company's history and not randomly mentioning war crimes perpetrated by random, unrelated parties, no?

In general I am not a big fan of this sort of thing. Again and again on Wikipedia I note that there are an endless stream of parties who come here outraged that the article on this company or that does not provide sufficient coverage or a sufficient condemnation of actual or alleged corporate crimes, but no one gets into a lather about the fact that the company's major products are insufficiently described or that there is no mention of a major merger. But our job is just as much to describe one of these as the other. We are not here as a moral tribunal or as investigative journalists.

That being said, I would not support excluding this material from the article. The company's own website acknowledges this as part of Bayer history, and there are no doubt many other WP:RS that do so as well. EAch of these things are far less than the whole of the company history, but are a part of it nonetheless. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

All good points. This is a judgement call regarding inclusion or exclusion, and I see merits in both. As long as this section references IG Farben instead of Bayer in this time period, arguments favoring inclusion are more persuasive. I propose inclusion with the current wording. Agree?Sandcherry (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

canvassing

Just noting that there is some canvassing going on. Have notified the canvasser. Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

EASAC content

This content [2] was recently added. I removed this content because it's not particularly about Bayer, but about neonicotinoids in general. The same content has already been placed in that article and remains where it is clearly relevant. We do want to avoid coatrack type content, so is there some reason why the content should specifically be included on this page? Bayer isn't the only maker of neonics, so there may be some other parts of this section that need to be reworked, but why this specific content for now? It seems like we're getting a little outside the scope of this article otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be included for NPOV to challenge the EPA's statement "The EPA has stated that it is not aware of any data demonstrating that bee colonies are subject to elevated losses due to long-term exposure to clothianidin". David Tornheim (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

From KingofAces talk page:

Your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bayer&oldid=655974454 Your comment: "Nor really relevant here, but moreso over at Neonicotinoid."

If the findings of a new meta study implicate Bayer's Neonicotinoids, and there is a section called Neonicotinoid pesticides in that article with several paragraphs that tend to exonerate Bayer, how is my edit not relevant? If it wasn't you would need to delete the entire section.

* * *

I will undo your revert. If you want you can discuss this on the Bayer talk page. Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chic happens (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2015‎ from: here (content added by David Tornheim (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)) @Chic happens: Notice.

None of that is about Bayer. If someone wants to write about neonicotinoids at this broad level, we already have an article for that. The only piece of content even with the new piece being re-added without reaching consensus yet is "Bayer is challenging the restrictions." This is starting to look like a clear WP:COATRACK the more I read the entire section, so I've just deleted it all as a way forward (that takes me to 3RR already, so it's really time to discuss rather than hit revert folks).

If someone wants to rebuild the section from scratch actually focusing on Bayer with respect to neonics, now would seem to be the time to discuss that. To do that, it would be best to start with content specifically about Bayer to see where we should be going with it. Otherwise, there won't be any reasonable way to reach consensus for keeping the section as it currently stands. The Bayer is challenging the restrictions bit seems nominal for this article at best and would appear to have a better fit under the regulation topic at neonicotinoid. Either way, the focus needs to be on Bayer here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Bayer article is not the place to completely rehash the entire Environmental Impact of Neonicotinoids debate, as we have an article about neonicotinoids and Bayer is not the only manufacturer of such compounds. But I think this is an area of significant controversy to which Bayer's name is attached. I'd suggest mentioning that Bayer is active in the area and that there is a controversy regarding the safety for bees. Then link to appropriate section of Neonicotinoid article. Leaving no mention at all of this controversy seems inappropriate. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 04:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that as well. At my first glance, it doesn't look like we link to the neonic article in text. I was envisioning a single sentence saying Bayer produces neonicotinoids, which have primarily been a source of controversy over their effect on bees. Something close to that at least. What I'm not sure is if that one-liner really qualifies it for its own section, or if there is a better more broad place to put it in this article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be a lot of work, but my suggestion would be to create a Products section and incorporate the various controversies and scandals involving various products into that section. Like so many of Wikipedia's articles on corporations, this one selectively focuses on products that have been involved in controversies or scandals. The company's three top selling products, Xarelto, Kogenate, and Betaseron are not mentioned in the article. Nor does the number of pubmed citations a product has recieved seem to bear on the space dedicated to it in this article. They key determining factor is whether the product has been involved in a scandal or controversy.

Product	# of Pubmed citations	Article text
Levitra	978	Not mentioned
Baycol	711	Full paragraph
Betaseron	1124	Not mentioned
Yasmin	524	Full paragraph
Avelox	3339	Not mentioned
Nexavar	4633	Not mentioned

Lastly, I'd like to note that there are much better sources for the HIV contaminated blood products scandal than a tort lawyer website, and these should be incorporated into the article.Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 14:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It always surprises me when pages like this don't give a more general overview of what products they deal in. It might be tough to pick out specific products one at a time, so I'm thinking a start might be to write up a small summary paragraph or two on the types of products that stand out (i.e., pharmaceuticals, pesticides, etc.) and then whittle that down into specific subsections containing actual noteworthy products. Once that's established, that would be a good time to start looking at integrating content from the controversies section. I can start looking to see if there are some good sources that summarize Bayer's products to start off for now. I'm a bit better equipped to summarize pesticides, so I might start there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll handle pharma. I don't think we want to reproduce the articles describing these same products, but it would be good to give some idea of where company gets the revenues it needs to pay all the fines and liability suits that the article highlights.  :>)

Seriously though, I think the reason a lot of these corporate articles come across looking so negative and unbalanced is that no one has ever taken the time to describe what the company actually produces. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 19:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems high time for us to be doing that then. Just a note that I'm still pulling material together for a pesticides section. Been busy today after the weekend (literally had an experiment blow up), so if I don't get around to posting the edits tonight, they'll probably be coming sometime tomorrow. Now this is just a random thought, but would there be any benefit to subsectioning products within the respective divisions instead (i.e. Bayer CropScience, etc.)? I prefer keeping products separate as it currently is, but it's just a logical ordering that just crossed my mind. Things might get a little too cluttered if we do it that way, but I figured I'd just float it out there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not real fussy about how we organize this. But if we only disccus the products that have been controversial or problematic, we leave the reder with the incorrect impression that the company only produces problematic and controversial products. On the contrary, ciprofloxacin was a huge advance in the treatment of Gram negative infections, Koegenate was a significant advance in the treatment of hemophilia A, Xarelto is an important advance over warfarin, and betaseron remains a preferred treatment for MS. Like most things, the company's story is more complex than the impression you would get if you read only the company's press releases, or only the stories about it in the Death to Capitalism Blog. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 04:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I added an agricultural section [3] mostly summarizing chemical products (and some seed varieties apparently too). I pulled from Bayer's website from what they consider their "core brands" to mention [4] and referenced the pesticide labels as well for very basic summaries. I was careful to use the word marketed because there is a lot of puffery on Bayer's website, so I'd want to pull from stronger sources if efficacy was going to be mentioned at all. I don't think that really needs to be done on this page as long as we just stick to saying this is what they're selling.

When it comes to neonics though, are we actually justified in mentioning bees, etc. from a WP:WEIGHT perspective? It's an important issue, but within neonics we need to weigh other important details such as the novel mode of action, overmarketing as seed treatments when not needed in most situations, other environmental effects, etc. If we summarize more than one really important thing for neonics, wouldn't we then be needing to summarize this kind of information for other pesticides as well on this page rather than their respective pages? Personally, I'm content at wikilinking to neonicotinoids and don't have a strong preference one way or another for adding a single summary sentence on why they're important in general. For the latter though, what do folks think would fit well while also considering what I mentioned with regard to weight? Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

yes we have to go into the bee thing on neonics; i don't think any other bayer product has been the subject of this much attention (popular, scientific, and regulatory) for some time and that is all about potential role in CCD/bee decline, what have you. i copied content from the lead of that article and added it. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a good summary to me. If new developments occur, we'll have to keep that section concise to prevent the coatrack issue that came up in the previous version. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Trasylol - incorrect information added at recent editing

A recent edit changed this wording:

In September 2006, Bayer was faulted by the FDA for not revealing during testimony the existence of a commissioned retrospective study of 67,000 patients, 30,000 of whom received Trasylol and the rest other antifibrinolytics.[citation needed] The study concluded Trasylol carried greater risks. The FDA was alerted to the study by one of the researchers involved.

To this:

Trasylol (Aprotinin) Trasylol was a trypsin inhibitor used to control bleeding during major surgery. On September 27, 2006, six days after an FDA Advisory Committee meeting on Trasylol safety, Bayer informed the FDA of a commissioned retrospective study of 67,000 patients, 30,000 of whom received Trasylol and the rest other antifibrinolytics.[57]

I have done some re-wording to show that it was an outside informant rather than Bayer that revealed the study. Information here: [5] Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gandydancer:, I have no objection to the edit. I removed that statement originally because it was not supported by the cited source. However, I would request that 1) you add the NYTimes article as a source (since as it stands now, the statement remains unsourced within the article), and 2) The article should more accurately reflect the source. The NYTimes does not say in its own voice that the information was gained only by from a whistleblowing scientist. It attributes that statement to an anonymous FDA official. The article should likewise attribute the statement.

Also, not to quibble, but I don't think the information I added was "incorrect". It was a paraprhase of the FDA press release, which stated "On September 27, 2006, Bayer Pharmaceuticals told FDA that it had conducted an additional safety study of Trasylol." Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 13:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks gandy that was a good add. i added the source you brought here. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. Actually I was still in the process of the edit but I have found that frequently my edits are reverted or "fixed" so rapidly that I was in a rush to get a talk page note quickly. Gandydancer (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98, regarding the removal of the info stating that it was not Bayer but a whistleblower, if you want to call it that, that disclosed the dangers related to the use of Trasylol, common sense told me that some editor did not just pull that information out of their a** but that it was likely sourced at some time in the history of the article. Looking back it appears that that information likely came from an old 60 Minutes TV report, long since removed. When I googled for the info it came up immediately and you could have done the same rather than to prefer the site where it was not mentioned. Given that unnecessary deaths were occurring due to the use of this drug when alternative drugs were available, it was a pretty egregious failure on the part of Bayer. Our readers deserve to have access to this sort of information rather than have it glossed over or hidden. If I had my way this section would go back to the controversies section that you removed it from. Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

the back and forth of editing is how things go. this is why it is good we are a community and can work together to make articles better. i hope you can see that having an article about a company have almost no discussion of the company's products was also pretty, well, goofy. And the article did make it clear even before your edit, that the study Bayer ran "concluded Trasylol carried greater risks of death, serious kidney damage, congestive heart failure and strokes" and that it was removed from the market, so that key part was not removed. (yes, your addition of Bayer not disclosing it at the meeting and of the whistleblower bringing it, was good. it is also true that we don't know what Bayer was intending to do before their hand was forced. Maybe they were intending never to make it public. Maybe. Maybe they were getting ready to bring it to the FDA the week after. We cannot know) In any case, we can work things out in a civil way, focused on content, without any harshing. there is no need to go there. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, where you get that I am being uncivil, unfocused, or harsh and need instructions about how we all need to work together to make articles better is beyond me. As for the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Bayer may have planned to bring the study up after a week of discussion? I find it hard to believe that you can even say this with a straight face. Gandydancer (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Gandy, I see your point about the Google search. I used to do that routinely, but to be honest the amount of material that I find in articles that is 1) not supported by the cited source, and 2) for which a Google search fails to turn up any other reliable source is so high that I am sometimes less dilligent about checking than I should be.

Strictly speaking, there are two sources here that contradict each other: the NYTimes article quoting an anonymous official who states that the data was disclosed by a whistleblower, and the FDA press release which unambiguously states that the company disclosed this information. Its unclear to me that one can characterize this as "glossing over" an issue when the only source for the version of events currently cited in the article is an anonymous source. I'm not going to press the issue, but I think I am showing some flexiblity here as well. Likewise I appreciate your flexiblity on the controversies section. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 14:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If you no longer attempt to look for sources when you find negative information but are just deleting it, which is for instance also what you recently did at the Dow article, perhaps you may need to review the methods of editing you have been using or taking an edit break till you are feeling better. Years ago when I first started editing I would become amazed at how often I found unsupported information, but as my work here continued I learned how easily it can happen as new additions and deletes progress - which is why a good editor should always try to find a source or ask others for a source before deleting. In this case you say, a "FDA press release which unambiguously states that the company disclosed this information" somehow proves that Bayer released the info freely. Sure, they eventually released the study and the FDA looked at it, but do you really believe that the FDA would get into the particulars about how the study came to light in a press lease? Also, to pull "anonymous source" into our disagreement here is making the incident appear to be a tabloid-type happening, which it was not. Gandydancer (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Gandy, your criticism is well taken and I will do better going forward. I assume you will do so too, and pursue the entire history of a drug, and not just stop looking when you find something negative, as you did in the case of Trasylol. As for the "anonymous FDA official", that is from the source itself and I don't understand why you would object to it. Obviously the fact that it was an anonymous source makes the report somewhat less credible. The NYTimes felt that this fact was important for its readers to be aware of, and we should follow what the source says. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 23:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This article has been on my watch list for years - I did not come here to comb the article looking for bad stuff to say about Bayer, I came here to look at your edit and I replaced the negative information you removed. As for the anonymous FDA official, I have no objection at all to including that in the article. But that that makes it less credible seems an odd way of viewing the incident, IMO. According to the NYT article, "A top F.D.A. official said the agency learned of the Trasylol study on Wednesday only after getting a tip from a researcher involved in it. The official insisted on anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information." Why on earth would "a top FDA official" tell a lie? The real question here is why would a whistle blower want to remain anonymous, and that question is not at all hard to answer. If I would have been in that whistle blower's shoes I'd want to remain anonymous too. Gandydancer (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Gandy, the purpose of this page is to discuss changes to the article, and unless you are challenging the current text, arguing about the what the Truth is off topic. What is verifiable is that an anonymous FDA official made this charge. We can speculate about whether that official had any reason to lie, but that's WP:OR. We put what the source says in the article, let the reader decide for themselves if the report is credible. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 11:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I hope this doesn't piss anybody off, but I continued to look into this and both Health Canada and the European Medicines Agency have concluded that the studies that led to the Trasylol suspension are flawed, and have returned the drug to the market. I also added a Cochrane review that stated that Trayslol increases the risk of death by 39%. The Cochrane Review explicitly states that its conclusions are heavily dependent on the BART study, which is explicitly criticized by the Health Canada review and by the EMA review, but I figured that was too much detail and did not add it. I also added a ref stating that the Health Canada decision was controversial. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 21:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

the real world is messy. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Why would anybody get pissed off because the drug was reinstated for use in some cases? Anyway, re the BART study controversy, I replaced the Canadian newspaper account that you used as a reference with a more scholarly source as was used in the criticism of it. I'm surprised that you did not use it and opted for The Globe and Mail instead. Gandydancer (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

1997-2001 HIV medication litigation

This was added in this dif. needs some work.

In 1997 the South African government proposed legislation to reduce the cost of expensive drugs by producing generic versions and paying only royalties to the patent owner. This was in response to the overwhelming scope of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Estimates at the time showed 22 million HIV positive cases in Africa, one of seven being in South Africa and quickly rising. Patent rights for the drug cocktail of HIV treatment cost $10,000, but could be produced generically for between 50-90 cents. Bayer, along with other pharmaceutical giants Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim, sued the South African government for patent infringement. The chief defendant was Nelson Mandela. These pharmaceutical companies and their lobbyists leveraged government connections to put additional pressure on the South African government. According to the Guardian "On 30 April, 1998, the US placed South Africa on the '301 Watch List', usually a preparation for economic sanctions. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey [where Bristol Myers is based] introduced a provision into the Foreign Operations [Aid] Bill to cut off all aid to South Africa until Mandela's proposals were dropped." After extreme outcry by the public and human rights activists, the lawsuit was eventually dropped in 2001.

References

this all happened in the context of negotiations about TRIPS culminating in the Doha declaration - it is crazy out of context. and slanted like crazy. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"well known for..."

Zinedine Socrates, the content you added makes the lead read: "well known for its original brand of aspirin and heroin.". The source you provided, Britannica, does not say that Bayer is well known for heroin. What is your source for Bayer being well known for heroin? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"well-known" aside, heroin belongs in the lede in some fashion. I note a tendency to delete rather than fix contributions from fellow editors. An additional reference in the lede is not necessary to add heroin to the lede since heroin it is more than adequately verified by the body. Not including heroin the lede is extremely non-neutral. The lede summarizes the entire article. WP:LEDE Hugh (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers pal. No idea why this guy is being so strict about heroin but doesn't apply the same rigor to aspirin, for which there were no sources in the ledeZinedine Socrates (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A new editor shows up at this page, with 1 1/2 years, 73 edits, first 15:16 you issue an edit warring warning, then 15:17 you threatened a fellow editor with a block in an edit summary, then 15:26 you start a talk page section? As an experienced editor, what is your responsibility in terms of welcoming, inclusiveness, and role modelling best practices? Is there some kind of notice board filings promo competition going on and I missed the announcement? You threatened a fellow editor with a block in an edit summary, are you an admin? Hugh (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

the body doesn't make the statement that Bayer is well known for heroin. it wasn't sourced there either. As far as i know Bayer is not well-known for heroin. i am open to seeing reliable sources that says it is. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"well-known" aside, heroin belongs in the lede. Our colleague had a good idea. Why don't you add it? Hugh (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't belong there. A pubmed search on "Bayer and aspirin" brings up 89 hits. Searching "Bayer and heroin" gives 12, of which 10 are articles about heroin written by an author named Bayer. Bayer is known overwhelmingly for aspirin. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, ZS, meet the pharmaceutical ownership tag team. Heroin belongs in the lede. Bayer named "heroin". Heroin was a Bayer brand. Not mentioning heroin in the lede is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Pubmed search result stats are not the be-all and end-all of weight in reliable sources WP:DUE. Hugh (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article and weight there should follow weight in the article. there are 2 sentences on Heroin in the article. what is the reason to include it based on LEAD? (hugh, by your reasoning the lead should be list of every product that bayer invented and branded; that is not how we do things and it would also be pretty goofy. Thanks (btw, the lead is way too short now.. will work on that) Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that in reaction to our new colleague's attempt at a contribution, you are scrambling, including moving all mention of heroin out of the "History" section. May I ask, is that an attempt to immunize content, regarding the subject of this article's relationship with heroin, from the exception in WP:MEDRS for history? Is it your view that heroin is not a part of the history of this subject? Hugh (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

just saw your note here Huge. nope, i first expanded and added sources to the content on heroin, then i noticed duplication of historical products and so combined sections, as i noted in my edit note. i just got done expanding the lead and included mention of heroin. it is just a few words, and not worth the dramah. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The current lead makes several inacurrate statements about trasylol.First, it was not withdrawn from the market based on the Bayer retrospective analysis, but based on a separate study whose results became available later. Second, we don't have a source that states in its own voice that a whistleblower was involved in the FDA being made aware of the results of the retrospective study. Third, there is no mention that the product has been returned to the market in all major ex US markets based on reanalysis of the data. Thus the less does not match the body of the article. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

please WP:FIXIT Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

ok i fixedit. btw gthe NYT article says: "A top F.D.A. official said the agency learned of the Trasylol study on Wednesday only after a getting a tip from a researcher involved in it. The official insisted on anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information." it is true that is not a "whistleblower" in the sense of there was any Qui tam stuff but that describes what most people call whistleblowing. you forgot about that, or don't accept that report from the NYT, or you don't call that whistleblowing? or something else? Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that heroin has made it into the lede because I think it is such an important part of Bayer's (and the pharmaceutical industry in general's) history. However, the lede seems to suggest that all Bayer did was trademark heroin; they re-synthesised it and were the first ones to market it (the person who had first discovered it only ever tested it on dogs and then did no further work on it). This is much more than merely trademarking it. I totally agree that aspirin is Bayer's most famous product, and I never set out to dispute it. But I think that their next most famous product is heroin. The two are really sisters, discovered by the same person, Felix Hoffmann, and both produced by acetylation of an already existing drug. Felix Hoffmann's boss actually first rejected aspirin on the grounds that "the product has no value" because it has an "enfeebling" action on the heart; his real reason for ignoring aspirin was his preoccupation with the sales potential of another new drug—heroin. I'd also just like to make it clear that I am not doing this because I'm on some crusade against the pharmaceutical industry and want to tarnish their name, I just feel that for over a decade heroin/diamorphine was to Bayer what viagra/sildenafil was to Pfizer. Zinedine Socrates (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

it now says "Bayer trademarked "heroin" and marketed it...". It is not clear to me what more you want that to say. would you please offer a concrete suggestion? thanks.Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That's perfect, I would've thanked you for your edit if I knew how Zinedine Socrates (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

glad you are happy with it. (btw i originally had it something like that, then it was shortened by someone else, then it was put to how it is now by HughD. things can change rapidly sometimes! Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC))

"Environmental record"

The following text is sourced to primary only, leaving us with little idea of the importance of this information. At the very least, this is not the totality of Bayer's "environmental record", so if it is to be re-introduced (hopefully with secondary sources), a more descriptive, less inclusive, section heading would be best. petrarchan47คุก 00:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Bayer is included in the Dow Jones World Sustainability Index, which is designed to assist institutional investors seeking to invest in companies with superior sustainability practices relative to peers in their industrial sector. Bayer is one of only 14 companies worldwide that have made the list every year since its 1999 inception.

Bayer ranked first place overall in both 2011 and 2012 in the Carbon Disclosure Project ranking of 500 of the world's largest corporations, receiving an "A" for performance and a perfect score of 100 for disclosure.

The Environmental Management News and CNBCAfrica are both secondary sources. We also have articles on both of these indexes that are full of secondary sources attesting to their importance and influence. So to be direct, I think there is no chance whatsoever that you will prevail on thi point if we take it before a broader set of editors for input.

Having said that, I agree with your statement that this is not the whole of Bayers environmental record. They have attracted favorable marks for reducing carbon emissions, but have also encountered contoversy with their pesticides. The gmo business is also worth mentioning here as another controversy.

I think if we take some of these items and mention them here we will have a nicely balanced section. Would that work for you?

I'm not able to comment on the totality of Bayer's environmental record unless I do a tremendous amount of research, and I'm not planning on doing that unless (perhaps), as you suggest, we get some help in creating that section. For now, you could make the section heading "Sustainability efforts" or "Sustainability record", which I think is more precise. petrarchan47คุก 03:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes.I think that will be fine. Thanks for the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B05A:FD6:A145:835A:8AFE:BE1D (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bayer. 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/20080314230857/http://www.bayer.com:80/en/News-Detail.aspx?id=10657 to http://www.bayer.com/en/News-Detail.aspx?id=10657

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} 19:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bayer. 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/20131104000201/http://www.bayergroupindia.com/bio_science.html to http://www.bayergroupindia.com/bio_science.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926214522/http://www.innomed-predtox.com/consortium/members/ to http://www.innomed-predtox.com/consortium/members/

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) 11:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

no mention of spreading HIV contaminated medication?

There is literally a wikipedia article on this, yet the Bayer article doesn't mention it? This seems extremely sanitized to be considered "objective."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_haemophilia_blood_products

2crudedudes (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@2crudedudes: There is a paragraph in Bayer#Overview. SmartSE (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Given the seriousness of this event, I think it merits it's own section, rather than "a paragraph in the Overview"2crudedudes (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)