Talk:Sterling Drug

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: West Virginia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as Low-importance).

This page needs major cleanup. There is so much corporate double-dealing in this company's history and I don't have the book yet (out of print). I need to change the book's reference but short on time.Gaviidae 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your "double-dealing" claims are already out of the article; they are inconsistent with the true history of Sterling. If your claims are true, then how come Bayer AG had to wait until 1994 to reclaim its brand in the US? IIRC, most of the "IG" elements of Bayer AG's history were in the Depression & WWII (not the post-WWI period when Bayer AG lost its US business to Sterling), and the "IG" part was tied to another company which separated from Bayer AG after WWII. --Anon

The references to the dye business, IG Farben (not Bayer), and Standard Oil are now gone, so please cite sources. As much as I'd like to find Sterling's own account of its own history, I could not find it-- however, if the relationships with IG Farber and Standard Oil and their dye biusiness are not true, please cite sources, as I could only find sources that reported these relationships. My references on the bottom were my notes to remind me where I got the information I had.

Sterling DID sell Apirin after WWI, and it was not called "Bayer aspirin." Neither Sterling nor Bayer could trademark the name, as it was too commonly used by others by then.

Also, removed the reference to Sanofi-Aventis, as they were interested in buying but Bayer beat them to it. Kodak only knew they really wanted to get rid of their pharmaceutical arm.Gaviidae 10:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found more info and added it. Sanofi was indeed involved. Gaviidae 08:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 1997, Abbott Laboratories agreed to buy the McPherson plant from Sanofi for $200 million and retain the rights to manufacture injectable drugs manufactured at the facility. In 2004, Abbott Laboratories chose to spin off its hospital products division and formed a new company, Hospira. Hospira added 174 jobs to the McPherson area in 2006. www.hospirainvestor.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=175550&p=irol-newsArticleIR&ID=1252003&highlight=

I pulled this part out here, because I'm not really seeing the relevance of what happens to this building to Sterling Drug as a whole. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources available which describe the final name change from "Sterling Drug, Inc." to "Sterling Winthrop, Inc."? I only found the inentory or archive stuff given to the Smithsonian [1]. On page 175 there is a list of annual reports: until 1989 it is Sterling Drug, Inc. and there are years with "Sterling Winthrop, Inc." (1991-1993). When exactly did the name change happen? --Gunnar (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Text and references copied from Mollé Mystery Theatre to Sterling Drug. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]