Talk:Syngenta

Untitled

This article is lacking an important recent fact. Gunmen hired by Syngenta in Brazil have attacked campesinos that occupied some lands owned by the company (the specifics are little complicated, apparently the land had been expropriated by the government, due to some judicial process, and there would be built a centre for agricultural studies or something, but then Syngenta won a side-process and the campesinos were forced to leave), killing one campesino (keno, that had already received death threats from gunmen) a security guard and wounding some more people. Now, would that go in history or legal issues? I'm thinking history, any objections?

In case you didn't hear of it, some sources: (in Portuguese) the organization the campesinos worked for

A letter by a native American organization

(in English) this one is a bit tricky, since CNN left a huge chunk of the thing untold

this one is way better, it presents Syngenta's side (they say they didn't know that the people they hired to protect the seed farm carried guns, and then sent a team of lawyers to investigate) and the campesino's side (Syngenta is not the only one *ominous song of terror*)

--200.222.30.9 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

legal section

Re-edited it. It looked like a statement from Sygenta's PR team and extremely POV. Of course if Syngenta would want to reverse the edit, given time I'm sure I could add a lot more regarding:

"The Syngenta legal record also includes citations by regulators, NGOs, and individuals for health issues related to its products"

It's a pity I don't have the time at the moment. The7thdr (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Puffery

I added the puffery tag to the "controversies" section because the section discusses seemingly every single lawsuit the company has ever had -- no matter how mundane. Every company has lawsuits and lots of them. None of this is uncommon. Corporations are large entities with lots of employees. Things go wrong. Patents are infringed upon. People claim sexual harassment and bullying. These things are inevitable in a company with tens of thousands of employees. The question is what legal action is noteworthy and what legal action is ordinary and unnoteworthy. We don't need an laundry list, but, instead, a well culled and germane list. ask123 (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

para-chloro-ortho-toluidine

The article currently says the following:

Syngenta's insecticide Galecron Chlordimeform, introduced for use on cotton and tobacco in 1966, was found to be carcinogenic in mice via its metabolite, para-chloro-ortho-toluidine.(ref)IARC. Para-chloro-ortho-toluidine (hydrochloride) IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risk Chem Man. 1978 Jan;16:277-85.(/ref)

It appears that the IARC put out a monograph as cited here on "para-chloro-ortho-toluidine". However the 1978 publication does not seem to be available. The current version on IARC's website is here: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol16/volume16.pdf and is listed as "ortho-TOLUIDINE (HYDROCHLORIDE)" -- according to that page, the information there was last updated 26 March 1998

I looked at the US National Toxicology Program's monograph on ortho-TOLUIDINE which is here http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Toluidine.pdf -- and in its references, it lists separately the 1978 monograph on para-chloro-ortho-toluidine that we currently cite, and separately lists the 1982 monograph on "ortho-Toluidine and ortho-toluidine hydrochloride" and then again lists the 2000 monograph on ortho-Toluidine.

The sentence from our article is trying to make an historical argument. But without the 1978 reference available I do not see how we can sustain the argument with reliable, available sources. A mess. I will try to figure out some way to deal with this, but wanted to make a note here. Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Current Products

This section has serious factual and NPOV issues and clearly isn't representative of "current products" for the worlds largest agribusiness company. Suggest that the information here, that is supportive and is factual, belongs on the article pages for those products and not here - where a factual and neutral representation of the current products does belong.AcademicReviewer (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

New Yorker article support for use of "activist"

Hey, User:Cognita you are correct that the New Yorker doesn't the word "activist" to describe Hayes. But if you don't want to use the word activist" please provide another word that captures the following passages (these are just some that describe his activist activities:

"Hayes had been promoted from associate to full professor in 2003, an achievement that had sent him into a mild depression. He had spent the previous decade understanding his self-worth in reference to a series of academic milestones, and he had reached each one. Now he felt aimless. His wife said she could have seen him settling into the life of a “normal, run-of-the-mill, successful scientist.” But he wasn’t motivated by the idea of “writing papers and books that we all just trade with each other.” He began giving more than fifty lectures a year, not just to scientific audiences but to policy institutes, history departments, women’s health clinics, food preparers, farmers, and high schools. He almost never declined an invitation, despite the distance. He told his audiences that he was defying the instructions of his Ph.D. adviser, who had told him, “Let the science speak for itself.” He had a flair for sensational stories—he chose phrases like “crime scene” and “chemically castrated”—and he seemed to revel in details about Syngenta’s conflicts of interest, presenting theories as if he were relating gossip to friends. ... Hayes had once considered a few of the scientists working with Syngenta friends, and he approached them in a nerdy style of defiance. He wrote them mass e-mails, informing them of presentations he was giving and offering tips on how to discredit him. “You can’t approach your prey thinking like a predator,” he wrote. “You have to become your quarry.” .... Hayes often showed the e-mails to his students, who appreciated his rebellious sense of humor. Liu said, “Tyrone had all these groupies in the lab cheering him on. I was the one in the background saying, you know, ‘Man, don’t egg them on. Don’t poke that beast.’ ”...In 2010, Hayes told the EcoRisk panel in an e-mail, “I have just initiated what will be the most extraordinary academic event in this battle!” He had another paper coming out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which described how male tadpoles exposed to atrazine grew up to be functional females with impaired fertility. He advised the company that it would want to get its P.R. campaign up to speed. “It’s nice to know that in this economy I can keep so many people employed,” he wrote. He quoted both Tupac Shakur and the South African king Shaka Zulu: “Never leave an enemy behind or it will rise again to fly at your throat.”...Michelle Boone, a professor of aquatic ecology at Miami University, who served on the E.P.A.’s scientific advisory panel, said, “We all follow the Tyrone Hayes drama, and some people will say, ‘He should just do the science.’ But the science doesn’t speak for itself. Industry has unlimited resources and bully power. Tyrone is the only one calling them out on what they’re doing.” However, she added, “I do think some people feel he has lost his objectivity.” .... Noriega worried that the public had little understanding of the context that gives rise to scientific findings. “It is not helpful to anyone to assume that scientists are authoritative,” he said. “A good scientist spends his whole career questioning his own facts. One of the most dangerous things you can do is believe.”..

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I made the change because calling Dr. Hayes an activist when the New Yorker hadn't used that label was a kind of editorializing that comes close to original research. "Activist" is an interpretation of what the article says. Certainly, Hayes became more active in his criticisms of Syngenta as the company went after him--but his activities fell within his job description. He traveled far and wide to give lectures about his research, but they were still lectures about his research. Corresponding with Syngenta employees and even rapping in class, I wouldn't call activism. This too is an interpretation. I think of activism as marching in demonstrations, organizing protest meetings, donating labor or money to causes, that sort of thing.

Another question is whether H would call himself an activist. I don't know the answer. People often dislike being labeled with nouns, even when the word is an abstraction that refers to what they acknowledge doing.

I propose that the best solution is to summarize a small sample of H's actions that the magazine reports, without saying that these add up to activism. Cognita (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So here is his website. http://www.atrazinelovers.com/ Big big text in red at the bottom right that says "ACT NOW!!!". That leads to links for action: writing EPA, congress, Syngenta, and "joining atrazinelovers' network". This seems to be kind of the definition of activist. His website. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Then the website could be used as the reference for the word "activist." It would have to be cited. Do you know how to make footnotes and references on Wikipedia? I'm not into the fancy-format stuff. I usually just fix typos and make minor changes in text. Cognita (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears that I have inadvertently reopened this discussion. My original intention was to disallow Tyrone Hayes' defamatory allegations from going unchallenged, and to defend the scientists and studies (over 6,000 and counting) which Hayes himself is defaming. Mention of The New Yorker's article without mention of the response from Syngenta and the scientific/industrial community at large is irresponsible and biased. That said, I will disengage from this discussion after posting this comment as I, too, am biased: I have met, and worked with, some of the scientists that Hayes is defaming. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

ok, ugly time

bunch of partisan bickering today

• User:Jtrevor99 added "the Syngenta side" in these difs, adding 4 sources 1) "agsense" piece by Alex Avery and 2) gawker on Hayes' emails, and 3) entine response to Hayes and Aviv and 4) syngenta response to Hayes' democracy now interview
• User:Gandydancer reverted based on "incorrect sources" (??) and on the basis that gawker and agsense pieces were about the emails not the Aviv paper, deleting Syngenta's response but keeping Entine's and adding statement that response was from Entine, in these difs
• User:Jtrevor99 restored his earlier texts, with some minor tweaks to address Gandy's concern in these difs
• User:Binksternet did a straight revert in this dif (REVERT 1)
• I jumped in and added syngenta source back in, in this dif as no reason given for leaving syngenta source out
• User:Binksternet reverted and added information about Entine's POV in this dif (REVERT 2)
• I tried to resolve this by removing Entine (I don't like partisan sources of any kind) and the information about Entine, and just leave Syngenta response, in this dif
• User:Binksternet did straight revert in this dif (3RR) (with mistaken edit note that Entine was still in the article)
• User:Jtrevor99 just made further changes in these difs and just broke 3RR as well.

• SO, how about we talk about what to do here and stop with this edit war? Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I am going to break 3RR myself here, and put the article back to how it was before Jtrevor99's first edit this morning; let's do the wikipedia thing and talk. As I said, I think it is reasonable to give the info from the Aviv piece, and Syngenta's reaction, and leave out all the talking heads, of which I am sure we can find hundreds - it would never end and really is just partisan bickering. Am open to hearing other thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a different position than you took about Entine at Talk:Tyrone Hayes#Use of partisan press as a source to describe scientific work. There, you wanted to quote Entine. Now that you see he is described by others as conflicted, you don't want to quote Entine. I think we need to tell the reader what has been the back-and-forth, including the comments about Entine's conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I did NOT want to quote Entine. I said that using a lefty partisan source was BS and said "should we also cite Entine" to show you how ridiculous it was to cite any partisan source. of course i know who entine is! for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Who knows how many edits will be committed otherwise? I'm done unless the final result only presents Hayes' side of things, as the March 21 version did. I'd propose one of the following two solutions: either (1) delete the entire section from the Syngenta article, or (2) mention both The New Yorker article and the official Syngenta response. I'm okay with leaving out third party responses, or responses to prior Hayes allegations; the reason I cited those to begin with was to establish Hayes has a well-known history for defaming his colleagues using unverifiable allegations. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should go much further into Hayes' side of things at the Syngenta article, the atrazine article, and of course the Hayes article. Hayes' research has far more support than Syngenta will admit. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's fine to add to the Hayes article, but I would strongly dispute adding his results to the other two without an opponents' response. Several scientists have gone on record stating that they are unable to replicate Hayes' scientific study, and Hayes himself has also been unable to replicate his findings on numerous occasions. Syngenta also cites over 6,000 studies - some by paid scientists, but many by independents - that cannot verify his claims. In short, until his results on the effects of atrazine on frog gonads can be replicated by someone besides him, OR he shares his original data and notes with someone, his research is highly questionable, and it would be irresponsible to give him a great deal more "airtime" than the respondents. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Jtrevor99 quick note - the section on Hayes is based on a piece by a third party, Rachel Aviv writing in the New Yorker. That piece is generally sympathetic to him, it is true, although it does end on a note questioning where he has gone. But no Wikipedia article includes any of the inflammatory stuff that Hayes has said or that others have said about him -- we cannot go there in Wikipedia due to WP:BLP which is relevant to both sides in the dispute between Hayes and individual, live scientists at Syngenta. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting Jytdog. I wasn't aware of the WP:BLP guidelines. Reading now, thanks. Initial impression is that some of the statements I posted earlier would fall under the "No Original Research" clause. And I also agree with Binksternet that the phrasing on some earlier statements were defamatory towards Hayes. This lends further credence to the idea that the best response is either to delete this section entirely, or simply post references to claims in The New Yorker and Syngenta's official response to the same. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So, Binksternet now that (I hope) you see that I had taken Entine out, are you OK with including the Syngenta response to Hayes' Democracy Now interveiew? We should also add a brief sentence stating that Hayes gave that interview and discussing in detail his interactions with Syngenta, so that the Syngenta response has context. I would suggest adding the following: "Hayes was interviewed on Democracy Now, where he discussed his concerns with Syngenta. Syngenta denied any wrongdoing by itself or its employees and has demanded a retraction and public apology from Hayes' university and Democracy Now, with regard to allegations Hayes made in the Democracy Now interview." Can you live with that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Syngenta response mentioning Democracy Now must be preceded by the Democracy Now statement, or else the Syngenta reply makes no sense. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

if you really did observe, bink, you would see that the Democracy Now thing is indeed there in the draft above....i changed the refs back into real refs to move the clutter so that you can see it more clearly. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, 24 hours have passed, so as there are no objections stated (I recognize that some might come and am happy to keep talking) i am implementing the suggestion above. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

References

6000 studies

I have removed several times the claim that 6,000 studies have "failed to find" any harmful effects of atrazine. The cited source is http://www.atrazine.com, a website controlled by Syngenta. As such, the source is primary. It does not satisfy the guideline at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), thus it cannot be used to refute Hayes. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Syngenta Letter Citations

[Top portion moved from Softlavender's Talk page]

Hello! I'm not going to do a revert or anything (the last thing I want to do is spark another edit war), but I thought I'd point out that the citation does in fact support the statements you removed. While it is true that the landing page does not include the language, the PDF copies of Syngenta's letters, which are linked to the citation and of which the citation is a summary, does include that language. Maybe the letters should be ref'd directly instead of the landing page. Thanks! Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jtrevor99. The letters do not support the language I removed, which is why I removed the language. That is also why I added the "(s)" to my edit summary. Feel free to move this discussion to the article's Talk page if you prefer. Softlavender (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that this probably should move to the talk page. I'll post here one more time and if we don't resolve it with that, I'll move this whole thing :) At any rate, I am NOT going to make any changes as again, I don't want to spark an edit war. Anyway, you removed two statements.

Statement 1: "Syngenta therefore demanded a retraction and public apology...from Hayes' university..." Upon a reread, I find that you're correct. They instead requested a meeting with Berkeley's reps to discuss the situation.

Statement 2: "...Hayes' employer had found the statements lacked credibility..." is supported on page 2 of the second letter, which reads as follows: "Either Hayes did not report the alleged threats of lynching and rape to the vice chancellor, dean, and legal counsel at Berkeley - in which case, he was lying during his Democracy Now interview - or Hayes did make the report and the vice chancellor, dean, and legal counsel at Berkeley found Hayes' story not to be credible." Keep in mind of course this needs prefaced by "according to Syngenta...", which I attempted to do in the original wording. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Jtrevor99. Nothing in any of the letters supports any of the text I removed. I'm not interested in discussing article content on my user Talk page. If you'd like me to copy/move the above conversation to the Syngenta Talk page, let me know; please do not further discuss article content on my Talk page. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved. We do need to discuss - I need to understand why the letter's quote I posted above, which to me clearly supports one of the statements you deleted, doesn't. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jtrevor99, please do not remove material from another editor's Talk page. Please also do not move material from another editor's Talk page to another Talk without permission, which I did not give you. Please let experienced editors do this. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the letters supports that "Hayes' employer had found the statements lacked credibility". In fact, there is a direct statement from Hayes' employer in the letters. If you'd like to quote that, that might possibly be relevant (but it would need consensus because of lack of verifiability and because it's a quote in a Syngenta document rather than a UC document). But posting unsupported suppositions and elaborate hypotheses from a WP:PRIMARY source is not encyclopedic or allowed on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, Softlavender; I thought your statement "Feel free to move this discussion to the article's Talk page if you prefer" gave me permission to move this discussion to this Talk page. I have also had other editors yell at me when I copied, rather than moved, the discussion :) Anyway, I appreciate the explanation regarding the second quote. While I believe there is ample evidence to still support the statement's retention, I'm not going to fight it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not say "Feel free to move this discussion to the article's Talk page if you prefer" after our last interaction on my Talk page, nor should any material ever be deleted from another person's Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, if you did not want the conversation moved from your talk page, you shouldn't have used the verb "move" twice. And as mentioned before, I have had other authors get upset when they told me to move something from their talk page, and I instead copied it. You did not communicate very well, and I have learned always to check before deleting anything from one's talk page. Let's drop it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of material pertaining to atrazine/Tyrone Hayes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Certain editors have been removing sections of controversial material from the article pertaining to Tyrone Hayes's research on atrazine, and the alleged persecution of Hayes by Syngenta. Before this edit war goes any farther I thought I would create this RfC so consensus can be established. How should this controversy be incorporated into the article, if at all? 67.188.230.128 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Material cited from WP:RS should stay. As to the wording and the amount of article text devoted to the subject(s), that is a matter of discretion and WP:NPOV. It was fairly stable and neutrally covered in March 2014; unless there have been further RS developments, I suggest it revert to something like that. Softlavender (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is no RfC question here. 67.188.230.128 What are you asking for comment on, exactly? I very much like the instinct to start discussion, however. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a question, only a "brief, neutral statement of the issue", per WP:RfC. However, in point of fact there is a question in the RfC: "How should this controversy be incorporated into the article, if at all?" Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact I added that question to the summary as an afterthought, after the rest of the text had already been copied to the RfC directory page, which is probably why Jytdog didn't see it. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Historically, this article contained material referring to Syngenta's alleged harrassment of Hayes, and later on material was added about Hayes sending obscene emails to Syngenta employees. My impression was that at that time, there was a tacit agreement to exclude explicit details of the allegations from both sides from the article, noting mainly that there had been allegations of untoward behavior on both sides. I'm not going to oppose the inclusion of the material about the alleged harrassment of Hayes in the article, but it should not say that Hayes was "vindicated", because the scientific evidence points in the other direction. NPOV will also require that if the allegations against Syngenta are included, that those about Haye's harrassment of Syngenta employees be included as well, and I think that is too bad. It just makes the article ugly. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think accuracy should overrule beauty in this case. BTW, please don't rely on "tacit agreements" in future, discuss potentially controversial changes beforehand. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." So my edits were in line with guidelines. But with respect to the details of the dispute, as you like. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll also point out this was the basis for my reverts when large amounts of material were being edit warred in, and especially when reverts continued after asking folks who felt strongly to discuss at the talk page first. Since Formerly's edits went uncontested for over a month, it's pretty fair to say that was the consensus version at the time. Either way, I'm going to go to bed and try to tackle this with fresh eyes tomorrow. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98 removed large sections of the article that had been there for months, without any discussion. If nobody responded right away it was because nobody noticed right away, not because of "consensus". 67.188.230.128 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with both Formerly 98 and anonymous. However, the current text - and, in my opinion, any reading that attempts to justify Hayes' behavior - is not "accurate". Furthermore, the current text is neither factual nor balanced. Hayes' findings on frogs have proven to be unreplicable by other scientists, and thousands of other studies (both funded by Syngenta, and independent) how failed to find the same results. At minimum, the phrase "whose research showed" needs modified. Please note I am not doing this edit myself due to an edit war with Binksternet at this time last year, where he repeatedly reverted changes I made to (in my opinion) better balance this section. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is, if something is notable, it should be included, even if Formerly 98 personally consider it "ugly". As for the state of the section, I agree that it needs work. Hoping that we can reach a consensus version of the section here, perhaps using the Hayes/atrazine articles as a guideline but pruning information not directly relevant to Syngenta. There are really two separate things worthy of coverage: 1) Atrazine safety concerns per Hayes studies, EPA reviews, etc. 2) Syngenta's alleged campaign to discredit Hayes. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

To all participants (Jytdog—Softlavender—Formerly 98—Kingofaces43—Jtrevor99) — I think everybody's said their piece. Consensus seems to be to keep the section but modify it to be more balanced. Any objections to closing this RfC? 67.188.230.128 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the current content acceptable to you? If not, what further specific edits do you think are needed? Formerly 98 (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

My main concern was the complete removal of the section now titled "Conflict with Tyrone Hayes". Now that the section has been restored, I think its content can be modified by normal editing processes going forward. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether ill-considered or not, this was done as a compromise with editors who did not want to see any reference to the Hayes emails to Syngenta employees included in the article. I do not have strong feelings about the inclusion or exclusion of this section, but believe it is inappropriate to include the section describing the company's inappropriate behavior while leaving reliably sourced information that bears on Haye's scientific objectivity out. I am fine with the current version and willing to discuss edits. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

no objections to closing this. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No problems closing, although I will note that in the future RfCs are meant for getting thoughts from outside editors, so it's best to discuss with editors already on the article to attempt to reach consensus first before starting one for future reference. [1] Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: only here for the RFC Sorry folks, I don't see any prospect of my settling this one with any novel soothing analyses. In line with what some contributors preceding have said, all I can say is to write the article as is appropriate and, to coin a phrase, let the chips fall where they may. Before, during, and after doing so look at your own work and check it for:
  • Is it real (whether you like Syartis, artrazine or whatsisname or not)
  • Is it relevant to a Synartis article (whatever other articles it might be relevant to, even if you must write a new article to accommodate it)
  • Is it the sort of information for which a reader might be consulting the article
  • Is its position in the article where the reader might best benefit from the material
  • Are your sources incontrovertible, comprehensible and accessible
  • Are your assertions and sources POV

I mean really, you already all knew this didn't you? Just bear in mind how futile edit wars are and consider how much better, if you think that a particular affair needs proper airing in WP, to put it in a properly linked, but separate article rather than fighting about it here. JonRichfield (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I am surprised to see no mention of thiamethoxam, or atrazine, in the lead. They are what the company is mainly notable for. Maproom (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• @Snow Rise: Please remember to remove the RfC template when closing these discussions so notifications stop being sent out. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits of March 8-9

Ok, it looks like we have an incipient edit war on our hands. Lets discuss the issues below

===Tyrone Hayes=== I understand that some feel that Syngenta's alleged harrassment of Hayes is an important part of this article. However, Haye's himself has been documented to have sent obscene and harrassing letters to Syngenta employees, and there are multiple reliable sources that document this. At some point in the past, there seemed to be agreement (at least as implied by non-reversion) that given a choice between adding both of these stories and adding neither, most preferred to leave both out. How shall we proceed? 50.113.65.200 (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

See RfC, above. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Current Products

I'm not sure how a series of suicides from the 1960s came to be the first line of the section entitled "Current products". Can anyone defend this? Nor is a list of complaints about atrazine a balanced summary of the Atrazine article. Please remember that we need to follow NPOV, which requires that we present the view of reliable sources per their prominence. If all agreed that this was a useless and dangerous product, it would not be on the market. 50.113.65.200 (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The current products section appears to be from an old revision that was restored as a side-effect of the recent kerfluffle. The section has a confusing title but its content does have sources and stuff, I think it should be discussed before removing it entirely as Formerly 98 unilaterally attempted to do back in January. BTW, your last sentence is not a convincing argument given the financial interests involved; the Dalkon Shield comes to mind. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well unless I missed something, the Dalkon Shield is no longer on the market.

The article you pointed me to, is btw, now my favorite example of the sort of thing I am trying to correct, with its massive block quote attributed thus:

"According to a 1997 ethics group project paper by four students in a University of Minnesota undergraduate History of Science course..."

No offense, but this gave me a good laugh. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Syngenta. 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/20060929134843/http://www.syngenta.com:80/en/downloads/050512_Galecron_en.pdf to http://www2.syngenta.com/en/downloads/050512_Galecron_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070731095724/http://www.syngentafoundation.org/about_syngenta_foundation.htm to http://www.syngentafoundation.org/about_syngenta_foundation.htm

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} 06:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Syngenta. 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/20160412013137/http://annualreport.syngenta.com/assets/pdf/Syngenta-annual-review-2015.pdf to http://annualreport.syngenta.com/assets/pdf/Syngenta-annual-review-2015.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018042040/http://www.seedtoday.com/info/ST_articles.html?type=ST.COM&ID=22887 to http://www.seedtoday.com/info/ST_articles.html?type=ST.COM&ID=22887
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150922021559/http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Feed_Grains_Yearbook_Tables/Domestic_and_International_Prices/FGYearbookTable09.xls to http://www.ers.usda.gov/datafiles/Feed_Grains_Yearbook_Tables/Domestic_and_International_Prices/FGYearbookTable09.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151121032233/http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/human-rights-mainmenu-40/1901-syngenta-convicted-in-brazil to http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/human-rights-mainmenu-40/1901-syngenta-convicted-in-brazil
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151121032233/http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/human-rights-mainmenu-40/1901-syngenta-convicted-in-brazil to http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/human-rights-mainmenu-40/1901-syngenta-convicted-in-brazil

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) 00:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The consensus is that a new section or article should be written about Syngenta Group instead. No such user (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Syngenta → Syngenta Group – Syngenta and the Syngenta Group are different things. The Syngenta Group was formed in 2020, bringing together Syngenta (Syngenta AG), Adama, and the agricultural business of Sinochem under a single entity. Today, Syngenta could be described as the main brand of the Syngenta Group. As a broader audience reflectes this change now, we hereby suggest a page move. Please be aware that this edit is made on behalf of the Syngenta Group. Thanks for your help. 213.61.130.15 (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Thank you for disclosing the conflict of interest. Proposed move seems uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose initially. Is there any significant sourcing on this? In most current sourcing I can find, Syngenta is still simply referred to as Syngenta, so that would seem to be the title we'd stick with brief mention of what seems to be a more internal name in text. If the companies have merged and the name has formally changed to Syngenta Group across the board, then we should have content on that first before suggesting a move. For example, we didn't change this article's name to ChemChina back in 2016. In June 2020, ChemChina transferred its entire agricultural business to the Syngenta Group . . . is the only piece of content I see right now related to this, so I'm not really seeing where a name change would come into play for this page yet if it's just a "transfer of ownership". KoA (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose with Recommendation Source for change at https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210428006238/en/Syngenta-Group-Reports-Strong-First-Quarter-Results. Syngenta continues to exist as an entity, but as stated above is the major partner of Syngenta Group. That is, the structure is ChemChina -> Syngenta Group -> {Syngenta Group China, Syngenta, ADAMA}; Syngenta is comprised of {Syngenta Seeds, Syngenta Crop Protection}. We already have ADAMA and ChemChina; instead of retitling this article to Syngenta Group, I'd recommend either (1) leaving as Syngenta and creating a new article stub for Syngenta Group, or (2) leaving as Syngenta (with original Syngenta logo) and adding a section clarifying what Syngenta Group is, with redirect to that section. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This would be my preferred track too from what little I've been able to gather from sources so far. Anything about Syngenta Group likely needs to be written from scratch, otherwise it seems like WP:INHERIT could be bumped into a little. KoA (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point on the WP:INHERIT. Probably best just to add a separate paragraph to this article about Syngenta Group. Right now all I can find in RSs is launch date, comprising companies, a new logo (which is already in this article - probably a mistake) and a press release about an IPO on China's STAR stock exchange. That doesn't seem enough to create, or justify, a separate article. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

• Syngenta Group Headquarters, Basel, Switzerland.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Business units

Business units and locations have been mixed up somehow. We caused this confusion, so we've just clearly separated both paragraphs. If this is not appropriate, please revert the edits. Thanks in advance for your help, 213.61.184.162 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Separating pages

A few months ago, there has been a request to move this page from Syngenta to Syngenta Group, which was declined. Following the consensus in this discussion from above, I've prepapred separate pages for (the old) Syngenta (AG) and (the new) Syngenta Group (Co., Ltd.) in my userspace. Do you still agree separating the pages this way, and could those pages be a starting point? --JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve no objection, though as I mentioned in prior posts, a paragraph or so dedicated to just Syngenta within a Syngenta Group article would also be acceptable, I think. Jtrevor99 (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jtrevor99. In my opinion, a section on the Group at Syngenta may not the best idea, since Adama also belongs to the Group; one would then also need a paragraph there. But we want to avoid spreading across multiple pages, as this could be promotional. So we really appreciate your support to separating pages. --JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections! Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jtrevor99: Thanks! I'd appreciate if you can have a look at the recent edits here and Draft:Syngenta Group. --JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that separate pages are needed. A quick examination says your proposed 2 pages look fine. Invasive Spices (talk) 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Invasive Spices. What is the best way to publish the pages? As far as I understand, I cannot move the pages directly. But when I copy and paste the source code, the revision history from Syngenta has to be imported to the Syngenta Group, right? Is there anything else I need to watch out for? --JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any special way to do that. I think you just say in the edit summary Split from [[Syngenta]]. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syngenta&action=history for earlier edit history. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: Thanks. I've used the recommended edit summary for Draft:Syngenta Group. --JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing many of the same issues remaining from the move discussion. Ultimately, this isn't the home for Syngenta Group, rather this is the Syngenta AG entity article, though I see there have been edits made to the contrary on that for quite awhile now. Per the consensus, either we have to go for small mention of Syngenta group here in its own section (which is perfectly fine, Adama doesn't need mention here), or start a new page and establish notability for Syngenta Group on it's own without WP:INHERIT issues. Last time, we didn't have sources that really established notability for Syngenta Group itself, and that would still be a concern going forward. Could be doable, but right now, we're intermingling the two too much, and we're getting some WP:PUFFERY language and lack of sourcing introduced too.

I'll see if I can do some cleanup in the article in a bit or this weekend to streamline things here. KoA (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I took a comb through the whole article to try to prune down some things and remove a bit of puffery throughout. It looks like our last clean version was roughly around Oct 15, 2020, so many of the edits were based off that while integrating what I could from current text.

JD, if you have suggested edits, I would suggest bringing them piecemeal by section here rather than a large rewrite of the entire article. It's very difficult to review all the changes otherwise, and there were significant issues with promotional tone in them. KoA (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@KoA: Yes, we've messed up things here, and caused some confusion between Syngenta and the Syngenta Group. Thanks for taking a closer look and reverting changes where the edits were'n appropriate. In order to establish notability for Syngenta Group on it's own, I've moved the userspace draft to the draft namespace, and submitted Draft:Syngenta Group to the articles for creation queue to get more independent feedback on notability. --JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

While I see some scattered typos in the draft and it appears a bit light on RSs, structurally the article looks good to me. I cannot edit directly due to a previously disclosed conflict of interest, however. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Following this discussion, I've did my best to merge recent edits from Syngenta with the userspace draft. Also, I've suggested a second review of Draft:Syngenta Group, which has been classified as a copy of the Syngenta (AG) page, which is somehow wrong.

Again, I really appreciate any help and review of my contributions, as I have a COI with all Syngenta pages. Thanks in advance for your help. --JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like I forgot to actually post my message I had typed up when I reverted the most recent change, but in short, this is just trying to repeatedly reinsert problematic material while blanking current material. I do have a couple ideas for tweaks from your draft JD, but you definitely shouldn't be making wide-sweeping changes like this. I'll get to those edits in the next few days. KoA (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi KoA. Just following up on here. Did you have time to review some of my recent edits? As of today, the infobox of this page mixes the Syngenta AG and the Syngenta Group Co., Ltd. and their logos, as well as other details. Thanks in advance for your help. --JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Everything seems to match up correctly in the infobox now, especially since Syngenta Group is the owner, so it will be mentioned a little in relevant places. Is there something specific you're wanting changed? KoA (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hey User:KoA! Thanks for reviewing my edits from yesterday. Again, I really appreciate your help. There are still some issues:

• "Syngenta AG (…) with its management headquarters in Basel, Switzerland, and further locations in Chicago, Tel Aviv, and Shanghai."
  This is wrong. Please be aware that Chicago, Tel Aviv and Shanghai are locations of the Syngenta Group.
• "Syngenta was founded in 2000 (…) Its business units are Syngenta Crop Protection, Syngenta Seeds, Adama, and Syngenta Group China."
  This is wrong. The Syngenta Group China is not a business unit of Syngenta (AG), but of the Group. Adama is not a business unit of the AG, but the Group.
• The lead section includes a list of brands, which is somehow a duplicate of the products and services section.
• Would you mind adding the Group logo to the history section?

It wasn't my intention to add fluff language, but to carefully separate the Syngenta (AG) from the Syngenta Group (Co., Ltd.), following the discussions from above. JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

At this point, we need sources to act on. If something has changed for this page's subject, not Syngenta Group, that needs to be sourced. As for the lead, the WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the body. As a reminder, this is not the Syngenta Group page, so there's not a need to display their logo here. KoA (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. To verify basic information about Syngenta (not the Group), the official finanzial report is a good place to start digging further.

Following your arguments, what do you think about removing all information about the Group from the Syngenta page, maybe except a short mention in the lead and/or history section? To be clear: If that is consensus for now, we do support it, of course. --JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The currently single line at the end of the history section should be plenty of mention for Syngenta Group since it mentions the acquisition history. KoA (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Acquisitions

Since November 2020, the acquisition history section is marked as outdated. For the year 2014 and onwards, I am happy to provide the following list for completion:

Year	Company	Category
2004	Garst Seed Company	Seeds
2004	Golden Harvest Seeds	Seeds
2009	Circle One Global	Crop Protection
2009	Pybas Vegetable Seed	Seeds
2009	Synergene Seed & Technology	Seeds
2010	Maribo Seed	Seeds
2012	Devgen	Seeds
2012	Pasteuria Bioscience	Crop Protection
2012	Sunfield Seeds	Seeds
2013	MRI Agro	Seeds
2013	MRI Seed Zambia	Seeds
2014	Lantmännen	Unspecified
2014	Società Produttori Sementi	Seeds
2015	Land.db Enterprises	Unspecified
2018	Abbott & Cobb	Seeds
2018	FarmShots	Digital
2018	Icepage	Unspecified
2018	Nidera Seeds	Seeds
2018	Strider	Unspecified
2019	Cropio Group	Unspecified
2019	Sanbei Seeds	Seeds
2019	Varinova	Seeds
2020	Hollar & Co.	Seeds
2020	Progeny Advance Genetics	Seeds
2020	Sensako	Seeds
2020	Valagro	Crop Protection
2020	Woodbridge Seed	Seeds
2021	Dipagro	Seeds
2021	Vipagro	Crop Protection
2022	Agro Cerrado	Seeds
2022	Agro Jangada	Crop Protection

(without claiming completeness / no guarantee)

We suggest that the section be amended and would be happy to provide appropriate sources if requested. Thanks for your help. JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Due to my own COI, I cannot say "sure, go ahead", but since that section has been marked for a while and assuming the above is well-cited by third party sources, I don't see any issue (other than, potentially, WP:NOTABILITY in some cases). That section is certainly due for an overhaul. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Melmann 12:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Paraquat case

User:KoA thanks for the check in my recent update and all your extensive work across Wki. I'm inclined to think the Paraquat Papers are still worthy of this page (do you disagree?), would you mind please checking these two questions and assertions for future updates:

- What is more specifically the Wikipedia:COIpolicy for a journalist like Carey Gillam? I understand she's invested as a journalist and author, but obviously lots of journalists and researchers are cited within their fields of expertise.

- Understand WP:MEDRS pertaining to chemistry and science, which I referenced in the research study. So that can be omitted. But the article in Guardian is Wikipedia:Reliable sources for other topics like litigation and corporate controversy. Similar publishers like Bloomberg, Reuters & NYTimes are mentioned across other similar pages like Glyphosate and Roundup and Bayer. So can you confirm the article can still be referenced? Many thanks KoA- Yachtahead (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The content that was removed was very much making biomedical claims in it, but the larger issue with Gillam is being the research director for U.S. Right to Know, an organic-industry lobby group. It's similar to how we wouldn't be reaching for sources from another industry spokeperson as independent (e.g., Bayer). There's also some WP:FRINGE claims related to glyphosate, GMOs, and other pesticides in her work, so overall, she's not a reliable source for information on pesticides.

If there are MEDRS sources that discuss the studies in question then those can definitely be discussed, but we normally wouldn't reach for what would be called WP:MEDPOP sources even if they didn't have a conflict of interest. In such a case, it's very easy to run into WP:POV issues with a non-expert giving their take on a scientific topic. KoA (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)