Talk:Syngenta

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  legal section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Puffery 

message: 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)
thread_title:  para-chloro-ortho-toluidine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current Products 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: Hmm, interesting . 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  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ok, ugly time 

message: 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)
thread_title:  6000 studies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: — 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of material pertaining to atrazine/Tyrone Hayes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Syngenta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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)
replies: text: Syngenta →  – 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 July 2021 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Business units 

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