Talk:Syngenta

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)

Dear all,

I wanted to pick up the discussion above that JD had initiated to establish a separate article about the Syngenta Group. Please note that I also have a financial conflict of interest as I am being paid by Syngenta Group.

I suggest a separate article about the Syngenta Group mainly because the current article about the “Syngenta Global AG” describes only two out of four business units of the Group. With Syngenta being the main brand, the sole article about the “Syngenta Global AG” may also lead to confusion among readers, which I would like to help solve.

I have therefore drafted an own article about the Syngenta Group in my user space that focuses only on the Group that had been formed in 2020 by bringing together Syngenta AG, Adama, and the agricultural business of Sinochem under a single entity. The article is completely different from the existing article about the “Syngenta Global AG” and I hope it is therefore not to be seen as a copy, which led to the decline of the previous suggestion on 15 May 2022 via the AfC process. I took the article about German retail group Ceconomy as an example for the structure of such a group article describing the group’s history shortly next to information about the group’s structure, governance and financials.

My suggestion would also see the current article and its content being preserved, with only slide corrections for it to focus on the Syngenta AG instead of describing the Group (mainly wrong key people and a small twist at the beginning to sort the different business groups better). I’ve created a respective diff on my user page for you to see what I propose to change. Please note that the entity “Syngenta Global AG“ does not exist. Not sure why this was changed by an IP last year. For reference, please see the financial report linked in the current article that solely refers to the “Syngenta AG”.

@Jtrevor99:, @KoA:, since you have been involved in the discussion before: What do you think about my suggestions? Very much looking forward to your feedback.

Best, Conandcon (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

While I unfortunately don't have time to review the proposed article, but so long as it is not a WP:STUB, I find no problem with this proposal. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

In a similar position here too time-wise, but I'll try to take a look later this week. I glanced at the last move discussion though, and without major sourcing changes, I'd still say a new page doesn't seem appropriate in terms of notability or WP:DUE. Instead just a really short paragraph on Syngenta Group's structure seems like the simplest solution here like discussed prior. KoA (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your replies. Yes, please have a look at the proposed article about the Group if you have the chance. I added many, many sources that didn't exist when the topic was discussed before (Forbes, Reuters, Bloomberg News, The Wall Street Journal etc.). Looking forward to your feedback! Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Conandcon (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I did take a look at the draft, and it's just copied from this page with minimal changes, so I don't think it would be appropriate for a separate article. As has been mentioned before, this article can very briefly mention the existence of Syngenta Group as an entity, but it's existence does not mean it will have a separate article.

There already is mention of Syngenta Group in this article, so like had been discussed before, there doesn't seem to be a WP:PAG issue here. If there's additional bits to add here about overall structure that would be one thing, but that would be relatively minor edits to what already exists in the lead and body. There's already a whole paragraph in the lead dedicated to the ownership history that pretty thoroughly covers this: Syngenta was founded in 2000 by the merger of the agrichemical businesses of Novartis and AstraZeneca, and acquired by China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) in 2017. In 2020, the Syngenta Group was formed, bringing together Syngenta Crop Protection and Syngenta Seeds, Adama, and the agricultural business of Sinochem, now called Syngenta Group China, under a single entity. KoA (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Just to make sure: We are talking about the new article that I proposed on my user page talk page about the Group, right? Because I drafted it from scratch and it is really a completely new article. The diff I created, and linked above, is merely a clean-up of the current article to correct the content (e.g. key people) so that it fits Syngenta AG and does not refer to the Group. Conandcon (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I was looking at this link you gave, but I see what you mean now with this second link. I'll take a look at that in a bit. KoA (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, great. Thanks a lot in advance for your support with this! Best, Conandcon (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

It's been busy between holidays and other things, but I took a look at the correct draft. Ultimately if you want to have a new page, you need to satisfy WP:NCORP and I'm running into a few problems there. Most of the sources are not really in-depth focus on the entity Syngenta Group, but standard reporting most any company would get on basics like mergers, etc. That may be a big deal in the business world, but that does not always translate over to encyclopedic. That falls into issues described at Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Indiscriminate_sources. Something like this for instance is just an indiscriminate company profile and doesn't indicate anything WP:NOTABLE or WP:DUE.

The other problem I'm running into is many of the sources still just refer to all this as Syngenta. It seems like as at least some independent sources really don't focus much on the Syngenta Group name being important. This source for example does that that you included. There's not really much that would be included from that source in an article either. That a company added, cut, etc. X% of jobs at a given time usually isn't encyclopedia worthy.

It does look like the Syngenta Group name is more or less an afterthought in sources still, and that's where the previous consensus' to just mention the existence of Syngenta Group in this article as an owner but leave it at that came around. Part of that was the WP:INHERITORG issue that this page/topic does not guarantee notability for Syngenta Group. They need to do that on their own within sources. I'm not opposed to the idea of a stub article like Jtrevor mentioned, but I'm just not seeing the case made in sources yet. I don't really have any other helpful answers at this time. What would really help are independent sources that give in-depth overviews specifically of Syngenta Group beyond basic structure. Basically, the source(s) would need make the case that the group is a notable company in the wiki-sense showing impact, etc. of the group and not its subsidiaries. KoA (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear @KoA: Thank you very much for looking into this. Now it took me a few days to reply. Please see below a list of in-depth, significant articles about the Syngenta Group – not its subsidiaries – in independent, reliable, secondary sources showing the impact of the group. I only listed those articles from the largest and most important media outlets from the US, Switzerland (where Syngenta Group has its administrative headquarters) and Germany. I also added one example from India to show that the Group is not only relevant the US and Europe but also in Asia (outside China). At the end of the table you'll find also more controversial pieces from The Wall Street Journal and Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

One thing is important to note: Just like with interwiki linking here at Wikipedia, media often introduces the topic “Syngenta Group” once to make clear that the article is about the group and not its subsidiaries and then just uses Syngenta for abbreviation purposes. Still, those in-depth articles are about the group and not one or two of the business units of the group (e.g. Syngenta Crop Protection, Syngenta Seeds). This abbreviation method is common practice in news articles, specifically when it comes to the article titles to keep them short and precise.

I also did not list here the many, many articles from special interest media, the articles from less notable media outlets or those where the content about the Syngenta Group is only viewable with subscription to the news outlet. Also, the list is surely far from complete. But I believe it clearly shows the notability of the Syngenta Group already.

What do you think?

Best, Conandcon (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@KoA:, I added some of the listed sources below as well as others from independent and reliable media outlets showing the relevance of the Group to the current draft on my user page. Thought this might help - next to the list below - and also for other users to see the relevance of the Syngenta Group. What do you think? Looking forward to hearing from you. Best, Conandcon (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Should a separate article be created for Syngenta Group, the mother company of Syngenta AG?

• 1. Yes—as suggested by user Conandcon on his user page
• 2. Yes—in another form as suggested
• 3. No—no separate article is needed. Current description of the Syngenta Group within the article of Syngenta AG is sufficient.

Best, Conandcon (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Please not that I have a financial conflict of interest as I am being paid by Syngenta. I am tagging users that have been involved in discussions on this talk page before in case they would like to add a comment: @Yachtahead: @Jtrevor99: @Formerly 98: @Softlavender: @Kingofaces43: @JonRichfield: @Maproom: @Binksternet: @Cognita: @AcademicReviewer: @Ask123: @Xan747: @Voorts:

• 1. Yes because the current article only describes two out of four business groups (being in one entity - Syngenta AG). So, e.g. the revenue and other information is only about the subsidiary, Syngenta AG. Since the Group/mother company has the same name ("Syngenta Group" vs. "Syngenta AG") this has led already to confusion (among readers); current information in the article about the key people e.g. refers to the Group not the subsidiary the article is about. In addition - also looking into the future -, there is no room for information that only refers to the Group and not to one of its subsidiaries (e.g. the canceled IPO) or major future acquisitions, e.g..
  Above you can find a comprehensive list of articles from independent, reliable, secondary sources showing the impact of the Syngenta Group resulting – IMHO – in the Group being relevant for a standalone Wikipedia article. The suggestion would see the current content of the article about the Syngenta AG being preserved. The suggestion is not to move the page but to create a separate, additional article, also taking into consideration that there are standalone articles about e.g. Adama, another subsidiary of the Syngenta Group (please also see discussion from 2021 above). Best, Conandcon (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
• No but I could see this article - which is titled "Syngenta" rather than Syngenta AG - reworked with main focus on the group and sections on each subsiduary or separate part of the group.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
• No, and COI editors such as Conadcon have been pushing for something like this for some time and have not gotten traction on this for years now. If you scroll to the top of this talk page, you'll see a long list editors affiliated with Syngenta. It should be telling that it's only the COI editors that have been pushing this. When Conadcon says this has led already to confusion, the only "confused" people have been paid editors. Even the first two paragraphs of the lead already describe how Syngenta Group fits into the ownership structure. It is starting to feel like the process is being WP:BLUDGEONed by COI editors when someone's paycheck is dependent on edits for the company.
  There already has been consensus on this page on how the topic is handled. There was already a page move discussion (Talk:Syngenta#Requested_move_9_July_2021) where there was consensus not to move this page to Syngenta Group and to just mention briefly the umbrella group on this page. That is what was done, and it's rather silly that Conandcon suggests that there is "no room for information". What is mentioned here is what is considered WP:DUE. Syngenta (or Syngenta AG) is/was a notable company prior to being bought out by the organization that eventually became Syngenta Group. Later discussion with another COI editor at Talk:Syngenta#Separating_pages also covered the notability and WP:PUFFERY/WP:INDISCRIMINATE problems that have come up with what the company wants on the page.
  The underlying issue this whole time has been that the topic of this page is notable, but the new owner (i.e., Syngenta Group) of a company when it is bought out does not inherit notability per WP:INHERITORG: A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. Nor should a company come here with paid editors trying to make their new umbrella group have its own page in search engines, etc. As discussed repeatedly above with COI editors, brief passing mentions of Syngenta Group or standard indiscriminate business news does not equal WP:N. Generally, news articles also use the name Syngenta when referring to content related to the topic of this page (agricultural chemicals), so the Syngenta Group branding also hasn't stuck in terms of WP:COMMONNAME. COI editors have often confounded this with meaning Syngenta Group is notable. Those are two different things . Most discussion of Syngenta Group in sources is closely tied to Syngenta AG, so that's also why that term redirects here. If Syngenta Group ever became notable on its own, an article could be created under that redirect term, but it's never reached that threshold over the past 5 years or so. You can see most of that summarized in the most recent conversation with Conandcon above. Instead Syngenta Group is just an umbrella company that is briefly mentioned here as the owner of this company. KoA (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  The discussion from July 2021 ended in "The consensus is that a new section or article should be written about Syngenta Group instead." While back then I agree that there were not enough sources for an own article about the Group, four years have passed since then. And today my list above of reliable independent, secondary sources from tier-1 media outlets clearly shows that the Syngenta Group is being discussed in-depth - not its subsidiary Syngenta AG. This clearly shows the notability of the Group. I noted that you disagree, KoA - very intensively for years now. I am therefore seeking further opinions. Let me just say though that I really find your personal accusations unfair. Conandcon (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  As discussed prior, that misrepresents the sources, and that is a compounded problem when it's been coming from multiple paid editors over time. The WP:PUFFERY problem in text itself was discussed prior in addition the problem of overstatement of what sources say to claim notability. Both are a common problem with paid editors in company articles and unfortunately does color discussion for us WP:VOLUNTEER editors when a paid editor keeps persisting on something despite previous discussion. See Jtrevor99's comment below for a good example of stepping back when a COI is at play. KoA (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• No. Plenty of room to describe both here. If the topics were split there would be too much redundancy. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, @Binksternet. Just checking: Did you see my suggestions for a separate article on my user page? I really tried to make it not redundant to the current article about the Syngenta AG. Best, Conandcon (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  My viewpoint is much the same as Lukewarmbeer in that the one Syngenta page can host various sections covering the various corporate entities. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• COI I now have a conflict of interest to declare and cannot vote. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
• This is a WP:SPLIT matter, and is accordingly not an RfC matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
• No opinion. Thank you for the ping but I decline to participate. Regards, Xan747 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

No, citing WP:COMMONNAME, and in full support of rationale above from @KoA Yachtahead (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you all very much for your comments! There seems to be a clear consensus that there should not be a separate article about the Syngenta Group. May I ask - looking at the comments of user:lukewarmbeer, user:Binksternet as well as user:KoA and user:Yachtahead - if the current article should be "reworked with main focus on the group and sections on each subsiduary or separate part of the group" or not? Thanks again for your time with this. Best, Conandcon (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

COI edit queue stalker here. I added a simple Syngenta#Corporate structure section, since the lead is supposed to summarize the article, yet there was nothing in the article about the corporate structure. You can put a Syngenta Group infobox there if you'd like, with the logo and group revenue. Ping me if you need help reviewing it. STEMinfo (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I just saw that there was corporate structure info in the article already, buried in the history section. Having it as a standalone section will allow the inclusion of an infobox. It can also be expanded without throwing the article off, and if needed, can eventually be forked. STEMinfo (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@STEMinfo Thanks for looking into this! Just to be sure: With infobox you mean a company infobox based on the company infobox template? Greatly appreciate your support with this! Best, Conandcon (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Conandcon Yes - it's not that out of the ordinary to have multiple infoboxes, and will help if you decide to fork the info into a Syngenta Group article down the road. Group revenue, leadership, parent, logo, locations, subsidiaries, etc. all fit nicely. STEMinfo (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Well understood. I will make a suggestion in the next few weeks and ping you for feedback. Thanks again and best, Conandcon (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

@STEMinfo Please see here my suggestion for a corporate structure section focusing on the Group including a respective infobox: Suggestion for corporate structure. What do you think? Best, Conandcon (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Looks good. I think this is a good compromise. And I thought the infobox looked better at top, rather than next to the corporate structure section, since it's so long. Down the road, you might add a Syngenta Group section, which could then spin off as a content fork to a new article, if it gets expanded enough. STEMinfo (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The infobox was the type of content that has had opposition on this talk page, so it shouldn't have been inserted. It's fine to mention Syngenta Group briefly, but this isn't the page for that separate topic (which has it's own notability issues). There's a lot of history on this, which is in part why the COI suggestions were rejected. I wasn't aware there was something that would have still been in a queue. KoA (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Dear all,

I would like to suggest very few updates/corrections in the current article in order for it to match the article's title ("Syngenta AG"). Please note that I have a financial conflict of interest as I am being paid by Syngenta. Therefore, I will not make any edits myself but hope that uninvolved editors could review my suggestions and make changes if they find them appropriate.

Already done by Dialectric. IAmChaos 18:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Already done by Dialectric. IAmChaos 18:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done IAmChaos 18:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done IAmChaos 18:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I am very much looking forward for your help with this. Please do not hesitate to reach out in case of any questions. Looking forward to your feedback. Thank you very much in advance! Conandcon (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: I'm having trouble loading the key people link. I'll let another reviewer take a look and implement the last edit. If noone gets around to it, feel free to ping me again. Not closing the tag, so other reviewers can hit the last section. Courtesy ping: Conandcon IAmChaos 18:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

For the 'key people', it is not clear that this article should not be about Syngenta Group as well. Syngenta Group redirects here. The rfc discussion above on this talk page looks like there is not a consensus to create a seperate Syngenta Group article.Dialectric (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both very much,@IAmChaos: and @Dialectric:: In my personal opinion, I think also the key people should be about the Syngenta AG not the Syngenta Group – as also the revenue and income is from the Syngenta AG not the Group, e.g. The discussion above is at the end not clear, but I think in the meantime as long as the article's main subject is the Syngenta AG also the information in the info box should be the AG not the Group. If this changes at some point, we can always add Syngenta Group CEO, CFO back in. Mixing both information from the AG and the Group in the info box automatically leads to confusion IMHO. Best Conandcon (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This has been addressed. The Syngenta (AG) names were sourced, and the Syngenta Group's execs were moved to the corporate structure section. Closing request as answered. STEMinfo (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)