Edge Rewrite
pun Source code View original
Jump to content

Talk:Syngenta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 hours ago by Conandcon in topic Suggestion for Management Update

RfC: Create a separate article for Syngenta Group

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 months ago22 comments9 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
  • COI I now have a conflict of interest to declare and cannot vote. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • This is a WP:SPLIT matter, and is accordingly not an RfC matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • No opinion. Thank you for the ping but I decline to participate. Regards, Xan747 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, citing WP:COMMONNAME, and in full support of rationale above from @KoA Yachtahead (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
 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)Reply
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)Reply

Suggestion for updates/corrections

[edit]
Latest comment: 5 months ago9 comments4 people in discussion

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)Reply
Already done by Dialectric. IAmChaos 18:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
 Done IAmChaos 18:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
 Done IAmChaos 18:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Suggestion for changes

[edit]
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dear all,

I would like to suggest to correct one point in the corporate structure section - and possibly move this up one level in order for it not to be part of the history section, where it seems unusual looking at other company articles. I also suggets to update the financials of the Syngenta AG (not the Group) after the release of the 2025 annual report. 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.

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! Best, Conandcon (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reply 7-JUN-2026

[edit]

Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the numbered notes within the edit request review section below for additional information on each request.

Regards,  Spintendo  08:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot, Spintendo! Greatly appreciate your support with this. Best, Conandcon (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion for Management Update

[edit]
Latest comment: 3 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear all,

I would like to suggest update the management in the infobox as well as in the corporate structure section. 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.

Suggested changes to the infobox:

Suggested changes to the Corporate structure section:

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! Best, Conandcon (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syngenta&oldid=1368716653"