Talk:Monsanto/Archive 5

Documentaries and bibliography
Garzfoth recently removed a number of items from the Documentaries and Bibliography section due to fringe/NPOV concerns. That was reverted seemingly missing the NPOV issue. I agree with Garzfoth that most if not all the references were to fringe items except the Forrestal book, but I honestly don't think a bibliography section is needed with all the references we currently have, and most of the current ones don't fit WP:GENREF that well. I'm not sure what Wurezle was ranting about me here about when I wasn't the one who initially proposed those edits aside from removing one additional source, but please be civil.

With all that, what if any sources should stay? Essentially, what isn't fringe per the original edit? The Bibliography does appear to have NPOV issues with some very "selective" books for a general references section, but as I said before, this is a well enough developed article that the section doesn't seem to serve a purpose. For the documentaries, what's demonstrating that any of them are above WP:FRINGE status and would be due weight within the scope of this article? Garzfoth, since you initially made the edits, I'm wondering if there were any of the documentaries you thought might be borderline for inclusion as opposed to some of the more obvious fringe ones or tangential ones? Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for picking this up and expanding it, I was hoping someone would do that! I think that "Faith, Hope & $5000: The Story of Monsanto" is worth keeping based on what I was able to find out about the book, but as I haven't managed to track down a copy and read it yet, I may be wrong about that. It seems like it's an excellent account of Monsanto's history, which seems like the perfect kind of literature for this Bibliography section (although perhaps this should be renamed "Further reading"?)...
 * I object to the inclusion of the other entries for primarily fringe/npov concerns, but I'll be a bit more specific quickly. "Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply" and "The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and the Control of the World’s Food Supply" are both clearly flat-out inappropriate for this article, I don't think there's any legitimate argument about those. I feel that "Corporate Crops: Biotechnology, Agriculture, and the Struggle for Control" is out of place here as it does not really primarily address Monsanto, and it appears to have some of the problems that the previous two had. It also feels a bit spammy to me. "Baptized in PCBs: Race, Pollution, and Justice in an All-American Town" feels exceedingly spammy, has a very narrow scope, has the previous issues with fringe/npov, sensationalism, etc etc. I do think that it has some partial reasons to stay, more so than the others, but I do not feel that this is truly something that we should include, it's just too problematic.
 * I went and briefly searched for books on Monsanto to see if there are any other books that deserve inclusion, and the overwhelming majority of the books in my results were clearly in strong violation of NPOV/FRINGE/etc. I didn't go too far in depth with my search, but I didn't see anything viable in it. I'm sure that there has to be a few more books like "Faith, Hope & $5000: The Story of Monsanto" out there, but they aren't easy to find.
 * As for documentaries, I stated my concerns, but I'll add a bit more detail. "Percy Schmeiser – David versus Monsanto" should not be included at all, it shouldn't be arguable. "The Future of Food" is too broad. "The World According to Monsanto" has the severe NPOV/FRINGE/etc stuff going, but is more focused than the others. "The Corporation" is too broad. "Food, Inc." is too broad. "Bitter Seeds" has the same issues as "The World According to Monsanto". While I still don't think they deserve inclusion (very strongly), "Bitter Seeds" and "The World According to Monsanto" are the only documentaries in the list that are anywhere near "borderline".
 * I know the anti-GMO folks want to promote their bullshit in here, but this really isn't the place for it at all, and I strongly feel that the only thing we should keep is "Faith, Hope & $5000: The Story of Monsanto". Garzfoth (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense, while it is true that the article doesn't need any Anti-GMO folks "bullshit", it doesn't need any by you either. You removed everything for being "biased" but left the promotional book by an monsanto employee. Who are you kidding?--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a great point, Kmhkmh. Garzfoth, seriously? Leave only a Monsanto puff piece?  Jus  da  fax   16:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you both will have problems to remove all these movies, some won awards or were praised by critics, i looked at a few but comparing then those articles to your above statement seems world apart. Also notice this is not a forum to express your personal opinion. Additionally it is normal that we cite relevant films and docus on article talk pages, or have a further reading section.prokaryotes (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Focusing on content and ignoring the drama that tends to come up in this topic, it will probably be better to just work our way down the list bumping off the most obvious ones one at a time to keep people focused. I'm running on limited time, so I won't be able to contribute here for a little bit though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A wholesale removal is hardly addressing any NPOV issue, not to mention that NPOV applies to WP articles and not to external material. Under a documentaries and bibliography/further reading sections belong the most important, most authoritative and most relevant documentaries and literature on the subject. Whether they tend to paint negative or positive picture of Monsanto isn't really a primary criteria here. At best you can argue that, given equal reputation and prominence in reputable media the more positive and more negative ones should be somewhat equally balanced. So if you have reputable literature about Monsanto giving a more positive impression feel free to add them, but I see no reason for a removal of most of the current ones and WP:NPOV certainly provides no grounds for that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When you say "the most important, most authoritative and most relevant documentaries and literature on the subject", that is exactly why some believe the references should be removed. NPOV applies to article content, which means what we list in the article at all. In the bibliography, we aren't really aren't listing generally authoritative books, and overall, the issues I was bringing up had nothing to do with the sources being negative, but either being tangential, fringe, or not encyclopedic for general references. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course we do list authoritative books in the further reading/bibliography section, that's the whole point of having such a section in articles to begin with. And not everything you claim to be fringe or tangential is actually fringe or tangential. There are actually a few entries for which a tangential or fringe argument could be made but definitely not for all. For the more general documentaries (The corporation, Food, Inc.) there might be possible tangential argument (not a fringe one though) depending on how much of their content really deals with Monsanto. But for instance the "World according to Monsanto" is one of the best known documentaries about Monsanto at all, that was shown on various mainstream TV channels (such as ARTE in Europe), so this one is definitely neither fringe nor tangential. The Schmeiser one is not quite as well known but it was running on various film festivals and collected a few minor awards, which seems to suggest neither fringe nor tangential as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Real world, there is no way those documents and books will not be included in this article. This is not worth arguing about. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with fully here. Wikipedia is NOT a PR firm for Monsanto. I find it strikingly disturbing that people talk here on this talk page as if anything critical of Monsanto is fringe or POV, while hagiographic works are seen as the only things worth including. And the word "ranting" in the above dialogue is truly out of place. There is dripping POV pushing apparent here, and it's not from the "anti-" "side". We need to be aware of this and admit it.
 * Contrary to Jytdog's realpolitik statement, anything should be up for discussion -- as long as the discussion has integrity and is based on principles. I find what i see very disturbing, however. It looks like a strategy session for pro-industry POV pushing. 14:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * SageRad, please cut the inappropriate drama on article talk pages. You've been warned about that many times and we've got enough drama here already from what I was mentioning with the ranting comment. People don't get a free pass to suspend Wikipedia policy on talk pages because the title of this page is Monsanto. This page is not a PR firm for anyone, and that also includes folks attempting to use the page to vilify the company as we've had problems with in the past. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comment. I think that the word "ranting" was not accurate and kind of out of line. I saw the edit reason given by Wuerzele for reverting your deletions as fairly valid, in which they wrote, "restore docu/ biblio sections COMPLETELY deleted by Kingofaces,which you wouldnt believe if you just read his edit summary !)" -- it does raise a concern to me as well. Perhaps we're talking past each other. Here is Kingofaces43's deletion, and here is the revert by Wuerzele. Anyone can see the edits, and decide if you think Wuerzele is "ranting" or not. I do not think i am introducing inappropriate drama here. I bring up real concerns. I saw a serious bias in the way the various works were being discussed here in this talk section, such that items critical of Monsanto were deprecated seemingly on the basis of their angle, while those favorable to Monsanto were deemed good. I also don't like the tone you use with "You've been warned about that many times..." I find this paternalistic and it's an issue i've been having with several editors here on Wikipedia. I never said people get a free pass for anything because this is a page about Monsanto, and i do recognize that people can also push POV in the other direction. I recognize those points fully and i still stand by my comment. SageRad (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with SageRad, point for point. It looks very much to me like the phrasing, assumptions of superiority, and borderline ordering and bullying are out of control, and it's time to ask Kingofaces to stop. I formally warn you, here and now, that no more will be tolerated. You need to review WP:OWN and WP:BULLY.  Jus  da  fax   18:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jusdafax, asking people to focus on content instead of engaging in editor behavior drama on this page is the opposite of OWN and BULLY. It's policy. As mentioned below, the engagement in drama has derailed this attempt at civilly working through specific pieces of content, so I have no intention of pursuing this content discussion further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply noted. Jus  da  fax   22:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "which you wouldnt believe if you just read his edit summary" That was the key problem SageRad as I was primarily restoring the previous removal. There should have been no surprise that I was removing the sections if someone read my edit summary or was referring to the previous edit. It was nothing more than drama in that quoted part of the edit summary. Time to move on. It's only serving as further distraction from the goals of an article talk page. Again, please focus on content SageRad. Take it to user talk pages if you have specific editor behavior concerns as you've been asked to do before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Real world yes. However, we shouldn't be creating the expectation that we let stuff creep in because of the article title either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We list that in the article which appropriate and inline with policies, but simply that which simply matches a rather peculiar policy reading a la Kingofaces43.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingofaces43 and Jytdog are bullying me on my talk page now, including peculiar policy readings, without providing any difs.prokaryotes (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Asking you to slow down is not bullying; more importantly that comment has nothing to do with the content under discussion here; please use the Talk page for working on content per WP:TPG. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean to slow down? Do you suggest i should not edit? And you not answering me in regards to your various other claims, which are intimidating.prokaryotes (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kmhkmh, The problem I was mentioning was that people get hyper-active about including negative material when other editors are trying to focus on relevant policy like WP:NPOV, guidelines like WP:FRINGE, or essays like WP:COATRACK. Often times that hyperactivity causes WP:AGF to be suspended and the person opposing the material is polarized to a shill, POV-pusher, etc when in reality they're a much more neutral editor. Those two things coupled together been a systemic problem here that we unfortunately seem to be stuck with on this page, so I'm just asking the people be mindful of that when considering WP:WEIGHT. I for one have seen enough drama here and distraction from the talk page that it doesn't seem worthwhile to attempt any discussion of content on this topic anymore. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is when you put labels on content, such as fringe, based on your POV, without providing any evidence whatsoever. Also citing repeatedly wiki guidelines isn't considered constructive. prokaryotes (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above Garzfoth did not enforce policy here, if anything he made a POV edit himself. As far as the entries are concerned, they each need looked at for their own sake. As I stated above for some you can indeed make policy/guide based argument for removal (or simply a common sense one), but for others you can clearly not. My issue was with wholesale removal of everything but the promotional book of a Monsanto employee, such an edit is clear no-go. Now if the discussion here yields that some individual of the entries are indeed questionable (a few candidates have been named by me and others), then I have no objections against the removal of these individual ones.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The World according to Monsanto is a critically acclaimed documentary by Marie-Monique Robin produced by the National Film Board of Canada and Arte. Certainly it is not fringe and is something that would interest many readers.  I think The Corporation should be omitted if for no other reason that it is not about Monsanto in particular.  TFD (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would concur with those judgments. SageRad (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

conventional seed
Seminis is a conventional seed company, for the most part. if you look at the 10-K linked to in this article, Monsanto made $821M in 2013 from sales of conventional vegetable seed. Folks who think monsanto does only GMO don't understand their business. This is understandable as there is a lot of crap on the internet and people unthinkingly come here to edit accordingly. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Unsupported synthesis or OR regarding PCBs
In the section on PCBs, there is currently this content: "They were known to be highly toxic from the beginning, but it was assumed that they would be contained in the products in which they were used. However, as leaks of transformers occurred, and toxicity problems arose near factories, their durability and toxicity became widely recognized as serious problems."

This content is not supported by any sourcing, and it appears to be contrary to reality as i read it, given this source which shows internal documents revealing knowledge of toxicity since 1937, but not any indication that it was assumed that PCBs would be completely contained in the products in which they were used. In fact, the source explicitly addresses worker exposure and environmental release, as in this Monsanto 1969 memo content: "Our in-plant problems are very small vs. problems of dealing with environmental contamination by customers. In one application alone (highway paints), one million lbs/year are used. Through abrasion and leaching we can assume that nearly all of this Aroclor winds up in the environment."

The content also does not address the fact that discharges from factories where PCBs were produced were known and contradicts the content's claim that "it was assumed that they would be contained in the products in which they were used" -- this clearly does not apply to releases of PCBs from Monsanto manufacturing plants.

The part i take issue with is that there is the assertion that "it was assumed that they would be contained in the products in which they were used" and yet this is not sourced, logically contradicts releases from factories, and is contradicted by other sources like the one i linked to above. This content seems to be providing a plausible deniability to Monsanto on the issue of culpability for harm done by PCBs, and it is not encyclopedic in tone as it performs synthesis or original research that is not supported by reliable sources. I think it needs to be changed. SageRad (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Added October 2012 Gandydancer (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you for this piece of information. SageRad (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with SageRad's analysis, albeit wordy :-), and thank you for tracing this improperly sourced edit back. I hope  is willing to discuss, if he feels this edit should be reinserted in a correct way per WP:BRD. But 3 years have passed and maybe he is ok with unsubstituted removal--Wuerzele (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We could use this source to tell the story closer to reality. SageRad (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Pipeline products tag
requires updating:
 * http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/rna-interference-in-plants.aspx
 * http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/540136/the-next-great-gmo-debate/
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/business/energy-environment/genetic-weapon-against-insects-raises-hope-and-fear-in-farming.html?_r=0


 * Yes. --Tsavage (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Questioning of deletion
, please explain your recent deletion about legal issues. Your edit reason was "As per Monsanto legal cases, damages and fines for class action suits limited to one case." so please note that your similar edit on Monsanto legal cases is also disputed by another editor there. SageRad (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You can count, can't you? If we say that "(Monsanto) has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars…", and we count up the cases and that number turns out to be one, then we're misleading the reader into imagining that there might be multiple such cases. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is two cases. Total paid by Monsanto in both cases comes to $483 million ($390m + $93m). We could debate the semantics of the old content, but in the end we changed it to be less specific, but it is indeed true that Monsanto has paid out hundreds of millions across multiple cases in liability and fines over damages caused by its products and negligence and criminal actions. SageRad (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the text to improve flow and logic in the sub-lede to restore the flow, but not to make any claim about number or dollar amount for such lawsuits, and also removed the qualifier "class action" as there are lawsuits of both kinds -- class action and specific damages.

I think that the original text was not accurate, and it's good that it was flagged, but that a total deletion of that text was going too far, and that it needed to be made more accurate and yet to remain to fulfill its function as introduction to the article. Hopefully this will resolve this issue. SageRad (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My agenda is accuracy, as opposed to misinforming our readers. Simple as that. --Pete (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll believe it when i see it. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsupported statement about PCBs liability
In the section on Spin-offs and mergers, i find this text:

1997: Monsanto spun off its industrial chemical and fiber divisions into Solutia This transferred the financial liability related to the production and contamination with PCBs at the Illinois and Alabama plants.

I read both sources and do not see any support for the notion that spinning off some of their business into Solutia "transferred the financial liability related to the production and contamination with PCBs at the Illinois and Alabama plants". I question that statement, and it's not supported in the sources as far as i can tell. It might be correct or it might be false. I recommend we remove the statement or else source it properly. We could also more explicitly describe the liability situation around PCBs in the article, to be of better service to the reader. Where does current liability lie for PCBs in general (not just at the Alabama and Illinois plants) after the spin-off of Solutia? That would be good content, if there is a known answer. Monsanto does continue to be party to lawsuits regarding damage by PCBs to ecosystems and human health, so there is at least some notion that Monsanto is liable for PCBs harm. SageRad (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems to be accurate, as part of the old-to-new Monsanto story, but presented without necessary context (for example, in 2002-2003 Monsanto/Solutia $700m damages/settlement around the Alabama plant is covered elsewhere in the article). Overall, the old/new Monsanto process isn't covered that clearly in the article (should be its own old-to-new Monsanto titled section). In the more complete picture, one way or another, it appears that a Monsanto, old or new, was always ultimately/jointly responsible for old chemical business liabilities (that's mostly explained in the "2000 (October)" paragraph here). The Monsanto rebirth is timelined on their site, it outlines the chemical liability situation as it evolved, and there are other sources for the details:
 * Corporate Relationships Among Monsanto Company, Pharmacia LLC, Pfizer Inc., Solutia Inc., and Eastman Chemical Company
 * The Solutia bankruptcy reorganization (2003-2008) and the new Monsanto agreement from 2008 re chemical liability, should be mentioned, to provide more comprehensive and up-to-date coverage. That's my general understanding - the devil's in the details, so others may have more a detailed summary description. --Tsavage (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This New York Times article from 2003 indicates that Monsanto retained and shared liability for the PCBs production in Alabama, which corroborates my hunch that the content was wrong. SageRad (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I made this edit to simply remove the unsupported and incorrect claim. Better to say nothing than to state something that is wrong. SageRad (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems fine. It is unnecessary detail given the current level of coverage in the article, and misleading without context if it implies that Monsanto was in practice no longer responsible for problems arising from PCBs or those plants (see that timeline. --Tsavage (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This legal document was discussed at the Monsanto legal cases article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this link. Indeed, the document is an SEC filing by Solutia, and it does say plainly "pursuant to the Monsanto Settlement Agreement, Monsanto has agreed, as between Solutia and itself, to assume financial responsibility for all litigation relating to property damage, personal injury, products liability or premises liability or other damages related to asbestos, PCB, dioxin, benzene, vinyl chloride and other chemicals manufactured before the Solutia Spin-off." That once again confirms to me that the content was indeed wrong. Monsanto did not spin off all liability for PCBs or any other product. SageRad (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In respinse to comment above -- because there is so much info about Monsanto and it's history, I think it's reasonable to create a daughter article describing the corporate history of Monsanto and it's various acquisitions and transformations. indeed I think that would be a very helpful separate article that could be linked and summarized in this article. Anyone willing to take the lead on creating such an article? If not, I may start something in my sandbox when time allows. Minor4th  17:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This comment may seem a little broad for the current discussion, but I think it is on-point...


 * As a reader/editor, I find that, while this article has gotten to the point - in length - where the daughter article process has already begun (e.g. Monsanto legal cases), there is still very little context. The tendency has been to develop a collection of lists - historical timeline, legal cases, products, etc - without much or any coverage of the scholarly analysis of these areas. For me, the by far most interesting and informative part of this whole article is the section of the lead that notes:


 * Monsanto was one of the first companies to apply the biotechnology industry business model to agriculture, using techniques developed by Genentech and other biotech drug companies in the late 1970s in California. In this business model, companies invest heavily in research and development, and recoup the expenses through the use and enforcement of biological patents.   


 * It gives me a framework in which to consider facts, and a starting point for a certain line of further reading or research. Yet that information isn't even directly mentioned in the article proper, let alone developed. In general, there is a lot of...data, but "how and why" questions aren't really addressed. A couple:


 * How and why did Monsanto gain such a terribly bad public reputation - there must be some solid historical analysis?
 * Why did Monsanto recreate itself as the new Monsanto - there must be some business intelligence and analysis behind this, or was it just all by chance?


 * In a similar vein, we don't cover other areas that would seem to provide context - a deeper understanding of the subject. A couple of examples:


 * Monsanto corporate culture - at Google, we have a whole section on Corporate affairs and culture - here, nothing, yet thousands of people, including some of the best and brightest in science and business, presumably happily work at Monsanto, which at the same time is one of the most publiclly reviled corporations in the world - how does that work...?
 * Monsanto marketing and advertising - we cover the products and how bad some are or have been, some false advertising, but nothing about how this company has, for one thing, so quickly and successfully marketed this radical new agricultural biotechnology to the world (at Apple Inc., we have a main section on "Corporate identity" - and one on "Corporate affairs").


 * I wouldn't mention all of this if there wasn't a simple way to begin to address this lack of context: section introductions.


 * At the very least, and especially when there are subsections, each titled main section should have a topic paragraph (most subsections should also have a topic sentence if not an introductory paragraph). It is lazy writing form to skip from section to subsection, like, "History" > "1901-WWII" or "Products and associated issues" > "Current products," with no contextual framing, using the headings to imply organization that may not actually be there. At first glance, this may seem harmless, logical, even, but in fact, in this case at least, it puts reader and editor in list mode, dealing with bits of data indiscriminately, with no narrative or binding framework for the overall article subject. An article should be readable with all the subheads removed.


 * One advantage of having section leads is that they point out larger editorial issues in advance - if you can't write a section intro with a clear summary thesis, what is that section actually about? What would the lead be, consistent with its content, for "Products and associated issues"? "Donations"? "Political contributions and lobbying"? What's the purpose of the subsections in "History" - why pre- and post-WWII, and so forth? A lot of editorial imbalance, if not bias, also, structure without real meaning, gets highlighted when the section rationale and inclusion standards, or lack thereof, is made clear.


 * IMO, Monsanto should include both straight facts AND business, social, legal and any other well-sourced, thoughtful analysis that puts the facts into perspective. As it is, we tend to argue at incredible length over relatively tiny details while ignoring overall article quality, not seeing the forest for the trees. --Tsavage (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What is your opinion of the Lede from early 2012? In general, I am finding GMO-related articles from this time period preferable to their current states. They seem clearly written and informative, and more similar to a normal WP article. On the GM foods page, the safety sentence in the Lede is not flushed out in the body, as you note has happened here. I do agree with fixing these issues, and don't see it being a huge ordeal. Thanks for your input as always, T. ~   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That 2012 lede seems to push an anti-Monsanto point of view. We need to recognize that there are valid anti-Monsanto and pro-Monsanto points of view, and represent both in a good, solid lede. The current lede is actually pretty good, and walks a thin line between the company point of view and naming of criticisms of the company's actions. It could state concretely the company's most notable malfeasance, the hiding of information about PCBs that could have resulted in the saving of lives and protection of rivers. Save for that omission, it seems fairly balanced. SageRad (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sage, can you give an example of what makes you see the 2012 Lede as "anti-Monsanto"? You are seeing something I am not. My preference had only to do with the clarity of information. I'm not in favor of tremendous detail in the Lede, but rather a vague overview of the contents to follow. My feelings on this are not strong though, just making a comment or two.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On re-reading today, it doesn't strike me as anti-Monsanto as it did last night, which shows me how judgment calls about NPOV are just that, judgment calls, and relative to individual point of view as well as even mood at the time of reading. But the third paragraph using several strong critical phrases like "strong-arming" and "aggressive" based on just one CBS News / AP story seems to be thin in sourcing. SageRad (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sage. That makes sense. Even with better sourcing, that language doesn't belong in the Lede, particularly not in WPs voice. But, as you note, this is nothing more than a judgement call, and it happens to be at great variance with many editors who find the Lede a perfect location for heavy criticism of the subject.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it's "true" in the sense of being commonly-held opinion, then it might belong in a lede. I believe that a lede is a place for neither heavy criticism, nor promotional language about the article's subject. In a case where there is genuinely a wide range of valid points of view about the article's subject, then i think that both belong in the lede, and omission of any major point of view would be an error of omissions. I think both the 2012 version and the current version are fairly acceptable in having decent balance. SageRad (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, my remarks are in regard to clarity, not balance. The Lede should simply give an overview of the article, not nessesarily the subject. If we haven't adequately covered dissenting views in the article, they shouldn't be mentioned in the Lede. If half of the article discusses criticism, with due weight and RS concerns met, then the Lede should reflect that 'balance'. As an example, look at the bio for G. Edward Griffin or the Lede for BP. At both articles the community decided that since there was a lot of criticism in RS, the articles should reflect that. In the bio, that Griffin is viewed as a "conspiracy theorist" is mentioned twice in the first three sentences of the Lede. Personally, I think there are more tactful ways of presenting information, but this has community consensus, so that's worth keeping in mind, even if you or I personally find such a presentation less than ideal.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The current lead I find to be, broadly speaking, what the article should be but isn't - if I didn't know anything at all about Monsanto, reading that, I would get a reasonably complete and balanced understanding of the subject in refreshingly few, easily readable words - IMO, the article proper falls far short of this. The 2012 lead - minus the "strong-arming" language - perhaps better represents the article, as it was then and still is now, but that's not necessarily a positive thing if the article is not particularly good: comprehensive, well-balanced, etc. --Tsavage (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of edit moving controversiality to the top of the lede

 * Speaking of, I just noticed the latest edit, moving the controversiality statement to the first paragraph. I'll think about it, but my first impression is that it was better where it was. There is obviously no doubt that Monsanto is controversial, but the why of that is not directly considered in the article, and the fact is, other equally big companies are doing all of the things listed here, at equivalent scale, so are in principle just as controversial. In practice, since we don't have Dowsatan or DuPontSatan, an interesting and valid question is, why has Monsanto gotten by far the worst of the reputations, which the article should address in its own section.


 * As it is, the previous first paragraph described what the company is, and its main business as of today - the rest of the lead then developed the story (as the article should). In the current version, simply by rearranging material, the impression has been changed: we lead with a neutral description, and then a controversial label, as the main framing. While that view is not untrue, there are also numerous scientific achievements, product successes, mergers, acquisitions and alliances, and execution of a complex and aggressive business model in its current biotech incarnation, in addition to a substantial list of big and ultimately nasty products, and my immediate impression is that the rearrangement, while arguably accurate as the popular basic reality of the company, obscures this richer, more comprehensive view.


 * I'm not at all thinking about POV issues and all the other fun stuff contentious editing is made of, this reaction to the new lead configuration comes from a curious reader's perspective - my own, really - and how I'd rather be given a full story, framed in a bit of social, scientific, historical and legal context, and arrive at my own final conclusions. There is a lot lacking in this article, in terms of context and analysis of all of the parts. I guess the bottom line is, if we're going to primarily identify a company Controversial, we have to go all the way and really explain what that means. --Tsavage (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsavage and Semitransgenic, I've reverted the change to the Lede; it should have consensus here first.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing was added or deleted, just some change in wording. I can't see why that would need previous discussion.  Gandydancer (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * consolidating the two similar sentences makes sense, not a contentious edit. Additionally, I don't see what's contentious about stating ver clearly, at the outset, that controversy exists, it's well documented, it's notable, it's universally understood. Semitransgenic  talk. 09:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in my lengthier comment just above, moving the controversy statement to the very beginning of the lead reads to me as making the primary aspect of Monsanto, in a way that frames the article as about the controversiality of Monsanto, rather than as about Monsanto, the company, of which a key aspect is its current controversial public profile. Of course, this is a matter of how each person reads it, and I will re-read it later, but that is how it appears to me right now. --Tsavage (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * the company has received significant coverage because of said controversial products, we are making a factual assertion, there is nothing contrived in stating this. Semitransgenic  talk. 10:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that the change should not have been made without consensus here. Given the history of the article, this is a controversial edit. Please revert Semitransgenic. Mention of controversy was already in the lede, signifying the controversy's significance. Dialectric (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * nah, I'm good with the current version thanks. Semitransgenic  talk. 11:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, now I see that I missed that the info had also been moved to the opening para. I agree with the other editors that believe that will require a discussion. I'm against it. Semitransgenic, I think you should revert your edit.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I restored the lead from Semitransgenics revision, to the version that has been in place for the last few months, per the opinions of several editors, above.

Semitransgenic's edit moved Monsanto's controversiality to the first paragraph, which makes (or may be seen to make) the company's controversiality/public perception/media image its single most defining aspect. That is perhaps a valid view, however, if we are to take that direction with Monsanto coverage, it has to be well-supported, and what is that support to be based on:? --Tsavage (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * there was nothing in the edit that suggested it is "its single most defining aspect." Is it a significant aspect? yes it is, this is self-evident, doesn't warrant debate. Semitransgenic  talk. 20:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if it was the right edit to make (which I don't agree that it was, by any means), this is the wrong time to make it. Changes to the GMO suite are likely going to happen incrementally, and unless there is a significant problem, the Lede should not be drastically changed without ample discussion and agreement. If we are misquoting the WHO in the Lede, for instance, that should be addressed immediately. But there is nothing about the Lede here to worry about right now. IMO, Tsavage should just go ahead and implement his ideas for the body of the article. When he's done, we can have some tea and discuss it. If it's atrocious, we'll just revert it right back. Sound good?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough... Sounds good! Jus  da  fax   21:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, great, I'll get right on that!
 * I did mention several incremental improvement ideas: I'll begin a new section to list them, see if there are any comments, and take a shot at starting what I can.
 * An interesting background question: What if Monsanto had emerged from its reorganization a dozen yeara ago with a new name, instead of as Monsanto once again (I read somewhere that rebranding under a new name at a cost of $40 million was considered and rejected)? Would we create a new article for that company, or redirect here, and how would we treat the old Monsanto history in the coverage of the new company? --Tsavage (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * this almost happened, a name change, and a move to the UK, was part of the Syngenta merger proposal, a new name changes nothing, same shareholders, the article would bear the new name with a "previously named..." in brackets, see Altria Semitransgenic  talk. 22:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We would probably create a redirect and note the history of name changes, like we did for Blackwater military subcontractors: *    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting...thanks! No end point in mind to this, just thinking about "what's in a name" and how the media and activist opposition might fare - and general public opinion be affected - with a new name and vigorous PR carefully distinguishing new Nonsatan Corp. from Solutia, Pfizer, Monsanto Chemical Co. And how our coverage would conform to that, would it be different from what it is now? Not really the case with Philip Morris/Altiria or Blackwater/Academi, which seem more like straight name changes, not major diverstitures with distancing, and a legal name "change" to...the same name. --Tsavage (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ideas for incremental article improvement
IMO, the article is in current form very list-like, with similar items strung together under broad headings, and little to no context - secondary source business, social, scientific and legal commentary - to provide some insight into why events occurred, how they interconnect, what impact they had, and so forth. If we could manage something like that, the article could become hugely more encyclopedically useful than a simple chronological record of events. Here are some ideas that may incrementally lead toward such an upgrade:


 * Comment it's far from "list-like." The imposition of such a narrative framework would be synthetic. Saying there is "no context" assumes readers are not intelligent enough to comprehend what it is they are reading. Semitransgenic  talk. 09:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The imposition of a narrative framework is required, it is not an example of WP:SYNTH   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * if the proposed narrative structure, one that "ties things together" and "creates context," as suggested here, does not reflect what might be found in reliable secondary sources, then yes, it is very much synthetic. We are presenting facts, not telling a story, that's not our job. Semitransgenic  talk. 20:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From past experience with Tsavage, there is no possible way he is suggesting to use OR/SYNTH. If he's suggesting a particular narrative, it means there is ample RS supporting it. Bottom line is that we all agree: that which is found in RS, with due weight, is the only thing we really need to discuss. If T is going to waste people's time with unsupported OR, it would be a first.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph for each main section
For each major section, a brief, high level overview that ideally puts milestones in a historical context. If we're unable to write a section intro with a clear summary thesis, that brings into question what that section is really about, and suggests refocusing. This effort should lead naturally to scrutiny and if necessary, revision, of the overall article organization, on the level of sections and subsections.
 * Support -- This is a great way to begin, and you're right, it will uncover any glaring issues..   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: needs upkeep and duplicates controversy sometimes, besides increasing size. I've seen this process over my 2 years of editing Bitcoin.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision: "Spin-offs and mergers"
This existing section in History is currently a timeline, and not entirely clear. Revise and retitle to explain how old Monsanto was transformed into new Monsanto, what lead it, and what its connection is to the past.

New section: "Reputation"
How and why did Monsanto gain such a terribly bad public reputation (especially considering that many other huge corporations are doing all of the same things Monsanto is criticized for) - looking for some reputable historical analysis.
 * Comment: low priority. let the facts speak for themselves. plus its a very partisan area. (would be surprised if there was a reputable historical analysis)--Wuerzele (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've seen some good sources on this; I think it could be handled in an encyclopedic way. We can't ignore issues due to their unpleasant or controversial nature.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose such analysis is unnecessary, rationalisation is irrelevant, it is what it is. Semitransgenic  talk. 08:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For this in particular, I'd consider usability and the general reader target audience. Why is Monsanto so (publicly) reviled? Slightly more sophisticated: Why is Monsanto so reviled, other companies do the same, don't they? IMO, these questions are reasonable to assume as basic, and it should be easy for a reader to find an answer in the article. I'd like to know the answer! If we can provide one. --Tsavage (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * it's clear that they created a series of problematic products, stretching back years, so there is the accumulative effect of media coverage and criticism over time, which, when the GMO issue became a public concern, received renewed focus. Making comparisons with other companies in this sector is not our job. Semitransgenic  talk. 14:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

New section: "Corporate culture"
See Apple Inc. and Google. Thousands of people, including some of the best and brightest in science and business, presumably happily work at Monsanto, which at the same time is one of the most publicly disliked/reviled corporations in the world - how does that work...?
 * Comment: low priority, very similar to above section reputation. i think there's more important stuff--Wuerzele (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any sources covering this, but if T is mentioning it, I'm betting he has.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this kind of analysis is subsidiary, and could very quickly veer into OR, not relevant to our concerns. Semitransgenic talk. 08:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

New section: "Marketing and advertising"
For one thing, how was Monsanto able to so quickly and successfully market radical new agricultural biotechnology to the world? (Because Monsanto is not an end-consumer-facing company a good deal of Monsanto's business is to other business (e.g. ag industry), not consumers, its easy it may be easier to overlook how it markets to its business clients.) Are there solid sources? updated --Tsavage (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support:yes. but monsanto is an "end-consumer-facing company".--Wuerzele (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - if that's what you meant, I'll just update it and remove the old. Or please fix it! --Tsavage (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments? Interest in any of this? --Tsavage (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no objections. Why not begin with first idea, to add a summary to each section, and we can go from there?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, I will. I don't have any of this pre-researched or anything, I just edit as I go, using online resources. I didn't intend this section particularly as an approval process or vote, it was a kinda long shot to see if some editors might have complementary ideas, sources, whatever, or point out why things might not work out - there were a couple of comments like that on the not work out that are interesting and that I'm checking out, like Bitcoin. --Tsavage (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, gotcha.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My main interests are elsewhere right now but I am following along and appreciate what others are doing. Gandydancer (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I must admit to the same. I'd like to help if possible, but don't intend to add this to my watch list, or take on another project needing many hours of research. However,, if you have specific ways I/we can help, don't hesitate to say so.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No worries, this isn't a big project for me, either, I'll keep working at it over time, on and off, as I have been for a while. This outline is at least a bit of a change from the usual recorded strife, and maybe some editor just dropping in will stick around and be encouraged by it to do some new work. I think the worst of the recent editorial fighting is that it drives off new editors, and I believe the drop-ins, who come by, do some hardcore work, and leave, are critical to keeping it all alive and healthy, and you just can't work like that in a combat zone. Hopefully, editors of sound mind will step in to be heard, here or elsewhere, when lone editors come under siege - that is where ownership problems seem to start, with small acts of repression against lone editors. I stuck around arguing these last few...months for only that reason. :) --Tsavage (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too, T. My main objective was to see if I could help break up the gridlock. I do, however, see some serious issues that need to be addressed. For instance, Glyphosate and Roundup should be separate articles. The "most scientists agree" statements need to be fleshed out, and the reader told whether this source is referring to only AAAS scientists, back in 2012, or whether we are referencing a more recent, global survey. After investing so much time into this, I'd like to see some of those issues addressed. As for drive-by GF editors willing to put time into building an article, and I don't want to be negative, but don't hold your breath ;)   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had this article on my watch list for years but as far as I remember only took part in any extended discussion when this recent editing came up. My concern has been more directed at corporate takeover of agriculture much like the corporate takeover of mom and pop grocers, restaurants, etc., rather than THEY'RE MESSING WITH OUR GENES!!!  WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! concerns.  And, I'm going to agree with Petra re working with this article (or any other corporate article), the interest is very low...though one does tend to find the same  group of editors that watch over them. Gandydancer (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to clarify: "don't hold your breath", because the pool of editors willing to do neutral grunt-work (article building and upkeep) is nearly dry. The mass exodus of editors coincides with the US economic crisis. Those who were left found themselves with little support, and for this reason may have been more easily driven off when encountering those here to promote their pet cause or special interests. At the Edward Snowden article, even though it is relatively peaceful and the story a popular one, there has not been a single editor spend more than a few minutes on the page in the past two years. It's astonishing. We have a "help needed" sign up but there are simply no editors around.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Example of context: WDYT?
Here's a sample bit I just found that reflects the kind of context (and sourcing) I had in mind. This is from a published, faculty-prepared case study by INSEAD, for course use:


 * When molecular biology labs ignited the “biotech revolution” in the mid-1980s, the industry was ready to seize the opportunity. Plagued with cyclical sales, intense price competition, low growth and mounting environmental challenges, the chemical industry’s giants were on the lookout for new value-creating strategies. The news from R&D labs triggered a gold rush, with key players redeploying assets through an unprecedented wave of divestitures, mergers, and integration. Du Pont sold Conoco, its oil subsidiary, which used to bring in half of its $45 billion annual revenue; Novartis sold its processed food subsidiaries, Wasa bread and Biscottes Roland, while Monsanto got rid of Nutrasweet --producer of aspartame-- and Canderel. The spinoffs generated some of the cash that was to be invested in biotechnologies. But the required R&D investments were so large that, in addition, mid-size European players like Rhône-Poulenc or Hoechst had to merge (together, Rhône-Poulenc and Hoechst formed Aventis, a finely balanced Franco-German company with headquarters strategically located in Strasbourg). If the R&D effort was considerable, the rewards were commensurate, and numerous synergies were expected between the health and agricultural applications of molecular biology if managed as an interconnected system. With a strong presence in both health and agro-chemicals, Monsanto was well placed to leverage those synergies. Its pharmaceutical subsidiary Searle had been particularly successful in recent years with its 1998 launch of a series of new drugs for arthritis treatment, one of which was second only to Pfizer’s celebrated Viagra in terms of total prescriptions (Viagra was not for athritis).1 - "Monsanto and Genetically Modified Organisms" 2001

Comments, both as a source and on including that type of context?

Regarding the current article being list-y, right now we have, in History, a trail of acquisitions and divestitures during the 1980s and 1990s, but nothing to indicate why. Here, if this source is accurate, it would seem Monsanto was selling off parts, like NutraSweet, to fund its biotech initiative, which was seen as the next golden path. That is interesting knowledge. Just knowing they bought or sold X, Y, or Z company really means nothing to me, or, I imagine, other general readers. Also, the suggestion of the perceived biotech synergy between ag and pharmaceuticals/health is...also interesting. --Tsavage (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the source, and I agree it is interesting - but more importantly, it would help weave together the random dates and raw figures. After all, this is the 'story' of Monsanto, so one doesn't expect to read a list.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Canadian teenager targeted by Monsanto
How Monsanto sponsors attacks to discredit GMO activists. Do we need a new section or does this fit under controversies? Link http://globalnews.ca/news/2414720/documents-reveal-canadian-teenager-the-target-of-gmo-lobby/ prokaryotes (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems fairly routine. Any organisation will act to counter what they see as spurious propaganda. Are you saying that the age of the propagandist makes this notable? --Pete (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Controversy sections are bad style. We should have a section on Monsanto's campaign against GMO labelling.  We can then provide their explanation, contrary views, and how they try to achieve their goals.  This particular story probably does not belong in the article since it has not received widespread attention, but explaining their tactics could be sufficient.  TFD (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone used "Create Book" feature for Monsanto and related entries, and is selling it as their own work on Amazon and elsewhere.
Greetings!

I ordered a copy of "Monsanto & GMOs" on Amazon. When it arrived, it was clear that the book was 100% copied from Wikipedia. However, the book's "author" (Jared A. Klinger) does not acknowledge this in the text of the book, on the web pages where it is sold, or on the back cover of the book.

The book is distributed through Ingram and available on Amazon, Alibris, and other major online bookstores.

I don't even know if Jared A. Klinger is a real person.

97.125.157.157 (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Rachel Garrett

Apparent error in a US public official connection
Under US public official connections, it's stated that Michael A. Friedman worked at Pharmacia, "and later served as an FDA deputy commissioner". The citation for this (#273) states the opposite sequence - that he moved from the FDA to Pharmacia. The citation appears to be right, and the statement in the page wrong. See: Tulane university bio, Bloomberg Business bio. (I did not edit what appears to be a straightforward error because I work for a US agency, although not the FDA. I have never worked for any pharmaceutical company, or had any connection with Monsanto. I also have no interest in the Monsanto debate, only coming across this because of research I was doing on the subject of conspiracy theories.) Hildabast (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're correct here, so I went ahead and made the change. I'm looking to clean up sections like this in the future as including people simply because they've worked for Monsanto at some point is much too low of a bar for inclusion in terms of WP:WEIGHT. When I get to that point, we'll see what other stuff has crept in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hildabast (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, just to keep in mind: I came to this because there is a conspiracy theory that's quite widespread about this. I found it helpful in trying to work out how much fact this was built on. That it's very little, was helpful to see. NPOV fact-checking is important when there are conspiracy theories.Hildabast (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Claims about glyphosate
I removed the claim that glyphosate is safer than all other chemicals it may have replaced, as i do not believe it is justified by the citation that was used (the hagiographic article in Pest Management Science called "Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide" which is a "mini-review" in an agronomy journal, not a systematic review in a medical journal, the latter of which would be the standard under WP:RSMED, as i have been reprimanded so many times by people arguing the other direction than myself, i.e. it has been used to remove claims of potential dangers about pesticides). I also changed the language so it does not sound like it has been approved by all regulatory bodies worldwide, for it has not been. It has been approved by many regulatory bodies. Diff here. SageRad (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * what pesticide that glyphosate replaced is less toxic than glyphosate? Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the source I've found these:
 * "Glyphosate is one of the least toxic pesticides to animals."
 * "Glyphosate is not a carcinogen or a reproductive toxin, nor does it have any subacute chronic toxicity. In a lengthy review, Williams et al conclude that, when used according to instructions, there should be no human health safety issues with glyphosate"
 * "glyphosate is more environmentally benign than the destructive soil tillage and/or herbicides that it has replaced"
 * Consequently, I see no problem with the statement "is less toxic than all the herbicides it replaced" that SageRad removed, particularly when the source has been cited so extensively by other academics thus demonstrating that it is reliable. I can't find anything to support the bit about regulation though, am I missing something? SmartSE (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's especially the word "all" that i have a problem with, and i also believe this is a synthesis. SageRad (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The source article is 7 years old, which is not considered recent by the guidelines of MEDRS: "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, with newer being better." Toxicity is not a linear and easily quantifiable parameter. There is no hard number like "pesticide A is toxic by 80 units, and pesticide B is toxic by 30 units." Lastly, it is not clear that all glyphosate use replaces other herbicide use, which seems to be implied by the text as well. SageRad (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User Jytdog reverted my edit here with explanation "this is not a matter of belief" -- which i don't understand. Care to explain, ? I could just as readily say to you "this is not a matter of belief" in supporting my edit, and it would be basically meaningless as an explanation. I'm sick of you reverting my edits in a rough shod way. Please be team player. Please be here to make a good encyclopedia. Please work with other editors. Otherwise you may be subject to reviews and sanctions, as you know. SageRad (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote, "I don't believe the source...." Have you read the source? (the answer is surely no, since you are going by belief - but please answer.)  And  please answer the question - what pesticide that glyphosate replaced is less toxic than it? Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your question is a red herring and i will not entertain it. Your assertion that i have not read the article is wrong. I understand the premise of it. And your assertion that i am "going by belief" is wrong. Empty rhetoric. SageRad (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so you cannot confirm that you read the source, and you cannot identify a pesticide that glyphosate replaced that is less toxic. You make edits, based on doubts about a source you haven't read. ack. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you understand that there is a biomedical claim being made on the basis of a 7-year-old "mini-review" in an agronomy journal, which is not at all a <5 years full systematic review in a *medical* journal? Are you aware of the WP:MEDRS guidelines? Do you realize that this is a very significant claim relating to human health? Do you see why it should be sourced properly if it's to be included in the article? This is how it works around here. I am sure you're aware of that. SageRad (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"As of 2009, sales of Roundup herbicides represent about 10% of Monsanto's yearly revenue.

As of 2015, glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the world, and while it is less toxic than the herbicides it replaced, concerns about its effects on humans and the environment persist."

Mere juxtaposition is not synthesis. But to me, "world's most popular herbicide", should come before the % Monsanto's revenue, and fits better as a clause of the previous sentence. "while it is less toxic than the herbicides it replaced" seems inadequately sourced to me. "less toxic than the herbicides it replaced" seems too strong, as glyphosate did not replace all other herbicides, and we have no reliable source that says it is less toxic than all other herbicides. I think it is OR to require a colleague to find RS that there exists a herbicide less toxic than glyphosate in order to refute a claim in WP voice that glyphosate is the least toxic. Hugh (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * there is a source that says without absolute clarity that it is less toxic than herbicides it replaced. There are many more. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a human health claim, right? MEDRS quality refs? How about we reduce the claim somewhat:

"'As of 2009, sales of Roundup herbicides represent about 10% of Monsanto's yearly revenue, and as of 2015, glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the world. While it is less toxic than many of the herbicides it replaced, concerns about its effects on humans and the environment persist.'" Hugh (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC) I think the clarity of this section would benefit from a chronological ordering of content. It awkwardly jumps from 2015 back to 2009. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "less toxic than the herbicides it replaced" Doesn't this need an RSMED quality ref? Hugh (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it was completely stupid of me to try to assemble a picture of what the glyphosate market looks like. and there is no point going into detail on glyphosate relative toxicity here. just deleted that. we have a whole article on glyphosate per se. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on limited time so this will be about all I can add for awhile, but I noticed the text being discussed has been removed It does seem well supported by this source:


 * "Overall, GR  crop  technology  has  been  found  to be   more   environmentally   benign   than   the   weed management technology that it replaces. This is  because,  as  mentioned  above,  glyphosate  is  more environmentally benign than the destructive soil tillage and/or herbicides that it has replaced. Glyphosate is less  likely  to  move  or  persist  in  ground  and  surface water than the herbicides it has replaced."

I can't really see grounds for removing the content itself in terms of sourcing except for maybe some slight tweaking. If it's removed just to focus more on the scope of this article, I see no issue with removing it if we're trying to avoid undue weight on glyphosate within the actual scope of this article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well one ground in terms of sourcing might be that it is partially outdated and gets contradicted to a degree by newer and more comprehensive review articles (the carcinogenity assessment for instance has changed since then).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, from the cited source (for the currently removed statement), Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide, all I could make out as a non-scientist, concerning "is less toxic than all the herbicides it replaced," is that glyphosate binds tightly to soil constituents, so doesn't spread in soil and groundwater as much as the herbicides it replaced (which presumably don't bind nearly as tightly, or maybe bind barely at all), and breaks down relatively quickly, making it overall more "environmentally benign." Is "environmentally benign" equivalent to "less toxic"? Generally, I interpret "less toxic" as "less poisonous" (e.g. less harmful if ingested by something living), not the apparent usage here, which seems more like, "less likely to have an unintended negative impact on the environment in general." What's wrong with "environmentally benign"? It seems the comparative toxicological aspect needs to be sourced and worded separately. As always, apologies and please correct me if my interpretation of the science is wrong. (FYI, been watching this discussion for a couple of days, via my Watchlist.)'' --Tsavage (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Less toxic" could also mean having a higher median lethal dose (LD50), and glyphosate does have a relatively low LD50 (lower than caffeine for example).tronvillain (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OUTDATED -- POV
There is nothing here about Monsanto losing court cases because it fraudulently misrepresented terminator genes as effective when they aren't. There is nothing here about the current outing that GMOs don't provide greater yield than non GMOs. There is nothing here about farmer lawsuits about Roundup pesticide causing cancer. This makes the article NOT NEUTRAL. Please fix the POV issues with this article. 100.15.120.122 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Court cases are covered in Monsanto legal cases. If you have reliable sources covering cases or information that isn't in that article (or this one) point the sources out on the talk page and we can discuss their addition to the article.Dialectric (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Economic Impact
1. When discussing the controversies outside the U.S, the article went at length to describe the negative impacts that Monsanto has had in Argentina, yet failed to adequately mention the economic stimulus GMO crops have provided for the country's crippled economy.

2. Information on China was lacking in comparison to that of the countries. The article mentioned it was controversial, not noting any of effects that GMO soy (good or bad), has had on China. Devinb3 (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

disgraceful
This is a sham of an article. It's clearly written by people with an axe to grind against this company. Most if it isn't neutral in the slightest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.59.44 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The content in this article is supported by reliable sources. Please provide specific examples of what you see as non-neutral. If you have WP:RS citations that cover some aspect of the company not currently included in the article, point them out here.Dialectric (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not Neutral
This article focuses mainly on the many "firsts" that Monsanto has had, as they have been leading in the genetic modification of seeds in the agriculture industry. Although negative impacts and litigation is briefly mentioned, there are no specifics to the damages that Monsanto has caused, especially in Argentina. Failing to point out the displacement issues caused by the company adds to the bias perspective in which this article presents.

Additionally, the statement: "The growth was driven by Argentine investors' interest in buying or leasing land on which to grow soy for the export market," allows the reader to believe that the only reason land was acquired by the company was due to investors in the region. In reality, there were many different incentives and reasons behind the acquisition of land and great amounts of force and violence behind the initiative. Monsanto is now being forced out of areas in Argentina for their unethical practices.

Kyledickinson (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Kyle


 * See the post above - when we have people claiming that it is both too negative and too positive, I would say that we've got it about right. SmartSE (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedic effort
Wikipedia should be encyclopedic in nature. Please help me to clean up this article's sentence structure so that it contains notable information, without peacocking or undue weight to negative attributes. This is not a forum.  —Grammardoc—   ''   talk 03:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you see specific sentences or sections with peacocking or undue weight, point them out here or tag them in-article.Dialectric (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Monsanto. 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/20110512173317/http://www.macroscan.com/anl/mar08/pdf/Farmers_Suicides.pdf to http://www.macroscan.com/anl/mar08/pdf/Farmers_Suicides.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140902060620/http://www.rctcbc.gov.uk/en/environmentplanningandwaste/pollution/brofiscin/brofiscin.aspx to http://www.rctcbc.gov.uk/en/environmentplanningandwaste/pollution/brofiscin/brofiscin.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/05/09MADRID482.html

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) 21:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Clicking on page redirects to external website
It looks like this page was attacked by a group called "Gay Nigger Association of America", as hovering over the article and clicking will direct you to their website. I have not checked other pages, but this behavior is not present on the front page at the very least.

--Mackinz (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What you're describing doesn't sound like a Wikipedia function, but something more like a browser hijack. Hovering over the page in general shouldn't cause a redirect anywhere, nor can I find any such redirect in recent edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I took a screenshot of what was occurring when it was occurring, but I can verify that it only was happening on the Monsanto article. Several "random article" pages had no such redirect. Here is the screenshot. Note the link showing on the bottom left side of the image.
 * Also, the redirection disappeared a few hours later. --Mackinz (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That kind of behavior doesn't look like anything a Wikipedia article would be able to do if it was occurring clicking anywhere on the page (excluding that no edits occurred to this page that would cause this), so it's likely something happening on your end. It's starting to look more like a browser hiijack (could be the organization targets specific websites or mentions of a name), so probably best to check for malware. Still strange nonetheless. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This was due to vandalism in a related template on Wikipedia. It was promptly fixed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You can learn something new everyday it seems. That's a bit of an odd case. Here's the ANI for those trying to follow this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Request addition
Hello,

I was wondering if a segment on Monsanto's ghost writing efforts could be included in the page. Something describing their actions covered in stories like this NPR article: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/03/15/520250505/emails-reveal-monsantos-tactics-to-defend-glyphosate-against-cancer-fears

Or (less significantly) in this NYT story: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html
 * I've taken a few attempts at delving into the glyphosate = carcinogen thing, but usually stop short because it's pretty messy already (at least from a wikipedia sourcing standpoint) with one agency fairly erroneously calling it a carcinogen, while other UN agencies disagree with the carcinogen description. The information you are linking to could be included in some fashion, but it would be extremely tricking from a WP:WEIGHT perspective too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Or this article: 1 Whether it's a carcinogen is debatable. But internal emails prove Monsanto knew it wasn't proven to not be carcinogenic and spun it otherwise. GhostlyApe (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

End date of DDT production
The post WW2 section states when the EPA banned DDT for domestic use, and when Monsanto stopped producing PCBs, but does not state when they ceased producing DDT. It would be good to add that to the article, but I was not able to find a reputable source. The article on DDT mentions that it was produced in the US until 1985, but does not mention Monsanto. JustinBlank (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Monsanto rebranding to The Climate Company
Hello,

I have tried to edit the main article, but without reaching the Wikipedia quality standard. Change has been reverted and I understand. Nevertheless, information share is 100% accurate, Monsanto is rebranding to The Climate Corporation: https://www.zefix.ch/en/search/entity/list/firm/121694?name=climate%20international&searchType=default Source provided "Zefix" is the Swiss Federal Registry of Commerce (FRC): https://www.zefix.ch/en/contact

This is a fact that public needs to be made aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.105.107 (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We need a reliable news source. This doesn't qualify for that. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"You write "we need a reliable news source, this doesn't qualify for that". Swiss Federal government seems a reliable source to me. Could you clarify the reasons why you consider the Swiss Federed Register of Commerce being not reliable. You can check at: https://www.zefix.ch/en/search/entity/welcome
 * I’m also not seeing where this is even mentioned. Maybe it’s ambiguous non-English confusing that Monsanto owns Climate Corp. It would seem odd anyways considering the Bayer merger is still planned, so I’d also want to see a clear source on this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This is mentionned in French as Morges (the HQ of Monsanto International is in Switzerland, in Morges in the French speaking area of Switzerland, close from Geneva). As you can read: "Monsanto (Suisse) SA, à Morges, CHE-103.895.825 (FOSC du 14.12.2016, p. 0/3222231). Statuts modifiés les 8 et 29 novembre 2017. Nouvelle raison de commerce: The Climate Corporation International SA." My translation to English (I am french native speaking): Monsanto (Switzerland) PLC, in MOrges, #ref number of the company commerce registration (FOSC = Official publication of the Register of Commerce). Modified status on November 8th and 29rh 2017. New corporate name: The Climate Corporation International SA. It cannot be more clear and from a more trustable source.

Bayer acquisition
I think the answer is stalled. The size of the companies seems to have the EU unsatisfied. Try this one on. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Monsanto. 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/20130302160548/http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/print.php?article=120 to http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/print.php?article=120
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109090402/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib-agricultural-information-bulletin/aib786.aspx to http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib-agricultural-information-bulletin/aib786.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015161004/http://www.seedtoday.com/articles/monsanto_to_acquire_emergent_genetics__stoneville_and_nexgen_cotton_brands-25250.html to http://www.seedtoday.com/articles/monsanto_to_acquire_emergent_genetics__stoneville_and_nexgen_cotton_brands-25250.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603213428/http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=629 to http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=629
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170701071236/http://news.monsanto.com/press-release/eli-lilly-and-company-acquire-monsantos-posilac-brand-dairy-product-and-related-busine to http://news.monsanto.com/press-release/eli-lilly-and-company-acquire-monsantos-posilac-brand-dairy-product-and-related-busine
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120610041315/http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx to http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/vegetable-seeds.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130531024738/http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/doc/RHerring.pdf to http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/doc/RHerring.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328142034/http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class4/201001/128373.html to http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class4/201001/128373.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130809074417/http://vnss-mission.gov.in/htmldocs/Farmers_suicide_TISS_report.pdf to http://www.vnss-mission.gov.in/htmldocs/Farmers_suicide_TISS_report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903061851/http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/environment/9839-changes-to-the-contaminated-land-regime to http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/environment/9839-changes-to-the-contaminated-land-regime
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150507203827/http://query.nictusa.com/pdf/287/13941177287/13941177287.pdf to http://query.nictusa.com/pdf/287/13941177287/13941177287.pdf

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) 20:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Largest producer?
I recently removed part of the lead mentioning that Monsanto was one of the key producers of glyphosate. That may have been true way back when the company still had patent on it, but it's been generic for some time now. Glyphosate lists a few sources discussing this, but it sounds like Chinese companies produce the bulk of glyphosate nowadays. , did you have any additional thoughts with this in mind? I mostly removed the text as is because it appeared to be unsourced or at least out of date (GE crops appear to be at least more of main focus now), but I'm plenty open to tweaking the language too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * To me it didn't necessarily mean they were one of the largest producers but I agree that it could have been read that way. I've rejigged the sentence and changed it to say that they developed roundup rather than saying anything about it today. IIRC though it is still a major source of their income, even if Chinese companies produce more. The lead in general is terrible at summarising the article. It doesn't need to be sourced, but it should be a whole lot longer and mention that they are controversial, as evidenced by the article content. SmartSE (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree on the overall status of the lead, but just focused on that one part for now (commenting that sources even later in the article didn't support the old text). Your change looks good for now though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)