This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
requires updating:
Skyring, 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)
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)
In the section on Spin-offs and mergers, i find this text:
1997: Monsanto spun off its industrial chemical and fiber divisions into Solutia [1] [2] 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)
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)
In respinse to @ Tsavage: 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. Minor 4th 17:19, 21 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)
References
( ←) 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)
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:
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.
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.
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.
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...?
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)
Comments? Interest in any of this? -- Tsavage ( talk) 22:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
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
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)
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)
User Jytdog reverted my edit here with explanation "this is not a matter of belief" -- which i don't understand. Care to explain, Jytdog? 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)
"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)
"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)
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 [5] It does seem well supported by this source:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
Kyledickinson ( talk) 04:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Kyle
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
"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
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.
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I recently removed part of the lead mentioning that Monsanto was one of the key producers of glyphosate. [6] 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#Formulations_and_tradenames lists a few sources discussing this, but it sounds like Chinese companies produce the bulk of glyphosate nowadays. @ Smartse:, 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
requires updating:
Skyring, 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)
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)
In the section on Spin-offs and mergers, i find this text:
1997: Monsanto spun off its industrial chemical and fiber divisions into Solutia [1] [2] 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)
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)
In respinse to @ Tsavage: 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. Minor 4th 17:19, 21 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)
References
( ←) 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)
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:
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.
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.
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.
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...?
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)
Comments? Interest in any of this? -- Tsavage ( talk) 22:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
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
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)
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)
User Jytdog reverted my edit here with explanation "this is not a matter of belief" -- which i don't understand. Care to explain, Jytdog? 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)
"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)
"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)
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 [5] It does seem well supported by this source:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
Kyledickinson ( talk) 04:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Kyle
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
"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
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.
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I recently removed part of the lead mentioning that Monsanto was one of the key producers of glyphosate. [6] 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#Formulations_and_tradenames lists a few sources discussing this, but it sounds like Chinese companies produce the bulk of glyphosate nowadays. @ Smartse:, 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)