Talk:Monsanto/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Talk page automatic archiving?

Why is this Talk page being archived so that archive pages contain as few as one or two sections? I checked most of the archive pages for the last two years - 2013-2014 - and almost all contain only one or two sections. This makes it difficult to review the general nature of past discussion. I think it would be more useful in this situation, where Talk seems to be low-traffic, to archive it manually or in some other than by strictly date-based automation. How do we discuss this further? How can I change the archiving method? --Tsavage (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

yep. 90 days. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It has been that way a long time. You can review the archives in the archive box -there is a big index just to the right, there, that you can browse to your heart's content, very easily. There is gobs to look through. This article goes through periods of high activity, and periods of lull. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I should say that I don't much care for the monthly index structure, but i am not willing to put in the time to convert this to a more compact way of archiving. It would be a boatload of work, and the links are easy to click. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it is easy to browse the archives.

• For example, it requires retrieving 14 pages to review 2013-2014, for a quantity of text that looks like it would fit on perhaps 3 full archive pages as they are maintained on many other Talk pages.

• It's also harder to get a quick overview of recent discussion topics (like spreading a table of contents one entry per page instead of listing the entries one after the other).

• Also, I find that that archiving this low traffic Talk volume in this way gives the impression, correctly or not, of a moribund editing effort, like when I just arrived here, the Talk page was empty and the most recent archive (Nov 2014) contains one trivial post about a template format correction. For a topic as weighty as Monsanto, in the interest of good encyclopedic coverage, every effort should be made to keep the contributing effort vibrant.

Does stopping the bot going forward necessitate converting the existing archives? Can the bot not be simply turned off of active duty? --Tsavage (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

are you going to stick around for several years and manually archive things here? very unlikely. we can set the bot to leave more threads here. I just did that. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think making a multi-year commitment to archiving pages is a reasonable prerequisite for choosing archiving styles, but I have been editing this page since 2004 or so, and given the volume of talk over the last two years, I could handle archiving with an annual visit or less, so in my case at least, the unlikely is actually pretty likely. :) Yeah, see how your new config goes, and I will look into bots myself. --Tsavage (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Turning off the bot won't affect the existing archives, they can be left as is, or partially or completely reformatted. And the current settings seem to be below even the bot default for minimum threads to archive and to leave, which is pretty low. Why create an archive with just one thread? --Tsavage (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Creating subarticles to bring this article to a usable length

Currently, Monsanto is WAY too long to be reasonably useful as a general encyclopedia article, and much of the content, which at times goes into great detail on specific topics, would be better served in subarticles.

• It is well over 25,000 words of readable copy (reference section excluded), which is approaching three times the recommendation in WP:SIZE. In practical terms, at an average reading rate of 200-250 wpm, it's in the region of a 2-hour read.

• Compounding the problem, about 80% of the article is a poorly organized mix of product descriptions, and related political, legal and social issues and information. This is as challenging for editors as it is for readers, because it is hard to locate if and where particular details are covered.

On the positive side, the article's introduction is concise, readable, and seems to cover the key points - history, business, social - quite well. (A strictly length-constrained direct expansion of the intro would probably result in a good main article.)

Creating subarticles is an established, quick, and relatively straightforward way to address this problem<, requiring simply moving existing subsections to their own article pages and replacing them with, initially at least, the briefest of summaries that can later be expanded and refined as necessary, along with Main article redirect tags.

Based on the current article structure, the following subarticles suggest themselves:

• Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_controversies > Monsanto legal actions and controversies
• Monsanto#Products_and_associated_issues > Monsanto product issues

With summary content for the two daughtered subsections, this would bring the article to an easy-to-navigate 9,000 or so words.

Of course, this isn't a magic bullet solution, but it will immediately bring the article to a usable length, while hopefully avoiding a breakout of contentious editing and edit warring in the main article, at least, by directing the editing of issue details to the subarticles (which could use a thorough reorganization). --Tsavage (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand the desire to shorten the article, but that suggestion merely means we'd have a similar amount of content spread across three different pages. Also, it would risk setting up another POV-ghetto; "Criticism of..." articles tend to fail NPOV, if not by definition, then though the determined efforts of POV-warriors. bobrayner (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to a split per the above as it can just be a content fork at best that could turn into a WP:POVFORK at worst. There are some parts of this article that may not really meet due weight though, so I'd be looking to trim down the article instead before thinking about whether we really need a split. There does seem to be a bit of trivial information here, but it would take some careful editing to assess what should stay or go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@bobrayner: "we'd have a similar amount of content spread across three different pages" - Exactly, that is the idea of subarticles, to break up content into more usable units. The main issue here isn't that information should be deletad, but that there is a lot of specific detail (particularly concerning issues, controversies, lawsuits and the like, some 80% of the text) that does not belong in a company summary article, but is useful in dedicated subtopic articles.

"it would risk setting up another POV-ghetto; 'Criticism of...' articles tend to fail NPOV" - There is no suggestion to set up any sort of "Criticism of..." article. The proposal is to simply take sections that exist here, move them to their own pages with their own leads, and summarize that content in the main article. This all conforms to WP:SUMMARY - if you have specific guideline objections, please discuss.

@Kingofaces43: a split per the above as it can just be a content fork at best that could turn into a WP:POVFORK at worst" - If the content is not POV here, it will not be when moved to a subarticle. Nothing that violates WP:NPOV will be introduced in the split. These are proper subarticles, with their content summarized in the main Monsanto article, allowing subtopics to be addressed in-depth in their own space, no content is forked or duplicated.

Being so long and difficult to read represents a form of POV, in that unreadability obscures the content. Readers who want to explore more of what is set out in the lead are faced with a daunting mass of text that in effect buries them in fine print, creating a bias in the article against whatever is rendered unlikely to be read. WP:SIZE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:BOLD squarely support this proposal to ensure that all of the article's content is accessible. --Tsavage (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

On the note of a POVFORK, my concern mirrored Bobrayner's in the sense that such splits tend to become such, not that the content currently is. However, I don't see where POV issues would get any traction in terms of article size as you just mentioned. It's almost like you're saying something is being hidden in the article, which doesn't appear to be the case given that so much is included. If weight is an issue though, I'd suggest reevaluating what should be prominent in the article as I mentioned earlier. That would seem like the important first step before thinking about a split to see what's actually worth keeping. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43 The main problem with the article at present is its length, not the relative weight of various sections. We have to face the WP:SIZE issue first - just literally try to start reading the article yourself! When something is difficult or inconvenient, people tend to avoid it, which is the point addressed by WP:SIZE, essential readability. If some content is made less accessible than other content, then there is a practical bias against the less readable content. The established solution in this case is not to try and edit down sections - this has been done over many years - but to move certain clearly sectioned areas that are of main article length out to their own subarticles, per WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY.--Tsavage (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Weight plays a pretty big role in determining what stays and goes in an article, which greatly effects size when dealing with potentially trivial content. I'm just saying to tackle different sections from a weight perspective first (i.e., is this bit of content really needed?) and see what remains first. That process will also identify what if anything that might need to be split out, but it's better to do cleanup first before a split rather than doing it after. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tsavage, I'm in agreement with the editors that oppose your views and suggestions. The present article is well-structured and if an editor is looking for only certain aspects of this corporate article, they are easy to find. Anyone that only wants a quick overview can read only the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:SIZE: "Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles." This article is some 28,000 words, the recommendation is 4,000 to 10,000 words. Over years of editing, the sections and relative weight have been established, and there is no likely way to edit down 20,000 words. There are subsections that clearly break out into subarticles, per WP:SUMMARY. That is the fundamental issue here.

@Gandydancer, Kingofaces43, bobrayner: What is your reasoning for ignoring WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY in this case? Is there a reason why this particular article is better served by expanding large subtopics within the main article? How is this case different from, for example, KFC and subarticles History of KFC, KFC advertising, and List of countries with KFC franchises.? --Tsavage (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I see Tsavage's point that this article is mighty long. I could see splitting the "Legal actions and controversies" section into its own article. I think the Monsanto haters will not be happy about that and would consider that "hiding" stuff... but I would be willing to do that if there is consensus here for that. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That's actually one section I've been trying to mull over a bit. If anything has potential for a split, it would be that section, but it also could be a prime candidate for some trimming too beforehand. Is all of that text really needed and are all those cases really noteworthy? I don't have a clear answer on any of that right now, but those questions should really be prodded a bit for a working framework in the new article if a split does occur as I am concerned that splitting it might exacerbate the length problem there and lead to more bloat, indiscriminate listing, etc. rather than a concise article. I'd prefer to see some front end work here before a split, but others might think it'd be easier to just move everything over and rework it later. In the end with this one case, I'm open to a split, just very wary about it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

in my work on this article i have tried to respect concerns of other editors which has been to bring out as many of these examples as they can. I've just tried to make sure that the descriptions of them are accurate. Consensus can of course change and if folks now want to reduce/trim the cases discussed, that's OK with me. In my view:

• the "Filings" section could go (these are just patent filings, not especially notable activity in my view)
• In the "As plaintiff" section,
  • first paragraph is LEAD for the section and should stay
  • paragraphs 2 & 3 are supreme court decisions and should stay
  • 4th paragraph summarizes grain elevator cases.. OK
  • 5th * 6th paragraphs could go, in my view, but have been important to others
  • last paragraph about liitgation with Dupont is OK - huge #'s there and it was commercially important for both
• "As defendant" section - that is all failed lawsuits and in my view could go (but again, has been important to others)

that's enough for now. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I see what your approach was. I agree that patent filings aren't really needed, but for failed cases, I'd think they would be helpful to stay (pending decisions are the ones usually not noteworthy). I know the difficulty in trying to describe the various litigation involving the company to the general public, so there definitely are areas where detail is needed. I'm stilling seeing red flags that things should be made more concise and reorganized as I read the whole section, but the more I look into it, the tougher actually doing that seems. I think I'll let the trimming aspect go for now since I don't really have as much time or ambition to tackle as I thought. With that, maybe go ahead with a split on this section and see how this article looks after that? Reorganizing the new article can be done at a later time if/when anyone really gets the urge to review it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog. I think your approach could work for a the "Legal actions and controversies section" as separate article, but as a section of the main article, it is too long and includes too many items to make trimming it down by thousands of words a practical way to summarize it. I'd suggest, as Kingofaces43 mentioned, splitting the whole section as is - it already comes with a lead - and writing a summary from scratch for this article, perhaps starting by using the first level subheads and writing no more than 1-2 brief summary paragraphs for each.

• 3 Legal actions and controversies
• 3.1 Patents
• 3.2 Other legal actions in North America
• 3.3 Legal actions and controversies outside North America
• 3.4 False advertising
• 3.5 March Against Monsanto protests

This may seem radical, as if we're devaluing the main article by removing info, but I think it's the opposite. Concise, fully cited subsection summaries will have way more impact on a greater number of readers than thousands of words of detail that many won't read, or won't absorb and synthesize), and having clearly titled dedicated articles also helps with searchability, internally in Wikipedia, and through search engines (someone looking for, say, "Monsanto controversies" will find exactly the article they're looking for). For example, as the summary for one of the current sections:

"3.1 Patents: Monsanto has made frequent use of the courts to defend its patents, particularly in the area of agricultural biotechnology (as have other companies in the field, such as Dupont Pioneer[141][142] and Syngenta[143]). Since the mid‑1990s, Monsanto indicates that it has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed but has proceeded through trial against only eleven farmers, all of which it won. The usual claim involves patent infringement due to intentionally replanting patented seed. Such activity was unanimously found by the United States Supreme Court to constitute patent infringement in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013).[154] The Supreme Court of Canada had issued a similar decision in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2004).[162] Monsanto has also successfully sued grain elevators that clean seeds for farmers to replant of inducing patent infringe."

This is just the pasted together topic sentences of several paragraphs in Patents, but already I think it shows how much more information will be conveyed to the reader who wants more than they got in the lead, but not suddenly an hours worth of reading. Clearly pointed to a dedicated article, readers who want even more will then be well served.

In any case, I will almost certainly have time in the next couple of weeks to work on this article. --Tsavage (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd actually think Controversies should remain in the main article. Legal disputes are a nice concise topic, but controversies can be quite a bit broader. Part of the reason why I'm wary about splitting is that controversy articles seem to attract folks looking to vilify the subject, but legal actions are a topic that's much easier to maintain as a neutral point of view. That's very secondary though to picking out a concise subject as I mentioned first though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: Not sure I am understanding you, because there is no suggestion to remove controversies or anything else, only to summarize a lot of material, as the article is WAY too long to be reasonably usable. I'm not sure that legal actions and controversies really separate easily, as a lot of controversy has to do with legal actions. A List of Monsanto legal actions might be a good place to simply list cases, but how do we separate lawsuits and controversies in a summary? --Tsavage (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that not all controversies are legal disputes. Sticking with a topic that's very to the point gives the split a focus rather than just shunting a chunk of related text somewhere else. Controversies on the other hand tend to be much more general beyond just legal disputes and typically should be integrated into the article rather than just creating a controversies section. Legal cases can stand on their own and require some detail to explain. More general controversies generally need the context of the main page. That's why I'm suggesting to only split out the legal disputes as a summary of the different cases that have been brought forth. That single split alone will reduce the main article size greatly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: Still not entirely clear. As it is now, after many years of editing, there is a large section called "Legal actions and controversies" with it seems at least half of the items directly involving court cases, scattered through numerous subdivisions by subject and geography. Meanwhile, some controversies don't explicitly mention legal actions, while other similar controversial issues do. For example, one tricky area is farmer suicides, which involves a number of parts, including court cases and legal inquiries, but doesn't ever come down to a case of "is Monsanto responsible?" in a formal legal context (the only mention of Monsanto in the Farmers' suicides in India main article is "farmer suicides predate the official commercial introduction of Bt cotton by Monsanto") - how would that topic be divided between legal and controversy-no-legal? Sorting this out could take a while. I suggest it be done in the spin-off article, Monsanto legal actions and controversies or similar.

For the summary of that section, using the topic sentences of most of the key paragraphs is an extremely fast way to get a usable draft of summary. Optionally, we could then merge that material with a new outline obtained by working backwards from the main lead, which suggests a different organization for controversies and legal actions:

From our current lead: "Monsanto's role in these changes in agriculture (which include its litigation and its seed commercialization practices[17]), its current and former biotechnology products, its lobbying of government agencies, and its history as a chemical company have made Monsanto controversial."

Controversial issues (as summarized in the article lead)

• Seed commercialization practices
• Litigation
• Government lobbying
• Controversial biotechnology products
• Controversial chemical products

This seems a lot more interesting and accessible (as in, more descriptive, not so dry), summarizes and synthesizes the various parts right in the outline. and is quite quick and efficient to do. And, it makes the lead way more consistent with the body of the article... What do you think? --Tsavage (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it'll be easier to just show what I'm thinking. I made two fairly rough drafts Monsanto legal disputes and Monsanto. The legal disputes page only has instances where the actual legal case is the main focus, whereas more general controversies that might only mention the possibility of a fine or simply that courts were involved (minor details in the context of that respective topic) remain on the main page. In the controversies section on the main page, each subsection still needs to either be reorganized or integrated into the main article as I just moved those bits in to a temporary placeholder. It's typically better not to have a controversies section. I'd suggest reading the essay WP:CRIT, especially WP:CSECTION for some additional insight on dealing with this.

Overall, it's really the legal dispute sections that have the bulk of text, so just removing those alone really improved the size and readability of the article already. I'm not sure if all that detail is really needed in all legal cases, but that should be easier to assess as a standalone topic. I think the main article should be pretty workable at this point if this kind of split does occur. I'll tinker with integrating the temporary controversies section I made in the above diff so it's closer to what I'm eventually thinking of, but those diffs above are what I'm thinking about as the core idea here. Also, you don't have to ping me each time you reply. This page is already on my watchlist, so I'll see replies when I check that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

nice work! thanks for doing that. there should be a WP:SUMMARY paragraph from the split-off article left in the main Monsanto article. The easiest way is to copy the lead from the split-off and add refs where needed. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't quite got around to that yet. I think I've done what I will for now at least on User:Kingofaces43/sandbox/Monsanto and User:Kingofaces43/sandbox/Monsanto legal disputes. I'll leave those be for now and see if people think we should try the split with just this for now. We can always split out more if it becomes warranted, but I think this should be fine for now. On the note of the new article title, would it be better to call it something like Monsanto legal cases instead of disputes? I'd like to make sure the scope is limited to finer details of prominent legal cases in courts or government regulatory disputes where that weight is needed. I just want to make sure legal disputes isn't too vague in that context. I'm not sure if dispute is the most NPOV term to use either (not horrible but could be something better), so I'd appreciate any thoughts on the article title. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: Thanks for the example. I understand exactly your approach, but I don't find that it works, on a couple of levels.

First: The arbitrary division between actual cases and controversial issues that don't have cases doesn't make sense, and is not practical. Splitting off legal is fine, but that content still has to be included in the main article, with equal weight as what is left (and as far as sheer text reduction, legal is only 5,000 words out of nearly 30,000). The split is confusing at best. For one example, we will have moved the hugely controversial issue of seed ownership and related US and Canadian Supreme Court decisions to a subarticle with no coverage in the main article, while leaving a large section on farmer suicides, where a government ban and a court-ordered report, both legal actions, were central. Confusing and inconsistent.

Second: Your proposal involves a fundamental rewriting of a large portion of the main article, largely because of the first point: you can't have a Controversies section that doesn't list some controversies simply because they have gone to court. "Legal actions and controversies" is far from an ideal organization, but it is the stability that has been achieved so far - where is the need to completely undo all of that in order to create subarticles and reduce the main article to a usable size?

Third: It should be easy to navigate from the article lead to more in-depth coverage in the article proper. The rather well-written current lead clearly identifies several areas of controversiality: Seed commercialization practices, Litigation, Government lobbying, Controversial biotechnology products, Controversial chemical products. At present, it is not entirely easy, but doable to find supporting material in the article for all of that. Your split would make that even more difficult.

I think what is needed and very possible is to work with what is there, and simply follow the established approach to spin-off articles, using the already accepted and stable sections that do exist, which is what I have suggested.

You haven't commented on the problems you apparently have with my approach. Why is it not viable? --Tsavage (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

1. As Jytdog described, we'd take the important content from the lead of the legal article and have it here for a summary. As the lead changes in the new article, so it will here. This is just a rearrangement of text right now, but weight will be the next question where your concern comes into play here after a split is done. For farmer suicides, that's really more of a controversy as court cases aren't really central to it, whereas things I put in the new article are very clearly focused on describing prominent court cases.
2. I'm not seeing any difficulty or major rewrite here aside from text rearrangement. Things that are more controversy-like will just be integrated into the article as part of a broader rewrite that's needed anyways, while things that focus primarily on a court case will go to the other page. If a controversy makes mention brief of a court case, that can just be cited within the main article, but something where the focus is actually the court case itself in more depth can go elsewhere. The eventual point here is that there won't be a Controversies section in the article.
3. As mentioned above, the lead follows the article content. As we've discussed already, there's likely content changes coming after figuring out a split, so I wouldn't worry about what's currently in the lead. Remember my proposed split and current rough drafts of the article are only a first step. The next steps after a split would be figuring out better organization of the main article and assessing weight between and within sections/topics, so my drafts are only meant to show what article content is heading to, not how it's organized per se. Right now we're just trying to figure out which content works best for a split in terms of what's hardest to trim down and integrate in addition to what will make reworking the main article easier. One step at a time.

As for your idea, I somewhat commented on that in my mentioning of WP:CRIT and why we try to integrate content. You can run into NPOV issues much easier having controversy sections or articles like that. Since most controversies are either couched within either use of a specific product or the company's business practices, we'd be redundant including products in one article and controversies about them in another. Instead, it's much more organized and easier to navigate by presenting what products the company has (why I started making sections for Bt cotton, etc.), documenting what the product is, and what was controversial about it within the subsection. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I've updated the main article draft[1] to remove the controversy section entirely now so that the focus is instead of either what the company has for products or business practices, and if there's a controversy, describe it within the section instead. This is just placement of general content we currently have before the split expecting that content will be reworked afterwards for a step-wise process here. Just tackling the idea of a split first before any rewriting. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

again impressive! really nice blending. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: Thanks for that additional detail, although it doesn't add to what I've already understood. I'll clarify my proposal, instead. I could be entirely wrong, but I imagine the apparent stability of this article is only the result of detente between pro- and anti-Monsanto editors, based on the article remaining roughly as-is. Once any serious editing begins (as your approach in fact is), the edit wars will ensue (if I'm wrong, and this has turned into a quietly editable page, that's great, let's start editing per you, we'll soon find out!). If we maintain the status quo, meanwhile, the article is poorly structured, seems by its subheadings biased against Monsanto - "Products and their associated issues," what does that mean? do they all have issues? - and in fact is, beyond the lead and history section, practically unreadable as a single piece because of uneven editing, poor organization (try to find out what's up with, say, Agent Orange), and sheer crazy length.

Take an article like Halliburton, at 11,000 words, which I just read almost entirely, and catalogs quite a number of unsavory activities - that's readable, this isn't, and both companies are around a century old, with lots of twists and turns in the their pasts.

If your reference to WP:CRIT is an attempt to avoid edit wars by somehow "hiding" the controversies under less inflammatory labels, I don't see how that will work, it can and likely will still be argued against. Meanwhile, there are at least hundreds of articles and redirects with "controversy" in the article title, even the possibly useful approach of using a disambiguation page, Controversy over the Harry Potter series. Monsanto is a clear and verifiable case of a company being publicly associated with controversy.

As I mentioned in the original proposal, I think this article is effectively POV because it obscures the full subject by making it unreadable due to length; the priority should be to make it immediately accessible. This is a textbook case of not observing WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY guidelines. By preserving the existing, evidently consensus-accepted content and structure and simply creating spin-offs with summaries in the main article contstructed as directly as possible from the existing wording, reversion is difficult to support, as no content is being deleted. That is the proposal strategy: deal with the very biggest problem first (30,000 words, 170KB filesize) in the most established way available (spin-off articles). --Tsavage (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're overestimating the contentiousness of this article's history a bit. We're not really operating in an atmosphere of strict consensus versions like we might have over in genetically modified foods, etc. A lot of agriculture articles just don't get a lot of close attention, so you'll see people adding content, but not as much effort always goes into organization of the article. That seems to be a little more of what's happened here than anything and that can result in the POV/size issue you are bringing up. I'm just working towards a logical structure that flows decently and tackles things concisely, and that's mostly why I've been mentioning WP:CRIT to keep individual topics focused rather than spread out throughout the article. I'm not thinking about "hiding" the controversies, but putting them in places where they have more context overall.

Cutting or completely rewriting certain content might be contentious for some, which is why I decided to leave that as the last step instead of the first. The steps of splitting and reorganizing are pretty mundane though, so I'm not really approaching this worrying about edit warring or anything of that nature in mind. The restructuring we are talking about right now is not deleting any content yet to take those first few steps that should be non-controversial for anyone who feels strongly about the company. In my experience though, we don't have that bad of a problem with these articles to be overly concerned about that though. Even if we start getting advocacy issues, it's better to try setting up a framework that has a decent chance of leading towards a well structured and concise article that also has a lot of information like you mentioned. I think moving more content than might be needed to a split should only be a last resort if we already have tried out this reorganization process if advocacy actually becomes a problem. There's no WP:DEADLINE after all, so we're not immediately going to get a next to perfect version. The current split I'm proposing would help the size a little bit, but it also won't be in any worse shape than it currently is while we try the next steps of additional reorganizing and developing the content.

For now though, do you think this split would be worth a try at first? If things don't work out, we can always go back to just shunting most of the large content over to a new article at any time, so I think it'd be worthwhile to try the step by step approach (1. Split legal out. 2. Reorganize sections and current content largely as written. 3. Make text more concise, cut some, etc.) first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the more full acknowledgement of what I've been saying. :) If you think we can actually edit and reorganize in a sane manner, then sure, let's try starting it that way (I'm just getting cautious after running into much entrenched argument on a few pages over the last three months: nitpicking, warring, wikilawyering seem to run rampant some places). I have some time to help, and if you are more regularly around here, with Jytdog and whomever else, please take the lead, and I'll do what I can. It really bothers me that the I personally can't read the article comfortably right now (I use WP more than I edit it) - Monsanto is, arguably, one of the most important companies in the world today, by virtue of what they're doing - but if the article is being improved in any way, great!

For my part, I wanted to work on History a bit, which will reflect on the controversy section. For one, I notice saccharin detail has been removed. I think it's useful to know that Monsanto was started to exploit a perceived opportunity in North America for saccharin, that it imported its technology, and that from the start, saccharin was the subject of a legal battltle within the US federal government, involving courts, Congress, the President, and trying to ban its use, and Monsanto supported its customers even by offering legal help if they were ran into difficulties. It's interesting history. And perhaps more "controversial" stuff can be integrated into history, simply as a record of the most notable events, including legal stuff.

As previously mentioned, taken from the lead, I think the controversy sections is descriptive and quite comprehensive at a top level: Seed commercialization practices, Litigation, Government lobbying, Controversial biotechnology products, Controversial chemical products.

How do you want to proceed with your changes? Do you want contributions on the subpages you started? When do you want to actually commit the changes? --Tsavage (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely up for doing the split tomorrow morning even (going to bed soon) if we think we're at a decent point. If you want to edit the subpage before then I'm definitely open to that. Let's keep it just to bare minimum changes needed for the split though to have something similar in quality to the current version. That way all the additional edits after the split or unaffected by it can be done in mainspace. I wasn't really planning on anything with the History section, so feel free to tinker with ideas either in my article or the main on here. Some older controversy items could definitely go in the history section (some chemicals come to mind). My goal here is to have something organized in a more logical reading order, and then make the content itself more readable. Hopefully we'll see a decent improvement shortly.Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, cool. I'll just proceed to edit when and how I normally would, directly in the article or discussed here when it seems necessary. --Tsavage (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The split is done. I'm still thinking about some reorganization. Some of the controversies integrate better into parts of the product sections. However, some topics like the farmer suicides (which honestly probably needs a lot of work) would fit better under a business practices heading since it's more about the price of the seed. That should fit pretty well after describing the use of patents. I'll revisit that idea a bit later today and after that, we should be set to start condensing content. Some topics could be reduced to one paragraph pretty easy with this set up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool, the overall outline looks a lot better now. I'm starting a scratch pad section below, for miscellaneous content notes. --Tsavage (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that the legal section has been broken off to a new page, the current (as of February 9) Monsanto article appears to be within the standards of readable length. Checking the page with Prosesize returns "Prose size (text only): 47 kB (7498 words) "readable prose size". Per WP:SIZERULE, this is reasonable for readability and does not necessarily suggest further page division. Do other editors feel that further content splits are needed?Dialectric (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Length as is seems fine to me. --Tsavage (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

With that, I'm done with attempting any additional major rework here. I might tinker with some ideas on a closer to finished product for a draft someday, but I'm going to put that on the back burner for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Miscellaneous content improvement notes

Content improvement notes in no particular order that may or may not prove useful. Add, edit, comment... --Tsavage (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• U.S. public officials' connections to Monsanto - this section could be retitled to include academic connections (see also university research funding)
• (US) university research funding: key business practice and also controversial area, not exclusive to Monsanto but definitely part of the story
• Monsanto is the world's largest agricultural seed producer (conventional and GM combined) (should probably be in the lead)
• needs a standard Controversies section organized under the most recognized specific controversies (e.g. Agent Orange/dioxin) and controversial areas (e.g. GM seed/seed patents/biopiracy)
• Spin-offs and mergers needs to be reworked as part of History, it's meant to document the events that turned old Monsanto into new but has been expanded to include other acquisitions that don't seem directly relevant to old-to-new --Tsavage (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
• an entirely descriptive, neutral, concise, up-to-date product line-up in the Products section is glaringly missing. As it is, there's really no info: glyphosate and Bt corn... --Tsavage (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

change of archiving

per complaints above, and my own dislike of the archive-by-month system, I manually moved the archives to numbered archives, and changed archiving to Mizabot, archive by number. current bot settings are:

• maxarchivesize = 100K
• minthreadsleft = 4
• minthreadstoarchive = 1
• algo = old(21d)

Happy to discuss changing the settings. don't care much. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

21 days? Down from a month? Isn't that a little ridiculously fast? How about we get rid of the time cap entirely, and just archive when the page gets too cluttered to read? Archiving every 21 days is going to make some people feel like important discussions are being intentionally hidden. moeburn (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with doing away with the time cap. With a potentially controversial topic such as this, making it as easy as possible to check on what has been discussed before seems to be most important when it comes to maintaining this Talk page. If necessary, collapsing long sections (with appropriately descriptive headers) to reduce clutter would be preferable to making discussions that could still be relevant, less visible and accessible. --Tsavage (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No opinion on the time cap, but thank you for moving the archive to a more readable system.Dialectric (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome! tedious. :( Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

if you don't like 21 days please just offer an alternative length of time; no need for drama. but no time cap is not realistic. i really don't like hatting old Talk - it makes control+F useless for finding things. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree that no time cap would be more problematic. There's a certain point where conversations get old, and if someone wants to find a particular discussion, that's what the archives are for. Anywhere around 1 month seems fine, so 21 days seems plenty alright with me. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the archive clean-up is a big improvement! 90 days (3 months) sounds reasonable, that can always be adjusted. I base that on the relatively low volume of Talk here so far. With four archives, Archive 1 covers 6 years, Archive 2 is 2 years, Archive 3 is 1.5 years (540 days), and they're all easy to use. Archive 4 is about 45 days, and has just two threads, both of which are still current areas of discussion. Too frequent archiving and we also end up with one or two threads per page... --Tsavage (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

sure let's try 90 days. if this gets too long we can adjust it. done. yeah archive 4 ended up short for now, as my original moves left archive 1 really short and i ended up moving things down, leaving archive 4 kind of short. i believe that the bot will fill up archive 4 until it reaches 100K before starting archive 5, so it will fill up. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

90 days seems reasonable to me. It's not a crisis if the page gets very long: That's a sign of recent, active discussion; it's easy to manually archive if necessary; and we don't have to read from top to bottom before replying to the latest thread. bobrayner (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Acquisition History

Ok, this graph is an absolute mess. Acquisitions, spin-offs, divestments, and sales are only distinguished by notes which are not always present. It takes up a massive chunk of screen space, and doesn't seem to do a good job of reflecting reality - by way of example the current Monsanto is basically Monsanto's agricultural division, which was the small portion left behind when the rest of Monsanto Chemical was purchased just over 10 years ago, but this isn't shown anywhere on the chart. Could somebody please redo this as a better graph? Even a simple timeline would be better than what's there now.67.248.204.182 (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

i like it. I think what you refer to with regard to "Monsanto Chemical" is the spinout of Solutia in 1997, which is represented in the chart (and was almost twenty years ago now). Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

As the user who made the bold edit to the page I thought it'd be correct to comment. The diagram best represents the company in its current state, it's reasonably easy to see what was bought and when, what was sold, who it was sold to and what (if anything) was spun out correctly. In addressing the physcial page size of the cladogram I've placed it into a 'click to reveal' style hidden box, this should alleviate any concerns about physical page space being taken up. Thanks Jytdog for your support throughout! XyZAn (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Need for a "Controversies" / "Criticisms" section

The article needs a standard Controversies section organized under the most recognized specific controversies (e.g. Agent Orange/dioxin) and controversial areas (e.g. GM seed/seed patents/biopiracy). --Tsavage (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a controversies section is helpful. There is already content about controversies woven through the whole article, and this is optimal per WP:CRIT. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"Controversies" section is a standard feature for genuinely controversial topics in Wikipedia, which this company clearly is. Do we use little "This is controversial" icons throughout the text? There are controversial areas that do not fit in any other single place. For example, "genetic engineering" is controversial, and it doesn't fit only under seed, or glyphosate, or patents and plant breeders' rights, or litigation, which are all separate components of the article (under Products, Business practices, whatever), but only make sense as controversial for "genetic engineering" when covered together. It is necessary for effective summary of one aspect of a complex subject like this. For use of Controversies as a section for similar topics, see Procter & Gamble, GlaxoSmithKline, Halliburton, ExxonMobil, etc.

WP:CRIT says "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." Monsanto, a company that is the target of global demonstrations for its everyday business, seems appropriate, we're not manufacturing controversy/criticism. Jytdog, this all seems quite evident, what is your more specific reasoning here?

The article should be able to easily answer the reasonable general question: "Why is Monsanto controversial?" --Tsavage (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that the content about controversy is woven through the already? If you read the article, is very clear why Monsanto is controversial. As CRIT says, controversy sections de-contextualize controversial subject matter and become coatracks. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You're not actually addressing what I've said. You're applying WP:CRIT unconditionally to the article. It is simply a guideline essay (widely used, maybe, but neither policy nor guideline, just opinion), meant to cover many situations, and recognizes the need for a Controversy type section in some cases. I am saying this is such a case, for three simple reasons:

• Monsanto is commonly known as a controversial company, for a variety of products, actions, reasons. (Do you disagree with this statement?)
• Monsanto is identified in the article lead as controversial, so it logically follows that its controversial aspect should be clearly covered. Parsing through an entire (currently 20,000 word) article, assembling clues, doesn't make this too accessible. In a case where a key aspect of a subject is "controversiality," why do you want address that only indirectly.
• Specific areas of controversy involve multiple aspects of Monsanto's business. I gave one extreme example with GE/GM. There's Aspartame and the original sachharin, which might be combined (is there an expiry date on controversiality?) In the case of some products, like PCBs, there is the product and then the litigation, it is not always neutral to list products with related litigation.

You ask me if I've read the article. Have YOU read the article, recently? Since today's edit? It's still 20,000 words, an hour and half's reading. IOW, not practically readable, so I'm not sure if you're being literal here. :) --Tsavage (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Usability test. I just went to GlaxoSmithKline (12,000 words) and it took about four minutes to grasp the major controversial areas (assuming the article is accurate): aggressive/unethical/illegal marketing practices (like promotiing unapproved use) for a couple of their drugs, failure to report negative drug data, adulterated drug production at their premier plant, plus some bribery and tax evasion; overall, billions of dollars in fines paid for some of the claims. Looking at it from an general encyclopedia editor's perspective, this is the sort of usability I believe we should be aiming for. --Tsavage (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am very familiar with this article, yes. Just so you know I heard you -- you think that the article should sharply delineate the controversies, as in a separate section, so that people can easily grasp why Monsanto is controversial. You also think that some things, like opposition to genetic engineering, would best be handled in a separate section because, in your view, they cover different parts of the company's business. I have understood you; you don't have to repeat yourself. I don't agree, and I have stated the reason why; what risks I see of doing that and what I think is better editing practice. it happens in WP that editors disagree. So we let other people weigh in and let the consensus process unfold. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. --Tsavage (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate the similar courtesy in return. You have given no sign that you understand my concerns. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No sign? Are you asking whether I am familiar with WP:CRIT, and the ideal of smoothly integrating positive and negative aspects of a topic through an entire article rather than segregating or concentrating the negative in one section? I quoted WP:CRIT: "A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." I believe that a "Controversies" section is warranted, and I gave specific reasons why a section as opposed to trying to spread controversy through the article, seems like the way to go. What sign of my understanding are you missing? "Coatrack"? --Tsavage (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I said "perfect" not because you summarized my position, but because in doing so, I took it that you were politely disengaging from constructive discussion. You still hadn't answered my concerns, you simply said, essentially, "Regardless of what you say, I like my way better, let's go to RfCs" or similar. Because you didn't address how to efficiently integrate multi-area controversial topics like my example of GE seed. You also suggested I read the article, but didn't mention how, for example, the new "Products" section has multiple items not related to a particular product, environmental events that are there only/mainly because they are...controversial. I am bringing up working specifics, you are arguing broad guidelines. So I take it to mean you are invoking, "We agree to disagree." --Tsavage (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In my experience Tsavage seems to be correct here. All of the corporate articles that I watch (that come to mind) have Controversy/Criticism sections. Gandydancer (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On the note of GE seeds in general, that is something more within the scope of the genetically modified crops, etc. type articles. Keep in mind this article will be dealing with topics clearly focusing on Monsanto. If it's only a tangential involvement, Monsanto may not be relevant enough from a weight perspective for inclusion here. As remember that leads reflect the content of the article, not the other way around. Right now the lead is not going to match the body until the content is ironed out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate what Jytdog mentioned above , but we really don't need a controversies section here. This article is about the company and any noteworthy details about either their products or their business practices involving them. If any of those specific things are controversial, they can easily be included within those respective sections. If someone wants to learn about general controversies like GM food where Monsanto isn't the only player, they can go to our other articles. We're not here just to describe what's controversial about the company after all.

We're trying to streamline the article so it can be condensed. It's a work in progress, so you probably aren't going to see a nice concise article right away. It'll take a little time to get to something that's easily accessible as you say since we haven't even got to talking about condensing content yet. The next step I'm working on is looking over how we can streamline the sections better as far as focusing on products (what they are, what's noteworthy about them) and potentially fleshing out the business practices a little bit to explain patent usage so some information would fit better there. The idea is that in the next step, some paragraphs can easily be condensed into just a few sentences. That will eventually lead to the article in general and especially the lead saying Monsanto is an agricultural, etc. company that produces X,Y,Z type products and other relevant information in a logical flow like you are looking for. Give it a little time for the readability aspect. It'll come. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: Fine, I'm in no rush to just slap a Controversies section in there, let's give it some time since reorganization seems underway. However, your approach of integrating positive and negative is an ideal that I don't think is suited to the Wikipedia environment for this subject, it is more suited to a single-author/single team work that can be controlled. There is no doubt that Monsanto is controversial, regardless of how it compares to other multinational corporations, Monsanto is the one millions call Monsatan. So to use this particular article to try to demonstrate how we can report on controversy and criticism without clearly labeling it as such seems...odd, and puts the whole article more at risk from future editors pushing pro or anti. That's in addition to all the structural problems in trying to fit Monsanto's controversies neutrally into an outline that does not recognize them. An easy, practical, well-precedented solution is there - a Controversies section - but why not be bold and try the hard way.

Have you considered my usability test, above? Isn't that the ultimate aim here, an accessible general encyclopedia for a general audience?--Tsavage (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A discussion of whether a controversies section is an improvement to the article is primarily about reorganization of content, not condensing. The condensing/ breaking off content discussion is necessary, but can be had independent of this conversation. Kingofaces43 conflated these two issues with a major edit which removed legal actions and reworked the controversies section content, which had existed for some time as a separate section prior to Feb 8. With no clear wikipedia policy guidance on whether or not to have such a section, it should be restored until this discussion concludes.Dialectric (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've always considered it disruptive when an editor makes substantial alterations to an article during a period of discussion. Hopefully the changes will be reverted. Gandydancer (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Gandy, we've made it pretty clear we're taking a step by step process here. We're not going to discuss and get all the edits figured out before actually trying them out. It's a lot of content, so we're taking one piece at a time. This isn't a single discuss and make the change event. There was consensus at the time to start at the current version and work from that, and that's where we are right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The two go hand in hand. The reorganization is so we can condense the content better, hence tackling this in a stepwise process. That ongoing process is described above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, to comment on your useability test, that's exactly the end goal I've been talking about all along. The end goal is to summarize content better for readers. Keep in mind though that controversy is only one aspect of this subject. There's a logical hierarchy where the controversy is nested within products, tactics, etc., so I'm looking at this from an NPOV perspective where we try to summarize everything and not focus too much on any one aspect. I know that certain topics may be more important than others to some readers (and editors), but I'm trying to address the size issue first. With that in mind, I think I'm going to go back to my draft and replace most of the text with bulleted lists of the important points to cover in each section for a rough outline of what I'm envisioning. I get the feeling folks are having trouble with this rework because it's difficult to envision an end goal, so hopefully doing that will help give a little direction to discussion. That would also save me or someone else from just writing up a whole draft with all the text while wrangling with the tougher question of weight without discussion here. I'll post again when I have that framework set up, so hopefully then it will be a bit more apparent how the organization I'm looking at plays into both the flow and size of the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: You're talking about outcomes but not how to get there. It is not practical editorially to include controversy along with product descriptions and business practices while remaining neutral, not without reducing the "controversial" aspect to...inference. If I'm coming to the article to read about Monsanto, perhaps because I'm thinking about a stock investment, or it's the name that comes to mind when I'm wondering if those frozen peas are genetically modified, I really don't expect to read about court cases, public protests and whatnot in the product descriptions of legal, on the market items. I just want to know what they are. And I don't expect to find cancelled and discontinued products. If, however, I have heard about Monsanto as controversial (or I even just read that in the lead), I want to read about the Controversies, not have to extract bits and pieces from the whole article. Monsanto, rightly or wrongly, is controversial as much as it is a seed company and a US-based multinational. Why would you insist on trying to obscure that fact, especially when it is editorially likely impossible to do in a balanced way? --Tsavage (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the same conclusion Dialectric seems to have gone directly to: Kingofaces43 has effectively removed the long-standing Controversies section ("Legal actions and controversies") as a reorganization step as part of size reduction, but is now mounting an argument to not create a new and improved replacement, instead trying to unconventionally spread the controversy through the article. As I have already noted, this doesn't seem likely to succeed or even desirable. (Is there an example of a controversial topic where this has been successfully done?)

Instead of outright reverting, perhaps we can instead agree on an improved "Controversies" section to accommodate all of the material already in the pre-split article. Also, the new Monsanto legal cases seems useful on its own, for more detail. To keep things moving, how about starting with my earlier proposal to use the existing controversy subsections taken directly from the lead. Since there seem to be several interested editors, simply cutting and pasting relevant items from elsewhere in the main article and from the Legal spin-off should be an easy step. Longer material can be summarized.

4.0 Controversies (as summarized in the article lead)

4.1 Seed commercialization practices

4.2 Litigation

4.3 Government lobbying

4.4 Controversial biotechnology products

4.5 Controversial chemical products

This will immediately make the article WAY more accessible via easier navigation, even it it doesn't on its own address a huge chunk of the size issue. It'd be a positive step. What do you think? --Tsavage (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

, above I directly said that if we split the article, people would don't like Monsanto would object. I directly. said. that. Tsavage you pushed for the split and Kingofaces tried to accomodate you, and now you throw that in his face? That is just ugly. I undid the split in any case, as we have now objections to it. i don't know that we are going to consensus to change this article much. there are many strong perspectives on it. Jytdog (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to Kingofaces43 or another editor splitting off the legal section. This change is a reasonable move to shorten a long article. This can be done while maintaining the longstanding 'controversies' section, albeit with significantly less detail on litigation. The structure that Tsavage proposes above for a 'controversies' section looks like a reasonable proposal for a way forward.Dialectric (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have undone Jytdog's deletion of the Monsanto legal cases page, which had already been edited by several people, including a significant new content addition. That's not reversion, it's unilaterally delting an existing page. Should this page be reverted as well? --Tsavage (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: You are getting close to being insulting.

• If you follow the discussion, the split I proposed and the split that was done by Kingofaces43 were completely different. I made it clear that my split did not remove any existing sections, headings or material (i.e. no reorganization, only reduction: "By preserving the existing, evidently consensus-accepted content and structure and simply creating spin-offs with summaries in the main article contstructed as directly as possible from the existing wording, reversion is difficult to support, as no content is being deleted."
• Furthermore, Kingofaces43 explicitly said he believed there wasn't likely to be contentiousness after his split.
• From what I understand, the subsequent complaints from Gandydancer and Dialectric about the split have to do with eliminating the Controversies section, with you and Kingofaces43 arguing against having a Controvrsies section at all, instead pushing for an extreme interpretation of WP:CRIT (an opinion essay, not a guideline nor a policy).
• Now, you are reverting without allowing the ongoing discussion to proceed by letting Gandydancer, Dialectric or anyone else reply to my last suggestion.

What is your aim exactly? I have been extremely detailed and clear here, yet you seem to have your own interpretations. --Tsavage (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

My aim exactly is to follow NPOV. My aim 'exactly is to work toward consensus. Kingofaces was bold and did a split, and I have seen significant objection to that above. I have also seen that objection become personalized - please strike your "does you mom know that you beat your wife?" question to him above "Why would you insist on trying to obscure that fact, especially when it is editorially likely impossible to do in a balanced way?" This is an accusation of bad-faith. You have been and are pushing very hard to reduce the size of the article and he and I have been talking with you, and he made what he called "a work in progress". The split was and is not set in stone. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I just restored the matter from the split article that was not about litigation - namely the paragraphs about controversies in China and Argentina. Those are parallel to the material on Argentina that was left here, and the farmer suicide matter. I put all four of those in a subsection called Controversies outside US. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to note that while WP:CRIT is an essay, it is an essay explicitly referenced by policy - see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#cite_note-1. NPOV says that "controversies" sections are often debated, and that they carry a risk of becoming repositories for non-NPOV content. Wikipedia even has a template - Template:Criticism_section - for criticism/controversies sections that become UNDUE or otherwise non-NPOV. That is not an outlandish or idiosyncratic concern, nor is it "extreme". It is mainstream WP editing. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: You seem to be pushing to make this personal. "please strike your "does you mom know that you beat your wife?" question to him above "Why would you insist on trying to obscure that fact, especially when it is editorially likely impossible to do in a balanced way?" This is an accusation of bad-faith." Bad faith? That's your bad faith interpretation. I'm not attacking Kingofaces43, I'm discussing what he said: "Why do say that? Is it not clear that..." I'm not sure if there's a back story here, but you seem to be actively defending Kingofaces43 as if he is under attack.

"That is not an outlandish or idiosyncratic concern, nor is it "extreme". Again, your seem to be trying to characterize what I've been saying as something it's not. I said it was extreme to try and incorporate controversial issues of a highly controversial subject like Monsanto, into an article without a Controversies section. Controversy sections, besides being effective when used properly, are a Wikipedia norm. Not having one in a controversial article is unusual. Not having one in an extremely controversial subject is, IMHO, a somewhat extreme position.

Not sure why you're pointing to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#cite_note-1, a footnote that says: "There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template." It's clear that essays are there for guidance. And of course there's a risk of problems with controversial material. That doesn't somehow point to this no-Controversy-section approach that goes against the common practice of identifying controversial issues by placing them in Controversial sections. --Tsavage (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, as Jytdog mentioned, it does feel like I'm getting stuff flung back at me when I tried to be accommodating. I as alluded to below, I would hope you see this statement "I have heard about Monsanto as controversial (or I even just read that in the lead), I want to read about the Controversies" as someone approaching the article with a particular WP:POV. It's perfectly fine for someone to approach the article with that question in mind, but we cannot overly cater to different points of view in editing by making them front and center. That's the very definition of WP:UNDUE. Instead, we write as a general overview of the entire topic in the form of an encyclopedia. I hope you do realize that wanting to focus on controversies can be a very different goal than writing a comprehensive article about the company, it's products, and what it does. At this point I'm feeling like I should just withdraw from actually proposing edits until we can produce a general outline of the whole article that folks can see as alluded to earlier. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty insulting that you are twisting my words to try to make out that I am editing with a POV, when I've been abundantly clear about everything. Readability is an important aspect of usability, and you can't write articles without keeping in mind your audience. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, aimed at a wide range of people, aimed at everyone. Your WP:CRIT approach is to incorporate rather than make explicit. I was attempting to illustrate some perhaps common points of view of WP users coming to the article for information that would not be served by your approach. In fact, I am saying that not having a Controversies section caters to a specific, perhaps more academic segment, who will read a lengthy article and synthesize multiple points to support a conclusion presented in the lead. You can't forget the millions coming to Wikipedia on their phones, looking for quick answers, they deserve consideration as well. The lead clearly says "controversy," the article does not.

Please remember (it's all noted above), I deferred to your approach and judgement, while making my difference of opinion clear. Other editors stepped in, opposed to your removal of Controversies, which changed the situation. I'm just sticking with it and trying to keep moving forward. --Tsavage (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, you have a perspective which is fine, but you are making representations about WP as though they are WP:The Truth when they are just your perspective. Rewriting an article on a complex topic to be digestable on a mobile phone in a quick bite is not Wikipedia's mission, in my view. I get it, that this is your view. And please note that per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the article and if somebody does want to a quick bite, the lead says quite clearly and briefly why Monsanto is controversial. The thing you are after is already in the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Resetting this discussion

Discussion has been had, significant changes made, including a spin-off article and reorganization of the main article, content has been improved and added, and several editors have weighed in, particularly with concerns about the removal of a Controversies section. Jytdog recently deleted the spin-off article and reverted the recent changes here, however, there is an ongoing discussion between several editors on how to proceed, so I have therefore restored the spin-off page, reverted the reversion on the main article, and made some very straightforward edits to the main article that will hopeful preserve the work done by Kingofaces43 and others, while not deleting a long-standing Controversies section.

As you can see from the diffs, after restoring the page to its last version I made these changes:

• renamed the headings back to their old forms: Products > Products and associated issues, and Business practices to Legal actions and controversies.
• moved Farmer suicides and March Against Monsanto protests under Legal actions and controversies (where I believe they were pre-split)
• moved Donations and Political contributions and lobbying out of the former Business practices to top level sections (as they originally were)

Hopefully, this meets with agreement, and avoids the drastic, destructive reversion, and the discussion can continue. --Tsavage (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Here's what the Controversies section would look like, following the suggestion above, with the main subsections taken from the current lead, and other existing sections taken 100% intact and simply moved in from elsewhere:

4.0 Controversies

4.1 Seed commercialization practices

4.2 Litigation

4.2.1 Patents

4.3 Government lobbying

4.4 Controversial biotechnology products

4.4.1 Terminator seeds

4.4.2 Animal genetics

4.4.3 March Against Monsanto protests

4.5 Controversial chemical products

4.5.1 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

4.5.2 rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone)

Some material may need to be summarized and brought over from Monsanto legal cases. Otherwise, all of the pre-split content is pretty much intact, there is a useful spin-off article for detail, and this article flows more consistently from the lead, and is about around 4-5,000 words shorter. What do you think? --Tsavage (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with insisting on a controversies section is that it goes against NPOV as it just adds to the bloat in the article. You mentioned yourself above that POV from an article size aspect was a problem and you wanted to address that. This proposal would be counterintuitive to your statement as things like chemicals products, biotech, etc. are already described earlier in the article. Such focus on controversies rather than the broader scope of the topic is simply undue weight that has already lead to the cumbersome size of the article. At this point I need to ask, which is more important to you, article size and readability, or making controversies more prominent? Also, again, please remember that a WP:LEAD is written to reflect the body's content. We don't shape content to fit the lead, but rather shape the lead to fit the content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion continues, although we seem to be retreading:

• "The problem with insisting on a controversies section is that it goes against NPOV as it just adds to the bloat in the article" - This doesn't seem to have happened in other, reasonably-sized corporate articles that I've already referenced: Procter & Gamble, GlaxoSmithKline, Halliburton, ExxonMobil.
• Tryng to integrate Monsanto's controversialty gives the impression of bias to the entire article. Take the Products section: if not because of controversiality, why are we covering former and cancelled products, aren't they historical notes at that point, part of History? Others have worked on terminator technology, so why even bother including it here: because it was hugely controversial under the Monsanto name.
• Without Controversies, items have to be shoehorned in or worse, risk being deleted: Your own edit note for Farmer suicides illustrates the problem: "Fits better under Bt cotton for now. Might be better placed under Business practices if a new section is developed focusing on how GM seed is sold along with some trimming" - looking for places to slip in controversial issues that don't fit the integration idea. Why not just do the obvious: put it in "Controversies"?
• "please remember that a WP:LEAD is written to reflect the body's content." The body text as it is organized now does not directly support the lead, which makes it seem like original research and synthesis. Example: the lead points to "government lobbying" as one area of controversiality, while the lengthy (4,000 word) "Political contributions and lobbying" section is almost entirely about perfectly legal activities common to many corporations. What makes them controversial here is the fact that Monsanto has been publicly singled out and called out for their practices. You can only say that in an unbiased way in a Controversies section, otherwise, you'd be labeling everything in the article "controversial" which biases the entire article.

For better or for worse, the "Controversy" section is an easily understood and widely used editorial device in Wikipedia, and while it can be abused, properly applied, it serves a simple purpose well: says what it's about and gets to the point. Is there an example of your approach working for a similarly controversial subject? --Tsavage (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Terminator seeds and animal genetics were never actual products and March Against Monsanto is not about a product at all; it is about protests. Your section 4.4 is not coherent. Also the current article accurately reflects what current Monsanto products are, what products they never actually brought to market, and what products they are not making anymore. Monsanto hasn't been involved in PCBs since the 1970s - before it went through its transformation - and it got out of the rBGH business 7 years ago - and the issues with those products are very different. It makes no sense to treat those as the same things as each other and as their current products. And rBGH was a biotechnology product, not a chemical product like PCBs were. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you're being argumentative here, rather than constructive. It's a quick outline to illustrate the general idea. I deliberately left the original headings (as I noted with the example) to show where current sections would go. "March Against Monsanto" would be "Anti-Monsanto GMO protests" or whatever. And just move rBGH up, this is a wiki.

As I mentioned in my reply to Kingofaces43 just above, listing former and cancelled products stands out as odd. We are doing that only because they were controversial. Does Monsanto have no other former and cancelled products, if so, why aren't they all here? Why aren't these former and cancelled products simply noted in the history section? Why aren't former and cancelled products listed for other companies in other articles? It's not a great way to cover controversial stuff in this editorial format, it seems sneaky. --Tsavage (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that you continue speculating jnegatively on my motives, I am going to stop engaging here. Please strike your last sentence. If you want to let is stand, that is your decision of course. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "strike your last sentence" entails or implies. If people can't speak plainly, discussion is difficult or impossible. I'm not speculating about you as a person or your motives, I am commenting on your replies. I characterized your last reply as, in my opinion, argumentative rather than constructive, and pointed out why. There's really no more to it than that. Speculating about your motives would involve speculating about why you replied as you did, which I did not do and is not relevant here. (Oh, and "sneaky" did not refer to you either, just to be clear in case it isn't, I'm saying the approach of fitting in controversy without actually labeling it appears sneaky, it can give the impression to the reader of hiding stuff, especially when Controversy and Criticism sections are common.) --Tsavage (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Strike means do this. It is what you do when you retract something, that someone else has already responded to. Please tell me, if you reply to what I say, and you say "doing that would be sneaky", how is that not referring to my motivation about what I want the article to do? Way too often editors make the mistake of personalizing differences of approach, and attribute to others (oh always to others) a bad faith motivation - a desire to "whitewash" (a word you haven't used yet, I think) or "obscure" (which you attributed to Kingofaces) or "be sneaky" (which you attributed to me) and that is all out of bounds. Please read WP:AGF and WP:TPG and follow them. Please strike your references to being sneaky and obscuring. Please describe the content that you want - it is fine to say why you think it is better than the content other editors want; you don't need to describe in such ugly terms the results that other editors want. I asked you above to try to describe what you understand I want from the article. You refused to even try to neutrally state my perspective and just trashed it instead. I don't think you do understand it. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Our of courtesy, I'll reply to you one more time and then stop engaging with you directly, as my impression is that you may be personalizing this discussion, something I don't want to be involved with. As I just said, I am not commenting or speculating about you or your motivations, I'm simply commenting about the discussion here.

• I wrote: "It's not a great way to cover controversial stuff in this editorial format, it seems sneaky." which refers to said editorial approach and the impression created by trying to integrate controversial Monsanto issues rather than include them in a dedicated section (and I gave examples of that further up). Please don't make the mistake of personalizing comments that are about differences of approach.
• "Please tell me, if you reply to what I say, and you say 'doing that would be sneaky', how is that not referring to my motivation about what I want the article to do?" - by this logic, since every post has an author, every reply could be construed as an ad hominem attack or at least, about the author. If I said, "doing that would be great" am I meaning that you are great, or simply that the thing in question is great? And I did not say "would be sneaky," I said, "seems sneaky," characterizing what were discussing, the results of the editing approach.
• "you don't need to describe in such ugly terms" and (previously)"please strike your 'does you mom know that you beat your wife?' question" sound to me like ugly, accusatory ways of characterizing the good faith replies of another editor.
• "You refused to even try to neutrally state my perspective and just trashed it instead" Where did that happen? I did reply to you. How did I "trash" it? My understanding, as repeated many times throughout this and the previous thread, is that you are in general accordance with Kingofaces43 in wanting to integrate controversial issues throughout the Monsanto article, as an alternative to including them in an explicitly labeled Controversies section - what have I said that makes you think I don't understand that? Your reasoning can be found in WP:CRIT, including considerations of risk of possible future events like contentious editing and undue weighting, but those are ultimately personal opinions.

This sort of intense, drawn out discussion that devolves into comments about the commenters makes editing unproductive and no fun at all. --Tsavage (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, we each have personal opinions on how to deal with the controversial matter. Your arguments are not superior to mine in their grounding in policy. You are arguing as though they are. In a situation like this, the best thing to do is be respectful and acknowledge that difference of opinion, and not denigrate the other person's perspective. i have not denigrated yours at all. I hope you forgo making personal attacks going forward. In any case, this is a thing where compromise does not seem possible as it is zero sum game. There either is a controversy section, or there is not. or do you see some way to compromise? Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want to comment and say wow, what a contentious dialogue here. I am a witness to this conversation and i largely agree with Tsavage in this discussion, and i am quite puzzled at the huge amount of contention i see here. It feels like a paralysis. It feels like frank discussion is not able to be had without prompt accusations of "having a point of view" as equated to being a sin... and as if aiming for repesenting "the truth" is also a sin-- it's really strange to see what i perceive as philosophical gymnatics occurring here. And i am even fearful to post this, for fear of being branded as "attacking" or making things personal, etc... it's a pattern of engagement that i find stultifying and puzzling. To my mind, Wikipedia can ideally be a forum that represents a people's point of view, a more democratic or pluralistic or balanced form of knowledge repository and representation as a resource for people to use outside of the more establishment forms of knowledge repository and representation which can be gamed by those with more influence, power, and money. This is a sociological phenomenon, and i think it deserves consideration when the philosophical argument about POV and supposedly chimerical nature of "the truth" is brought up to influence editorial choices. It's equally as valid, anyway. If there *is* a POV then whose is it going to be? Is it going to be a pseudo-neutral POV that represents more of the industry's preferences? It's tricky ground here, but i'm a witness to this curious conversation, and now, i suppose, a participant, at my own risk apparently. SageRad (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's common for people to come to article like this one, to push a narrow POV whilst insisting that they're disinterested observers. It's unusual for them to write such lengthy essays in their own defence. bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you guys added this section "Legal actions and controversies", after this talk page discussion here, or is this discussion about an extension or renaming of that section? prokaryotes (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)