Talk:Monsanto legal cases/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Legal content

Just a note that the current state of this article will likely need some reorganizing as the current content was just moved from Monsanto. There may be some cases that need to be made more prominent, while others may not actually be noteworthy for inclusion here, but I just included everything so it can be reviewed to decide how to shape this new article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This should not be an intricate list of every court case, and WP:WEIGHT should be observed: no cherry-picking or one-sided presentations. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Vermont GMO labeling law

User:Kingofaces43, please clarify your reason for deleting this material.--Tsavage (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Vermont GMO labeling law (text deleted from article)

In May 2014, the governor of Vermont signed into law a mandatory GMO food labeling act, Act 120, the first in the US, to take effect on July 1, 2016. In June 2014, four national trade associations, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, jointly filed suit against Vermont in US federal court, seeking to overturn the law, claiming that food labeling is a federal matter, and states are Constitutionally prohibited from involvement. Vermont vowed to vigorously defend the law. Activists associated Monsanto and Starbucks with the lawsuit; neither are plaintiffs but both are GMA members. A Monsanto spokesperson commented, "We believe a state-by-state patchwork of labeling laws will create confusion and uncertainty for consumers, and additionally would force consumers to pay more for the food they need. We support the food industry’s decision to challenge the legality of the labeling law in Vermont. Monsanto is not a plaintiff in the lawsuit, but we are a member of GMA." (Starbucks publicly distanced itself from the lawsuit, claiming non-support.)

For pending litigation, due weight cannot really be assessed. It's pretty standard with that in mind to wait for the result of the litigation to determine where it stands in the grand scheme of things. Besides that, it's a bit of a WP:COATRACK here. Such content about labeling laws would be more within the scope of GMO articles rather than trying to fit it in here. Monsanto's relevance in this content is pretty tangential at best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) thank you for finally following WP:BRD TSavage and standing down from editing warring. I deleted this for the following reasons. 1) it is pending litigation and the noteworthiness is unknown. 2) The discussion of Starbucks is off topic. 3) The phrase "Activists associated Monsanto and Starbucks with the lawsuit" is unnecessary and frankly POV - Monsanto acknowledges being part of GMA and supporting the litigation, but the content makes it seem like activists "busted them". I probably would have let this fly but for 2) and 3). Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I understand your points. Here is my reasoning:

• Considering all of the Monsanto activity over the last couple of days, I placed this item here, as opposed to positioning it as a controversy item in the "Legal actions and controversies" section of the main article, to allow any other activity to play out, particularly, to see if reorganization would move ahead. (This would easily fit in a straightforward Monsanto "Controversies" section.)
• Noteworthiness to Monsanto is clear and based not on the actual court case, but on Monsanto being publicly associated with it in a highly visible, publicized way. The outcome of the case doesn't have any bearing on this aspect, as Monsanto is not directly a party.
• The case itself is extremely noteworthy, as Vermont is first to enact a GMO labeling law. Preventing labeling is one of the big corporate food fights, heavily funded, seriously fought. So Vermont is a milestone.
• Starbucks is mentioned because active labeling supporters (activists) singled out, from some 300 GMA members, Monsanto and Starbucks, to be associated with the lawsuit they weren't directly part of, Monsanto for its notoriety and Starbucks for its perceived vulnerability to public opinion. This aspect won't change through the court decision and on into the future. It is not a news item.
• The specific wording "Activists associated Monsanto and Starbucks with the lawsuit" is a draft and not ideal, it simply represents the previous point: the noteworthy story here is that Monsanto (and Starbucks) were singled out. "Unnecessary and POV" is absolutely wrong, this is the heart of the matter.

As far as I can make out, Monsanto's controversiality has a kind of life of its own, it is always high visibility and generally noteworthy, both when it is tied to actual events, and when a protest is the event in itself (as in "March Against Monsanto protests").

This was deleted without allowing the editing process to proceed. Nothing in this posts violates Wikipedia policy, deletion before discussion is an editor choice. The wording can be adjusted, and the points finetuned, I simply placed this here as a cited first draft that of course anyone is free to edit. Please reconsider your objections. --Tsavage (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in working toward consensus, I have told you what I will accept which is about 90% of your proposed content. WP:NPOV is policy and WP:OFFTOPIC is a commonly cited essay. If we discuss Starbucks why not discuss he other zillion companies involved? There is no reason to include any of them. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on our previous discussions I'd really rather not engage with you to avoid conflict, but since you have delete my edit I don't have a choice (although Kingofaces43 is the current deleter). Please reread my previous comment: "Starbucks is mentioned because active labeling supporters (activists) singled out, from some 300 GMA members, Monsanto and Starbucks, to be associated with the lawsuit they weren't directly part of, Monsanto for its notoriety and Starbucks for its perceived vulnerability to public opinion." There are no "zillion other companies" in this situation, just Monsanto and Starbucks.

By way of more context: "In November 2014, a petition claiming coffee giant Starbucks had 'teamed up' with agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over a GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling law began to circulate heavily on social media sites." --Tsavage (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an article about Monsanto litigation. It is not an article about challenges to the Vermont litigation generally where Starbucks might be relevant. And please hear this - activists do not drive wikipedia content - ever - please see the policy WP:SOAPBOX and please see WP:ADVOCACY which is not allowed here. and please do not write here about what activists are tweeting about - this is WP:NOTFORUM. This is a controversial article - please reach for high quality sources like the NY Times, AP, Reuters, WSJ, Bloomberg News etc. You will find that I do the same. If you look at those sources' discussion of this litigation you will find it serious and not distracted by trivia on twitter. They generally mention Kraft, General Mills, etc. Not Starbucks, which is peanuts in the actual matters at hand. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC) (add text in italics Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC))

I was going to post much the same. I think the undue weight issue would still remain even with the 90% you mentioned. The scope of this article is about topics that squarely focus on legal cases involving Monsanto and describing them. This section doesn't seem to be focusing on litigation per se, but a much larger topic of the controversy behind the GMO labeling laws. There doesn't seem to be a case to really describe from what I see right now, so it seems like we're getting into the weeds a little bit on this one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: My first point exactly; where would you suggest positioning it in the main article?

The following are a few reasonably reliable sources that cover this Monsanto-Starbucks Vermont GMO labeling law controversy, and that's not from hard searching, it's one after another:

• Starbucks Says It Has Nothing to Do With a High-Profile GMO Lawsuit TIME "launch a boycott of Starbucks on Sunday, accusing it of joining forces with Monsanto to sue Vermont, and stop accurate food labeling.”
• Neil Young calls on fans to boycott Starbucks The Guardian "it’s disappointing that it is working with the biggest villain of them all, Monsanto,” he wrote. “Monsanto might not care what we think – but as a public-facing company, Starbucks does.”"
• Starbucks Criticized for Ties Vermont GMO Law’s Opponents BloombergBusiness "An advocacy group called SumOfUs wants Starbucks to sever ties with the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which has sued to block Vermont’s legislation -- a move supported by Monsanto Co."
• Starbucks addresses involvement in GMO labeling lawsuit CBS News "he claimed the coffee company had teamed up with Monsanto to sue Vermont for a new law on genetically engineered foods"

If "activists" hold a protest march, and that march is deemed noteworthy and covered in Wikipedia, is that not "activists driving Wikipedia content"? --Tsavage (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in the main article at all. The focus here isn't about Monsanto, but the controversy behind the law itself. Such a topic would better fall under Genetically modified food controversies. However, there I'd probably only mention that the law was challenged in a lawsuit at best, but I'd still be prone to waiting for a decision on the case first like we normally do to avoid WP:RECENTISM. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just like March Against Monsanto protests in the main article, it is entirely about the controversial nature of Monsanto. False information was communicated to millions, online and via reliable news sources, saying that Monsanto and Starbucks were suing Vermont. It's only not noteworthy when one does not accept that Monsanto is controversial, as in a "Controversies" section. Thanks for the input. I will rewrite it when I get a chance. --Tsavage

It looks like you're not hearing, but it's starting to look like you're too focused on controversy and Monsanto here. That's a POV problem though so I'm not going to discuss that aspect further on an article talk page, so I highly suggest taking a broader view as I've been alluding to. Statements like ,"It's only not noteworthy when one does not accept that Monsanto is controversial" are not helpful at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"It's only not noteworthy when one does not accept that Monsanto is controversial" simply refers to not having a Controversies section in the main article, which was the recent main topic of discussion (meanwhile, we now do have a controversies section again). Like March Against Monsanto protests, this item, where anti-GMO activists used Monsanto and Starbucks in a well-designed media attack on the Vermont lawsuit plaintiffs is simply another installment in Monsanto controversy. Whether it is noteworthy enough to include is one thing, but having to fit it into some other section, like Legal cases, is where I see the problem.

If you're questioning my good faith editing, you've seen my recent edits, and can easily check the record by looking up my occasional Monsanto changes since 2004. --Tsavage (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this is getting too drama tinged, so I'm withdrawing for now. My comments on POV were simply on your focus about controversy that you are currently presenting, nothing to even broach good faith at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, cool, later on. --Tsavage (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto response

KTo288 you restored unsourced content to the article in violation of policy. I don't much care if the content is there or not, but if it is there, it must be sourced per WP:VERIFY. Thanks. If you see it differently, please discuss. Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog That the claim was at one time referenced, meant that it was at one time verifiable, and has been unchallenged, it seems that only with the creation of this new article that it was discovered that the link was dead, it being tagged so on Feb 2015. Although unreferenced claims can be removed at any time, if you take the dead ref tag as being the equivalent of a citation needed request, then cutting the reply so soon suggests to me undue haste and, given your other edits and stated ambivilance to this article, POV pushing. Given that the statement was backed up by a reference from a primary source, maybe it should indeed be cut, but I suggest that you may not be the best person to do this pruning.--KTo288 (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It fails WP:VERIFY, period. I do not know what you mean by "may not be the best person to do this pruning" but we don't discuss contributors, we discuss content. If you would like this content to be in the article, please add it with a valid source, so that the content can be verified. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't

Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.

— Wikipedia:Link rot

--KTo288 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You are adding content to the article based on a dead link. Shall we take this to RSN, to see if the community finds that dead link to be a reliable source for the actual content that you want to add to the article? Again, if this is so important to you, please find a reliable source so that we can verify the content. If you find a reliable source, I will not oppose this content being in the article. (i don't think it deserves any WEIGHT at all, which was the additional reason why I removed it on top of VERIFY... but like i wrote above, if it is actually sourced i won't object it to being in the article.) Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In the the case of a broken url, the content still needs to be verifiable. Best to find either a working link or non-url source. Right now though, no one knows what the source actually said, so I'd go with deleting it until a source can be found to discuss weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No I am not adding new content based on a dead link. I was restoring old content removed because of a broken link. This article is spun off from the Monsata article, and the removed content is a legacy of that article. I have no way of knowing but at the time it was added to the article that link worked, and from the time it was added to the time until the link died, no one thought that it was inaccurate. Again to quote Wikipedia:Link rot "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link."--KTo288 (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

JytdogI've taken up your suggestion and started a thread on RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Content_removed_because_of_link_rot, less perhaps because of this content, and more because I'm curious as to how others see the verifiability of dead links.--KTo288 (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the notification. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Timing and whether the item is likely to be verifiable seem to be the issues here. Except with regard to living persons (WP:BLP), WP:VERIFY does NOT suggest deletion as the immediate remedy for material without an inline citation. The policy details the suggested course:

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

The note at 4 goes into further detail on considerations surrounding a decision to delete, and concludes that, before deletion: "For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified."

In this case, a dead link suggests that in fact the item was verifiable and therefore may be again, so, especially when an editor is actively working on it, immediate deletion is not the remedy suggested by WP:VERIFY, allowing time is. --Tsavage (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

moot, i found another source. the entire discussion above was moronic. took me less than a minute to find it. stuff like this makes WP suck. let's fight over bullshit instead of getting rid of trivia or getting an actual source for the trivia. fuck all. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Moot, here and now, perhaps, but applicable for consideration wherever else WP:VERIFY is invoked as a reason for immediate deletion. Talk page discussions can be learning moments that apply forward. --Tsavage (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with your reading of VERIFY, and you are not acknowledging that the content was trivia and that it was simple to find another source. BFWOT. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a reading, it is reading. It makes clear that WP:VERIFY isn't a license to remove content at will (it is not WP:BLP). An editor can't decide any item without an inline citation is unsourced and remove it: general references, nearby inline references, textual context and actual need for an separate citation must all be considered on a per case basis. The policy indicates that, if it seems an item can be sourced, and it does not pose a serious editorial problem (being considered "trivial" on an incomplete, newly spun off page in progress, as in this case, doesn't seem serious), there is no grounds for immediate deletion: source it, tag it with an inline citation request, discuss on in Talk, or simply disengage for a while.

I did read the item. I don't find it trivial. It provides the company's explanation of why it was found to have presenting "confusing, misleading, unproven and wrong" claims in advertising: it claimed it was not intending to deceive and instead "did not take sufficiently into account the difference in culture between the UK and the USA in the way some of this information was presented." Interesting, factual context.

Especially if it was simple to source, per WP:VERIFY, you should have done that initially, instead of entering into a series of reversions, leading to an Edit Warring notice placed on the contributing editor's Talk page. --Tsavage (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an excellent discussion, and i would like to thank and second the points made by Tsavage. I am fairly new and learning the policies, but i'm finding a lot of what i would call very hyper-active pruning around here, that i strongly think are often detrimental to the usefulness and completeness and openness and many other aspects of Wikipedia's best qualities when it's working well. I would like to note that policy does *not* promote pruning at will of any statement that is not supported to someone's satisfaction. I don't think that summary reversion is the best course of action in many cases. It is up to an editor's judgment, of course, but i'm really seeing some articles that a lot of people put a lot of work into, being dismantled slowly but surely. There's a lot of good work being done but there's also a lot of tearing down of other people's good work, instead of working with it more fluidly. SageRad (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

you may or may not be surprised at the amount of unsourced or badly sourced crap that ax-grinding anti-GMO activists add to pages related to Monsanto and GMOs. Please read WP:TENDENTIOUS and especially the part about demanding that others find sources for content that you want to add. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at all, Jytdog -- i see it too. I see bad text added with ridiculous link and i fully share the mission of "keeping it classy" in the sense of good and solid sources and good and solid information. It is clear that everyone has some kind of a point of view, and that what someone chooses to add is a value judgment in itself. I want to make sure that what's added is good quality information, whatever agenda it may fit into, if any. Then the issues of focus and emphasis and inclusion/exclusion can become more about editorial process, more writerly and toward defining scope and focuses for an article, and making it useful to the people of the world, as well as fairly concise. Going through some histories this morning, though, i did see some pruning that i thought was either careless or possible showing too much of a POV in the sense of being too strict on source for critical points or useful information that could have rather been talked about or tagged with "citation needed" -- that's what i take some issue with. SageRad (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There is one dynamic, though, that troubles me. I think that the preference for secondary sources that are rather institutional and take a lot of establishment-style endeavor can probably lead to a bias that i think is not useful or good. What i mean is that industries who have the motivation and the money to do so, can often exert influence over the agencies who are the gatekeepers for information on some levels, and then get secondary review papers published, and influence things like EPA reports or other regulatory agency reports. So i think it's a bit asymmetrical to so easily pass sources in peer-reviewed journals, especially review articles, and yet to be so very hard on other sources, even primary research papers. It seems like sociologically it's a feedback loop that actually would build in some bias toward the establishment side of any controversial issue, and i think this is one reason why i find hyper pruning to be a little disconcerting. SageRad (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unabashedly mainstream and institutional - it is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and we do not publish conspiracy theories nor do we edit based on them. It has nothing to do with "classy" and has to do with sound scholarship. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a surprise to me. I would have to disagree about whether Wikipedia is unabashedly "mainstream" and "institutional". I was under the impression that it reflects an opening of the production and editing of knowledge to the masses, moreso than forms of knowledge encapsulation in the past. Further, the term "conspiracy theories" is often used to deride notions of power and knowledge, or that there are indeed conflicts of interest in society and yet it's not always the people who are saying that powerful institutions are doing something wrong, who are the "conspiracy nuts" or "tin foil hat people" etc... Power and knowledge are intricately related, and always have been. Wikipedia is a site that could present an opening in this regard, if it's not captured by the people with the most power in subtle ways.... and that's not a far out there. It's a real dynamic that does happen, you know. And by the way, i used "classy" metaphorically and of course i meant solid and useful knowledge. Doesn't always mean the person has 3 PhD's, though, for an oral history of a non-degreed person can be more important and more solid than a review article by three PhD holders who have a motivation to engage in bias. You can't make completely formalized rules about these things and this is the nature of the issues i've been having with you recently. I'm trying to be quite honest and subtle here, and really get into the real conflict that exists, and the reasons why there has been contention between us. SageRad (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I would in fact say that it would be a very sad thing if Wikipedia become another officialese source of information. That would make it something more like propaganda than a site of useful and interesting tension from which people could gather clues and make their own personal choices about what to seriously admit to their knowledge base. SageRad (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Everything you're saying in general I'm sure seems quite obvious and troubling to a number of editors who aren't necessarily outspoken at every turn. It takes a lot of energy to keep up the counter-argument, and things are constantly happening on many fronts: you will find familiar names in AfDs, on various noticeboards, pursuing sanctions against editors, editing articles, on Talk pages, and pushing for changes to policies and guidelines. It's practically a full-time job. One eventually wonders, where does all that energy come from, what is driving some of these editors who are constantly pounding away at trying to steer areas of content in a certain direction.

In the empirical evidence/science-based areas, I think much of the tolerance for the extreme "establishment" pushing that seems to be condoned comes from some sort of collective Wikipedia fear of being totally hoaxed by allowing to develop what appears to be an involved, credible article on something that seems completely spurious, opening the encyclopedia to widespread ridicule: "Wikipedia believes alien DNA responsible for cancer." This hasn't to my knowledge come close to happening, there are too many eyes on everything, but this fear of large scale embarrassment-by-crackpot provides cover for those who would try to filter everything they can strictly through arbitrary sourcing standards, which are usually extremely expensive types of research that represent only a relatively small part of the whole picture. It's a bit of a puzzle, though, where the real motivation is coming from.

I'm beginning to think the area to focus on is back in WP:PAG: with all of this tossing about of PAG shortcuts, the precise wording of various sections of core guidance needs to be examined. Done properly, this could be a healthy workout for the evolution of "no firm rules" - scrutinize more closely the core guidance being cited and how it is being interpreted is perhaps the best use of time and energy. --Tsavage (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

bottom line here - is that on controversial articles everybody should be reaching for the best sources they can and checking their axes at the door. generally when people come with crappy sources it is because they came in with some predetermined notion that they must get into the article. best sources be damned. and yes that causes problems. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

theantimedia.org

nothing here about actually improving the article; discussion of this source was finished Jytdog (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I noticed that the above discussion mentions a website called the theantimedia.org as a potential source, but little besides the name of the site was discussed to establish its notability or reliability. I never heard of it before, but visited their site to check it out. Their information on their name and mission indicates that this might be a partisan source. They call themselves "Anti-Media". They mention in their history that they trace their origins to a 2012 Facebook page suggesting a refusal to vote for the "establishment presidential candidates" in the United States presidential election, 2012. They formed a network of "devoted, caring, and intelligent individuals with the simple goal of educating our peers." They criticize current mainstream media as being "influenced by the industrial complex" and serving as a "top-down authoritarian system of distribution"—the opposite of what Anti-Media aims to be. They estimate that 90% of the mainstream media are "owned by six very large corporations" which are are also involved in other industries (such as prisons, police, and military contracting). They assume that "the power of the media is correlated to the state’s authority" and conclude that the media are "to blame for America’s internal and external... conflicts and wars". Their mission statement therefore is to offer "real and diverse reporting", "independent journalism" on "a larger and more truthful scale". They claim that their efforts are driven not only by journalists but "truth-seekers around the world". Their readers supposedly get to "learn about the corruption of the state, how the media has been used against us, and the violent attacks on our rights by those claiming to represent us." A secondary mission statement is that they aim to wake people up and "raise awareness". I think this suggests that they are anti-establishment types with a worldview based on conspiracy theory accusations against corporations. Just what we need on Monsanto-related pages, more vitriol. SageRad do you think this passes the criteria for a reliable source? Dimadick (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC) I agree with almost everything you say above, except the synthesis by which you ascribe them to hold a worldview based on conspiracy theory against corporations. There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that requires a source to be of a certain ideology or another, that i have seen. The source does not even have to be reliable, because it's only needed to establish notability. They found the story notable enough to print. It's not necessarily vitriol. It's a perspective. SageRad (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC) A fringe perspective. WP:NPOV applies, and if the only sources are fringe, then it is fringe, and not worth including in a mainstream article. --Pete (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Let's define "fringe". WP:FRINGE uses it in terms of theories, not perspectives. Things like the Earth being flat, the moon landed being staged, or Holocaust denial. All things with extensive concrete evidence opposing them. On the other hand, Antimedia says "The “Anti” in our name does not mean we are against the media, we are simply against the current mainstream paradigm. The current media, influenced by the industrial complex, is a top-down authoritarian system of distribution—the opposite of what Anti-Media aims to be." So, is that a fringe theory, that the mainstream media presents an establishment point of view? And therefore is everything ever published by this source totally irrelevant to establishing weight or notability in Wikipedia? How about this news source? Can you please approve this for me, please, so i might cite an article from it? How about Democracy Now? Is that acceptable as a news source, ever? How about The Guardian? They are kind of alternative, sort of apart from the mainstream, aren't they? How about the LA Times? They're sometimes fairly wide on what they print.... Where do you draw the line? SageRad (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your input, Sage. All the hand-waving in the world won't make up for a notable lack of good sources. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC) You seem to be refusing to engage in dialogue on this, then, right? I think that counts you out of this discussion, then. I asked you to explain what is your criteria for deciding that a news source is "fringe" and therefore unacceptable to establish weight on anything in Wikipedia, and i presented several other media sources as well for your approval or disapproval on your scale, whatever it is. You essentially dismissed it all as "hand waving". That's not engaging in genuine dialogue. I was genuinely asking for you to explain the principle of your refusal. It seems that it's what you feel because it's what you feel. That's not good enough for us to use as a benchmark here. It's an edited news source. So is this news source. What makes them insufficient to show that something is of note to some people? SageRad (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Whether they're biased or not isn't a problem (per WP:BIASED, we can totally use biased or opinionated sources, with a few caveats about making it clear when they're just stating their opinions.) The problem is whether they pass WP:RS and WP:V in other ways -- do they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" As far as WP:FRINGE goes, it technically applies to theories (and opinions and statements and other expressions of those theories), not to sources; but you can point to the fact that something is not covered in the mainstream media (or that it's rejected in the mainstream media) as one piece of evidence that it's WP:FRINGE, so I think what the people above mean is that the site isn't mainstream and therefore is not, by itself, enough to justify including something potentially controversial, because anything that is sourced only to this site (and ones like it) is very likely to fall under WP:FRINGE... and if we have a better source, we can just use that. An additional thing to consider would be whether citing them is giving their reporting WP:UNDUE weight -- if the only sources covering something are extremely obscure and out of the mainstream, then highlighting their opinions by putting them in the article is probably giving their perspective undue weight. I mean, we really just need a mention in one mainstream source to put it in the article. If that doesn't exist, I think we might just have to conclude that it's not significant enough; we can't base our coverage on the idea that there's a media conspiracy to suppress it or anything like that. (And even if there is, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to try and correct it -- the purpose of an encyclopedia is to show the general consensus of mainstream coverage, not to challenge the popular narrative with bold new claims from obscure places.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC) A mention in one reliable source is not sufficient for inclusion. That would satisfy WP:RS but discussions of WP:UNDUE would follow. In any case, there is nothing to discuss now, so I suggest everybody walk away from this particular discussion (although you can of course do what you want); in my view the OP was picking at the scab of a discussion that was finished and there is nothing in this thread about actually improving the article. Jytdog (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Gut microbiota lawsuit

added in this dif which i reverted here. Same content is under discussion here: Talk:Glyphosate#content_about_lawsuit.2C_sourced_to_lawsuit. Please discuss there, to keep it one place. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Have opened a discussion about the content and sourcing as used in this article here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Content_sourced_from_lawsuit_brief Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is better to discuss relevance to this page on this talk page for this page. I think this lawsuit is relevant here, under the section called "False Advertising" because it shows the ongoing nature of a trend that begins with the first thing reported in that section, which was a political tussle with the AG of New York also over statements about the safety of glyphosate from Monsanto. And then in 1999, a similar dynamic. Then 2001, then 2012, more claims about glyphosate. There is a pattern here, and the current lawsuit is one more, and i think people would be served by seeing it mentioned. SageRad (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that we've established that the document is an acceptable source to document that the lawsuit exists, and then we need to determine if we want it mentioned here. I know you don't want it mentioned, Jytdog, but i'm talking about consensus or compromise. SageRad (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

At RSN both you (here) are Tsavage (here) said you were dropping this for now. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that using primary sources to establish a pattern risks becoming WP:OR; that's the kind of thing where we would want to cite eg. a newspaper article saying "Monsanto has had a history of problems with lawsuits over XYZ, such as..." rather than throwing a bunch of primary sources together. Anyway, I took some time to look up this case on Google News, and it doesn't appear to have a huge amount of coverage yet; it's mentioned in the Centre for Research on Globalisation (an organization "committed to curbing the tide of globalisation and disarming the new world order") and the Examiner (which is based on user-generated content); but those are not reliable sources. The other mentions I could find looked like blogs (although it's hard to sort through all this, since Monsanto, as this page says, has faced a lot of lawsuits.) You can look over them here and see if you can find more coverage; it might get more later, too, so you could set up an alert and add it later if it appears in more reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Jytdog, i am okay with leaving it until such time as it may be covered by a news source with an editorial process. Hopefully that will happen, and if it doesn't then i guess it's not something the world cares to notice (beyond myself and a few people who follow glyphosate developments closely). SageRad (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source, but not notable, due to lack of secondary sources. Now got this page on my watchlist. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I would wait for the first decent secondary source: a news report, or coverage by a university law project, or whatever.

@SageRad: I do see your point entirely, and don't find it inconsistent with what you said at RSN. I find it a significant suit for Monsanto and the history of glyphosate/Roundup being promoted as relatively safe, it seems agreed that it's verifiable, and since we are not considering an article, only noteworthiness as content, local consensus I believe could see fit to include it sans secondary sources. However, in this case, I'm not familiar enough with the course of class action lawsuits, or law suits in general, to judge how significant this filing is at this point, even though we know it is in the legal system, and I'm personally not inclined at the moment to research that to my own satisfaction. A secondary source would put things in better perspective overall for me. I don't see the need for haste: if the suit fizzles, the mere noting that it was filed won't mean much in the greater scheme of all things Monsanto, and if it gains traction, then there will be more sources and more information. That said, there's also a small amount of deliberate disengagement involved as well, which comes in handy when you're otherwise busy. Since you've spent so much time explaining yourself recently, I'm taking that in good faith and sharing my humble little process, for what it's worth. :) --Tsavage (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI, someone added a paragraph about this lawsuit (in this diff) and i removed it as per our discussion that until it appears in a news source that's not a self-publishing source we'll table this discussion. SageRad (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that it's been added again by another unregistered user, and then removed by another editor. That is the third time it's been added by three probably unique users of Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

drive-by POV pushers add crap to articles on a regular basis. Happily, content is governed by our policies and guidelines, not by "likes" (or "unlikes") Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that it's been added by three people now. Of course i agree that this is not the arbiter of what is relevant, just a datapoint. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

not information, just noise. and we have no way of knowing if all three edits were made by the same or different people nor how many - the IP addresses could be the same person, and could be you. (i am not saying they are you) it is just noise. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of how many users add it, the lack of reliable secondary sources is what keeps it out of the article. If it is notable, then it will be reported in the wider world. --Pete (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the most recent attempt, the source used appears to be a fringe Wordpress blog devoted to extremist notions - such as the US participating in the 9/11 attacks - which is being used across WP to back up all sorts of fringey notions. Looking at the most recent reference, I see the following:Matthew Phillips, the attorney suing Monsanto in California for false advertising on Roundup bottles, has asked the LA Times, New York Times, Huffington Post, CNN, and Reuters, one of the world’s largest news agencies to report on the lawsuit (Case No: BC 578 942), and most enforced a total media blackout. When I spoke with Phillips over the phone, he said that he has tried posting the suit in Wikipedia’s Monsanto litigation section, but it keeps ‘disappearing.’ He says that he has also noticed posts on Facebook about this lawsuit get removed. Phillips points out that as long as Monsanto can keep this lawsuit off of most of America’s radar, then his client base would be relegated to just the citizens of California.[1]

This looks to be an attempt by a lawyer to use Wikipedia as advertising. --Pete (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Different article, but any idea on which edit is being referred to? The edit would have occurred between April 20 and May 25, but I don't see any edits to the litigation section in that period. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like they were more likely referring to this article rather than Monsanto. An IP editor based out of Nevada (same as Phillips) has been trying to add the content in, and another (maybe a dynamic IP or same person just traveling) added it more recently. Might be worthwhile to bring up at WP:COIN if problems keep coming up though just to have a record of it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted there, using my text above as a basis. I haven't checked to see whether there have been any such edits, but the claim itself looks to be worth further discussion. --Pete (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

oh that is rich. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We've discussed adding this lawsuit to the article in the past, but objection was made on the basis that the source (Examiner.com) was a non-edited newsblog. Well, here is another source, an edited publication, by a real journalist. So what do you say? I say that we should include it under the "Legal cases / Advertising controversy" section. I find it relevant and worthy of a single sentence with this source. I think the time has come to add this case. I think it's notable enough for a one-sentence mention. SageRad (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's get some other opinions here. I posted for comments at RSN here. SageRad (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Here is another source for including this lawsuit in this article: LegalNewsOnline article. Please discuss. This is a news source with an editorial process, who thought the story worth reporting. SageRad (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The objections of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE are going to remain. A recycled press release in a blog is just WP:FART. Please stop scraping the bottom of the sourcing barrel. If this ever becomes significant, we will all know about it. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, buddy, that is not a blog. It's a news source with editorial process. Your previous objection to Examiner.com was justfiably that they have no editorial process and therefore it *is* a blog. As for your WP:FART reference, that's just plain rude. SageRad (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:FART is a useful essay. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you think so, but it seems off base to me, in this context. That essay explains that there is a lot of verifiable information that is not of import, but this is an article on Monsanto Legal Cases, and this is a lawsuit against Monsanto that has garnered enough interest to be written about in a publication about legal affairs, and some editors would like to include a single sentence mention of this case in the section on fraudulent advertising. You think this is as irrelevant as "somebody farted" whereas i think it would be of interest to someone who comes to this page, presumably to learn about what legal matter Monsanto is involved with. Please, instead of implying something by citing an essay about farts, say what you need to say explicitly and clearly. You'll notice that the essay is mainly cautioning against too much information and uses celebrity gossip as the main subject matter in question. This is not that. SageRad (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

to see what legal matters Monsanto is involved with = gossip. Not encyclopedic information. WP:FART. As I have pointed out to a bunch of times, zillions of lawsuits are filed all the time, some righteous, some pure assholery, some in the middle. Just in US federal district courts (not including state courts or US federal appeals courts), there were 284,604 civil suits filed in 2013? (ref) That is about 800 filings a day. In California state court alone, about 1,000,000 (yes about a million) civil cases were filed in 2012 alone. (see data here).That is just in the US. If your standards for what is encyclopedic are that any lawsuit filed by anyone anywhere in the world is "encyclopedic content", you do not understand what we are about here. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion may be that it's gossip, but my opinion is that it's important. Let's get the opinions of others here. This is a matter of reckoning, and you have made yourself clear. The argument about volume of filings per day doesn't matter. Thousand of people may die of car crashes per day as well, but if a notable person dies of a car crash, that may be of import. Monsanto is a company of note, and this action regards Monsanto. This article is a case in point, as there exists an article specifically about legal matters with which Monsanto is involved. You oppose including a legal matter that involves Monsanto in an article about legal matters involving Monsanto, calling it "gossip"? SageRad (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

every. thing. in. this. article. is. something. finished. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a different point entirely. I acknowledge that the other legal cases appear to be finished. I don't think that means a blanket ban on including lawsuits in progress, but it does indicate a cultural precedent.

One more news outlet with editorial oversight who printed about this lawsuit: AntiMedia report on Los Angeles lawsuit Will it take a mention in the New York Times? The author of the above article, Carey Wedler, appears to have written 220 articles for the publisher. It appears to be a legitimate piece of journalism, despite the publisher's name. SageRad (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And here is yet another article about this lawsuit -- for a fart, it sure is getting a lot of coverage. Not in the mainstream press, as the point of this article is, but in enough alternative press with valid editorial process, that i think it shows that it is noteworthy and belongs in Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in any major media. Did you even read that dreck of a source? it is hosted by some micronews blogsource and written by someone from "theantimedia.org" - and for the twenty bazillionth time, we generally incorporate litigation when it is finished. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That is NOT a rule or guideline. Show me a guideline that specifically says that Wikipedia does not incorporate legal proceedings until they are finished. Show me or stop saying that as a policy. You can say that as your preference, or as a precedent of Wikipedia culture, but not as a policy. Are you saying that is a policy?

Do you also intend to cast aspersion upon a news source because it's called the AntiMedia? If so, i think that is a foul as well. Let's get real here.

You can oppose inclusion because YOU don't think it's noteworthy, but you cannot strong-arm everyone else into not including it by wikilawyering. Let's discuss the real matter -- is it noteworthy? We'll get varying opinions, of which yours is ONE. Yours is not THE opinion. Get off your high horse and work WITH others. SageRad (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I fully understand that in your world, as someone Very Concerned about Glyphosate (which you expressed clearly on your Talk page), this litigation is Very Important to you. What I have been trying to tell you in that per the policies, guidelines, and norms of Wikipedia, it would be possible to consider including content about this, if and when it is covered by major media, and even then it will be subject to discussion as to whether to not it is UNDUE since Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and ongoing litigation is very arguably not encyclopedic. This is an encyclopedia, SageRad, not a newspaper or a site for activism or "getting the word out". Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice way to snidely mischaracterize me, and i don't need your lecture to tell me that Wikipedia is not a newspaper (nor a crystal ball, nor an advert channel, etc.) I'm aware of what Wikipedia is, and for the comprehensiveness of this article i think this inclusion is a good thing. I see your opposition as being advocacy-oriented, for what it's worth, so you know that what you may perceive as advocacy in me is a counterpoint to what i perceive as advocacy in you. We are different people, with different experiences and values. To your point, where is the graph that shows what is "major media" and what is not? Where is the policy that says that only things covered by "major media" are allowed? I'm serious. You cannot draw lines like that. SageRad (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing snide in what I wrote. You have made it clear that to you this litigation is a big deal, and I and others have been saying to you that it is not a big deal in Wikipedia at this time, and you just will not hear that. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so you think that A.A. Milne style capitalization to the point of accusing me of being a Really Special Wikipedia Editor On A Mission is not snide? You begin a comment with "I fully understand that in your world..." and think that's alright? Holy bejeezus, Batman. SageRad (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen. Let's call a halt to this, please.

My reading of the situation is that discussion has explored all relevant points. This particular case is not going to feature in Wikipedia until it becomes a good deal more notable. There is no consensus for inclusion, and if any attempts are made, it will be removed. SageRad, you have been repeatedly warned for disruption. Take heed. --Pete (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see now. Threat and shutdown of discussion, and declaration of unilateral action. No consensus for inclusion but no consensus for exclusion, either, i.e. a situation for dialogue. The other discussion on "antimedia.org" was hatted, with a few parting insults directed at me (thank you gentlemen). I wasn't finished there, but whatever. There seems to be a side who say that "mainstream media" is "whatever agrees with my ideology" and rejects that as a source for notability.

Also rejected was The Epoch Times... on what basis? Here's one person's assessment of the source: "Bold, encouraging, thoughtful, the Epoch Times has become one of Canada's premier publications. For ten years now, the award-winning newspaper has been building bridges between communities and covering the stories that are shaping our world... the Epoch Times immense success is a testament to the public's appetite for a fearless independent voice. I'd like to commend the Epoch Times for a decade of journalistic excellence." -- Peter Kent, Canada's Minister of the Environment, former journalist, producer and anchorman. Yeah, not the type of paper we want to use as a source. SageRad (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: page does not list ongoing litigation

If this page is going to actively omit all reference to ongoing litigation involving Monsanto, then we need to make that clear, otherwise it is misleading.

Before you get all up on me, gang, this is NOT solely in regard to the class action lawsuit regarding false advertising. This is also in regard to ongoing actions by San Diego and Spokane regarding PCBs, among other things.

I wish i didn't even have to say this, but please don't hat this section without discussing that first. Just because YOU think a conversation has covered all bases, or gone off base, or is pointless, doesn't mean everyone agrees with you. Premature hatting is a unilateral closure of dialogue and not very friendly.

So, i added this disclaimer to the lead paragraph. If we'd like to be open to ongoing litigation, i would like to include reference to the lawsuits about PCBs, which is an important topic in legal cases involving Monsanto.

Nowhere is there a policy that prohibits mentioning ongoing litigation. This notion seems to be that of some editors here. It is not Wikipedia policy.

I understand that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and i understand concerns about recentism, but i also think that being fairly up to date is an important and valid goal. I think that people who come here to learn about Monsanto's legal issues deserve to get a fairly decent broad overview that mentions legal issues that are of interest and note to understanding the company and its relation to society.

SageRad (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see MOS:SELFREF. And I know that you want to include all kinds of trivia and content that violates WP:NOTNEWS in Wikipedia. There are loads and loads of blogs for campaigning; that seems to be the more appropriate venue for what you want and would be more productive for you. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You are so wrong about me here, and that comment seems to constitute a genuine personal attack against my character and motivations. I reject all your mischaracterization of me in the above comment and i hope you'll consider retracting it. SageRad (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

To attempt to still have this dialogue even in the soured atmosphere of that comment by Jytdog, who also reverted my edit, then let's have reference to ongoing litigation. There are many very good (even by the conservative establishment standards of some here) that show notability of lawsuits by cities against Monsanto at present in regard to PCB contamination, so i am going to go ahead and add a bit on this rather soon. I don't subscribe to a rule that i don't think exists against mention of current litigation. I think it's relevant and useful to the public to see it here. I think it will improve the article. I think it's also what people expect when they use Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. They expect fairly up to date articles.

Loathe as i am to even reply to Jytdog after that last comment, i clearly stated that i know that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. However, there is genuine utility and benefit in being somewhat up to date. WP:NOTNEWS is rather clear. SageRad (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we please have a civil discussion, please? Like for real?

So, i see the point about the stylistic preference against referring to the article in the article. I do not see the point about "original research" being referenced in Jytdog's comment. I'd like to know what that has to do with this.

The reason i added the disclaimer is to let readers know what algorithm guides the page. They won't know without reading the talk page that the editors have decided to not include any current legal cases, which could otherwise be reasonably assumed to be included in the title of the page, "Monsanto legal cases". As long as a reader knows the filter is there, fine. Otherwise, they will miss that segment of the information possible under this topic, without knowing that, which i think can be deceptive whether intentionally or not. We are here to serve the reader with the most accurate and useful encyclopedia we can co-create. SageRad (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why Jytdog would say that i am edit warring with his recent revert of my addition of the lawsuits by U.S. cities regarding PCBs. What makes that edit warring? I'm here, in dialogue on the talk page, explained my addition and the rationale behind it, and then did it. Jytdog reverts me and then makes this accusation of edit warring. Really, what's that about?

I have a right to add this content. It is not spurious. It is well sourced. It is reliable, verifiable, and notable. It is a Monsanto legal case, which is the topic of this article. I know Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS but does benefit from being fairly up to date, and if someone is willing to put in the work and update an article then why reject it? It's not breaking news. It's a salient ongoing event that was noted. I also updated the quarry matter. Why not delete that, too? And by the way, the quarry investigation was indeed on this page while ongoing. That is how it can work. Please step up with some integrity. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Who is actually being WP:DISRUPTIVE here? The answer is clear to me. I find behavior like this disruptive to the editorial process and to Wikipedia's operations in general. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You added content about this to the PCB article in this diff. I removed it in this diff. You had a little meltdown on that Talk page and I added content about the PCB contamination in Washington to that article in this diff. So -- knowing full well the context discussions we've already had about lawsuits being filed, and without consensus, you added the content about in this article, in this diff. Edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC) (REDACT Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

I really genuinely fail to see what you are saying is edit warring. I also resent your phrase "a little meltdown". I think i spoke clearly there. I added content about the lawsuits to this page, with explanation on talk page, and WP:BRD is right there with me on it, i think. PCBs is a different article entirely, and i don't see what your point is here, what connection you're making, which would make my addition about these legal cases on this page "edit warring". I did very much appreciate your adding back info about Washington on the PCBs page, though the road to getting there was rocky. I really do appreciate when we are able to work together in collaboration. SageRad (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

it is edit warring to add the same content to two different articles - which was rejected for the same reason both times. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to emphasize this point that i've made before: your assertion that "we don't add content when suits are filed" is your opinion or wish, and not actually Wikipedia policy. It seems to me that it's a matter of reckoning whether a lawsuit filing is notable or not, and a way to determine that is through extent of media coverage. I have tried to nail you down on this "policy" that you have stated and i don't think i've gotten a clear answer yet. I don't think it's a Wikipedia policy, and you're trying to enforce it as if it were a policy. Lastly, i think it's a real stretch to say that my adding reference to that lawsuit in the PCBs article a few weeks ago, and adding it to this article -- specifically an article on "Monsanto legal issues" -- is the same context. I think that the lawsuit should have been mentioned in both articles. I see no reason why not. It's substantially covered in the media and it's important, i reckon. A one-sentence mention broadens the articles, both of them. Yet the relevance to the articles is also different because the articles are focused on different topics. I hope this makes sense. I hope you can see i'm not edit warring here. We should be at the "D" of the "BRD" cycle right now, i suppose, and i hope it's a genuine discussion to resolve the differences. SageRad (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Time and again you've kept trying to push various content related to lawsuits like this into articles to have it rejected each time by multiple editors. We've reached the point that WP:SNOWBALL is pretty appropriate here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

One thing at a time, please. Sweeping generalization not really so accurate. I've added a lawsuit about false advertising here, and i've added these current lawsuits about PCBs now. That is two. I've also added the same PCBs lawsuit to the PCBs page, a few weeks ago. Your logic evades me here. What's your point? Do you have others in mind? And Wikilawyering by others does not make me wrong. If i add a lawsuit mention and it's rejected because of lack of source, and then I add a source and it's rejected because it's not an edited source, and then i present an edited source and it's rejected because it's not the New York Times, and then the whole thing is rejected because "We don't report on lawsuits until they're finished" being presented as if it's policy, that pattern doesn't necessarily indicate that i am being impetuous or wrong here. Your word "push" too -- i'm editing an article, hopefully improving it, making it more useful to the public, more reflective of reality. You attempt to frame it as a bad thing. And "multiple editors" doesn't hold much weight when there seems to be gang-like behavior on so-called "controversial" articles like this one. That could very equally indicate that a few people with similar tendentious editing practices have it on their watchlist and pass off among each other. I'd like to edit by policy and genuine dialogue. SageRad (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, good. Why not draft your material, post it here, and it may be dialogued without the apparently inevitable edit-warring that occurs when you post it to the article first and it gets removed? Your current approach leaves no happy faces, and that's hardly a good thing, is it? --Pete (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a recommended guideline. There was no edit warring here. It's not necessarily my approach that is leaving no happy faces. Others are acting here, too, and could act differently. To return to talking about the article itself, do you think that this addition was valid and acceptable in this article? As an editor, why or why not? SageRad (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A brief mention of lawsuits which are covered in major/mainstream news publications is a reasonable inclusion. WP:NOTNEWS has little relevance to such an inclusion. Often the issue with in-progress lawsuit coverage is the poor quality of sources, which have included law firm sites on the cases, partisan blogs, etc. Along this line, allgov.com looks like a low-quality source and I would avoid it entirely. environmentalleader.com looks marginally better, but will be called out by some as advocacy/partisan given its title and focus. As such, I would avoid it as well. When mainstream coverage exists, it is best to stick to only mainstream news organization coverage in order to avoid distracting arguments over mediocre sources. When no mainstream coverage exists, I would not waste time fighting for inclusion of the material.Dialectric (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What I'm hearing here is editor after editor lining up to say that lack of good sources is the problem standing in the face of SageRad's continuing attempts to insert content against consensus. He says he listens. I'm not seeing any evidence of this. I'm seeing someone so convinced he is right that when editors quote wikipolicy and wikipractice, it becomes evidence of some sort of organised cabal, and hence even more justification to tell that One True Story. That's not the way it is. The way things work here is that we find ways to work together, rather than finding reasons for throwing bricks at each other. I get tired of endless discussion on the same points. Sage, how about instead of talking, you listen a bit more? --Pete (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps read down a little on the page. I'm seeing Aquillion saying here that it seems a reasonable inclusion and that sources are adequate to establish notability. This is a real thing happening in the world, and it's been reported by reliable sources. Wikipedia should reflect that. I see Dialectric agreeing here as well. I'm seeing others saying that lawsuit filings are never reported on Wikipedia, and implying that it's Wikipedia policy. I made this point here. I seek to work together here. I'm not throwing bricks. I'm insisting on dialogue with integrity. I'm listening, Pete. I don't think this discussion is the way you characterize it. The evidence is here on this talk page. SageRad (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is on the article page. Your content is not there. You haven't convinced any other editor that your content belongs in Wikipedia. All this talk and no result. Your argument above is what a lawyer would call "precious". We don't include every case against Monsanto, and looking at those described in our article, they seem to be major cases, involving several groups, often with an international spread. Looking at your cases, these don't register highly, and looking at the media coverage seem to be of very small merit. Ambit claims in local courts. If they get to the Supreme Court, there will be coverage and notability enough for us. (And no, that's not another artificial windmill for you to tilt at.)

Instead of finding good sources, you are arguing, accusing editors of obstructing you, of wikilawyering (sweet irony, there), and not listening to your crusading voice. I'm getting the impression that you feel that your views are Holy Writ, and if the details aren't good enough, then there's some other reason, and you're going to find one whether or not it exists.

For me, you fit a pattern I see often, especially when I keep an eye on the JFK articles, where single-minded crusaders feel that their lives are not complete unless their notions are marked down in Wikipedia as gospel truth. Why not step back a little, examine the thinking you are putting into this and ask yourself if it's reason or emotion driving you? --Pete (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"The evidence is on the article page. Your content is not there. You haven't convinced any other editor that your content belongs in Wikipedia. All this talk and no result." The worst non-sequitur. Lack of logic. Can't you see the faultiness of that? "He's guilty because he's in jail. Obviously he's in jail, so he's guilty." Did i fall asleep and wake up in a Monty Python skit? "Instead of finding good sources, you are..." No, i've found good sources. See the NBC news and Seattle paper reports on the lawsuits in question. Other editors agreed these are good sources. You're on a thing. Leave me out of it. I can't believe it but i really have to quote the Paul Simon song again, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Almost quoted it last time but i was being polite, or kind. SageRad (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What did I say about too much taliking and not enough listening? Go back, read what I wrote, think about it. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This has become unfathomably thick now. You write, "What did I say about too much taliking and not enough listening? Go back, read what I wrote, think about it." Am i out of line to say "You're not my father"? The lecturing tone of reproval, the condescension... is uncivil and uncalled for. This is the reason why this dialogue is so long and dysfunctional, this kind of willful not-hearing. Seriously, i think that my comments make it very clear that i am listening, and addressing nearly every point that is made even in some rather outlandish situations where it seems the other person does not listen and respond to my own words. I think i've been quite generous here, and i think i've been insulted and treated with some serious disrespect by several people here. I see what you've written, above, and i have thought about and responded. You compare me to a crusader in a JFK article who wants to insert some fringy conspiracy theory. Don't you find that off base here? Do you realize i simply want to insert one sentence to mention three lawsuits by three U.S. cities against Monsanto, which is supported in notability by being reported in mainstream media, and that other editors here agree with me? Do you see that you have mis-characterized the dialogue as "editor after editor lining up" to say that i'm totally wrong, and omitted the editors who seem to see my points and agree with me? Do you see how you're being seriously childish here in this dialogue? This is all apparently necessary to update this article with a single-sentence mention of current lawsuits involving Monsanto? This is like swimming through molasses. Too thick. And that is the origin of my use of the word "obstructionist" before, to which you took exception to the point of posting to my talk page to upbraid me, again in paternalistic tones. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. This has a Kafka-esque feeling of absurdity. Fortunately, there are some good and sensible people here who will not stand for the determination of a reflection of reality through Wikipedia being dominated by tiny tyrants. SageRad (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

See above, brother. --Pete (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Out of line. What is your implication? Say what you need to say, explicitly. No more hinting and insinuation. I say very directly, that *you* are the one here who appears very plainly to be willfully ignoring evidence and intentionally distorting the nature of the dialogue here. I'm done with your games and resent this waste of everyone's time. SageRad (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: Have to comment here, civility is a pillar policy, and your tone with SageRad is kind of off-putting, it is dripping with condescension, and makes me feel like I'm listening to an overbearing parent: "Sage, how about instead of talking, you listen a bit more?," "What did I say about too much taliking and not enough listening?," and the like. No one is forcing you to interact with SageRad, it is your choice. Essential rudeness is not helpful. --Tsavage (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it that way. How else can I put it that in this discussion, he's not listening, but talking talking talking? We've heard what he has to say, repeating it will not help. --Pete (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC) And, speaking of core policies, it seems a little rude of you to be making personal attacks, wouldn't you say? --Pete (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No personal attack, simply observing WP:CIVIL. I politely described how it seems to me you were repeatedly belittling another editor, and let you know how it made me, for one, feel: uncomfortable. --Tsavage (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You call another editor names and it's not a personal attack? I personally don't mind your comments, but I think you should appreciate the irony of the situation. --Pete (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Premature edit action

The Bold - Revert - Discuss cycle is a useful part of Wikipedia procedure.

1. Someone makes a bold edit to move along an article.

2. A watching editor reverts the change.

3. The edit is discussed, consensus determined, and

3a. The bold edit is restored, with consensus, or

3b. Consensus for the change is not found, the article retains the status quo, or

3c. Some compromise position is found, again with consensus.

This works well to avoid edit-warring, and finds the blessing of interested parties. Maybe not everyone is happy with the result, but all have had a chance to discuss the matter and the relevant policies discussed. It works.

However. Let us turn to a series of recent edits.

1. 02:55 23 August 2015 As defendant: add current lawsuits re: PCBs by U.S. cities SageRad adds material about recent filings of lawsuits. A bold move!
2. 02:57 23 August 2015 stop edit warring Jytdog reverts the addition.
3. Discussion ensues, an RfC is filed, due wikiprocess proceeds, no consensus found for SR's edit, but we've got a few days before the RfC expires.
4. 14:47 28 August 2015 Undid revision 677338084 by Jytdog (talk) well sourced, edit the part if required -- per talk page suggestion Prokaryotes restores the disputed material, without consensus.
5. 17:27 28 August 2015 Undid revision 678232270 by Prokaryotes (talk) No, we don't have consensus yet. Just hold on - we're getting there. I remove the material while the RfC continues and discussion is continuing.

Gentlemen (and lady). Please let us follow procedure. The BRD and RfC processes are intended to stop edit-warring, which is disruptive. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your reason for revert? prokaryotes (talk) 07:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary, and expanded above. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In your edit summary you wrote: "No, we don't have consensus yet. Just hold on - we're getting there" -- above several editors agree to add the case, and the latest discussion is about adding eventually more statements. And above you not answering questions, your concerns have been addressed now by several editors. Thus, your revert appears like disruption. There is valid, well sourced content a possible historic case, and you just removed it, without addressing editor questions.prokaryotes (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We have an RfC on this very material currently underway. Please be so good as to wait for that RfC to conclude. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully, we are getting there. If we had more people playing nice, we'd have been there long ago. Please note that WP:CONSENSUS does not mean unanimity, it does not mean that everyone agrees on the content, and it does ask editors to be in dialogue with integrity, to work out whatever differences they may have about a content question. It contains many admonishments such as, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." The policy does *not* require agreement among all editors to make changes to content. It *does* require editors to work together and act like adults, and speak with integrity. SageRad (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Notice This discussion has been mentioned at the edit warring board, by Pete. prokaryotes (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

ARB Enforcement

Anyone knows how we can add the ARB sanctions for this page, given that some editors above try everything to delay addition of well sourced content. It seems that we require some possible enforcement to keep the quality of this article. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It is frustrating, though not surprising, that we've spent thousands of words debating the inclusion of a single sentence. The first step in resolving a content disagreement is to get outside input. The rfc was a move in this direction, but so far has attracted few outside comments. The next step is to get Admin attention on the issue, rather than Arbs/arbcom. If you want to proceed down this road, you will need to decide which admin board is appropriate, then write up a concise case statement for that board. Arbs only get involved after admin action has failed to resolve a conflict, and typically take cases that can show a long term problem and/or a problem that spans across a number of articles.Dialectric (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that outside admin input is needed here, and feel that the focus needs to be on editing behavior over not only this article, but the entire range of Monsanto-related articles. It's my belief that the long-term editing of several editors needs deep scrutiny, and that the coming days and weeks are the time to do so. This situation has gone on far too long. Jusdafax 18:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is going to take action until the RfC runs its course and we have used other DR mechanisms to resolve this. This is a (rather trivial) content dispute. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and ofc Jytdog is quick to dismiss something which threatens his long term pattern of OWN and POV-pushing behavior. prokaryotes (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do read WP:DR. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Notice that there is currently a discussion at OR noticeboard, related to this discussion here.prokaryotes (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you've got your wires crossed, brother. I'm not seeing where Monsanto legal cases is mentioned. Of course, this may just be me looking in the wrong spot, so perhaps a spot of guidance…? --Pete (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Article sections

I thought that the information seemed quite jumbled and hard to follow. I added some headings and did some grouping. Perhaps it could be further improved? Gandydancer (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)