Talk:Monsanto legal cases/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Challenging deletion of PCB litigation intro as unsupported

Skyring|Skyring/Pete You deleted this paragraph, with the edit summary, "Dubious interpretation of primary source" which I fail to see as justified:

In the US, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were manufactured from 1929 to 1977, for use in electrical and other industrial applications, and in a range of products including inks, adhesives, and sealants. Approximately 99% of PCBs used by industry in the US were produced by Monsanto. In 1977, the company discontinued production, and in 1979, the US Congress banned PCB manufacture, due to apparent links between PCBs and environmental problems, and the discovery of negative health effects in relation to environmental and health issues.updated to later refinement --Tsavage (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Source: Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (US Dept. of Health and Human Services), pages=467-469}} Nov-2000.

The source is produced by an agency of the US Dept. of Health, in their Toxilogical Profile series, which is peer-reviewed 900-page review of key literature, described as follows:

"The ATSDR toxicological profile succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for the hazardous substance described here. Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a hazardous substance's toxicologic properties. Other pertinent literature is also presented, but is described in less detail than the key studies."

As most of it is dates, uses, and a production percentage, I assume the part you are specifically referring to as "dubious interpretation" is (underlined):

"In 1979, the US Congress banned PCB manufacture, due to apparent links between PCBs and environmental problems, and the discovery of negative health effects."

I will give you a chance to reply and clarify if necessary, if that's not what you're referring to. Meanwhile, it was essentially, public outcry - political pressure - and emerging and ignored science that led to the ban. From another source:

"PCBs were discovered to be highly toxic to the ecosystem and, by the 1960s scientists were reporting that PCBs were a global threat (Risebrough et al, 1968). There was considerable political activism surrounding environmental hazards such as PCBs and environmental organizations pushed hard for their ban (Colborn et al, 1997) Eventually, the United States Congress banned PCB production (but not their use) in 1979 (Schwarzman and Wilson, 2009)"

And the New York Times from 24-Aug-1976, regarding a special PCB amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976:

"The House of Representatives voted 339-45 to ban within three years the manufacture of PCBs, a class of chemicals that has been linked to cancer and birth defects, water pollution and wildlife contamination ... some House members said during today's debate that they felt that banning PCBs was a moral responsibility to the people..."

The Act was passed by Congress that October. It's administered by the EPA, and subsequent amendments are the source of the 1979 ban.

Based on that, I don't find the summary, that Congress banned PCBs due to environmental and health issues, is at all dubious. If you have problem with the source for that item, indicate that, don't delete entire chunks of content. --Tsavage (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Who's the plaintiff in this case? I'm not sure why you want to insert this at all. Please explain. --Pete (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the sourcing, let me know. --Tsavage (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I see Pete's deletion as unjustified. Sourcing is not a problem here. The lead serves a good function as stated by Tsavage in adding it. SageRad (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't give me opinions. Give me policy. This is an article about lawsuits, not chemicals. All we need is a wikilink to the main article instead of a fork. Nor do we need a dubious interpretation of a primary source. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Clearly, it is not a "dubious interpretation of a primary source" -- that is the phrase you originally used in your deletion and Tsavage has addressed that at length right here. Dialogue is broken. Done with this. SageRad (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) Skyring/Pete: This is not a List of... article, which is how it reads now. A little context can go a long way in improving readability and usefulness - appropriate introductions to sections is a standard way of achieving this. Providing a brief summary of a company's historical involvement with a product, in a section about litigation involving that company and that product, is a good idea (especially when, as in this case, some of the litigation is current, while the product has not been manufactured for 40 years).

Remember, this is a daughter article, spun off only recently from Monsanto, where the context for these cases was already present, and requires ongoing improvement to bring it up to standalone quality. Throwing together dozens of cases with nothing but subheads for context does not produce a high quality article that is sufficiently self-contained that it can be read without frequent interruption. Providing brief contextual summaries where appropriate is in principle the same as writing in plain English rather than using technical language.

If you want policy, how about:

"'a terrible idea' is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible." (WP:BADIDEA). Trying to restrict the content of this article by limiting its scope to the point where providing basic context can be argued as irrelevant, off-topic, or a topic fork impedes fundamental editorial improvement and sets up a situation where practically every entry can be challenged on a sentence by sentence basis as not directly relating to the subject, as can the inclusion of entire items ("strictly speaking, that's not a legal case") - in short, this is a terrible idea.

You haven't made clear your claim of dubious interpretation of a primary source. Which statement, and which source? If it is what was discussed above, I will add a second source to the description of the factors leading to the Congressional ban on PCBS - until then, I've already quoted additional sources, above, so there should be no question that it is in fact verifiable. --Tsavage (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting a little sick of seeing edit-warring by those who cannot understand policy, but want to impose their personal opinions on all. I'm reverting SageRad while we're discussing this. There's no hurry and I'm not opposed to finding a reasonable path forwards. My main concern is the sourcing, and if the main article has good secondary sourcing, why use something less for this one. It looks like some forking going on. --Pete (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, we seem to have some edit warring going on here now. I'm looking for integrity in dialogue, and clearly explained objections or agreement. There's not hurry, but there's no time for obstructionism either. We need process with integrity. Pete, you can see above that Tsavage has directly asked you to make clear your reasons for opposing the source. You then commented with some aspersions but did not address that question as far as i can see. In light of this discussion, in which Tsavage has explained the sourcing very well, what is your specific objection to this lead text? SageRad (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It is indeed quite verifiable and quite basic fact that PCBs have been shown to have negative effects on health and ecology. Is this a claim you're objecting to, or doubting sourcing for? What particular claim do you take issue with, and/or what source, and why? Please be very specific, and please err on the side of over-explaining, because so far you haven't provided enough explanation, Pete. SageRad (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
SageRad, the process is called Bold Revert Discuss and it is an effective way of preventing edit-warring. Why not participate in the discussion, go though the process and we'll arrive at a result that satisfies all participants. Your own personal feelings have no place here, and edit-warring without good reason will attract sanctions. I've put forward my objections to the material; why not address them, if you can. --Pete (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
BRD is not a required method and not recommended in cases of controversial articles. My feelings are not the issue here. Please state your content issues. You have once again failed to do so. Content. SageRad (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Skyring, re "ive put forward objections to the material": your objections have been dealt with. So what reference would you like, could you find one? Or is it the entire paragraph you dont like?
it would be constructive, if you'd suggest an alternative paragraph with a sentence and source.
since you havent, of course people restore the status quo prior to the deletion of a neutrally phrased and reliably sourced paragraph (=disruption, per Arbcom). --Wuerzele (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The status quo is the longstanding version which doesn't include the paragraph added a few hours back. I've added a link to the PCB article, which should satisfy anyone looking to find out what PCBs are. We don't need forked content here, especially not content using a different source – a primary source, as noted – to the main article. --Pete (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) Skyring/Pete: Your approach here is so out of bounds, I believe it is reasonable to point out here how you are operating without regard to policy and even the guidance you say you are following:

  • "The status quo is the longstanding version which doesn't include the paragraph added a few hours back" - The idea that long-standing versions represent some sort of implicit consensus or stability may have some merit as a consideration in some cases (and it doesn't have a policy standing, quite the contrary, improvement is encouraged by policy), however in this case, it is all but meaningless, since this is a cut-and-paste spin-off article created a few months ago, with a hasty lead attached - all of the context of the parent article is gone, and there is much room for improvement, as I outlined above.
  • Your use of WP:BRD is, as SageRad pointed out, a misapplication of an essay-based suggestion. You are using BRD to support removal of a chunk of content, which is by neither policy nor guideline, and is directly against BRD itself; you've failed to elaborate on your somewhat cryptic "Dubious interpretation of primary source" edit summary, one which I and now other editors find vague: what are you referring to exactly?

Your claimed use of BRD directly opposes many of its instructions, including (emphasis from source):

  • If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted. - you've reverted a reversion of your reversion
  • Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. - is your issue with sourcing? can a new source not be simply applied, or can't you tag it?
  • Bold editing is not, however, a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing. - so far, with your failure to calrify your objection, this seems to be the only result of your reversion
  • Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged. Some editors may invoke this process by name in the edit summary; however, BRD is never a reason for reverting. - is thia a volatile situation - some seem to think so?
  • BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. - you have reverted again, disrespecting another editor's BRD in boldly restoring the deleted content
  • BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas. No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion. - inconsistent with your vague contention of long standing status quo
  • BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. - if others don't want to observe it, you have to drop it

I think these point make it clear that, in this case at least, you are in no way following the letter or spirit of BRD, only citing it. In fact, you're just deleting content you don't like. Which brings us to what policy says about your deletion...

Editing policy instructs:

  • Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is. Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information. - Upgrading a recent cut-and-paste spinoff article by providing introductory leads to sections is hardly controversial, and clearly in the category of routine improvement, and directly in the scope of this policy statement.
  • Instead of removing content from an article, consider:
  • Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources
  • Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact
  • Requesting a citation by adding the {{citation needed}} tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate
  • Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
...and six more possibilities.

Content removal is a last resort, not a first move, and there are numerous other references to this in policies and guidelines. Policy says we don't go around removing sourced content just because we don't like it, or without a pressing reason, or without attempting other approaches to fixing it. There is nothing in the edit you deleted to justify immediate that removal, and you are not even adhering to BRD, so again, what is your justification for deletion of sourced content?

I've added a link to the PCB article, which should satisfy anyone looking to find out what PCBs are. - linking to a 7,000 word article (that happens to be studded with neutrality and unsourced section tags) is not nearly equivalent to a single-paragraph section introduction that provides context for the cases following. The intro doesn't explain what PCBs are, it describes the background for these cases. Every item in the intro I added speaks directly and neutrally to aspects of the Monsanto cases subsequently covered, there is no extraneous detail about PCBs alone. --Tsavage (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could address the points I raised, that would be helpful. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Skyring/Pete: First, I suggest you self-revert. You already reverted twice, and if anyone is instigating edit-warring, it would appear to be you. You should remedy the situation.
Then, if you could make clear the points you have raised. What are they, they are not clear. Do you mean:
  • Dubious interpretation of a primary source - this has been addressed, as far as I could tell what you were referring to. The only source I cited is not a primary source for any of the information it refers to, as far as I can tell. According to the source description, it is a peer-reviewed review of literature directly relating to toxicological aspects of PCBs and to other aspects. I noted this above. And other sources are available for that content, so I'm not sure what it is you are referring to, but if it's sourcing, there shouldn't be a problem, these are not arcane facts. Please be more precise.
  • We don't need forked content here, especially not content using a different source – a primary source, as noted – to the main article. What are you referring to here. Guessing, you think that the source I used is different from a source used elsewhere for same or similar information, and you think the sources should be the same? But treally, I'm not sure what you're talking about. And what is forked referring to, the content, the sources? Please be more precise.
If other than that, what are you talking about? --Tsavage (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I see one source in the material you added, and that appears to be a government agency registry. The content looks to be unsupported by that source. The forking is that we already have an article on PCBs and it is summarised in the lede. Why not simply point our readers there? Instead you generate new content and a new primary source. You say above that linking to a 7 000 word article is confusing and difficult, but we have the lede to give a simple summary - in fact the content should be distilled into the first sentence there - and if there is a problem with that article, then it should be fixed there, not start an entirely different one here.
How come it took so long to provide a response to my concerns? Are you playing some sort of game? --Pete (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What i see here is a stubborn editor who appears to have an agenda, not working well with other editors, and making editing of this page virtually impossible. I don't see good dialogue above, and i am calling that out. Pete's part in this whole issue looks like obstructionism. There are open and clearly asked questions by Tsavage in this dialogue that Pete has continually not responded to, but rather responded by changing the subject and casting aspersions. This isn't working. We have attitude and behavioral problems here. SageRad (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: Nothing you have said justifies content deletion. Everything you have just put forward has already been answered in this thread. Please self-revert. --Tsavage (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we differ in our opinions. I'll stick with wikipolicy, thanks. Not to mention our sourcing policy, which prefers secondary sources over primary. --Pete (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The source you complained about looks completely adequate to me, being the "Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)" from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service. Contrary to your objection otherwise, it does appear to fully support the content, which is all non-controverted basic facts about PCBs. Forking is not relevant here as this is a short lede to a section about cases regarding PCBs. All in all, i and Tsavage are being extremely generous in our dialogue with you here, and have gone to great lengths to achieve clarity, all of which you reply to non-responsively with derailment and ignoring of many critical clearly asked questions. Altogether, you're showing signs of being badly obstructionist here, like a mule who just won't move off the trail. Your claims to following wikipolicy sound very hollow to me. SageRad (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't blow your frustration off on me, brother. Go take it up with the wider community who made the rules about sourcing. I'm sure the cite is a very sound and accurate document, but it is a primary source, which begs the question, why not use a secondary document? And why use it to support a content fork? As for fully supporting content, which you insist is the case, please indicate the wording in the source which supports the content, "…in 1979, the US Congress banned PCB manufacture". Here's a hint. Search for the string "1979" and see how many hits you get. Cheers. --19:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Skyring/Pete: From the source, as cited in the content you removed, regarding the material in question:
"In 1976, the U.S. Congress charged EPA with regulating the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs. Currently regulated pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA ), the first set of effluent standards for PCBs was issued by EPA in 1977; manufacturing and importing limitations regarding PCBs were issued in 1979. After subsequent amendments, the regulations stipulate that the production of PCBs in the United States is generally banned, the use of PCB-containing materials still in service is restricted, the discharge of PCB-containing effluents is prohibited, the disposal of materials contaminated by PCBs is regulated, and the import or export of PCBs is only permitte d through an exemption granted from EPA (EPA 1977b, 1979a, 1979f, 1979g, 1988c, 1988e, 1998a)." Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)" - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (US Dept. of Health and Human Services), p. 467-469
If you're having trouble with associating Congress and the EPA, and the year of the ban (the EPA amendments are listed) from this source, it is easy to look for a second source, or to ask for one, without removing content entirely. In this case, the content you removed also contained several other verified facts that you deleted at the same time but are not challenging.
Our verifiability policy clearly and directly addresses exactly this situation, where you feel that content is unsourced (it surprising that as a veteran editor who is instructing other editors on editorial procedure, you don't know, or choose not to adhere to this):
"If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the [citation needed] template by writing [citation needed] or [citation needed]. There are other templates here for tagging sections or entire articles. You can also leave a note on the talk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with [verification needed]. Material that fails verification may be tagged with [failed verification] or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page."
This complements the VERIFIABILITY framing instruction, which also covers this situation:
"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 material should be initially removed for not having a reliable source 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. 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. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
You did not do as policy instructs, you instead deleted soon after posting a cited, non-controversial paragraph of content and proceeded to argue at length against this policy. And how do you find that this is a primary source - it is a US government-issued peer-reviewed review of toxicologic and other pertinent literature related to the topic (PCBs)? --Tsavage (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
No matter how many times you claim otherwise, the facts remain as noted: it is an unnecessary fork only partially supported by a primary source. All we need for this list of lawsuits. is a wikilink to the PCB article. --Pete (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The article is not a list of lawsuits, it is an article focusing on Monsanto's involvement in litigation and related issues, such as investigation, false advertising, and so forth. A spin-off article is an article, and can be improved by providing context for its content. Your position is an editorial opinion, to be sure, but not justification for removal of well-sourced material.
I'm in no hurry. I'll allow some time for this to be considered and for you to self-revert. --Tsavage (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

As another editor looking at this, i do not see it as a "fork" but rather as a simple and wise copyedit that should be allowed. Let's talk as editors in terms of editing the article to make it useful for readers. I support the inclusion of the brief sub-lede to the section on PCBs, as well as a similar sub-lede to any other section with multiple cases listed in a single topical area. It just makes sense. Let's speak with integrity here, and get to the heart of the matter. SageRad (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what's "allowed" or not. It's a question of integrity. The lede for this article reads: Monsanto has been involved in several high-profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It has been defendant in a number of lawsuits over health and environmental issues related to its products. Monsanto has also 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[1][2] and Syngenta.[3] So the focus is on the lawsuits, not any other aspect of Monsanto or its business or its products. A reader may want to know what PCBs are, and if so, a link to the PCBs will satisfy that need. I'm just puzzled why we need extra content for this, and why it is so poorly sourced. This government registry portal is not a peer-reviewed journal. It is a primary document. Not even that, really, just a contents page containing nothing relevant. --Pete (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at WP:RSN as just arguing back and forth here doesn't seem to be doing anything but provide entertainment. --Pete (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Skyring/Pete: I have tried at some considerable cost in time to keep this to an editorial discussion, but with your RSN post, this now, unfortunately and unpleasantly, seems to be a problem in the area of conduct policies, as you don't seem to be at all responding to discussion.
In fact, you seem to be editing in the same aggressive style as only one other editor I've encountered on Wikipedia: arguing endlessly with shifting positions, selectively ignoring replies, continually charging policy and guideline violations without direct evidence, changing venues when things aren't going as hoped for, and presenting ill-formed questions on noticeboards and RfCs (as you have just done on RSN) that are all but guaranteed to turn into new endless arguments largely because they are not clear-cut queries. The question here isn't about sourcing (it's been made plain that alternative sources exist for the well-documented info you're challenging), and it's not about advocacy (is the paragraph...advocacy? in what way? for what cause?), and RSN doesn't speak to article content and structure, yet you have loaded all of that into a four-part RSN submission - unpicked, all I see is you pushing your POV.
Most disturbing so far in this discussion, reading the RSN posting, it appears you've been treating the online title/contents page for the source document as the entire document, which is ridiculous, as it contains no info, only links. Wow.
To make this perfectly clear, from what I now understand from RSN: you have been treating as the source what is obviously a title/contents page for the source document, Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), when all that page contains is a link to the full document and, alternatively, individual links for each chapter in the document, and no content, and you are challenging verifiability by saying you can't find support on that contents page. Now you've opened an RSN query based on that, stating, "The source does not support the content. Go to the link, search for "1979". No results. How is a reader supposed to find the cite for the content in Wikipedia? Download every PDF listed on the page?"
Hahaha, amazing. Here is the link I provided that has apparently so confused you Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) - the full PDF document link is located directly below the title at the top of the page, impossible to miss, followed by the document description: "Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a hazardous substance's toxicologic properties. Other pertinent literature is also presented, but is described in less detail than the key studies." It is not a primary source, as you keep stating, it is a review source. All of this has already been detailed above.
How many editor hours have you wasted in the last few weeks on this page, with this sort of obstructive arguing, and to accomplish what, exactly? The issue here, I'm afraid, is behavioral on your part - if other editors support your views, they should speak up to show how the situation is otherwise. --Tsavage (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
You make an interesting comment above. "… all I see is you pushing your POV." What is my POV, exactly? As you see it. --Pete (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
By "pushing your POV" I mean exactly that, advancing your point of view, your way, your position, whatever you feel like doing. You unilaterally deleted some content, and reply to objections with what appears to me as never-ending obstructive pseudo-discussion (similar behavior at the last RfC here suggests "never-ending"). I don't have a clue as to why - to illustrate or prove some point, maybe. It's impossible to tell whether any anonymous account represents a "real person," a person playing a role they have devised for themselves, or a completely constructed character, as would be maintained by writers for a TV show, so I don't bother speculating on any deeper motivation. I'm not playing detective, I'm just pursuing the discussion-based, policy-driven Talk page dispute resolution that our policies and guidelines recommend. In this case, to the bitter end. --Tsavage (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Fair enough. You don't know what my point of view is, but you accuse me of pushing it. I removed the material for the reasons given repeatedly above. It is poorly sourced and represents an unnecessary content fork. The existing first para in the section is quite adequate. --Pete (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say I knew what your underlying motivation is, I said you appear to be pushing your POV, which is synonymous with pushing your position, what you want, your view as to how things should be edited, as indicated by your actions (this was already explained). Your opinion that the content is poorly sourced and a content fork, and that the existing paragraph is adequate, is not reason for removal of verifiable content. And even if you choose to boldly remove it, it is certainly not reason for a second reversion a few hours later: reversion, second reversion. If you are insisting on these editorial positions, against opposition, you need to establish some sort of consensus, and until that is established, there's no basis for excluding sourced content, particularly when in fact the content was supported with detailed reasoning by three editors. --Tsavage (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. I've given my reasons several times, quoting wikipolicy. BRD is the wikiprocess, I'm not seeing any consensus for inclusion of the new material you propose. Of course, we may always seek more eyes, and I've done that with a request on WP:RSN. We can do an RfC if you wish. I'm always happy to resolve disputes using wikiprocedures. That's the best way forward. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) Skyring/Pete: To address your last round of assertions:

  • "I've given my reasons several times, ... " Every objection you have made has been responded to. You've elaborated vaguely around your original edit summary, "Dubious interpretation of primary source," and later introduced "content forking." The source has been identified with documentation (above) as a US federal agency-released peer-review review of literature - not a primary source. And the "dubious interpretation," given your latest and clearest description of the source, is referring to the home/contents page of that source, which contains no information (you apparently mistook that page as the entire source document; see above). Alternatively, the related paragraph from the source has also been quoted (above), with a note as to how any problem arising from the interpretation of that can easily be resolved with a new or additional source for these widely-documented facts. Forking has been addressed (and is further and decisively handled in the next point).
  • "... quoting wikipolicy. ..." The only direct reference to guidance (please correct me if I've missed others) is to a guideline not a policy, WP:Content forking, where you claim that the brief section introduction in question is a content fork from one or more unspecified articles (presumably, PCBs and/or Monsanto). In fact WP:FORK clearly supports this sort of material, so your application of this guideline is incorrect:
  • Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." (WP:RELART section)
  • Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.
  • "BRD is the wikiprocess" WP:BRD decisively remains an essay only, as indicated by a recent RfC which sought to elevate it to guideline status and failed. Comments there show that BRD is, in fact, controversial in the Wikipedia community, and is recognized for being commonly misused as a tool for disruption. Documented (above) are several points from BRD that have not been observed in your claimed use here. Bottom line: if BRD is not participated in by both parties, it does not exist, and a revert is no more than one editor choosing to revert. (Meanwhile, by courtesy, I continue to discuss without restoring the content, as did another editor who you also reverted after their bold restoring of the content - this is naturally occurring BRD.) BRD as "wikiprocess" does not apply here.
  • I'm not seeing any consensus for inclusion of the new material you propose" In this discussion, besides you and I, two other editors have weighed in, in some detail, concluding, "a simple and wise copyedit that should be allowed," and, "User:Skyring, re 'ive put forward objections to the material': your objections have been dealt with. ... of course people restore the status quo prior to the deletion of a neutrally phrased and reliably sourced paragraph." This would appear to be local consensus, as I and others have responded in detail to all of your assertions, and you have countered none of those responses.
  • "We can do an RfC if you wish. I'm always happy to resolve disputes using wikiprocedures." If you continue to claim objections, it would seem additional editor support is required for you position, as you have not made a policy-based argument, and wikiprocedures indicate we have a local consensus as described in the previous point. Don't forget that any discussion can be formally closed exactly like a formally declared RfC (see WP:TALK), the further delay of starting this discussion over with RfC tags isn't necessary, but you are free to try one to overturn the local consensus we already have here. Meanwhile, I'm fine with waiting a while for further participation in this thread.
What you describe as walls of text are detailed, courteous, patient, evidence-based, policy-based replies to your never-ending and largely unfounded objections, per discussion policy. What less could a conscientious, policy-observant editor do in the face of your continued objections to inclusion of sourced, contextually relevant, non-controversial, neutrally worded content? --Tsavage (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You assert your opinions repeatedly and with vehement force. That does not make them correct. Nor does badgering me.
  • Your source is primary. It is a US government registry.
  • It does not support the statements claimed. Maybe it does if the reader goes elsewhere and downloads the fifteen PDFs listed. That's like handing someone a menu and saying, "here is your meal."
  • In any case, the paragraph is unnecessary. The link to PCBs in the existing text is all that we need.
I feel we should get more opinions than those of myself and a couple of anti-Monsanto activists. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Unsupported removal of content from article lead

Skyring/Pete: You removed the following sentence from the article lead, with the somewhat cryptic edit note, 'Only true if the number is "one".':

"It has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, usually over health issues related to its products."

I'm not sure how many class action lawsuits Monsanto has been involved in, but quick search finds, on the company's own site, documentation of two such suits - Monsanto Company and Wheat Farmers Reach Settlement Agreement - and our article indicates the Agent Orange class action suit was settled for $180 million. If your comment is meant claim that Monsanto has been involved in only one class action suit, well, there are in fact at least three.

If you have a problem with sourcing or wording, per policy and guidelines, tag, discuss in talk, fix it, do anything but simply delete content you find questionable.

Please self-revert. --Tsavage (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that the same editor made a similar edit at Monsanto and i have added dialogue to the talk page to question this edit. SageRad (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
We only list one such case in this article. I don't think we should mislead the reader into thinking that there are multiple cases. Glad to be of assistance. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I've done a copyedit to the lede to restore the flow, but not to make any claim about number or dollar amount for such lawsuits, and also removed the qualifier "class action" as there are lawsuits of both kinds -- class action and specific damages.
I think that the original text was not accurate, and it's good that it was flagged, but that a total deletion of that text was going too far, and that it needed to be made more accurate and yet to remain to fulfill its function as introduction to the article. SageRad (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm a big believer in content being tweaked back and forth. Eventually we get to a version that resolves all outstanding issues. Glad to see you are learning in your editing experience. --Pete (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I could really do without your condescension, and your behavior on this article says otherwise about your general agenda here. Glad when something works out well, but lose the condescension and please step up with more integrity in dialogue, such as the above section where you ignore Tsavage's genuine questions repeatedly and cast aspersions. No need for snark or condescension or any other incivility. Keep to the content. SageRad (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
PKB, mate. You're the one who keeps talking about my "agenda". --Pete (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I find it interesting that even during a high-profile ArbCom case regarding this topic which is under sanctions, that Pete/Skyring continues to offer WP:BAIT in an arguably obvious attempt to disrupt the editing process. Given the sanctions, I would welcome fresh eyes and especially fresh admin eyes on this Article and Talk page. A case can be made for corrective measures. Jusdafax 15:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. More eyes on an issue are always welcome. SR's response above surprised me, to be honest. I thought we'd eliminated an error and found acceptable wording. I must confess I took SageRad's bait about my "agenda". I'd like to know what it is!
Jusdafax, you and I have both advised SageRad[1] to moderate his behaviour. He's not listening to me; maybe you coukd give him another nudge? --Pete (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, all i asked was to lose the tone of condescension. I am indeed happy that we arrived at a fairly good edit compromise. Nobody is perfect -- neither you nor i. We're attempting to work together, even after a rather contentious history with each other, in which you have posted up photos to mock my "stirring speeches" and such things. In the above comment, i took "Glad to see you are learning in your editing experience" in this context as condescending and not admitting any part in the difficulties here. I am indeed learning in my editing process, as i hope everyone is, but in this context that struck me as snark. I would like to be bulletproof and always able to ignore snark, but it does not help the environment, which has already been toxic with abusive language. I have been making an effort to keep to the content and i would appreciate the same. The least judgment about each other and the least instigating language, the better. Please, let's work together to drop the stick at the same time. Neither of us are without fault here and we need to transcend the polarization and sensitivity we have toward each other. I could have been more gracious and i will continue to work toward that end. SageRad (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I wasn't mocking but applauding. It is so very rare to get a good example of political oratory here. That's one of the drawbacks of Wikipedia; the way we write the thing is so tepid and cautious, so utterly devoid of charm and sparkle, that reading through it is like eating rocks. And, unlike Plotinus, the reader rarely feels grateful for the meal.
However, the thing works, and judging by the regard in which Wikipedia is held, works well. The reason it does so is because the community has found ways to get people from diverse backgrounds, skillsets, experiences, nationalities, and cultural bases to work out the differences and produce a result that gets the information to the reader. Wikipolicy isn't a set of arbitrary rules that have been imposed on the community. It is an example of evolution in action. What works, stays and is built upon. What leads to disruption and imbalance is scrapped.
I'm a long way from perfect in my knowledge, wisdom (or lack of), and behaviour. I'm all too often wrong. But having an attachment to error or ego is not a recipe for success here. Best to accept the facts and move on. That's the way to happiness. IMHO. --Pete (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: For the record, on further examination of this article, your thin reason for removal is even less supported than it at first appeared. You explain more clearly on the Monsanto Talk page (Talk:Monsanto#Questioning_of_deletion), where you made the identical deletion and referred back to this article:

"You can count, can't you? If we say that "(Monsanto) has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars…", and we count up the cases and that number turns out to be one, then we're misleading the reader into imagining that there might be multiple such cases"

In fact, this article does report on multiple class action suits, however, in one instance, it fails to note that the cases in question were class actions. The item,"In 2014, Monsanto reached a settlement with soft wheat farmers..." concerns at least three class action lawsuits, as noted in that entry's source ("At least three class action lawsuits will be dismissed as part of the settlement...") and in other sources (including the monsanto.com link I posted above).

So in the end, instead of investigating the content, or at least notifying other editors of a perceived verifiability problem via tag or Talk, as policy clearly indicates as steps before deletion - useful checks and balances - you went ahead and unilaterally deleted factually accurate material, and then ignored editor opposition at length.

Any suggestion that we remove content from leads on sight, solely on the basis of not being reflected in the article proper, is not consistent with article improvement - from what I've seen, noteworthy items do regularly get added to leads only; see Monsanto, for example. The constructive course would be to update the article. Then, if an item is seen as not sufficiently high level to belong in the lead, it can be removed, while being retained in the article.

The current rewrite of that sentence seems fine for now - with or without mention of class action suits, the whole lead needs much development - however, the class action information seems noteworthy and on that basis should be added to the article. --Tsavage (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought it was obvious. Removing untrue material should be a no-brainer. You want to put it back in????? --Pete (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Skyring/Pete: "You want to put it back in?????" To clarify what I just said, "The current rewrite of that sentence seems fine for now": no, I don't want anything put back, I was noting for the record my later discovery, that, counter to your objection, the item was in fact consistent with the rest of the article, the only problem that could have led to confusion was with absence of a detail in the article proper, which further supports the objections made to your poorly-conceived edit. --Tsavage (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
No. That turns out not to be the truth. Not unless in "(Monsanto) has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars…" the number turns out to be "one". Which is either misleading if we are intending to convey the impression that there have been many such cases, or outright false if we accept that "a number" is intended to mean "many". We only list one such case. The wording now is fine and accurate. --Pete (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
We list at least four class action involvements, with Agent Orange as one, and the "at least three" of the soft wheat settlement. That soft wheat fails to note the class action aspect doesn't make that less factually accurate, and that detail is easily added. And "a number of" is not necessarily "many," it can mean "several," or "more than one," both satisfied by four cases, and that language is easily adjusted. Meanwhile, the point has always been, there is no justification for removing verifiable, noteworthy content only because it is in the lead and not in the body, which is what you did. It's about just deleting stuff because you feel like it. Again, this has already been said. And your overall deletion has been restored with a rewrite. --Tsavage (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
None of those listed resulted in the "fines and damages" claimed in the original text. I removed the claim because it was false or misleading. I don't understand why you want to mislead our readers. --Pete (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
That's your assertion. Deleting content without consulting other editors, or making any attempt to fix them, followed by failure to make your objections clear during discussion, and serial reversion during discussion, are against policy recommendation and disruptive. That's the issue here. You can argue your point, but you can't go around deleting text across articles as a first-resort remedy for non-critical editorial problems. And your shifting arguments over easily fixed items should they prove to be a problem, in the context of your interminable arguing, is also disruptive: you started off having a issue with the number of cases. Now you are arguing about the terms "fines and damages." The issue is your unwarranted reversions, here and elsewhere in the this article within the same day, not your impression of what I want. I am simply objecting to your undue actions. --Tsavage (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
At great length. Each time I repeat my reasons I get a fresh wall of text from you. And I get blamed for it! Geez. --Pete (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Skyring/Pete: Or, if you are arguing with oblique statements that the number of class actions with payouts in the hundreds of millions is only one, because the soft wheat settlement was not in the hundreds of millions, one could as easily read the content to mean that the total payout of class action suits is in the hundreds of millions, which is correct. In any case, that variation of your vaguely stated objection is also easily remedied by rewording, and does not support content removal without first bringing it to other editors via tag and/or Talk page. It all comes back to the same unfounded content deletion.
I think all the permutations of your "the content is wrong so I have to immediately remove it" argument have been covered, what's next? --Tsavage (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
No. How bizarre. In the false statement, "(Monsanto) has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, usually over health issues…" I took the "hundreds of millions" to mean a total of "fines and damages" for all cases. The soft wheat settlement does not include either. My objection is as stated above. Perhaps you could read what I wrote instead of your own ideas about the matter? --Pete (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) Skyring/Pete: "How bizarre" - hahahaha, nice! I guess we're not there yet. Your specific issue was with the terms fines and damages? As all these cases - soft wheat and Agent Orange - were settlements before trial, are you saying you deleted content, with a cryptic and ultimately meaningless "Only true if the number is 'one'" edit summary, because you chose not to change "fines and damages" to "settlements," or ask other editors about those terms? --Tsavage (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In normal practice, "fines and damages" are awarded by courts as a result of legal proceedings. "Settlements" are not. There is a clear distinction. You refer to them above as "payouts", not usually a legal term outside Nevada. Perhaps as suggested below, we could use help from those more knowledgeable in the law than you or I? --Pete (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Finally, we seem to be on the same page. You deleted content rather than tag or Talk about it, because you believe "fines and damages" are not the same as "settlements" (a point I'm not arguing). After making that determination, you chose not to simply substitute in the term settlement, which is present both in the Agent Orange body copy, and the soft wheat source, but to remove the entire content item, with the edit summary, Only true if the number is "one". I rest my case. --Tsavage (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It has taken you considerable time and space to put forward various notions, mostly not focussed on content, to come to an incorrect conclusion. I simply removed an incorrect and misleading claim. Perhaps in future we can spend less time on your speculations about other editors, and more time on the accuracy of our article and following wikiprocess. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Anything I can help with? Minor4th 00:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

SageRad and I found acceptable wording some days ago. I think we're done for the moment, though if a cheerful crew of expert legal editors turn up and set the whole thing to rights without having to grind pro or anti-GMO/Monsanto/fringe/whatever axes that would be fabulous. --Pete (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I have thought about taking a stab at overall improvement - I would really love for this article to flow better but its a huge undertaking that I havent had time for yet. I was hoping some editors from project law would show up - but I only got one comment aboit it on my talk page, and i have now included that in the article Minor4th 12:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm wondering if there are any more articles on Monsanto legal case floating around that could usefully be included here. The new case added has an article that has existed for some time, apparently unsullied by activist involvement, so there appears to be ample scope for improvement here. On reading through some of the legal articles, it is clear that legal minds have been at work, sometimes to the extent that a layperson such as myself might have little notion of what the outcome was or the reasoning behind it! I think a joint effort might pay dividends in producing well-researched and cited material that is comprehensible to the general readership. --Pete (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I think there are some others - I'll look around. Yeah, these patent cases are really technical and difficult to understand even for lawyers who don't practice patent law. I know the article I added and wikilinked here was written by a patent law expert. I agree that the articles could be improved by more understandable, plain language. Minor4th 17:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
There's an interesting early case that we haven't mentioned: "The suit of the government against the Monsanto Chemical Co., which commenced last Monday, on the charge of violating the pure food law by the sale of saccharine, continues in the United States District Court here."- Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter - Volume 96 - Page 28. I believe it started in 1917, went on for several years, there was some sort of political ideological motivation, and Monsanto won. --Tsavage (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Schools —- Another PCBs lawsuit issue area to keep an eye on

Several of these Connecticut school issues have been coming up.

SageRad (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like one suit by one school – albeit with the chance of more – but including this case would be unbalanced. The NPR article limits Monsanto's balancing comments to just two words, "Without merit". --Pete (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

SageRad (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oakland PCBs case files

NBC Bay Area and San Jose Mercury News published articles on the recent filing of a lawsuit for liability for pollution of the San Francisco Bay. SageRad (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Table of contents

Can someone who knows how, please place a template or whatever so a TOC is generated? Also check the archiving rules for this page. It seems threads are being prematurely archived. Minor4th 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

MIRZAIE vs. MONSANTO

An IP editor recently added some unencylcopedic coverage of a 2015-2016 case, MIRZAIE vs. MONSANTO. According to a law 360 article the suit was dismissed in January 2016. Should some mention of this case be included in the article? Dialectric (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Monsanto legal cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

section on Roundup

This should be added to the section on Roundup. The judgement against Monsanto amounted to 298 million dollars with much of it puntiative damages. The source is here. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/lawsuit-brings-289-million-verdict-against-maker-of-roundup-weed-killer/Claustro123 (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Also there is more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer-trial.html

Claustro123 (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a bit of work going into this right now actually. We do have to be careful because it is generally considered in the independent scientific community to be WP:FRINGE that glyphosate causes cancer as alleged. WP:DUE with that in mind is why there's a delay, but I'm working on summarizing some sources right now. There's likely to be upcoming commentary on it in the coming week since it's still the weekend for a lot of scientists, so it doesn't hurt to wait a little bit in terms of WP:RECENTISM to really dig into more in-depth content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The outcome of the recent verdict against Monsanto needs to be added. It is one of the most significant Monsanto legal cases of late. It's been more than a month since the verdict. Time to update the article. Minor4th 21:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
A number of editors had already been editing Monsanto_legal_cases#RoundUp for that in the last month. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Well it's nowhere to be found in the article. So let's add it. Minor4th 22:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
After rechecking, I found it - it was sort of hidden. I rearranged the paragraphs and cleaned up the wording. Minor4th 22:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)++

Needs work

This article is such a mess and could be made much better and shorter with good, efficient writing. I am going to alert Project:Law to see if I can get some interest in making this article better.Minor4th 22:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Note to any editors who come new to this page: please familiarize yourselves with the ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions that are linked at the top of this talk page. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Back when I split this, the fork was meant to give focus both at the parent article and here due to indiscriminate listing of content (i.e., not balancing whether something was more a news of the day type thing vs. encyclopedic WP:DUE content. It really just punted the problem here when I was trying to clean up the even lengthier parent article. This page hasn't really changed much since I tried to do some initial cleanup, so ideas on condensing would be welcome. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monsanto_legal_cases/Archive_5&oldid=1176063541"