Talk:Monsanto legal cases

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)

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)

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)

Recent reverts / Spokane and San Jose cleanup lawsuits.

Wait, wait, back up a step. The important thing isn't the progress of the suit; the only important thing is the level and quality of coverage. If a lawsuit was just filed yesterday, but is being covered by reputable, mainstream sources, then it belongs here, at least as a mention (it might be WP:UNDUE on most other pages, but this page is focused on legal cases concerning Monsanto specifically, so I don't think any lawsuit that has been covered by a reputable mainstream outlet can reasonably be omitted.) In particular, going over the recent revert, I don't understand why this and this aren't sufficient for inclusion. "Wait until the case is concluded" is absolutely not a standard we can use. On an individual basis, we can argue over whether a particular case might fall under WP:RECENTISM, but each case that has attracted enough attention to pass WP:V and WP:RS has to be examined individually, since our basic requirement for this article is to cover things based on their coverage in mainstream sources. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The filing of lawsuits is not noteworthy. Literally thousands of lawsuits are filed every day. What matters - what is of encyclopedic value - is the outcome. We are not a newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You repeat the same things over and over, as if they are Wikipedia policy and as if they're self-evident. Well, they're not evident to all editors. Good people with good minds disagree with you. Other people have different opinions on these matters, and your insistence seems to be obstructionist to me. Your comment right here is a prime example of not working well with others, and it's affecting quality of articles. I do appreciate your focus on good sourcing, but right here we have an example with reasonably good sourcing and you're still holding this line. Yes, thousands of lawsuits are filed every day, but not all of them are reported in multiple media sources, like these particular lawsuits regarding PCB contamination. Sometimes the filing matters as well as the outcome. If you don't acknolwedge these points, but just repeat a general rule as if it's Wikipedia policy, then i think you're misrepresenting Wikipedia policy. SageRad (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, you haven't got consensus for what you want to do through all the talk page posts you've made on this page, related pages, or RSN. That's the time to drop the WP:STICK, especially WP:LISTEN, and move on instead of kicking up drama. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That's your reckoning. There's clear obstructionism here. Let's take the present question as its own question. You can drop the stick. I ain't kicking up the drama. The drama's here already. I'm standing up for principle and working out what it means through dialogue, and using Wikipedia policy, not what someone asserts is policy unjustifiably. I am listening. Are you? SageRad (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, on what basis are you saying that, "The filing of lawsuits is not noteworthy", other than your personal opinion? In this case, the article is about legal cases, and includes sections on "Investigations" (a step before formal legal action), and "Not a party, but involved" (which establishes the scope of the article as quite broad and inclusive).

Deciding whether a filing is noteworthy would seem to be mainly a based on relevance to the subject of the article. For example, a case of a single homeowner suing over claims of excessive disturbance from one of a company's many facilities would probably not be considered noteworthy, unless it received significant mainstream media coverage for whatever reason (probably as a novelty news item, and our content would note it as such). On the other hand, a case hitting to the heart of a company's business is by definition noteworthy - an argument for exclusion could be based on not giving it undue weight, but that is a tough sell in a daughter article dedicated to...cases concerning that company.

Meanwhile, a blanket exclusion based on the precise type or stage of a legal case does not seem to be supported by policy. --Tsavage (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, these cases do not go to the heart of a company's business. Monsanto produces agricultural products. They are minor cases filed in local courts and will very likely be dismissed before proceeding much further. If these were important cases, then there would be wider coverage. --Pete (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but that does not answer my question (to Jytdog), concerning filings of lawsuits being categorically non-noteworthy. If we're discussing content, we should try not to muddy the waters with claims about what editors can and can't do based on personal opinion. I've encountered this way too much recently (including the very same claim about lawsuits elsewhere, before I became better-informed), and it is distinctly unhelpful. --Tsavage (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It is quite clear; the mere filing of a lawsuit is not notable in itself. As noted, there are many filed every day and we cannot list them on that basis, just as (say) our article List of people from San Francisco is incomplete. We only list those shown to be notable, and we identify those by examining the sources, rather than relying on the personal opinions of random editors. --Pete (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

To a large extent, coverage establishes notability. Lawsuits are not inherently notable. If the filing and/or early stages of a lawsuit are covered by multiple reliable sources, I see that as substantial enough for a mention in a larger article. The bar here is lower than having an entire article about the lawsuit. This is where Pete's example differs from our issue here - lists of people fall under Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. We almost always require each entry in such a list to have its own article. Monsanto Legal Cases, however, is not a list article. In its current non-list format, it covers cases and details that don't have their own articles, and as such, addition of well-referenced in-progress cases is warranted. I agree with TSavage that filings of lawsuits cannot be dismissed as categorically non-noteworthy- as long as there is significant WP:RS coverage, the general notability guideline is met.Dialectric (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The existence of this article is weird, I agree. It was split out of the Monsanto article, mostly driven by Tsavage's objections that the Monsanto article was too long. See here. I don't care where this content resides in WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I don't know what relevance how this article came to be has to this discussion, but in fact it was created by Kingofaces43, with the edit note: "Creating daughter article of Monsanto per talk there from topics where the scope is primarily about details of legal cases and not overall controversies." --Tsavage (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage above you wrote "On the other hand, a case hitting to the heart of a company's business is by definition noteworthy". Monsanto (and everyone else) stopped making PCBs in 1979 (that is 35 years ago) and became a business 100% focused on ag in 2000, 15 years ago. Yes it is still involved in cleanups from its prior involvement but your description is just wrong - wildly wrong. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, my question here is about your claim that legal filings are never noteworthy, I wasn't referring to specific cases, I only mentioned hypothetical examples.

Commenting (for the first time) on the relevance of these clean-up cases, one key legal aspect is that, from the main Monsanto article, we explain that the recently created ag/life sciences Monsanto indemnified all those (Pharmacia, Solutia) who could be held responsible for its old chemical business. Now, per an excerpt of their statement in one of the news sources, they are claiming no responsibility for old chemical business liabilities. So this would seem to be a new development in an ongoing Monsanto corporate and legal story, about how it has reinvented itself over the last couple of decades, retaining the name and the ag business, and ditching the chem and pharmaceutical parts of original Monsanto, while becoming an all-new corporate entity, and how the new Monsanto is dealing with ongoing problems from its past. --Tsavage (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

More generally, nobody here has said anything about what encyclopedic value content about the lawsuit filings would have - how it is not WP:NOTNEWS. What is the significance -- why does it matter to anybody or anything in the real world? I get it that it pleases advocates, but we are not here to please advocates. I look forward to some reasonable discussion about why mention of the filings is not UNDUE other than their mention in reliable sources (this is a question about WEIGHT, not the reliability of sources). I really am open to reasoned arguments about encyclopedic value. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing new in the litigation under discussion except that these particular entities are suing Monsanto over this specific PCB pollution. Same kinds of arguments, same kinds of responses, have been made before. You are literally just making up things to say now. It is not the "heart" of their business and no new kinds of arguments have been made in this litigation so far. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The lawsuits fall under the topic of this article, are happening, and are of enough note to be reported in reliable sources that establish notability. What more do you want, Jytdog? It's significance here is that it's part of the story of Monsanto, part of the picture of the company and its involvement and relations to the world at large. Your resistance to its inclusion is what puzzles me. Completeness is a desired goal for an encyclopedia. Readers can draw their own conclusions better if there is a balanced and complete view in the articles they use. If there is a filtered blocking of some aspects, that creates a bias.

Note, i find it rather odd that you participate in this discussion without referring to the open question about your promotion of the notion that lawsuits are not included in Wikipedia as a matter of policy and practice, which i and others have here questioned. I wonder if you'd answer to that open question, for completeness of dialogue. You see several people here strongly questioning that assertion that you made several times here. For integrity and completion of dialogue, please. SageRad (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"Completeness is a desired goal for an encyclopedia." Let's just finish up List of poems, first. Only four poems from Nobel laureate William Butler Yeats in this poor excuse for a "list". No. We do not list everything in Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the lawsuits were filed. That happened. Lots of things happen. The question is, what is the encyclopedic value of the filing? If this becomes some huge dragged out battle, it could become noteworthy. If there is a settlement or verdict where Monsanto agrees to, or is required to pay, a ton of money, that would be noteworthy. It may be that the lawsuit goes absolutely no where and never amounts to any thing. We don't know yet. As it is, it is just news, as far as I can see, and we are not a newspaper. I really do look forward to hearing an answer to the question I asked. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think i gave you an answer to the question you asked, and you chose not to hear it in typical fashion. You also ignored my very explicit question and call-out about the incompleteness of the dialogue in which you seem unable to acknowledge your mistake in asserting that lawsuits cannot be included in Wikipedia articles until completed.

That said, there was not question of dispute on whether the lawsuits are filed. That sentence of yours is an apparent red herring here.

As for the encyclopedic value of the filing itself, that is determined by the outside world by its being reported in media sources that establish a notability factor. You're the one who has lectured me on this time and again in every forum, and now you're not seeing that?

As for encyclopedic value, it's part of the real world that Wikipedia reflects, and when someone comes to this page, this is what they'd expect to find here. A fairly complete list of notable legal cases involving Monsanto. So... for completeness, for representation of the world, it's a good add.

I say it again, you seem to be obstinately obstructionist and willfully thick in your dialogue behavior, and i hold that you are disruptive to the smoother functioning of this editorial process. I ask you to have integrity here. This simple edit should not be taking hours of debate, but it is, and the behavior seems designed to distract, unfocus, filibuster, and obstruct the actual process of editing that is ideal on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

WP articles are not WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists of everything there is to say about something The "completeness" argument is not a valid argument in WP. Please actually describe what is of encyclopedic value about these lawsuits, at this time. (HINT - It should be something that is New and Important in the kinds of arguments being made, or the size of the damages sought, or Monsanto's response... something intrinsic to these filings in relation to others, that is stated in reliable sources) Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

For the 10th time, i know that Wikipedia does not include everything, and that is why i have referred repeatedly to significant coverage in reliable news sources that show that this is something of note in the world at large and is due here in this article. However, "completeness" is most certainly a useful argument, or rather ideal for articles. We want them to be as complete as possible, balancing the weight of various aspects of a topic. I'd ask you to read this on the topic of indiscriminate lists of information. Despite repeatedly ignoring my direct questions, you ask "What is of encyclopedic value about these lawsuits at this time?" I ask you what is of "encyclopedic value" about the article on chili peppers mentioning all five species of domesticated chili peppers? It's because it reflects the reality of the world. How much simpler can it be? Why do i have the feeling of being spun in circles? SageRad (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"This simple edit should not be taking hours of debate." I agree. Time to move on and do useful work. --Pete (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Do i read this right as you wishing that i would go away and do other things? Or are you referring to yourself here? If one gives in to filibustering and other bad tactics, then one allows this pattern to continue and bias the encyclopedia as a whole, so when one encounters a problem of this nature, it may be best to persevere and insist that the dialogue and process do reach integrity and completeness. SageRad (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If there is any doubt about the sources used to establish notability about these current lawsuits by U.S. cities about PCBs, here is a list of a few:

• Reuters
• Washington Times
• The Spokesman-Review (Spokane)
• NBC News (San Diego NBC channel)

SageRad (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been careful to say "noteworthy", you keep talking about "notability." Please actually read WP:NOTABILITY - it applies only to whether an article exists or not, not to specific content. The issues at play have to do with article scope, and with whether this is WP:UNDUE, specifically per WP:NOTNEWS (which is also policy). Please address the policy issues that I've been raising. Thanks. By the way, it is very common for editors to disagree on the application of policy to content, and for this reason there are many ways to resolve disputes. I encourage you to engage with those processes. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, same difference. Whether the fact of the lawsuit is of enough significance in the world to warrant inclusion in this article. You can't dance around the issue with semantic wordplay. Yes, it's common for editors to disagree on application of policy to content, but i don't see you responding to some people's direct questioning of your assertions that lawsuits in progress are never included in Wikipedia, and i was using dialogue as a way to resolve disputes and i don't need a lecture on this, thank you. If you'd respond with more integrity in your part of the dialogue, we'd have this dispute already resolved. And yes, i know about NOTNEWS and UNDUE for the 10th time, and i think with all my heart and mind that this inclusion still qualifies, and i think you're being unduly oppositional about it. SageRad (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We appear to be way overdue for some third-party oversight here. We have contentious and obnoxious disruptive behavior happening. SageRad (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to repeated links to WP:NOTNEWS in this section and the rfc below, the only potentially applicable part of WP:NOTNEWS is 2, News reports. The only specified target of this section is "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Coverage of multiple large metropolitan areas suing a large corporation is not by any reasonable standard routine news reporting. These cases matter because regardless of their chances or legitimacy, they are part of a long and extensively covered issue, the legal and environmental fallout from pcb contamination, going back at least to the GE Hudson River contamination. The existence of such cases shows that this issue has not gone away for large corporations including Monsanto.Dialectric (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Belatedly: I agree that the filing of lawsuits is not automatically noteworthy. However, some lawsuits are clearly noteworthy even before they're finished; when an article is getting direct coverage from multiple major mainstream news outlets (that is, articles about it specifically), I think that that's a sign that it's worth a mention. Remember that this is the "Monsanto legal cases" page, so the standard to put a lawsuit here is lower than it would be on the Monsanto page itself. Also remember that WP:RECENTISM is not automatically considered a negative; covering things rapidly as they happen is part of what makes Wikipedia valuable, too. In this case, it will be easy to remove the sentence or so mentioning these lawsuits later down the line if they turn out to have little overall significance. --Aquillion (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article mention current lawsuits by U.S. cities against Monsanto?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Solid consensus for including those with national coverage, but well-founded concerns about molehill mountaineering indicate that those which are not subject of national level coverage in mainstream sources should not be included per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SOAP. Moving forward, please do remember that policy and guidance trumps local agreement of groups of editors, so be sure to stick to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and all the other WP:TLAs, and remember also that the onus is always on the person seeking to include some new item to achieve consensus if it is disputed. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Should this page include a single sentence about recently filed lawsuits by several U.S. cities regarding PCBs contamination, in which Monsanto is a sued party, which are described in the following news articles?

• Reuters
• Washington Times
• The Spokesman-Review (Spokane)
• NBC News (San Diego NBC channel)

SageRad (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• oppose the two cities other than San Diego, include San Diego - no reason for noteworthiness or encyclopedic value of these lawsuits has been provided, nor do the sources describe anything novel about these lawsuits (they are similar to many others that have been filed - the completed ones are already discussed in this article) so content about them is WP:UNDUE. More generally with respect to content about litigation, Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor is it indiscriminate listing of trivia. Literally hundreds of thousands of lawsuits are filed every day in the US; the filing of a lawsuit is generally trivia and not of encyclopedic value. The outcome of litigation may have encyclopedic value depending on what it is. We do not have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to know what the outcome will be nor whether it changes the world somehow. In line with that, the scope of this article has generally been limited to completed/settled litigation.

Finally, see an example at the top of this Talk page, for yet another filed-lawsuit that the OP has been pushing and pushing to include content about (the objection here is not RS). There are only crap sources about that one; there are decent sources about this one. I mention this because we also have WP:NOTADVOCACY issues at play here. See this dif about San Diego Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC) (redact, alter !vote in part Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC))

• support - Well, if people who are involved in the dispute already are going to vote, then i will do so. Simply put, this is a legal case involving Monsanto, and that is the very subject of this article. It is noteworthy, as evidenced by its coverage in many reliable news sources. It is of historic significance, in my reckoning, because it touches on the history of Monsanto and its relationship to the world at large in regard to PCBs. It affects several major U.S. cities, and it may establish a precedent one way or the other. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but this is a fairly current event of significance to the article's topic, and i believe belongs in the article. One may see the dialogue in the above section for history of this debate, if one wants, and draw one's own conclusions. Or one can simply weigh in on the merits of the question itself. Thanks to any and all third-party people who come here by the regular RfC mechanism and offer their reckoning. Just to re-iterate, mine and Jytdog's votes (these first two) are not here by the normal RfC random third-party mechanism. SageRad (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything you wrote about significance is hand-wavy WP:CRYSTALBALL. The lawsuits have no encyclopedic significance at this time Wikipedia is not a site for WP:SOAPBOXing. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I reckon them to be significant. They seem significant to me, whatever the results turn out to be. Either way it's a significant event, and will likely establish some precedence in regard to Monsanto's culpability or lack thereof in regard to PCBs contamination, and that does have some effect on a lot of people. I don't need a crystal ball to say that i think it's a significant event that would benefit the article to mention. Anyway, this is supposed to be an RfC for fresh third-party minds and voices to respond to this issue, so let's leave this somewhat clean here. People can read the section above if they wish to see what debate has already ensued. SageRad (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources you have brought says that they "will likely establish some precedents". That is your WP:OR as far as I can tell, and as far as I understand it, there is nothing unique about which to establish a precedent. Even if some source did say one of these cases was "likely to establish a precedent" that would still be WP:CRYSTALBALL. You really do not understand how Wikipedia works yet. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of done with your Wikilawyering and condescension. Can we please let third-party editor volunteers come and offer opinions on the question itself? SageRad (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

My editing here aims at the mission of WP to provide the public and follows the spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines. This is not Wikilawyering; it is being a Wikipedian. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The user pushing for these cases to be included is pretty much the model of a tendentious single-purpose account. WP:ADVOCACY comes into play here. However, that is by the by. The question is, would we include these cases if any random editor added them to what is a list of lawsuits involving Monsanto?
  • We are not a newspaper. Many lawsuits are filed, and few are notable enough to list. The mere act of filing lawsuits is not enough to gain inclusion on this list.
  • Are these cases significant? Well, we don't know yet. They are local cases filed by city councils; Monsanto would appeal to a higher court if they lost in an early decision. More pertinently, Monsanto is an agricultural company nowadays, and is a different legal entity to the Monsanto of the 1970s, which was divided into various offshoots. Solutia is the company with liability for the industrial chamicals.
  • Are the sources reliable? Local reporting only, so far, but yes, they are reliable.
  • I'm opposing inclusion in this list of significant cases because I think it is too early to tell if a reader seeking information is likely to be assisted. I think that it is likely these cases will not progress far – at least as far as Monsanto is concerned. Also there isn't enough notability to warrant inclusion. We list major cases, often with an international aspect. These cases have not attracted national coverage yet. We can always wait and see what happens - there is no urgency - and these sort of legal cases are rarely brought to a swift conclusion. If they hit the Supreme Court, or there is some sort of class action, we can always revisit the issue. --Pete (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that this user is another editor who's been in the long contentious debate in the sections above. You can read his words there and judge for yourself as well. Still hoping for third party uninvolved comments. SageRad (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A rather inappropriate comment for an article talk page and especially for an RfC, so please again WP:FOC. Ironically, Pete has been essentially uninvolved in the content discussions until only a day or two ago. Maybe involved some discussing some separate behavior issues with SageRad, but not content here. Given the behavior issues that have become so intertwined in trying to insert this content, Pete's posts probably approaches things as level as possible focusing on content while acknowledging there are other entangled non-content issues at play here too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The main issue is that the sources saying what they say do not demonstrate appropriate WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in this article. Lawsuits happen all the time, and we don't include every one that gets reported on in sources. Part of that is because the initial lawsuit press release (as all of these sources appear to be from), often engages in some puffery and embellishment. Sometimes the claims might actually be true in full, but we need to secondary fact checking to establish that. In this case, that would be the completion of the lawsuit with the decision by the court. We as editors cannot assign the weight of claims or how noteworthy the suit is on our own. We need the court to tell us that. Otherwise, we run into WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is by definition behind-the-ball, so there is no harm in waiting. This is also a good method to avoid advocacy by editors as this is a topic where we do have issues with exactly that on a somewhat regular basis. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that this is another editor who has been involved in the ensuing debate above in the talk page. We have yet to see a third-party comment. SageRad (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Pete came in as a third party commenter pretty much just before you started the RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As an additional note, let's assume we do start mentioning any current lawsuit that comes up for whatever reason (editor feels strongly it needs to be in the article, etc.). Lawsuits often fail, so what do you do when we've included content on it to later find it's actually not noteworthy for inclusion? You'd probably just delete it. That should trip peoples' crystal ball alarm as we don't include every single lawsuit out there, but rather include ones that had significant findings. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Others have claimed simply filed suits can be noteworthy for inclusion prior to their conclusion. One thing that hasn't been focused on much yet in this conversation is that a case can become not noteworthy if the suit fails without any significant findings as mentioned above. Given the reality of how such things work in the real world, that should be a strong indication that WP:CRYSTAL hasn't been satisfied yet. That is the main policy issue I have yet to see adequately addressed or really considered by supports in this RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: You fail to take into account historical (encyclopedic) significance of an event, which does not necessarily diminish over time, or because of subsequent developments, and may even increase. Overall importance in a wider view may change, but within a fairly tight subject scope, like "legal cases," historical noteworthiness wouldn't be expected to change much. If a lawsuit is significant at its inception (as evidenced by reliable secondary source coverage and common sense evaluation), we include the item to maintain comprehensiveness and neutrality.

Your argument also focuses on outcome as a necessary part of a case. You (and Jytdog and Skyring/Pete) argue that if the case is dismissed, it is of no value, as if it didn't exist, because its merits were not determined. This is not a reasonable assumption. To test it, consider if the two million Americans involved were angered by the dismissal of this suit, and by facing the prospect of hiked taxes due to the new clean-up costs, and acted on that in some massive way - the lawsuit would be of great importance although it was dismissed. We cannot CRYSTAL ball the impact of any type of future outcome, which is why we do not consider it now. At this point, we know the lawsuit exists and that it is significant in its current state.

It also seems you are misapplying WP:CRYSTAL, which clearly states its intentions: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." A well-covered lawsuit is neither unverifiable, nor a speculation. --Tsavage (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of "unverifiable speculation", we have this classic: "consider if the two million Americans involved were angered by the dismissal of this suit, and by facing the prospect of hiked taxes due to the new clean-up costs, and acted on that in some massive way…" That sounds like doubling up on the crystal ball order to me!

You've also untruthfully put words into my mouth. That is not my position at all. If the case is dismissed, it doesn't cease to exist - that's stupid. It's relevance would have to be determined at the time. We can't gaze into the future and make increasingly off-beat speculations so as to shore up our present arguments.

The current situation is that the cases have been filed and have failed to progress. No hearing, no outcome, no ongoing media interest. Yesterday's news with no impact in the real world. --Pete (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for outlining that. I was also going to mention how Tsavage created a very different argument than what opposes are actually saying here. From a parallel science example, this would be like a newspaper doing a story on an new project proposal saying research will be done on something when that's only an announcement the study will be undertaken. It's the study itself and its findings that make it noteworthy. I'm basically seeing an argument above that since we don't know that the study will not be noteworthy in the future, we cannot argue against inclusion. That isn't something falsifiable or reasoned with logic, but someone can demonstrate noteworthiness once the future is here and the case is done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Lawsuit, scientific study, the basic principle is the same: if it is noteworthy, it can be mentioned, and we determine noteworthiness largely through coverage in reliable secondary sources, also, by considering an article's scope.

In addition, WP:NOTNEWS leads by making clear (first sentence): "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." We are encouraged by policy to include reliably sourced items that fall within an article's scope just as soon as we can. --Tsavage (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You're now arguing in circles. Saying policy is to include current and upthedate information is fine, but we don't include all news stories. That's the heart of NOTNEWS. Saying that a story is significant because it's been been published is a nothing argument. We don't determine significance by whether something has been published. Just what critreria are you using? It can hardly be anything related to enduring real-world impact, because there's been none. --Pete (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you are the one arguing in circles. SageRad (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No. This matter of significance is at the heart of our discussion here.

• We don't include every Monsanto-related lawsuit in our article.
• All cases in the article must actually have been filed.
• All cases in the article must have reliable sourcing.
• But many reliably-sourced Monsanto-related cases are excluded. Here are a couple I found within a few minutes:
  • Five million Brazilian farmers vs Monsanto, also covered by Reuters, Nature, Bloomberg and others
  • Monsanto guilty of poisoning French farmer, also covered by BBC, Reuters, Examiner
• Therefore the mere fact of having reliable sources is not the sole criterion for inclusion here.

So when I ask editors for their personal criteria for inclusion in this article, no, it is not a circular argument. My criterion is that there must be some real-world impact, as opposed to some public-relations fluff that is essentially speculation. --Pete (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

As this RfC has progressed, the main policies brought up related to WP:WEIGHT are WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. The combination of those two state that mere mention in news sources does not automatically satisfy weight for inclusion and that we tend not to include content on events still actively unfolding. Both of those are happening with this specific content. Many so far would like to include the content, but keeping in mind that RfC's aren't vote counting, it doesn't seem a strong a strong counter reason also based in policy has also been presented to justify inclusion at this time. We're still left with the simple solution that should satisfy all content concerns by simply waiting until the case is completed to decide the weight for inclusion. No one has shown a clear issue with waiting at this point, so it appears to be a logical conclusion to this RfC to satisfy the various concerns out there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As a participant in the rfc, you are in no position to propose a 'logical conclusion' which favors your viewpoint. Excluding the content certainly does not satisfy all content concerns. I and others have provided statements above detailing why the policies you mention do not support the exclusion of this referenced content. Multiple full page articles on a subject is not a 'mere mention'.Dialectric (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

For those of us interested in figuring out what to do with content, it's very much up to us to reach an endpoint edit if we are WP:HERE. As mentioned above, no one has provided a strong argument for why we shouldn't wait and have instead focused on reasoning that is refuted by the cited polices. It will take something stronger than the conversations below to make a solid case from a policy perspective to just put the edit in with no qualms. We're not talking about diametrically opposed positions here, but rather that one option proposed will be more in line with WP:CONSENSUS to the point that editors overall shouldn't see any significant problems with compared to other options. In this case, waiting satisfies the weight concern of editors like me, and the worst other editors will experience is that the case can be discussed for inclusion when it has concluded so we can write a much more complete summary if we choose to do so. No apparent harm there. Adding the content now however runs the risk of issues outlined in WP:RECENTISM either with the unfolding events issue I mentioned, or the case just falling flat and not being anything noteworthy at its eventual close. Weighing those two options in addition to the cited policies should make the more productive course of action apparent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The lawsuit exists, that is without question. The question is, is it at present significant? The multiple articles from reliable, independent secondary sources, that have "already" covered this suit, out of the millions of other civil suits filed annually, indicates significance, and this is the by-policy standard we commonly use to establish both verifiability and noteworthiness. It is not more complicated than that, as several editors have pointed out. --Tsavage (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

But we don't include in Wikipedia everything that is published by newspapers, do we? You do appreciate that merely being published in a reliable source is not some free pass to Wikipedia? --Pete (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: We determine notability of a topic at article level, then we include noteworthy items that fit within the scope of that article. In this case, we have an article that conveniently states its scope in its title, Monsanto legal cases, and an item that is squarely within that scope, a Monsanto legal case. In this way, for this article, we have separated this case from everything else published by newspapers. (This has been noted before in this discussion; you are refusing to acknowledge that.) --Tsavage (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia is divided into topic-related articles had not escaped my attention. Do we slot every story ever published into an appropriate topic on Wikipedia? We do not. So why don't you understand that merely being published in a reliable source is not enough to justtify inclusion here? We are not a newspaper. Simple as that. --Pete (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: "Do we slot every story ever published into an appropriate topic on Wikipedia?" If by "published story" you mean by reputable publishers, then yes, in theory, we do slot every such item if it has an appropriate article on Wikipedia, or perhaps create a new one. We have just shy of five million articles and counting, and no stated limit on how many articles we can have. When articles grow too long, we break off sections into daughter articles with even broader scope for the specific subtopic (like Monsanto legal cases). We create new articles continually - there is a prominent Start a new article link on our home page. We have numerous in-depth articles on individual fictional characters from video games, movies, TV. We have a List of hamburgers, and a list of over 440,000 minor planets, broken out into some 450 articles. We have a lot of stuff and actively invite everyone to contribute more. For better or for worse, isn't reliably sourced inclusion how Wikipedia works? --Tsavage (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Why should this not be mentioned? This is a very questionable RFC, since other company articles include lawsuits as well. People who oppose the addition of RS sourced material really seems to have some sort of bias.prokaryotes (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What about WP:OTHERSTUFF? --Pete (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean?prokaryotes (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I stuffed up. I meant OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let me quote: This page in a nutshell: A rationale used in discussions is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value. The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others: Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of a sentence on the lawsuits. These suits have substantial, non-incidental coverage in reliable mainstream sources. Given this coverage, they are notable enough for inclusion regardless of case status. WP:CRYSTALBALL would be applicable if predictions were made about the cases' future impact or outcome, but does not come into play in a factual reporting of the cases' existance. WP:RECENTISM is an essay and not grounds for removing or preventing the addition of well-referenced content. WP:INDISCRIMINATE addresses unfiltered data and is wholly inapplicable here.Dialectric (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

So you're proposing a major policy change in the direction and style of this page? We haven't covered this sort of material previously. Using your criteria would significantly "lower the bar" for inclusion, possibly to the point where the list ceases to be useful as a source of information because the noise to signal ratio would decline dramatically. --Pete (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is a major lawsuit (high profile) or class action suit, then it should be mentioned ofc. And the RFC currently discussed is related to several U.S. cities. Thus meets high profile.prokaryotes (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Mmm, but why do you want to change the whole direction of the existing article? --Pete (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be more clear and specific, what are you referring to when you hint at policy change? The current articles covers lawsuits, this RFC is about adding some of them.prokaryotes (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, try it for yourself. Pick any one of the cases listed in our article. Do a Google search with enough keywords to pick it out specifically, and you'll find all sorts of material from significant media outlets, legal authorities, textbooks and so on. Lots of good secondary sources. Clearly these cases have made an impact and become notable in their own right. Do the same for these cases, and the pickings are very sparse indeed. You want to lower the bar for inclusion from "significant industry, national and international" to "anything reported in local media". What's special about these cases, specifically, that warrants such a change? --Pete (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Reuters and NBC are not local media.prokaryotes (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're still avoiding my question, I note. But look at those stories, local stories written by locals for local consumption. National and international organisations, yes, but these aren't stories reporting anything more than the filing of the cases and media statements from both sides. We can find similar stories at a similar level for many lawsuits that we haven't seen fit to include in our article. Because they never amounted to anything significant. So what's different about these cases that we have to include them before a single word is spoken in court? You have a WP:CRYSTALBALL? --Pete (talk) 09:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete, the situation is not as extreme as you portray it. For example, in "Patent litigation," we're covering an ongoing patent opposition case in the EU, brought by Navdanya and No Patent on Seeds - how is that so different from this? Also, you mention lawsuits that we haven't seen fit to include: can you specify a couple of examples for comparison? --Tsavage (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me quote from our paragraph on that case: "The European Patent Office created a page on its website to explain the case." Looks like far more than a couple of local news stories right there. As I said, google the case, all sorts of things jump out. On the matter of other cases involving Monsanto, I get about a half-million hits. --Pete (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

My position and reasoning were clear. Calling for the general notability guideline WP:N to be applied to determine notability for case inclusion here is not a radical suggestion. There is no separate notability guideline for legal cases. I have been watching this page since it was created and Monsanto for over a year; I cannot recall having seen any legal cases that were both (a)covered in multiple reliable sources and (b)excluded from either article for reasons like those calling for exclusion above. I have seen cases covered only in low-quality sources that were excluded, including the gut-microbiota case discussed a few months ago. These would continue to be excluded. The onus is on Pete to provide examples of excluded cases with significant RS coverage. If they exist at all, the number is small, and a small number of such notable cases, given brief mention, will not overwhelm this article.Dialectric (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

dialectric, WP:N explictly says it is not for discussions of article content - please see the very bottom of the lead. The question here is noteworthiness ie WEIGHT. My questions are how does this not fall under [[WP:NOTNEWS] and right next to that, what do the sources say about why it matters? If there are good answers to that I am all ears. Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple major US cities are suing Monsanto in federal court, it is covered in multiple reliable sources, it is being included in an article specifically concerning Monsanto legal cases. If you want to establish extraordinary reasons why this should NOT be included, it's really up to you to make that case. It is reliably sourced material that is described by the article title: "Monsanto legal cases." What more do you want? --Tsavage (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't list any other "just-filed" cases. There has been no argument in court, no testing of the strength of the case, no indication (beyond our own crystal balls), how significant this will turn out to be. We are not a newspaper to report on trivia, which this case may (probably) turn out to be. The other cases we list have many good secondary sources, thoughtful and useful beyond the rather shallow and sensationalist media. This one has nothing but puff from both sides. There's no weight to it and instead of providing useful information to our readers, we're just inviting readers to guess about the potential outcome, probably years away. How on earth is this encyclopaedic? --Pete (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And where is the urgency? We can always revisit this if something comes of it, once the two parties actually present something in court. These things take years, and in all that time we'll have nothing substantial to offer our readers. --Pete (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: Your position is clear, I just don't agree with it in this case, and your insistence seems somewhat dogmatic. Furthermore, I'm not seeing a rigorously curated collection of cases, it's more like every case that could be adequately sourced (and you haven't brought examples of exclusion to indicate otherwise).

Your application of WEIGHT - which is what it comes down to - stretches the intent of that guidance: it is one thing to avoid having a rogue scientist present a wild and unique theory in such a way that unsuspecting readers give it substantial weight alongside generally accepted science. It is not the same thing to include some reliably sourced legal cases and not others - what misperception is likely to arise from noting these cases?

What you (and Kingofaces43 and Jytdog) are pushing for here seems to be your personal preference, argued using an arbitrary, one size fits all interpretation of policy regarding legal cases.

In fact, these cases continue at least two ongoing narratives. First, there is the decades-long history of PCBs and their arc through the industrial world. Then, there is the recently reincorporated "new" Monsanto, seeking to retain its century-old name while ditching its chemical and pharmaceutical past. Having major US cities sue Monsanto for chemical business in 2015 (along with Pharmacia and Solutia, where part of their past is supposed to be tied off), seems central to their corporate history and evolution: in this context, that these particular cases, different from glyphosate cases or anything else ag/biotech, are receiving mainstream coverage is noteworthy in itself.

Different editors can have different views. Yours in this case is not more policy-based than others. Allowing a diversity of editors to work broadly within policy - allowing crowd-based incremental editing to take place - is IMO critical to Wikipedia's health. --Tsavage (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you address the point raised about readers seeking information? At this stage, all the sources do is quote the media releases of the two parties. There is not a lot of substance to these cases beyond puffery. And again, what is so urgent about these particular cases that we must be a newspaper? --Pete (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Above Pete mentioned WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, now he mentions we shouldn't be a newspaper, he might refer now to WP:NOTNEWS, as Jytdog did above. Pete could you quote the part which you think applies here from your various arguments?prokaryotes (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

See above, brother. I have put forward several points where wikipolicy supports opposing inclusion. I say we can't hold the picnic because it is dark, rainy, cold and windy, but you think I only need give one reason, and if I provide multiple reasons, none of them apply? --Pete (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: For this sort of lawsuit, the existence of the case and a description of its nature would seem to be the bulk of the facts, and those are available now from reliable sources. The outcome, barring extraordinary developments, won't add dramatically to the overall volume of information. We are not talking about notability and creating an article here - what is your concern is with amount of detail? For what I take as a clear example of community-wide consensus on how we generally treat recent items, please browse the "In the news" section on the Wikipedia home page - we do include very recent items with very little detail. There is no urgency here, the first case was filed months ago, there is just no good reason to wait. --Tsavage (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If all we need to describe the totality of legal proceedings are press releases from the participants, then we could save a lot of trouble and expense by dispensing with all those costly lawyers and judges, not to mention the due procedure, fairness, presumption of innocence and all those other minor details. What a stupid argument! The proceedings and outcome are what we need to report on. If the case is thrown out of court - as it well may be - then you'd still think it worth including as encyclopaedic value, is that right? With all the other legal cases we list in this article, our sources focus on the proceedings and the outcome, because that is what makes them significant. --Pete (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Another way of looking at the thing is that we have the heavyweight title fight coming up. We have a source reporting on the weigh-in, where the two sides talk big and glare at their opponents. "That's a wrap!" cries -Tsavage "We don't need anything else, there's no good reason to wait." Well, there is. The story of a legal case, just like a sporting event, lies in the events and the outcome. Not the announcement. There's no hurry. We can wait until something actually happens, and then record that. --Pete (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: I've replied to all of your questions, and explained my thinking clearly, and with regard very specifically to this particular case. Yet you continue to try to convince me of a viewpoint that I already understand, and (in this case) disagree with.

Your last analogy is rather wild: an announcement of an event is obviously not equivalent to the event. The filing of a lawsuit is an event, the case is no longer an intention, it is a fact, the legal system has been formally engaged. What you're arguing amounts to not covering anything until it is fully perfected to everyone's satisfaction. A court case is only coverable when all appeals are exhausted (earlier, you mentioned Supreme Court)? A spaceflight to Mars can't be covered on announcement, or on blast-off, but only when the flight comes definitively to an end? And so forth.

Regardless of the court outcome, that multiple US cities have sued Monsanto over PCBs in 2015 is IMO noteworthy in an article about Monsanto legal cases.

Your characterization of me - "That's a wrap!" cries Tsavage" - is silly, because it's not what I was saying, and not even a reasonable exaggeration of that. I was replying to your claim that all we have now is press releases and puffery, I didn't suggest that all we have now is all we ever need to know. Mockery is usually not constructive (so at least it should be funny). :) --Tsavage (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think some people lose all reason when they climb on their hobby horses. Matters of religion, politics, dogma and so on. I find it helps to cast a situation in a different light, as you have done in your spaceflight analogy. Here we haven't even gotten to the liftoff event. We're more like 16 July 1969, with the national effort directed by Vice President Spiro Agnew, speaking at Cape Canaveral to "we should articulate a simple, ambitious, optimistic goal of a manned flight to Mars by the end of this century."[2]

The manned Mars mission hasn't launched yet, but you're effectively proposing that we should list Agnew's public statement in our List of Mars missions article. I'm not saying that we shouldn't one day include this case if it ever amounts to anything beyond media statements. But that day has not yet arrived. All we have are media statements, and if we summarise the views of both sides in a paragraph, we really have nothing of substance beyond one side saying "You did X" and the other side saying "No we didn't". Where's the substance we can deliver to our readers?

I think we should wait until we have some actual court proceedings to report on. You know, something of substance beyond the puffery of PR teams. Like all the other cases we list in this article. --Pete (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: The filing of a complaint is blast-off. The case is underway, it is in the legal system, it has left the ground, it is a fait accompli, things are rolling, it is an event not an announcement. You are trying to decide where along the way we should begin coverage: "Oh, gravity is boring, let's pick it up when we're floating along in space, maybe when we can get one of those cool blue-planet shots of Earth out the window. That's when it gets interesting, that's when it's...real." Your view (with good reason or not) trivializes the legal system, implying that lawsuits are practically like junk mail, mere nuisances until "something more" happens. Is that an encyclopedic view? Your argument is now circular and getting a little absurd, and you're selectively ignoring what I've said. I think we are now just taking up space. --Tsavage (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The case has been filed. So what? Cases get filed every day. That's not newsworthy. All we got are the media statements by the two parties. We're at the weigh-in stage, we're at the media launch. Not the real launch, because nothing has happened but the opening of a file. You are using your WP:CRYSTALBALL magic powers to say that anything substantial is going to happen next. The case might be dismissed. Monsanto's statement says that there's nothing to the case, they got the wrong company. But you say different. Why? Are you the judge? Are you saying Monsanto is wrong and the cities are right? Are you saying the other way round? Wikipedia can only report on what has already happened, not what may or may not happen. We can't say "This case is going to be really significant, this case is going to be huge, this is something for the ages." Because, although that might be the case, we haven't gotten to that stage yet. It might fizzle. The great big rocket might not even get built, let alone make it to the launchpad.

I'm sorry you can't see this point. You think that this case will turn out to be something big. You can't see that there are other possibilities. You want to take along our readers on a flight of fantasy, that's what I'm seeing.

We should wait until this gets to court and then maybe we might have something that isn't PR puffery. There's no hurry. --Pete (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: You seem to be in I don't hear you mode now. And you don't seem to be familiar with the specific context, which I mentioned earlier, when you make the claims you have about the case: "Monsanto's statement says that there's nothing to the case, they got the wrong company" To repeat one contextual point, with slightly more detail, New Monsanto indemnified Pfizer/Pharmacia against anything from its former chem business that Solutia doesn't handle, as part of the spinoff from Pharmacia. The existence and publicity of these lawsuits speak directly to the self-reinvention efforts of Monsanto. To a reader tracing the history of Old and New Monsanto, the existence of these suits is noteworthy. The outcomes will also be independently and additionally noteworthy, but not the basis of overall noteworthiness.

You also keep referring to how substantial the existing case coverage is, but that does not hold up when you examine each case currently in the article. With San Diego alone, we have effectively a class action lawsuit, initiated by its government, on behalf of its 1.3 million residents. It is noteworthy. If we surveyed readers, how many would say that, for example, a 2002 mistaken patent infringement lawsuit by Monsanto against the wrong guy in Missouri, where the highlight outcome is that the company failed to apologize for its mistake, is more noteworthy than this?

Once again, I hear and comprehend your opinion, and I understand that if you were editor-in-chief, you would have things a certain way, I just disagree with you (as do several other editors). Bottom line: we have reliably sourced material about legal cases in an article dedicated to legal cases, that can be easily described in a way that can't possibly confuse or mislead readers reading about Monsanto legal cases.

Finally, you are applying broad, arbitrary criteria to specific situations, which is counter to how Wikipedia works: we deal with things case by case, detail by detail (regardless of how inefficient that may at times appear) to accommodate the fact that we don't have a hierarchy of experts or hard and fast rules. --Tsavage (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Naturally I disagree with your opinions there. Quite amusing - "editor-in-chief", for all love! Now, if you could respond to the points I made above, using your own spaceflight analogy, I would feel confident that you understand my position. You seem to think that the act of filing is the most significant part of a lawsuit; all after that is secondary. I do not hold this view. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(Later) It strikes me that this RfC itself is a useful analogy. What is the significant part of the process?

A. The lodging of the RfC?

B. The ensuing discussion?

C. The outcome?

It seems to me that in order of importance, the outcome is the most significant, followed by the presentation and examination of evidence, and least significant is the act of raising the RfC itself. --Pete (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: I'm entirely losing your point. You last couple of replies seem to be trying to establish what is the optimal stage in the progress of a lawsuit to include it, a set a universal rule. Why do we even need to consider that? We cover things when they are properly sourced and relevant to the subject. Reliable sourcing is more technical, and that has been established. Relevance, which we often discuss as WEIGHT, can be more subjective: we're discussing that here. My position is, this particular set of lawsuits is relevant now, for reasons already described. Other editors variously point to the sufficient venerability and the fact that these are legal cases in an article about legal cases. You have a contrary opinion. Understood. --Tsavage (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

All we have so far is a lawsuit filed and the PR guff given out by both sides. It may well be that nothing comes of these cases - certainly they appear to be very flimsy, legal-wise. Or they may turn out to be ground-breaking, if the judges and appeal judges and Supreme Court justices frown on Monsanto. We don't know yet, so it's just opinion. Once proceedings are actually underway, we'll have a clearer idea. Again, what's the hurry? These cases will likely take years to get anywhere. Monsanto isn't going to want a speedy resolution, unless it involves binning them entirely. --Pete (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually as the suits have just been filed, we have no idea if they will even go forward. One of more of them may be dismissed, in which case they will mean nothing. The parties may settle before the cases go anywhere. Right now, there is only news - "X happened". There is going to be more news. "A" said blah' "B" said blahblah. There will eventually be a settlement or a verdict. Then there will be something of significance. Jytdog (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of at least one sentence mentioning this series of lawsuits. I'm unclear why the coverage needs such a strict limit, nor why anyone interested in the WP reader would oppose inclusion of this material. No amount of wiki lawyering makes the oppose argument seem like anything but bias in favor of the corporation. Readers do not want censored or whitewashed information, I assure you. Let's consider them in our arguments. petrarchan47คุก 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The invocation of corporate bias is highly inappropriate not to mention a misrepresentation of editor comments here. The argument is to wait until the case is found to be noteworthy after it's completion, not to exclude it because it's negative for the company. If Monsanto had pending litigation against someone they would act in their favor, we'd still say wait until it's done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If this case results in an outcome against Monsanto, forcing them to fund a clean up, then it will be notable in many ways. I find the accusations of bias risible - I hold no brief for Monsanto, who seem to have a patchy environmental record, to put it mildly. And how can legal proceedings be whitewashed? It is out of Wikipedia's hands. User:Petrarchan47, your allegations are incorrect and inappropriate and I ask you to withdraw your unfortunate outburst. --Pete (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I revoke my accusation of bias playing a role in the oppose arguments. I notice you both are quick to express your displeasure with my comments, but ignore direct questions such as "Above Pete mentioned WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, now he mentions we shouldn't be a newspaper, he might refer now to WP:NOTNEWS, as Jytdog did above. Pete could you quote the part which you think applies here from your various arguments?" It would help the article-building process greatly if you would stick to PAGs and communicate when others ask for clarification. petrarchan47คุก 19:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't understand what you're getting at. Could you state your request precisely, please? --Pete (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - @SageRad: what information do you propose this line should contain? It may be helpful to discuss its proposed content specifically, since there's some disagreement here. Would it say something like (to plagiarize a bit from the Spokesman-Review) "The city of Spokane has filed a lawsuit against Monsanto, alleging that the company sold chemicals for decades that it knew were a danger to human and environmental health"? Would it include a response from Monsanto? Would it simply say that the cases exist, and provide no further information about them? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, AdventurousSquirrel, that is a great question. The text i had added, that got reverted, was:

In 2015, the cities of Spokane, San Diego, and San Jose initiated lawsuits against Monsanto to recover cleanup costs for PCB contaminated sites, alleging that Monsanto continued to sell PCBs without adequate warnings long after they knew of their toxicity.

That text is open for debate. I like your suggestion of including a Monsanto rebuttal statement if anyone cares to select one. SageRad (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it probably would be needed to maintain NPOV, but then we're still left with two statements from two parties who are involved in a lawsuit against each other, without any real regard for the veracity of their statements; in that regard, I agree with Pete in that the real value an encyclopedia can provide is the ability to summarize the responses and opinions of reliable commentators who are analyzing the topic. That said, if we can expect that our readers will understand that those two statements are nothing more than statements from two opposing biased viewpoints, then I guess that is acceptable. Though I think it is debatable whether or not it is of lasting encyclopedic value, taken by itself. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes per AdventurousSquirrel, encyclopedias do not report blow by blow as events unfold. That is what newspapers do. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This article at ClimateProgress does a good job of describing the notable aspects of these lawsuits. In the historic context, it re-situates the issue of PCB contamination on a par with that of lead paint and asbestos, by making the argument that Monsanto creates a public nuisance by selling the product while knowing about the likely potential for harm. It also touches on Monsanto's efforts to change its image away from the chemical company to the large agribusiness company it is today, and whether it carries liability for PCB contamination in the past. It's a historic lawsuit, whatever the results. The results will also be historic, but the filing does survive the "Will it be notable in ten years?" question that is the heart of WP:RECENTISM and speaks to the NOTNEWS argument against inclusion equally. It is significant, and recognized as such by the media. SageRad (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We're talking legal cases in this list, not the environmental ethics. That's another article. What I'm seeing from the opinion piece you posted, SR, is that these cases don't have much merit. In San Diego's case, they are trying a new legal tactic, of public nuisance. I think we need to see how these cases go at court, because otherwise we are just peering into the future, or quoting others who are studying their crystal balls. --Pete (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We have reliable secondary sources that provide a basic description of the case in their own voice, so we can avoid extracting directly from the primary filing document. Am I missing something here? --Tsavage (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Nobody has used or is proposing to use the primary filing document. We've been talking about the secondary sources all the way through. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This comment introduces the idea of fairly balancing the initial positions taken by the two parties. I am saying that is not necessary, we are simply noting what the case is with a basic description, and by using secondary sources to provide that basic description, we do not have to get into that describing sides. For example, how the case is initially portrayed by Reuters should be sufficient, e.g. US cities are suing Monsanto over cost of cleanup of PCBs. I don't see sides being unfairly balanced. --Tsavage (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody seems to think balance is going to be a problem. The problem is WP:WEIGHT. All we have so far are cases that have been filed and not heard. That's the sort of thing that happens on a daily basis and nobody bothers making a fuss over entering unheard cases into Wikipedia. Not unless there's already been a tonne of media attention. Which there hasn't. Yet. So what's special about these cases that doesn't involve hoping that they'll turn out to be something significant? And what's the urgency? --Pete (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There are currently over 700 media reports, listed at Google News most appear to be from reliable secondary sources. This is enough per WP:GNG prokaryotes (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You are applying WP:NOTABILTY which is about whether an article should exist or not; that policy itself says that it does not apply to content. WP:CIR. Jytdog (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Even if we leave notability out, the coverage is enough to mention it in the article. Above you refer to WP:NOTNEWS, what part of that are you referring to? prokaryotes (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

NOTNEWS is the only potentially applicable policy-based objection to the content that has been raised so far, and it has been raised repeatedly almost to the point of disruption. I have explained in the section above why I do not think it applies here. That explanation has yet to receive a response. To avoid overburdening the rfc with threaded discussion, I suggest that further discussion specifically related to NOTNEWS go in the section above.Dialectric (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that the NOTNEWS objection is disruptive. You did reply directly to that objection here where you wrote "the only potentially applicable part of WP:NOTNEWS is 2, News reports. The only specified target of this section is "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" as the only possible part of it. Prokaryotes asked about specifics too. Here are specifics:

• From lede: "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."
• From start of #2: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."
• from start of #4: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are." (read "company" for "individual")

What I and others have been saying, is that the filing of lawsuits themselves is just news. It doesn't mean anything except these cities are trying to get money from Monsanto. The suits may be dismissed quickly, the parties may settle quickly, or this might become some big long drawn out thing. right now, there is nothing of "enduring" encyclopedic value here. I can't tell you how many times I have come across content like "In August 2004 X sued Y over Z" and the like - old, hoary things, with no follow up. People get all gleeful when X sues Y and rush to add content about it; it is meaningless, however. It is not what we should be about in WP. Please also note that i have been citing UNDUE for these same reasons. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Citing a guideline is not in itself disruptive. Citing a guideline repeatedly, in response to nearly every vote in an rfc is. I will comment on your other points later.Dialectric (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: "It doesn't mean anything except these cities are trying to get money from Monsanto." That's a somewhat loaded statement, that to me makes the lawsuits sound like ambulance chasing. You could as accurately say, "It doesn't mean anything except Monsanto is trying to avoid being held liable for its products." Because there is a case, with plaintiff and defendant. I wonder if the underlying problem you and Skyring/Pete are having is that you want to prevent giving any sort of perceived advantage to the plaintiffs, by "publicizing" the case. That's all well and good, except, we have multiple reliable, independent secondary sources that have already publicized the case, thereby ensuring that it is noteworthy by our standards. --Tsavage (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think that getting money is a bad thing. I don't. That is why people have jobs and why companies do business at all and what litigation is for when people disagree about who is responsible for bad things. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. What remains, then, is that we have multiple reliable, independent secondary sources that have already publicized the case, thereby ensuring that it is noteworthy by our standards. --Tsavage (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

yep we have both made our perspectives clear. from my perspective, there is nothing of encyclopedic value ("not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia") and from your perspective, it is a verifiable event via reliable, independent and that is "good enough". it's about time we let others chime in, so i will stop commenting here. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog: "Good enough" misrepresents my stated position. The sources as presented (and others of similar standing that are available) should be sufficient for noteworthiness, however, I also indicated two lines of narrative that specifically these cases develop: the history and impact of PCBs (product legal history), and the Old Monsanto and New Monsanto (corporate legal history). These provide historical context, independent of the outcomes. The fact that three US cities saw fit to sue Monsanto over PCBs in 2015 is noteworthy in itself at this time; the outcomes will be additionally so. Background context is presented in the sources: for example, in the case of San Diego, new, tighter water safety regulations have brought the existing PCB level into play, involving penalties and clean-up obligations. If you're going to characterize my position, please do so accurately. --Tsavage (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The world is full of stuff that was well-publicised but isn't in Wikipedia. Kevin Rudd's earwax incident, for example. Massive coverage for a Prime Minister, but we decided not to include it. --Pete (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Of course. Why is this even debated in an RfC? Even though the outcome of some of these suits has yet to be decided, the fact that several US cities are currently suing Monsanto passes the notability test, and since this article is "Monsanto Legal Cases" it's appropriate. I would even suggest placing it in the lede with a listing of each city and to be updated as new cities join in and sue. LesVegas (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like confected logic to me. Have you seen any reliable source for this? --Pete (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources are Washington Times, Reuters, NBC News, etc. As new cities come along suing on similar grounds (a likely scenario) I'm sure more reliable sources will be available for those cities' lawsuits as well. LesVegas (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support -— Also of course. I'd also go with more than one sentence, myself, and think Les is quite right.. The opposers are utterly unconvincing. Cities are suing over PCB's, a carcinogenic substance so toxic that the once-touted material is banned worldwide. This belongs in this article, needless to say. Jusdafax 06:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That's straight out of the media releases from the plaintiffs. We might as well not bother waiting for the trails - Wikipedia determines the result before a word of evidence is heard. What's the hurry? Why not wait until we have something more than the media releases? Or is this just a chance to sink the boot into Monsanto without bothering to wait for due process? --Pete (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support I was invited here randomly by a bot. These lawsuits against Monsanto are well sourced. I notice that much of the opposition (when not going ad hominem) is citing UNDUE, but the fact that these law suits are brought by major municipalities and reported by major news sources suggests these are significant events relating to the topic. Jojalozzo (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

How can they be significant if not a word has been heard in court and there has been no outcome? I'm not seeing any follow-up stories, no mentions in national media, no public debate beyond local and fringe sources. San Diego's attempt to engage Monsanto on a "public nuisance" charge for events that happened forty years ago seems to my untutored mind to be a candidate for either a speedy dismissal or years and years of appeals. What's the hurry? The other cases listed in this article have proceeded to trails and outcomes, attracted international interest at a high level, set enduring case law precedents and so on. These filings, not so much. Maybe they will amount to something, but it's a long stretch to label them as significant based on no more than the media releases distributed by the opposing sides. --Pete (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Pete, you are arguing with a person who was randomly called here by a bot for the RfC, and has reviewed the RfC and as much of the dialogue as s/he wanted to, and stated a conclusion. We're looking for fresh eyes here, and i am thankful for anyone who shows up from the RfC process and gives an opinion, whatever the opinion may be. SageRad (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

SR, I'm always in favour of getting more eyes on a question. That's the reason I expanded your RfC into a second category. To reach more people. Now, I notice that you don't hold back from engaging another editor if you disagree with their argument. Jojalozzo above has indicated that ad-hominem tactics aren't attractive, and I suggest that all editors heed that. Sticking to the facts and to wikipolicy yields outcomes that we can all support. Calling each other names and edit-warring does nothing but create disruption. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Pete, i don't hesitate to speak my mind, clearly, in dialogue with other editors, although i would not quibble with those good souls who come here from a bot summons. I think that blunt honesty is a good trait, when mixed with appropriate kindness. SageRad (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources have decided these events are important. I don't think it's a WP editor's job to evaluate decisions made by the editors of reliable sources. Jojalozzo (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. We should just introduce a feed - anything the local paper publishes gets automatically published in Wikipedia as well. We'll have to re-evaluate our WP:NOTNEWS policy, but I'm seeing a lot of support for this change here in discussion. --Pete (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting that what I am proposing has any similarity to a news feed is a strawman. Jojalozzo (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: To help put this RfC question into a broader context, editors may wish to check Wikipedia for a sense of general use of pending cases, and how they may or may not usefully add to coverage. Try searching for, say, ""pending lawsuit". With that one constrained search (other keywords may produce additional results), we see several examples across various subject areas. Doing the same for reputable publishers, an unconstrained search for pending lawsuits at the New York Times brings many more examples (a raw search result of 16K hits). To avoid more unnecessary argument around NOTNEWS, the NY Times results are intended only to provide context. As I understand it, by policy, we rely in large part on reputable publishers to determine when pending cases are of significant note to merit coverage, within the scope of a particular article. --Tsavage (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you've put your finger on the problem right there. Why hasn't the New York Times (or the Washington Post or USA Today or one of the weeklies) covered these cases? If they had, and they thought they were significant as a group, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Why are we even mentioning a story that the major national and international sources don't think worth covering? It's not as if these sources are setting the notability bar particularly high; Donald Trump makes a stupid joke and it's front page news for these guys. --Pete (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: It would make drawn-out processes like this less so if we decided on the New York Times and a couple of other papers as our exclusive reliable news media sources. You could amend the WP:RS guideline! Unfortunately for your new line of argument, Reuters, an international news agency, is a named RS in thst guideline, and it is cited here. And some editors might argue that the Seattle Times (another source here) winning a Pulitzer Prize this year for its news reporting might speak to its stature as a reputable news organizatoin. Etc. --Tsavage (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We've already got RS for the cases. I'm just wondering why if the cases are as significant as some claim, there hasn't been any major news coverage or follow-up stories. Even in the local sources, there's just the one announcement and then - nothing. --Pete (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not unusual and is actually typical in the cases that I have followed. Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's as may be. But for this article, why are we busting a gut over something that's barely caused a ripple? I can understand why hard-core anti-Monsanto crusaders want to get up on their WP:SOAPBOX and throw a few rocks in the direction of the One True Enemy, but Wikipedia isn't meant to be a platform for advocacy. The sources we have are essentially quotes from the PR statements of Monsanto and the cities, and the only actual facts are that lawsuits have recently been filed, which isn't in itself particularly notable, given the nature of the US legal system. We seem to be solidly into WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:CRYSTALBALL territory to say that these cases mean anything now. Do we have someone actually saying that these cases are significant, or is that coming from Wikipedia editors making up their own minds, which may be a fine thing, but is still Original Research?

As an aside, seeing your name sent me off on a quest to scratch an itch that's been bugging me in a minor way since the Seventies. Wikipedia has an excellent article on Gandydancer which was a nice chunk of entertaining and informative reading. Including some video links. Ever seen O, Brother, Where Art Thou? --Pete (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did see it and liked it a lot! If I remember correctly, that was a wood chopping song. BTW, I bet you'd like my Yodeling article too.  :) Gandydancer (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"Like" is maybe too strong a word, unless in a platonic sense, where the work and scholarship displayed is breathtaking. That's a great article. Led me to fire up iMusic and hunt down some songs to edit by. --Pete (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: In case you really aren't aware of this, each independent news organization in principle makes its own decisions as to what to run. Political leanings, demographics of the local market, directives from the publisher, various factors may influence a decision to exclude otherwise significant events, perhaps rationalized by reasons similar to your general argument. That's why we use more than a few sources. When some of those sources indicate significance by coverage, Wikipedia guidance indicates that we do include mention appropriate to the article context, in order to be comprehensive and represent all views. That is my common sense understanding, and it doesn't take citing multiple rules to arrive at. IMO, opposing inclusion in situations like this goes against NPOV policy. --Tsavage (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, newspaper editors decide is what is "news". Wikipedia editors decide what is of "enduring encyclopedic value". These are different decisions. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

All I'm seeing from these cases are one-shot local news items. Reuters is the exception, but their article on the Spokane case is as empty of analysis as the others - they are just quoting from and paraphrasing the PR statements issued by the competing sides. Again I ask, where is the hurry? We are crafting a repository of enduring content, not summarising press releases. Why not wait until we have something solid to record? --Pete (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not that there is a 'hurry' in the sense of a burning rush to include this. There is, however, an onerous obstructionism that makes an edit that should have taken 20 minutes turn into a 20-day, 20,000 word process, and that is completely odious. And, the encyclopedia being somewhat up-to-date is a good thing. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but it has the capability to be fairly current when there are editors willing to put in the work, and no obstructionism as there is here. Might i ask you, what is the objection? SageRad (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Something is wrong when an editor needs to go to these lengths to get mention of this lawsuit into this article when it is so obvious that it is appropriate. It should concern any good editor. It sure does concern me. Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree that something is wrong. The fact that a number of major metropolitan jurisdictions filed in court against Monsanto is notable and highly appropriate to the article's subject, regardless of the outcome. These are legal cases, they are public record, they are covered in reliable sources, and the title of this article indicates that this article is the place for this information to be located regardless of the outcome of the cases. I see consensus to include the information, and suggest we do so now. The arguments against inclusion carry no weight whatsoever. Jusdafax 18:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Who - apart from Wikipedia editors - says that these cases together are significant? WP:SYNTHESIS means we can't add two plus two, no matter how much we are certain the answer is a very important number. We have to find a reliable source linking these cases and stating their importance. We don't have one. Yet. Again, why so much hurry that we have to break our own rules? --Pete (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The very fact of the coverage of these cases in major media appears to signify to enough editors here that they are significant. Their significance is so obvious that it's practically assumed by the stories that describe what the cases are about that people will find that significant. They are cases against a well known company for damages for contaminations by a chemical that is ubiquitously found in industrialized areas, and is applying a new legal precedent to PCBs which has been applied in the past to other chemical products that led to contaminations. News reports don't typically read, "This is important because..." but rather tell their stories in factual tones. It's up to readers to assign importance to the elements of news stories. The very fact of their appearance in a news source shows that the news source deems them important enough to print. And here we have several very robust and reliable news sources reporting on these cases. Really, you're talking around and around in a semantic way, by my reckoning, and i think that several others here have a similar feeling and are getting pretty darn fed up with the semantic nitpicking of this kind. SageRad (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You've just argued yourself around in a circle, SR. If we don't have someone out in the world of reliable sources saying that together these cases are noteworthy, then we can't say it in our encyclopaedia, because that would be synthesis. Are you now saying that we don't need a source if you and a few mates decide that you really really want to say something and wikipolicy no longer applies? If these cases are really significant, we will have real people saying so. We won't have to make stuff up. --Pete (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: All I see here is A) an editor commenting, in Talk page discussion, with regard to noteworthiness, that there are several cities with similar suits - each of these lawsuits is reliably sourced and noteworthy on its own; and B) an editor arguing a point manufactured by contorting a clear and straightforward comment. --Tsavage (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I can understand how we may have differing opinions on somethings, but we surely cannot hold different views on wikipolicy? Perhaps it is my poor explanation. Do you not understand how WP:SYNTHESIS works here? Perhaps you could go to the link and get a better explanation than I can give. --Pete (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently there are different understandings of Wikipedia policy. I see your interpretation as contorting policies to exclude a single-sentence mention of these lawsuits from this article. For Pete's sake, what do you expect to find in the news articles about this, a sentence that states "This lawsuit is significant"? No, the appearance of the reporting itself is the signal that the lawsuit is significant in the estimation of the publisher of the report. This is so simple that it boggles my mind that you're trying to argue otherwise. SageRad (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The shifting arguments against inclusion are getting increasingly strained (and strange). WP:SYNTHESIS does in no way prevent adding content cited to multiple significant-coverage reliable sources. If every inclusion required a sentence explicitly asserting notability taken from a source, tens of thousands of good articles would be reduced to stubs.Dialectric (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not talking about natability for individual cases; that's a furphy you're running. Looking at Jusdafax's statement above: "The fact that a number of major metropolitan jurisdictions filed in court against Monsanto is notable…" (my bold) That's an example of a confected argument right there. Wikipolicy is quite clear to the meanest intelligence. We can't make such a statement by ourselves- we must have a reliable source for it. You do appreciate this point, I trust? --Pete (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - These are notable lawsuits that have received significant media attention and should be included in this article. Have you ever heard someone say "don't make a federal case out of it" as a figure of speech that means "don't make a big deal out of it?" That phrase exists because federal cases are almost always a big deal, and these cases are no exception. Of course, I am not basing my vote of support on this figure of speech. Instead, I am basing my vote of support on the media coverage that these cases have received. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Above I wrote that I find content about lawsuits filed all the time, with no resolution described. Quite often even after looking long and hard I could not find any resolution. Content about about Great Lakes Chemical (GLC) suing Monsanto way back in 2000 after Monsanto had sold GLC its phenylalanine manufacturing business, was added to the Monsanto article here back in 2005 (unsourced and part of a string of edits that added a bunch of unsourced negative stuff). When I cleaned up the Monsanto article a few years ago, I left all these things, but tried to find the whole story. I looked and looked to find resolution of the GLC litigation story, and couldn't. That content got moved here as part of the split a few months ago. Gandydancer just removed it. I never would have done that as I would have been accused of whitewashing the article. But to me, that deletion was the right move. And it is the reason why this content about the cities filing lawsuits shouldn't come in at this time. There is no meaning - no impact or significance yet - and it may never have an impact that we can discern. It may do, and when it does, we should have content about it.Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog and I have known each other for a very long time and when he says he tried to improve the info and couldn't but did not remove it, I know he is being honest without needing to check the edit history. At one time I did watch his edits very closely and came to believe that he is not the sort of editor that sneaks information in and out of articles in hopes that he can get away with it, and I respect him for that. Though that said, it seems to me that he is not giving other editors credit for being equally sincere and capable. I don't believe that he would have been accused of whitewashing if he had removed the above info rather than me. Granted, considering that Monsanto has frequently been called the most hated corporation there is, he has had to deal with a lot of editors that want to get every terrible thing they read in a blog into the article. But to go one step further and see himself as practically the only one capable of the Truth about Monsanto is not good for the Monsanto articles. To have the top edits, often 3 or 4 times over, is not good for the articles either, even if he is more in touch with the Truth than the rest of us.

For example, re the info I just deleted which he uses as an example of why some information never should have been here in the first place. Why not? It's not like this is the encyclopedia that we used to buy from the traveling salesmen or read in school in the library. We are fluid and info can be added and deleted as it becomes more or less important. Right now it is important that several areas are attempting to hold Monsanto responsible for pollution that their chemical industry caused when they learned that the corporation was aware of the dangers and apparently put profits before safety. If a large city goes to the work and expense of filing a lawsuit against Monsanto, should it be kept out of Wikipedia because three editors don't like it? And especially so when two of the editors are known to have defended this corporation repeatedly and one of them is responsible for re-working all of the Monsanto articles. Furthermore, aside from the rightness or wrongness of this, just imagine how this information would be seen by the public if this were ever would be found in some sort of an exposé as happened with our BP article. It would not make any of us look very good at all, as happened with the BP article. It was very unpleasant. Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It brings me no joy to mention this, but I want to withdraw my favorable opinion of Jytdog regarding trust or respect regarding his editing. A few days ago while editing the Alachlor article I noted a pretty glaring problem with the removal of information in an edit by Jytdog. In the past when I have seen similar problems he made remarks such as "good catch" and I let it go at that. But in this case, to see his edit justified with the excuse that he does not read the lead of articles that are used as references is just so over the top that it is an insult to my intelligence. It really did just leave me wondering how dumb does he think I am, anyway. At any rate, I want to publicly say that I no longer trust this editor and I now feel that his editing pattern needs to be watched. Gandydancer (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The first post was inappropriate for an article Talk page and this is more of the same. Second, I made a mistake by missing one sentence in a different article; you want to make a big deal out of that, that is how it goes. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, there is a reason why there is often no media coverage of the resolution of lawsuits against large corporations. It is common practice for corporate litigants to make settlement offers that include confidentiality agreements, so the parties that brought the suit in the first place will never have an opportunity to talk to the media. The practice of offering "hush money" settlements is well documented. Here is an excerpt from a recent article printed in the Michigan Law Review about settlements with confidentiality clauses:

Lawsuits are tales that begin with great fanfare and suspense, with fire-and-brimstone pleadings telling dueling stories of injustice and lies, followed by contentious pretrial battles. Yet most lawsuits are tales that end abruptly, with a whimper of a one-page "voluntary dismissal" that ends the dispute without explanation, making it appear "that the plaintiff simply gave up." "Settlement terms are usually not reflected in court documents," instead appearing only in settlement documents broadly forbidding the parties from discussing their allegations, evidence, or settlement amount. Public settlements are the exception, common in only a few types of cases such as class actions and some cases with governmental defendants or plaintiffs.

The above is from Scott A. Moss, Illuminating Secrecy: A New Economic Analysis of Confidential Settlements, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 867 (2007). You may also be interested in this article about "buying witness silence" from the Oregon Law Review. My point is simply that if we keep waiting for more information about a lawsuit, it may never come. That does not mean, however, that the initial coverage was not significant. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

am well aware of that. it is part of what makes it difficult to make actual encyclopedic (i.e. meaningful) content. I still hold that that the filing of a lawsuit is not encyclopedic; it is news, and we are not a newspaper. What you wrote there doesn't make an argument that it is encyclopedic. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but significant media coverage of the filing of a lawsuit will likely meet WP:GNG guidelines. I was simply saying that editors shouldn't argue for exclusion of content by saying, "but we haven't seen the result of litigation yet!" That day will likely never come in the majority of cases. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about lawsuits by city councils here. Are these likely to have the sort of outcome that doesn't get recorded? And, supposing they do, then is the case really significant in the first place? Surely we're talking about very large sums of money and these aren't going to get hidden away from public view in the city balance sheet.

My objection to mentioning just-filed lawsuits is that there's not a lot of actual facts to include. We have the fact of filing, easily verified, but any notion of significance is lost in the sources, which are mostly the media statements issued by the two parties, and they are full of puffery and spin. If we had some knowledgeable commentator to analyse and comment, we might be on sound ground, but the sources listed for these cases are local reporters putting together a story, and they lack depth.

It seems to me that a good many editors here are part of a personal crusade, using this and other articles to mount a propaganda war for or against Monsanto. We're not a blog for advocacy. There are a great number of these easily available through a search. We're an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, not a rant. --Pete (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comment suggests that you are unable to WP:AGF, which can be a problem when working on controversial articles. Nearly every comment here has been grounded in wikipedia policies and guidelines. I can't see that anyone here has suggested we use blogs as sources or ranted about Monsanto. Personally, I support the addition well-sourced,factual information to the article regardless of whether it is pro, anti, or neutral towards Monsanto. If your interpretation of policy differs from the majority, that does not make that majority propagandists.Dialectric (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If I were coming in cold, you might be right. But looking at the contributions of some editors over weeks here, and months or years in their chosen focus areas, then yes, I think that some are pretty solid in the crusading line and we can view their contributions in that light. So long as it doesn't get into article space, strong expressions of personal views are fine in their place. --Pete (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring, with regard to settlement agreements, it is not uncommon for municipalities to enter into confidential settlement agreements that include non-monetary considerations. For example, a polluter may be asked to build new parks within the city -- those kinds of agreements likely won't show up in the city's tax records. For an insight into how this works in land-use litigation, see this article.

You also mention that "any notion of significance is lost in the sources", but the act of filing the lawsuit is, itself, an act of significance. As are the injuries alleged in the complaints. I'm not really sure how much depth you are looking for here. The relevant facts are that the municipalities allege Monsanto caused pollution, and subsequently filed suit. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Lawsuits at the point of filing claims are largely hearsay of claims. They haven't been vetted yet from an independent source (the court), and wouldn't reach significance quite then. Otherwise we could include any wild claim someone makes in a lawsuit. Every relevant policy cited here strongly cautions against including specific events until they have unfolded. We don't do play-by-plays as something develops in other topics, and there's no reason to do so here either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If the case(s) attracts follow-up articles as hearings progress, then i think we can mention them. We don't need to wait for decisions. I just can't see the need for haste to push some PR puffery in front of our readers and pretend that it is actual information they can rely on. That seems like the worst possible way to write an encyclopaedia, though it seems to serve very well forpopular entertainment. --Pete (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a contingency I can see available. There can be squabbling between sources on the merits of a case that might not reach the point of inclusion here in some cases, but I do think that this is the threshold where discussion on inclusion would be appropriate. We don't really have anything like that in this case yet though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, first of all, you are not using the term hearsay correctly. Second of all, we would not be saying anything about the merits of the parties' arguments. The mere fact that the cities made allegations by filing complaints is itself a noteworthy event that has received significant coverage by media. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit to the irony of the term in this context if someone only knows it in the legal context, but the context of my post should be apparent. In terms of fact finding, the claims are unverified (same as hearsay in this instance). Some editors here are waiting for verification of the claims before considering them to pass WP:WEIGHT. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: What you are not fully acknowledging is that the creation of a lawsuit is a distinct event, full stop. An event may be significant depending on the particulars – in this case, common sense says, multiple cities suing Monsanto, on behalf of two million residents, for PCB pollution in 2015, is significant, but we don't have to rely on common sense, we have multiple reliable, independent secondary sources that indicate the same by covering these cases in detail. So we have a verifiably significant legal case, for an article about legal cases. Any WEIGHT concerns are addressed in the wording. Arguing against this straightforward application of policy and common sense is questionable. --Tsavage (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't personalize the conversation with comments such as "common sense" and "questionable". One could be snarky and claim the same for those arguing against policy application such as WP:ISNOT in a similar fashion, but that's not we are here for. Focusing on content, the creation of a lawsuit is the beginning of an overall event that goes through the courts. The story isn't concluded until the case is done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: No personalizing. Common sense is recommended throughout, like at the top of WP:PAG: "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." "Questionable" considers this rather extreme discussion against the raft of behavioral policies and guidelines at WP:CONDUCT. This is not personalizing, it is trying to discuss what seems to several editors to be unreasonable positions pushed to unreasonable lengths. It is strictly about policy and content editing.

"the creation of a lawsuit is the beginning of an overall event that goes through the courts." - True and irrelevant. A lawsuit either exists or it doesn't, independent of what stage it may be at, and it may or may not be significant. Significance here has been determined by multiple sources selecting this lawsuit for coverage, out of the 15 or so million civil cases filed annually in the US, most of which do not seem to be covered at any stage. Common sense says: if it stands out that much, it is noteworthy. --Tsavage (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If we follow that logic, then Wikipedia would diligently summarise and link to every media story on every subject in the English-speaking world. In your view, they are all noteworthy, and it is just plain common sense. Yeah, right. --Pete (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"…we have multiple reliable, independent secondary sources that indicate the same by covering these cases in detail." No we don't. We have one source (a local NBC station) for San Diego, and all they do is quote from the media releases and have some volunteer fish-botherer say that the water is poison swill. The Spokane case, we have three print outlets basically doing the same without the fish guy. All the "detail" is coming straight from the media releases, and they are essentially propaganda.

These cases get to court – and that's not certain, especially in the San Diego "public nuisance" gambit – we might get some independent examination of the arguments and the evidence. Until then, we don't have anything beyond fluff and colour.

If we're going by reliable sources, that is. If we are going by the personal opinions of some editors, we have Holy Writ. --Pete (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: The San Diego case was filed in March, and there are other reliable sources ([3], [4]) than NBC (a follow-up story in August where they tour the bay interviewing a enviro-water guy). Articles about individual city cases also refer to other case. There is sufficient sourcing. --Tsavage (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

But they all say pretty much the same thing: "According to the lawsuit…" The story is essentially the ambit claims of the plaintiff, and the equally one-eyed counter claim of Monsanto. Just puffery. What's the point in directing our readers to twaddle? --Pete (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

CBS and the ABA Journal (two very reputable news sources) have also covered this story. Skyring, I certainly wouldn't characterize the coverage of this story as "twaddle." The sources have reported on the relevant facts, parties, and issues in controversy. What more do you expect them to say? Is there a baseline threshold for media coverage that will satisfy your standards? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a point I'm making which you don't seem to have grasped. We settled right at the start of this process that we had reliable sourcing. The problem is that, apart from the fact of filing, which is not in itself notable, all of these stories draw upon the media releases issued by the two parties to the case, and these media releases are, of course, one-eyed spin. I looked at the ABA journal with interest, because I thought that maybe there would be some informed comment, but that turned out to be the worst of the lot - they provided a link back to the news released issued by the lawyers for Spokane, and lo and behold it was chock-full of the same words and phrases used in all the news reports! Quelle surprise! That's why I characterise these articles as twaddle. They are little beyond PR puff.

Now, if we can find some authoritative, in-depth commentary on the case, that would be something. But no - I'm being repeatedly told that the fact that a newspaper has seen fit to quote from two media releases and publish them with a little bit of linking text is good enough for Wikipedia to include these news stories without question. I disagree. I think we need to question the content before presenting it here as encyclopaedic. --Pete (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) Skyring/Pete: "if we can find some authoritative, in-depth commentary on the case" - This isn't a presidential race or New York fashion week, what sort of in-depth commentary are you looking for: stock market and future business impact? I scanned the article references and checked a few, and found nothing that comes close to what I'd consider "in-depth commentary" on a particular case. If there are any, there aren't many, and the article itself focuses on basic descriptive facts. What you are referring to is unclear and would seem to be new to this article. --Tsavage (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

With the cases already listed, they have proceeded to conclusions, and there are substantive facts to report; we're not just regurgitating media releases. Do you grasp the point I'm making, or do you see the legal system as irrelevant to this page? --Pete (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This is getting bizarre. You think the citizens might not notice if public parks start springing up around their feet? In any case, that sort of crystal balling is irrelevant. We're limited to using sources to justify our content. If we don't have sources, then we won't include content. Pretty simple..

"The relevant facts are that the municipalities allege Monsanto caused pollution…" Well, so you say, Notecardforfree. Monsanto says different. Let's leave it up to the courts to make a decision, rather than relying on your personal opinion, hmmmm? --Pete (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the allegations have been made is not in dispute; it has been reported by many reliable sources. That's not a matter of opinion. All we would be doing is noting that many reliable sources have reported on these allegations. However, we are not saying anything about the merits of those allegations. That's the job of the courts. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So you want our encyclopaedia to record unexamined allegations, and you think this is so important that it can't wait. OK. --Pete (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Significant coverage in multiple reliable mainstream newspapers seems like enough of a bar to give them a mention. I don't think simply mentioning them violates WP:UNDUE, since this page is devoted solely to Monsanto legal cases and since we're talking about a sentence or so at most; I also think some people are misreading WP:RECENTISM, which doesn't say that we should avoid breaking news entirely. Sometimes, as it says, our ability to reflect events as they happen is a good thing. We wouldn't want it to entirely distort the page to weight it too heavily towards new cases, but given that the whole subject is comparatively recent, and given that we're talking about maybe one or two sentences, I don't see how it could really cause a problem. --Aquillion (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a note on some page history, but back when we first split this off of the main article because people were just plopping in cases left and right at the parent article, the consensus was that we wouldn't lower the bar for inclusion, but instead keep it high to prevent those same issues again. Since then, unfinished cases have not been added this page when they've come up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A consensus of two editors is fairly weak, especially since you were one of them, and should not override the more recent discussion in which policy-based opinions of 5+ editors favor inclusion. In any case, I and several others in favor of inclusion are arguing for inclusion in part because these cases have significant coverage in reliable sources. No one in this rfc is arguing that we include cases where the sourcing is poor or nonexistent, so I see no danger that this would become become 'an intricate list of every court case'.Dialectric (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet no one chimed in to oppose if one wants to characterize it as weak. The point is still that the background with this page shows an intent to keep a higher bar for inclusion and to avoid ongoing cases looking at the previous page history to date with respect to Auillion's comment on this page being solely about Monsanto legal cases. Nothing more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Aquillion. The bot sent me. I found this: "Monsanto, one of the most sophisticated chemical companies in the world, knew decades ago that PCBs were a significant contamination threat.... Although Monsanto recognized internally that PCBs were becoming “a global contaminant,” it concealed this information and increased production of these profitable compounds. As a result, PCBs are now a common environmental contaminant, found in all natural resources including water bodies and plants as well as in the tissues of all forms of marine life, animals, and humans. Detection of PCBs is a serious matter. The chemicals can destroy fish habitats and are associated with illnesses and cancer in humans."[5] That suggests to me that this is the sort of significant controversy which WP:LEAD directs be summarized in the articles' introduction, not just the body. EllenCT (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - We are now ready to close per WP:SNOW. The weight of the arguments to include the sourced information is clear, and I call on the three opposers, who have written walls of text and yet failed to convince a single editor, to acknowledge this plain fact. Jusdafax 03:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The weight of arguments"? Sounds like you're counting noses, because I'm not seeing any great diversity of argument from those wanting to add this controversial material. Basically, the argument for inclusion is that the material is reliably sourced and is therefore automatically notable. Some then go on to extract significance by talking about toxicity of PCBs and so on. But this merely goes back to the primary sources of all these news articles: the media releases by plaintiff and respondent. Nothing that has actually been examined in court, and certainly no resolution. To say that one side's argument is significant and the other's is not is to ignore the whole legal process, put the opinions of individual editors above juge and jury. As I say, what's the hurry? If these cases go to court – and that's not certain – then we'll get follow-up stories with some weight to them, and if they make judgement, we can list that. --Pete (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

One cannot invoke SNOW when there is a significant opinion describing an issue with the content grounded in policy. While many want to see the content in, we don't count votes in determining consensus. In this case, the closer will likely weigh the policies cautioning against this kind of edit, but this RfC is far from a free pass to include the content carte blanche. How much weight they give to the policy will be up to them, but as described in my main set of comments, we are left with two scenarios. One is include the content with the risk of running against the very issues WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS describe from eventually removing the content because it's not noteworthy at the close of the case. The other is to wait until the case finishes to determine noteworthiness. From WP:CONSENSUS, "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." I still believe that the latter option is most in line with consensus policy of addressing all concerns expressed here. The closer will decide which option is best grounded in policy based on arguments here, and it is still quite possible for them to decide against inclusion at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, one flaw in your argument is that it relies upon the faulty premise that we cannot determine noteworthiness until "the case finishes." The mere act of filing a complaint is noteworthy in itself, and it has been documented by numerous reliable sources. I am sympathetic to the argument that we should not rush to include poorly sourced material, but that is not the case here. This information is not poorly sourced. We have many newspapers who have all reported on the filing of the complaint, and this information should be included in this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOTNEWS addresses what you are using for justification (i.e. coverage by news sources alone not equating to inclusion and coverage of announcements) as things cautioned against. That's been rehashed up in the rest of the RfC though, so I'm not going to do that here again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and many other editors have explained that these sources are not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." There is no sense in re-debating what has already been debated, I think we are all weary of this war of words. Not that it is authoritative in any way, but as I mentioned earlier, federal cases are almost always a "big deal." In fact, our language has adopted an idiom: "don't make a federal case out of ..." which means, "don't make a big deal out it." News reports about these kinds of federal cases are hardly routine, and they report about a significant legal event in our society. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Others have found arguments to be weak that a suit just being announced passes the bar for that policy. We also have had some people more broadly arguing that since it's reported in the news, it should be included, which is pretty squarely against policy. There's still significant policy concerns here. Either way, it's up to the closer, so I don't see a reason to continue this particular thread. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There's about 2,000,000 federal cases filed per year, and we can really only include a tiny percentage of those. So no, the act of filing a federal lawsuit is not particularly notable, even if we have reliable sources for it. --Pete (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, when i fact-check your claim, i see that the actual number from your source for civil filings in U.S. courts is 284,000. Because we can only include a tiny percentage of those, as you say, it is useful that the media only covers a tiny percentage of those and thereby assists us greatly in determining which cases are of enough significance to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Your statement is a tautology. Your argument crumbles in the light of reason. I am also weary of this war of words. At this point i view this epic debate as a filibuster. SageRad (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You're only counting district courts there, SR. Total federal cases, as per Notecardforfree's "Let's not make this a federal case." remain at 2 000 000 a year. But even with your selected subset, that's a thousand cases filed each working day. You say that the media determine which cases are significant, but that's not true, is it? The media is in the entertainment business, rather than the sort of encyclopaedic index of knowledge we work on. I can open my newspaper and find all manner of stories which will never grace our pages.[6] So we're back to WP:NOTNEWS and the current situation is that they have ceased to even be news. They have not progressed, they have not been heard, they have had no judgement, no outcome, not even any continued media interest. Maybe they will become significant in due course, but you wouldn't know it from the media, who have apparently lost all interest. --Pete (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The point that I was trying to make (and other editors have made here as well) is that coverage of federal cases is hardly "routine news," and that WP:NOTNEWS is therefore not applicable. I agree that gossip pages and weather reports are not encyclopedic, per WP:NOTNEWS, but coverage of lawsuits is different. Even though there may be many thousands of federal cases filed every year, there is hardly anything "routine" about a federal lawsuit. Also, there is a recurring argument on this thread that the act of filing a lawsuit is somehow not an act of independent significance -- that is simply not true. The act of submitting a complaint in federal court may, ipso facto, be a noteworthy event if it receives sufficient news coverage, and this case has. Also, it is incorrect to say the case has "not progressed" or that it has failed to received continuing news coverage. The case continues to proceed in court, and it continues to receive news coverage. For example, on September 2, Law360 reported on the current status of the San Diego suit (see this story). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Whether this case is significant or not seems to be a matter of opinion, using all sorts of justification, mostly that it's in the hands of local news sources, whose coverage has been almost entirely a matter of quoting and rewriting media releases. I fail to be impressed by this. Where is the in-depth, independent analysis, I ask? If this case is significant, then surely someone at the national media level is going to put down their thoughts. Washington Post or New York Times has no legal or environmental specialists? Even USA Today has taken a pass. Thanks for the notice of Law360.com reporting on Monsanto's move to dismiss the case. I wasn't aware of that, but I'm hardly surprised. The "public nuisance" gambit San Diego used seemed pretty forlorn to me. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Support - The content is well-supported by multiple reliable secondary sources, and common sense suggests that major US cities, with a combined population of two million, suing Monsanto for ongoing PCB pollution in 2015, is noteworthy. Regardless of the outcome, enduring noteworthiness within the scope of this article - Monsanto legal cases - seems quite assured. --Tsavage (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Called by bot. The lawsuits should be mentioned in the article. They have non-trivial coverage in the press. Darx9url (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't weighed in here in a while since the arguments are all repetitious and I already said my piece. But re-reading the thread and the thinkprogress source cited above, I think we should include content about the San Diego suit b/c 1) they are pursuing a novel theory of "public nuisance." Apparently this is the first case like that for PCBs. (see the thinkprogress source cited above (normally I reach for major media like the NYT and shun advocacy sites on any thing controversial but this article is reasonable); 2) The background here is that per the source I just cited and per this source, the city of San Diego and the shipyards there were already found liable in court for cleanup costs for ocean dumping that the shipyards did and that the city authorized- the city is trying to find the money to pay for that with - that 2nd source says "Attorneys from the city and the port lay some of the blame on Monsanto and see the lawsuit as a viable means of recovering costs" . c) the yet deeper background (and this is pure SYN and we cannot use it as i have found no source linking these two) is that San Diego almost went bankrupt just a few years ago per this (things are better now per this but those folks have to be sweating bullets to stay sound). Anyway, on the basis of this novel aspect of the San Diego lawsuit, I would support adding content about the San Diego suit, with its context the city and port are trying to get money for what they are already liable for, to the article. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, all three lawsuits (Spokane, San Jose, and San Diego) all bring the "new" public nuisance claims. See page 27 of the Spokane complaint and page 17 of the San Jose complaint. I don't think this has been cited in this discussion, but here is another article that discusses how San Jose followed San Diego's lead in using the public nuisance theory (I will note, however, that the publisher of article I just listed appears to have an axe to grind, although they claim to bring perspectives "from both the left and the right"). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to those two complaints and the additional source. here is the San Diego complaint. Same lawfirm on all three, Baron & Budd; San Diego filed March 13, San Jose July 9, Spokane filed July 31. The story is getting more clear and interesting. Law firm comes up with novel theory under which government entitites can sue to pay for PCB cleanup, gets San Diego (super financially conservative and already liable for costs not covered by superfund) to buy in first; two more buy in come July, they have big upcoming costs that they are trying to figure out how to pay for. We can expect more, I reckon. I wonder if they are doing this on contingency to some extent? A little googling and... generally yes and specifically yes for san diego: "The contingency fee is set at 25% of the "Gross Recovery" as defined in the Agreement. The law firm will advance costs and deduct those costs from a net recovery. If there is no net recovery, the City may be obligated to pay its pro rata share of costs" Note i am not writing this to denigrate anybody. Money makes the world go round especially in things like this. The whole story is always interesting.... Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

And here is a NYT article from Dec 2014: Lawyers Create Big Paydays by Coaxing Attorneys General to Sue: "... flourishing industry that pairs plaintiffs’ lawyers with state attorneys general to sue companies, a collaboration that has set off a furious competition between trial lawyers and corporate lobbyists to influence these officials....The lawsuits follow a pattern: Private lawyers, who scour the news media and public records looking for potential cases in which a state or its consumers have been harmed, approach attorneys general. The attorneys general hire the private firms to do the necessary work, with the understanding that the firms will front most of the cost of the investigation and the litigation. The firms take a fee, typically 20 percent, and the state takes the rest of any money won from the defendants....Ms. Madrid has flown around the country with her husband (also a lawyer), acting as a broker to solicit business. They traveled early this year to Vermont on behalf of the Texas-based law firm Baron & Budd and successfully pitched the firm to the staff of the attorney general, an old friend, to represent the state in a lawsuit against oil companies over allegations that a fuel additive caused groundwater contamination. Ms. Madrid will earn a fee for helping to sell the job." OK, so that is more of the story. Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Are you proposing is exclusion based on a backstory about how the case may have come into existence, which is a problem on at least two levels.

1. Backstory is not relevant in this inclusion discussion, we don't get ahead of the federal courts in determining what should be a case. We're not here to right perceived wrongs. If that is how the system works, so be it, if it is broken in some way, we're not here to fix it. Factually, these PCB cases exist, exactly like every other case, no more, no less. We don't argue that one case is in some way "bad" and another isn't. And we can't create an ad hoc rule to exclude all pending cases that are acceptable by policy (reliably sourced, noteworthy), as a prophylactic measure against what some editors see as wrongs in some of those cases (amending policy would seem to be the avenue for that).

2. Implicit in your comment is that there is something particularly wrong here, that should invalidate the case at this point until further notice - you haven't made clear a specific inclusion problem. Meanwhile, the NYT article presents a larger context which you don't mention, where this practice may be seen as a way to counter corporate power and undue influence, an attempt to level the playing field for the public:

"a collaboration that has set off a furious competition between trial lawyers and corporate lobbyists to influence these officials. ... Much as big industries have found natural allies in Republican attorneys general to combat federal regulations, plaintiffs’ lawyers working on a contingency-fee basis have teamed up mostly with Democratic state attorneys general to file hundreds of lawsuits against businesses that make anything from pharmaceuticals to snack foods."

"State attorneys general defend the practice, saying that with tight budgets, hiring outside lawyers is often the only tool they have to achieve rough parity with the army of corporate lawyers who are aggressively trying to blunt the lawsuits — in court, through legislation and in elections in which they target certain attorneys general for defeat."

You appear to be selecting one element of a huge issue with how the US legal system is being used, to indicate a grave problem with these particular cases. If you are proposing a moral and ethical issue, we can't know from the sourced information what really did transpire in the lead up to these cases: perhaps the cities sought out private lawyers as their best option for recovering costs they believe are the responsibility of the defendant. Again, we aren't here to take personal stances and use content to right perceived wrongs, which is what this unclear objection appears at this point to be. --Tsavage (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

i wasn't making an argument for exclusion; i was working out the whole story, which WP should tell. you mention the part of the NYT article about " big industries have found natural allies in Republican attorneys general to combat federal regulations" - how is that part relevant to these lawsuits in particular? as for the second paragraph, i very much mentioned "tight budgets". Jytdog (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"In 2012, the San Diego Regional Water Control Board found the city and port responsible for pollution of San Diego Bay, namely in what has become known as the Shipyards Sediment Site. In 2014, the City of San Diego agreed to pay $949,634 in fines for permitting the dumping of hazardous chemicals into the bay. The city also allocated $6.45 million to clean the Shipyards Sediment Site. The fine and the remediation amount resulted in several lawsuits brought by the port and city against shipbuilding giants BAE and NASSCO."

How did these two lawsuits go? and do we know the law firms? I'm finding this a little more interesting now. Part of an ongoing story, as opposed to the misleading impressions of the media releases. --Pete (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) Skyring/Pete: So do you find the cases noteworthy now, or does "a little more interesting ... Part of an ongoing story" still not meet your inclusion standards?

Jytdog: "i wasn't making an argument for exclusion; i was working out the whole story, which WP should tell." Understood. So I take it that you now find the cases noteworthy? If so, I for one look forward to the expanded version of the coverage that you'll be proposing. You can add that Monsanto filed for dismissal a few days ago: "Monsanto Says It Never Dumped PCBs Into San Diego Bay]."

@Jytdog:: As an update, I had missed, and just read, your earlier recent comment, "I think we should include content about the San Diego suit", and the amendment to your vote. It's good that you have arrived at recognizing that the sources do provide substance (which is what I assumed secondary sources are expected to do). It appears that Skyring/Pete has now come to a similar revised conclusion.

As a note intended to be nothing but helpful, IMO the editing environment around here could be dramatically improved if we all concentrated more directly and rigorously on vetting content and sources on a case-by-case basis (reading all the sources, looking for others, attempting to argue to oneself the point from the opposing view), and avoided framing things in terms of editor motivation, which generally ratchets up the noise level tremendously, needlessly antagonizing editors and putting them on the defensive - I note that you and the two other opposers all explicitly cited WP:ADVOCACY motives on the part of another/other editor(s) in your original vote comments, when as it turns out, this seems to be have been a straightforward matter of thoroughly examining and discussing sources (and I imagine there is policy for this suggestion somewhere). --Tsavage (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of being ungenerous, the case facts mentioned in the previous "whole story" comments, with the exception (I think) of the contingency fee arrangement, is available in the sources that opposing editors have so far been rejecting. --Tsavage (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the previous lawsuit. This connection makes it an ongoing story, rather than the blank page others have been insisting is notable. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. What I'm hearing here is editor after editor lining up to say that WP:reliable sources are supporting SageRad's brave edits, while there are repeated attempts of a small number of editors, well known to those editing chemistry /agribusiness pages, thwarting his insertion against consensus. It is more than ironic, that a page with the explicit title legal cases is strangled by jytdog, kingofaces and pete's argument that only completed cases can be mentioned. I am coming here late, since I didnt know about this page, as I edit "primary" pages (PCB's, neonics, glyphosate etc) versus these offshoot pages, which appear perfect to isolate, divide and conquer criticism. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Speaking of jumbled and hard to follow… Wuerzele, you've got the wrong end of the stick entirely. Nobody is arguing that only completed cases may be included. We're looking for significance, and the main argument for inclusion seems to be that this just-filed lawsuit is significant before a word is herd in evidence. Why? Because why, it is reliably sourced. So how does that make it significant? Um. We don't count noses to determine consensus, and we're a fair way from consensus, but you can help, if you can show that these lawsuits are significant in some fashion beyond any confected argument. Do you have anything new to bring to the table? --Pete (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Arguments based on policies and essays mentioned in RfC

Looking back over the discussion, I see many wikipolicies mentioned. Here are links to and brief summaries of each policy as it relates to the RfC:

• Reliable sourcing
  • No doubt that the case filings have been reported in reliable sources. However, these mentions extend only to the bare facts of the lodgement and the media statements from each party. No stories cover proceedings or outcomes (presumably these have not yet occurred.)

• Recentism
  • "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention…"
  • The Seattle stories are dated 4 August 2015, and the San Diego story 20 August 2015.[

• Wikipedia is not a newspaper
  • "… most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
  • Many newspapers have a "Law List" section where cases filed or heard in local courts are mentioned. Media coverage of these cases looks to be a step up from such routine mentions, but only to the extent that the facts of filing are "fleshed out" with extracts from the media statements from both sides, and there seem to be no follow-up media stories to show that this is an ongoing story, rather than a one-off event.

• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
  • This article does not contain an entry for every single lawsuit filed by or against Monsanto. The verifiable fact of a lawsuit's filing, as reported in reliable sources, is not sufficient to gain inclusion here.

• Undue weight
  • "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
  • While we can balance any mention, giving consideration to the published views of both sides, are these two cases as significant to the article as the others included, where outcomes have been recorded and significant reference-type sources are easily found?

• Wikipedia does not predict the future.
  • "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."
  • The cases have been filed, but not heard or determined. If Monsanto were forced to pay for the city cleanups, then that would be worth including in this article. But we cannot write about this future event as if it had already occurred because it may not, this being the nature of court hearings; the outcome is not predetermined.

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.
  • This article should not be used as a vehicle to attack its subject. This includes flinging mud in the hope that some will stick.

• Advocacy
  • The personal beliefs and agendas of editors involved in discussion is relevant here. Examination of the contributions of some editors reveals one-sided views. Editors are permitted to hold their own opinions and positions, but Wikipedia is not their personal megaphone.

I have couched these in as neutral a tone as possible, for the benefit of fellow editors. --Pete (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recentism is an essay and does not dictate content. As above, in my view, these guidelines and policies do not support the exclusion of this referenced content. Reasons have been given above by multiple editors.Dialectric (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And in my view, these policies and guidelines support the exclusion, at least for the time being, of the referenced content. Reasons have been given above by multiple editors. I say this to balance out your misleading comment. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I see some non-neutral content in the presentation of this list, for it seems to be made with an agenda to oppose the inclusion. I concur with Dialectric that all the policies and guidelines mentioned have been responded to in the above dialogues, adequately in my judgment. One more detail on the reference to WP:CRYSTALBALL -- that might be a valid point if only one outcome of the case (such as a victory by the plaintiffs) would be significant, but in reality, any outcome will be significant, so there is no prediction needed to know that it will pass the "Will it be relevant in 10 years?" question that is posed by WP:RECENTISM. Skyring/Pete, you yourself just added a reference here to a case that Monsanto won, and you seem to deem it significant by leaving it in the article and expanding it. Wouldn't you also find these lawsuits in question to be significant, whether the outcome favors the plaintiffs or the defendants? SageRad (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, SageRad. We've pretty much discussed the thing all round and there is a division of opinion, to be sure. Perhaps those who are one-eyed on the topic cannot see the merits of opposing arguments. On WP:CRYSTALBALL, there are many possible paths. It is not a binary black/white matter, and we cannot know ahead of time whether there will be a clear decision, the cases will be tossed out, appealed, or left to simmer for years. Maybe all of the above. You wanna guess? You wanna second-guess the judge(s) and juries? --Pete (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there's much of a valid division of opinion. I can see the other arguments, i hear them, and i do not agree with them. It's not from failure to hear. You did not address my point that you had just edited a case that ended in favor of Monsanto. To answer your question, no, i do not want to guess, or to second-guess the judge, and my point remains that the case appears to be significant to me, in its filing alone, as well as in whatever results from it. I'm done talking in circles here. SageRad (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry? There's a clear division of opinion. You can't just discount the views of other people just because you don't happen to share them. I don't agree with your position, repeatedly expressed here, but nor do I say it doesn't exist and you therefore agree with me. That would be ridiculous! --Pete (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. Offending sentence stricken. Everyone decides for themselves, based on the dialogue. That is the nature of our consensus process. Thank you for keeping me in bounds. SageRad (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Particularly for new editors and editors unfamiliar with the intricacies of discussion involving Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this section is misleadingly titled and framed as about "Policies," when in fact it is, so far, a list of policies and essays. Since we are being intensely detailed in this discussion of PCB lawsuits, we should take particular care to be reasonably accurate and meticulous as well, in order to avoid unnecessary confusion.

To that end, an example under the mention of the RECENTISM essay, noting that the San Diego source is dated 20-Aug-2015, is misleading, as the case was filed and reported on six months earlier, in Mar-2015. If the intention is to illustrate an editor interpretation of RECENTISM to mean close proximity of occurrence date to content inclusion date, the example should be accurate to avoid confusion. --Tsavage (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Pete, I think this would be more relevant as a subsection at the end of the RfC. Would you mind if I moved it and retitled it "Policies and guidance essays mentioned in RfC"? You're welcome to do the same if you want. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Done --Pete (talk)

Looks good as of this post. If it isn't apparent already, all discussion prior to this post were under the previous section heading of Policies mentioned in RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary of press coverage of PCB lawsuits

Over the course of these discussions, several editors have alleged that the press coverage of the PCB lawsuits was essentially a "flash in the pan." These editors have argued that press coverage occurred over a limited period of time and that coverage has not been "in depth." To show that this is not the case, here is a partial timeline of press coverage of the PCB lawsuits. This timeline shows that press coverage has occurred over a significant period of time and that the coverage has been "in-depth:"

• On March 16, the San Diego Reader published an article discussing the filing of the San Diego lawsuit.
• On March 17, an article in the St. Louis Business Journal reported that San Diego had filed suit against Monsanto.
• On March 17, Global Research published an article discussing the San Diego suit and impacts of PCBs on the environment.
• On March 25, an article by Thinkprogress explained why the San Diego Lawsuit is different from earlier Superfund litigation.
• On July 9, Reuters published a press release about the San Jose lawsuit.
• On August 3, the ABA Journal published an article discussing the Spokane lawsuit.
• On August 3, an article in the Spokesman-Review (Spokane's local newspaper) reported on the filing of the suit and featured a discussion of impacts of PCB pollution on the city. The article also quoted representatives from Monsanto and the city.
• On August 3, the Washington Times also reported on the filing of the Spokane suit.
• On August 4, Reuters also published an article reporting that Spokane had filed a lawsuit.
• On August 5, Spokane's CBS affiliate reported on the filing of the lawsuit; this story also includes an interview with Spokane's mayor.
• On August 6, San Jose Inside ran an article in which they interviewed a Monsanto spokesperson about the San Jose lawsuit.
• On August 17, Investigate Midwest published an article in which they compare the Spokane and San Jose lawsuits.
• On August 21, San Diego's NBC affiliate ran a story in which they interviewed local groups about the impact of PCB contamination and mapped out documented PCB contamination along the San Diego coastline.
• On September 2, an article in Law360 (subscription or registration required) reported on Monsanto's defense in the San Diego lawsuit.

The stories listed above are only a partial list of the articles and reports that have been published about these cases. These articles include interviews with municipal representatives (including Spokane's mayor), attorneys, local citizens, environmental groups, and Monsanto's representatives. The articles compare the suits, the articles discuss why the suits are unique or different from previous suits, and the articles explain the broader impacts of PCB pollution on local communities. Hopefully, this list can serve as a useful guide for any future discussion, and I hope editors will recognize that press coverage has been both widespread and in-depth. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nobody is saying there are no reliable sources. That has been a given from the first. We are talking about the significance.
• None of the above is "in-depth analysis". Interviews with local citizens and mentions of the other lawsuit do not make for detailed analysis. The most in-depth mention is the note that San Diego's "public nuisance" ambit is different from Spokane's. The follow-up article there is essentially a rebuttal from Monsanto when they filed for dismissal.
• The vast majority of these stories are essentially identical: quotes and summaries of the city's media release, followed by quotes and summaries of Monsanto's response.
• Neither of the cases have been heard in court, neither have submitted evidence or seen cross-examination, and neither have reached any sort of conclusion.
• There has been zero impact in the real world. All we are seeing is public relations fluff, and speculation. These lawsuits have not achieved anything worth mentioning. Yet. All we have to do is wait, and there will be no dispute about whether they are notable or not. --Pete (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You are a harsh critic, my friend. What more would you want than interviews with high ranking municipal officials, interviews with citizens and groups affected by the suit, discussion of the broader impacts of the litigation, and comprehensive analysis of existing PCB contamination in the cities that are suing? These stories include all of those things, and more. I also still don't understand why you think that the act of filing a lawsuit is not an "impact in the real world." Clearly these news sources think the act of filing a lawsuit is "worth mentioning," discussing, analyzing, and investigating.

Although WP:NOTNEWS cautions against including "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", the policy also states that "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage". This coverage is hardly "routine." Furthermore, if you concede that these are reliable sources, then exclusion of this information likely violates WP:WEIGHT, which states that editors should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Complete exclusion of this information is not fair representation. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You say "groups affected by the suit". I think that you really mean "groups affected by PCB contamination", which is a different kettle of worms entirely. The bearded fishy guy on the NBC story doesn't mention Monsanto or the lawsuit at all, for example. This isn't an article dealing with PCB contamination. You do understand that?

So a lot of the "in-depth" coverage you claim isn't about Monsanto or the lawsuit at all. It's about PCBs. There's no real detailed examination of the legal cases at all beyond the news that San Diego is trying the "public nuisance" gambit rather than environmental law.

On that, while I'm no great expert on the weird and wonderful world of Californian law, it seems very odd to me. If (say) a drunk commits a public nuisance by being offensive and obstreperous, does one sue him for the clean up costs, or do you enquire as to whether it was Miller or Budweiser he'd consumed and sue the relevant brewery? Informed legal opinion on the merits of the cases would earn the articles a place as sources here, but merely talking about the evils of PCBs and the water quality of harbours and rivers is irrelevant to the suit itself.

Moving to your new WP:NPOV issue, you say that we should represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and of course in these lawsuits we have two viewpoints: that of the cities filing the cases, and that of Monsanto. But that doesn't mean that we must include in Wikipedia every media report of a story that has two or more viewpoints, does it? Otherwise we'd find significant coverage of that house in Maxworthy Street, Kambah, which stirred up so much community opposition. And - I've checked - we do not. Not even in the Kambah article, where it is surely the most significant news event to ever occur in that tranquil township. --Pete (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring: these are some interesting ideas, but your arguments don't address the points I made above:

• You are creating a false dichotomy between (1) people affected by the suit and (2) people affected by PCB contamination. Those groups are coextensive with each other. In the lawsuits, the cities allege Monsanto "concealing the hazards associated with PCBs". In the news articles, local citizens discuss how these PCBs (which are alleged in the suit to be caused by Monsanto) have affected their lives. A news story about a lawsuit does not need to discuss legal arguments in-depth. Rather, the stories can offer in-depth analysis of acts or omissions that ultimately led to the filing of the suit.
• You argue that "[i]nformed legal opinion on the merits of the cases would earn the articles a place as sources," but I have found no basis for this claim in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Per WP:SIGCOV, coverage is "significant" if it "addresses the topic directly and in detail." Here, these stories explore, directly and in detail, the alleged PCB contamination that led to the filing of these lawsuits. Nor is a discussion of legal argument relevant to reports of the fact that these cities have filed lawsuits. For example, a reporter writing a story about Spokane suing Monsanto isn't going to go into depth about whether Monsanto controlled an instrumentality that functioned as a point source under section 301, et seq. of the CWA or whether the area that was contaminated falls under the jurisdiction of the CWA under the Rapanos doctrine. Instead, the reporter is going to explain the events that led to the filing of the suit in the first place. This does not mean, however, that these kinds of stories are not significant coverage.
• You are correct that Wikipedia does not include routine news stories, like the story about the house on Maxsworthy Street (mentioned above). As we have discussed, ad nauseum, WP:NOTNEWS keeps out routine news stories (like the story of the house you mention above). However, news stories about federal lawsuits involving toxic torts at this large of a scale are not routine by any means, and they are therefore distinguishable from your example. I brought up WP:NPOV in my earlier comments because I was happy to see that you agreed that these stories are reliably sourced, and per Wikipedia policy, we run into problems of neutrality if we do not give fair representation to well-sourced information about significant events that are germane to this articles' scope.
• Indeed, if we include only a partial or incomplete list of legal cases in this article, then we will mislead casual readers who may think that the missing cases may be unimportant (see WP:WEIGHT and WP:NLISTITEM). That is why we should follow WP:NPOV and include this well-sourced information about significant litigation affecting millions of citizens in several major metropolitan areas.

Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You say, "…these stories explore, directly and in detail, the alleged PCB contamination that led to the filing of these lawsuits." Indeed. But that's a topic for a different article. This is an article about legal cases involving Monsanto. It is not an article about PCB contamination. If someone is interviewed about contaminated water, but they don't mention Monsanto or a lawsuit, it is a very long stretch to say that this constitutes in depth coverage of the lawsuit.

Incidentally, there's no "alleged" about the PCB contamination. All sides seem to accept this and it is non-controversial. The issue is Monsanto's responsibility, and if someone states that the water is polluted but doesn't mention Monsanto at all, they aren't addressing the issue.

WP:NPOV indeed says we should cover all significant sides to a story. That doesn't mean that where there are multiple sides to a story the story itself is automatically significant. That's false logic. --Pete (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think the interviews aren't about Monsanto. The newspapers/television stations are using the interviews to illustrate the nature of the problem that led to the litigation. I'm not sure how you claim that the content of the NBC story is not about Monsanto when the title of the story is "City of San Diego Sues Monsanto Over PCB Pollution". You have to read the quotations in the context of the subject of the story. Furthermore, you are making a straw man out of my WP:NPOV argument. I am saying that these stories are significant and reliably-sourced, and selective inclusion of reliably sourced significant lawsuits gives the false impression that the lawsuits not included in this article are not important. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I gave the example of Travis Pritchard of the San Diego CoastKeeper group, interviewed on NBC. In his interview, he does not mention Monsanto or the lawsuit. Yet you are claiming this and similar interviews are "in-depth" coverage of the lawsuit itself. Seems to me that you are confusing the lawsuit with the subject of the lawsuit.

You miss my point about NPOV, but you are now saying that these stories are significant and reliably-sourced and selective inclusion (I assume you mean exclusion) of such stories gives the impression that they are not important. But that's merely your opinion – that these cases are significant – and we've already been down this circular path before. I've asked you before to explain why you think the lawsuits are significant, but somehow we never end up with a clear answer. --Pete (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring, you are making a strange distinction between the content of an article/story and the interviews included in those stories. To asses depth of coverage, you have to look at the article as a whole, not the interviews inside the article. To illustrate this point, if you look at a prominent biography of Abraham Lincoln, you will find many quotations about the political climate in Kansas and Nebraska in the mid-nineteenth century (see pp. 186-92). Even though those quotations do not mention Lincoln, that does not mean the source as a whole does not provide significant coverage of Lincoln. As for your second point about why the coverage is significant, I have always followed the definition of WP:SIGCOV, which states that coverage is "significant" if it "addresses the topic directly and in detail." Here, these sources discuss the lawsuits directly and in detail because they analyze the parties' claims, the acts/omissions that led to the lawsuits, and impacts on local communities. Therefore, coverage is significant. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No. These articles are mostly talking about PCBs, rather than the lawsuits. But perhaps you could help me out. Could you give an example of what you claim is in-depth coverage? Where, for example, are the parties' claims analysed? --Pete (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Many of the articles give an in-depth explanation for why these cities decided to file these suits. Specifically, these stories explain the significance of the problem that ultimately led to the filing of the complaints. In the complaints in the Spokane, San Jose, and San Diego suits, all three cities make factual allegations about the nature of PCB contamination and Monsanto's role in causing the contamination. The articles I cited above evaluate the factual claims in the complaints. For example, the article from the Spokesman Review and the San Jose Inside article spend several paragraphs discussing Monsanto's role in producing PCBs in the area (a central premise of the claims). You may also be interested in this article that discusses how San Jose followed San Diego's lead in using the public nuisance theory. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: "Moving to your new WP:NPOV issue" This is not new, it has from the start been the central policy under consideration in this RfC. Your interpretation of the policy use of "viewpoints" to mean the individual views of the plaintiffs and defendants is not an accurate way to describe lawsuits in this context, lawsuits are first not a collection of viewpoints, they have a legally defined and describable existence: plaintiff, defendant, issue. For us to consider the individual arguments of the parties, over and above what is presented in sources, would be essentially arguing the case ourselves. We have legal existence and secondary source coverage, which is all we can go on.

Consider that presenting "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" is the practical and summary (first sentence) definition of WP:NPOV, one of our three cornerstone policies. The reasonable, common sense reading of "significant views" for this situation would be the significant legal cases under the topic, Monsanto legal cases, not the individual positions of all of the parties in all of the legal cases in the article.

After that fact, NPOV concerns with WP:WEIGHT (not presenting an item in a way that its importance relative to other items in an article or topic is likely to be misperceived) are treated in how the item is presented - detail and wording - not by exclusion. It is my understanding that we do not exclude content that is verifiable and noteworthy (significant lawsuits by virtue of plaintiffs, defendant, and issue), for WEIGHT issues.

In that same vein, your distinction between what is PCB coverage and what is lawsuit coverage as a content issue is not relevant at this point, because we are only discussing the nature of the sources and the level of coverage they provide. How the content is worded, and what detail is included, is a separate issue, as this RfC is focused on inclusion vs exclusion, and a simple mention, not WEIGHT within the article. --Tsavage (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that the only viewpoint that matters is that of the plaintiffs, and that if we exclude their views, we are not providing a full coverage. I say that if we exclude both views, then there is no NPOV problem. The cases are not significant because there has been no real-world impact of the just-filed and unexamined cases. If you want to say instead that there has been a real-world impact of PCBs, then fine, no dispute there, talk about PCBs in an appropriate article, but this article isn't about PCB pollution, it's about lawsuits. --Pete (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) Skyring/Pete: "So you are saying that the only viewpoint that matters is that of the plaintiffs" No, I'm saying that describning a pending lawsuit is not equivalent to the gratuitous promotion a plaintiff's view. A lawsuit exists with a basic description of the plaintiff, the defendant, and the issue. If there is concern that, by describing a lawsuit before there is a decision, some type of collateral damage may be inflicted by allowing people to hear unproven charges, in Wikipedia, we deal with that by relying on reliable secondary sources. That's why the gut microbiota lawsuit, recently discussed here, was not included, the secondary sources were determined to be insufficiently reliable, after some debate (and our process worked, the item has not been included, even though only a relatively few editors were involved in commenting on the sources - a federal case wasn't made out of that issue). Here, on the other hand, we have multiple reliable sources that we've all agreed on, so Wikipedia is not promoting anything, only recording what has been reliably established. Regardless of outcome, even if the cases are dismissed, the established noteworthiness of their existence remains.

"The cases are not significant because there has been no real-world impact of the just-filed and unexamined cases." No, there is considerable real-world impact. A couple of articles from the reputable magazine, The Atlantic, may alter your opinion. First, a comment on impact from "Federal Judges Are, in Fact, 'Job Creators'" (the context here is when cases are delayed):

"So what happens to many of these cases when our benches remain empty? They languish in limbo and the litigants have to live with the financial uncertainty that pending litigation brings. If you are sued for a million dollars, for example, you might choose not to invest that million dollars in a new store, or in hiring new employees, until the lawsuit is over. And if you are suing for money, you aren't likely to spend it until you get it. What federal trial judges do for these litigants, therefore, isn't just to pick a winner and a loser in a particular. The court system provides the oil that helps run the machinery of commerce."

Obviously, the very fact of a lawsuit has an impact. For example, taxpayers and their municipal governments, facing millions of dollars in clean-up costs that could go on for years, may well be concerned about tax hikes and municipal budgets, which in turn could affect a range of real world decisions, based only on the existence of the case. And so on. In a situation like this, it is not our job to judge what impact things may have and determine content based on that alone, that is the fundamental point of NOR, NPOV and verifiability, and why we rely on sources for analysis.

Also of interest from The Atlantic, "The Year Ahead in Court Battles," a 2014 article that surveys pending litigation in the US that is likely to have a major impact on many areas, including voting, women's rights, privacy, finance, and so forth. Pending litigation has a real world impact, that influences decisions in every area and at every level of society. --Tsavage (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

So where is the NPOV issue? I'm just not seeing it. If we include a balanced coverage of a case, there is no POV problem. Likewise if we leave out a case entirely, there is no POV problem.

Neither of The Atlantic articles mention these cases, let alone Monsanto. Are you building up some sort of confected argument to say that these unmentioned cases are significant?

"For example, taxpayers and their municipal governments, facing millions of dollars in clean-up costs that could go on for years, may well be concerned about tax hikes and municipal budgets, which in turn could affect a range of real world decisions, based only on the existence of the case. And so on. In a situation like this, it is not our job to judge what impact things may have…" I'm guessing you don't appreciate the irony of your statement. The thing is, we can't WP:CRYSTALBALL significance in the future if none exists now. So where is the significance of these cases that we are in such a hurry to include them here before a word is heard in evidence, let alone a judgement made? --Pete (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring, there is a very real significance to the filing of the lawsuit -- a significance that exists now. What is the harm in including one short sentence that says "in 2015, several major American municipalities filed suits against Monsanto, in which they alleged Monsanto is liable for PCB contamination." There is no dispute that the suits have been filed. The filing of the lawsuits, the claims, the issues, and acts/omissions leading to the suit have received significant press coverage. If the suits are later dismissed, we can add a sentence later that says "in 2016, these suits were dismissed." However, a one sentence statement that suits have been filed makes no claims about future significance. It only describes well-documented events that have occurred in the past. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

So the significance of these cases is that they have been filed. Just like someone buying a lottery ticket. The plaintiff and the ticket buyer are both feeling that their actions are significant, because there's a chance of millions arriving on their doorstep. But the acts, not in themselves significant, any more than the other two million cases filed in US federal courts each year, or the milions of lottery tickets sold. As I say, what's the hurry? Why not wait until we have something more than dreams of sudden wealth to report? --Pete (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: "So the significance of these cases is that they have been filed." I don't agree, the significance is in the nature of the cases, as described in reliable sources. Filing has nothing to do with noteworthiness, I'm surprised you'd suggest that. --Tsavage (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Finally. Could you provide a quote from one of the sources saying they are significant, please? --Pete (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we can infer significance from the fact that these cities have taken steps to remedy an ecological hazard that impacts millions of people and will cost tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up. For example, Spokane estimates that "the city will spend $300 million to keep PCBs and other pollutants from entering the river in coming years". Yes, I know the figure is speculative and likely inflated, but it still demonstrates that these are neither "run of the mill" nor "routine" lawsuits by any means. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course we can infer significance, but it themn becomes a synthetic argument we can't use. We really need someone who isn't an editor saying a suit is significant. --Pete (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: You are hanging on to arguments that defy common sense and well-established Wikipedia practice, by ignoring replies. This was clearly addressed, in reply to you, a WEEK ago, by other editors:

• "News reports don't typically read, "This is important because..." but rather tell their stories in factual tones. It's up to readers to assign importance to the elements of news stories. The very fact of their appearance in a news source shows that the news source deems them important enough to print. And here we have several very robust and reliable news sources reporting on these cases."
• "These suits have substantial, non-incidental coverage in reliable mainstream sources."
• "what do you expect to find in the news articles about this, a sentence that states "This lawsuit is significant"? No, the appearance of the reporting itself is the signal that the lawsuit is significant in the estimation of the publisher of the report."

That multiple reliable sources have covered these cases as the subject of full articles is our indication that the cases are significant. These sources cover only a tiny fraction of the millions of pending US lawsuits; by covering these cases, they serve as the filter we rely on secondary sources to provide, and significance is thereby established. --Tsavage (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

And, as is plainly evident to the meanest understanding, there are vast numbers of news stories published in reliable sources that never make it into Wikipedia. Just being published is not enough. So what is it that makes these lawsuits significant? Not your own opinion, not the PCB contamination, but something about the lawsuit(s) themselves? --Pete (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: Yes, "just being published" in reliable, independent sources AND fitting the scope of an article, is enough. Multiple Monsanto legal cases covered in multiple reliable sources, in an article about Monsanto legal cases, is enough. Whether anything that you find interesting has occurred in the cases so far is in this case neither important nor relevant. --Tsavage (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

…and here we are back at WP:NOTNEWS once again. Why do you even bother to trudge around the circle? Can't you come up with something new? --Pete (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No one has commented on this rfc in 5 days; should we request that an admin close?Dialectric (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, Dialectric. How does one do that? SageRad (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't requested an rfc close before, but the page is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. If someone else wants to write a neutral post there on this rfc, please do so. Otherwise, I should have time in 2 days or so.Dialectric (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggested a close per WP:SNOW nearly two weeks ago. Not one editor has joined the three objectors in that time. Consensus seems clear, as does the weight of the arguments. The RfC's length is excessive, and we need to move forward. Jusdafax 08:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, i put in a request for review by an outside editor, and closure. I think we need outside eyes to resolve this as it's clearly too contentious here. SageRad (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Monsanto found not liable for PCB injuries in St Louis

I added the reference to the recent St Louis case because it was verified by reliable sources, as a nation-wide class action appealled to multiple courts it seemed significant, and it looks to be setting some sort of precedent. Most importantly, it had a result. --Pete (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: Your two-sentence St. Louis entry calls into question much of what you have been arguing here about the substantial information available only from a completed trial. You include barely any detail. For example:

• "not liable for deaths and injuries caused by PCBs" is the entirety of the trial detail included (omitting much information from the cited sources, like, "The lawsuit ... sought relief for plaintiffs who developed lymphohematopoietic cancer after being exposed to PCBs ... made by Monsanto," citing negligence in the production and marketing of PCBs
• the only other description of the proceedings is the duration of the trial and deliberation - why is the timing the only other critical detail?
• Why did the jury find for the defendant? (It's there in the sources.)
• You fail to clarify why "Monsanto, Solutia, Pharmacia and Pfizer " were sued, when it was Monsanto that made the PCBs, and the title of the post-trial source article is "Monsanto prevails in PCB lawsuit" (that explanation is in the sources)

There are also factual and verification errors:

• You call it a "St. Louis court," while the sources refer exclusively to St. Louis County, are they the same? (In fact, St. Louis, the city, is not in St. Louis County.)
• You say that Monsanto manufactured PCBs until 1977; the sources say 1977 is "according to the lawsuit," which isn't the best source for that unattributed statement.

And here you comment that "it looks to be setting some sort of precedent," while the one post-trial source (the other source is a pre-trial article) says, "It’s unclear what impact, if any, this ruling will have on other pending litigation involving Monsanto and its PCB history."

All this poorly executed addition seems to support is that you think trials should be mentioned only when they are completed, and that you're trying to make a quick point with regard to the current discussion. --Tsavage (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the observation from Tsavage.prokaryotes (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I spotted the case early this morning, put in a brief mention with a couple of sources. Looked good as a starter for more detail when I had time. I've been doing other stuff today. Life intrudes, y'know? Feel free to add more detail, it's not as if I have any ownership of the thing. --Pete (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: The point is, per your extensive comments here about item quality and selection, what criteria did you use to select this item from all other less noteworthy Monsanto cases, as the information you included dies not indicate anything but the fact that it's Monsanto and there are sources? --Tsavage (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the sources, buddy. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise? Geez. --Pete (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You've unilaterally included content, I am asking what are your grounds for noteworthiness? There have been many lawsuits against Monsanto, including class action suits, what makes this one stand out? From your entry, there is nothing outstanding, except that there was a case looking for damages from PCB-related death or injury, and the defendants won. Nothing special there, PCB cases happened decades ago. The article already notes that "Monsanto faced several lawsuits over harm caused by PCBs" in the 1990s, and treats them colletively, without detail. I'm curious as to why this one case gets specifically covered, but doesn't get more detailed coverage per the sources. I am asking of you what you've asked of others.

And yes, I am seriously asking (unless all of your argument about cities lawsuits was...just a joke). You've spent a lot of editors' time trying to establish criteria for lawsuit selection, I am probing it in light of your own content choices. "Buddy" is pretty weak. --Tsavage (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)--Tsavage (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As indicated above, I looked at the sources, checked that they were reliable, noted that the trial had had a month of proceedings (given the American legal system, that's some serious money being spent by both sides, so it's more than just the buck fifty it costs to file a case), and that an outcome had been arrived at. I don't care about spinning this to follow any particular agenda, so if anyone wants to add more to the case about PCBs and their health risks, that's fine. On the con side, there's not a great number of good sources. It's basically one St Louis media outlet and a few bloggy/fringey/ratbag sites. Some of the latter, I notice with amusement, make much of the case being launched but not so much said about the outcome. --Pete (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Tsavage has made some excellent points, Pete. It increasingly appears to me that your methodology in editing this article is questionable. As Tsavage notes, you seem to want it both ways. I strongly object. Jusdafax 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Your perception is incorrect. In the St Louis case we have some facts to report. In the just-filed cases, all we can do is quote or paraphrase the PR puffery. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be any problem with the content. The lawsuit was completed and the decision was described by secondary sources. That appears to meet the criteria we've been discussing all along for what meets due weight in this article. It's a minimal case that just meets expectations from my perspective, but it's noteworthiness is much more established than previous cases recently discussed here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage pointed out one clear, if minor problem with the content - the St. Louis vs. St Louis county issue. Are you suggesting Tsavage is incorrect about the distinction? While the addition of this case to the article was somewhat WP:POINTy given the ongoing rfc on similar lawsuits, I don't see anyone suggesting that this lawsuit be removed entirely. I support the inclusion as it is covered by multiple reliable sources, just as I support the inclusion of the recently filed cases which are covered by multiple reliable sources.Dialectric (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I made no comment on Tsavage's points, just that it the case would meet the bar for inclusion here, nothing more. That being said, I changed the content to include county as anyone would have been able to do. I have a preference for keeping things short, so I like the concise statement (though the length of the trial isn't absolutely needed). Either way, I think we're ok as is, but that means anyone else welcome to suggest improvements according to the source if they want. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: In a recent discussion here, you said, "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."

In a nutshell, that is what Jytdog, Skyring/Pete, and you are arguing here, yet the view of several editors in the current cities/PCB RfC does not seem to support that position. Also, as I illustrated earlier, both in Wikipedia and in reputable media, reporting on pending litigation, from the point of filing onward, is quite common. On what are you basing that our standard practice is to exclude lawsuits that have not been decided (ignoring the fact that this article already contains detailed coverage of one such pending case, for no outstanding reason other than that it is within the scope of the article)?

In addition, in this St. Louis County example, how did the decision affect assessment of due weight? In the article, it seems wins, losses, dismissals and settlements, with Monsanto as plaintiff and as defendant, are all covered similarly, reliable sourcing seems to be the only evident inclusion criterion. --Tsavage (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like one of those made-up rules that are used to keep unwanted information out of an article. To file a class action lawsuit against a major corporation is certainly notable and deserves mention, and most certainly in this article which is particularly for legal actions. Gandydancer (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Trying to assume you aren't talking about editor POV issues, I'm not sure what you mean by "unwanted" related to content. In this case, we have a completed case with a noteworthy finding according to sources that meets weight requirements as opposed to a broad rejection of the suit without any specific findings that wouldn't lead to inclusion here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you're going off on a tangent here Tsavage. Discussing the content at hand, please remember the policy WP:NPOV, namely WP:WEIGHT. Reliable sourcing is only the first criteria for inclusion in an article. In this specific piece of content, the findings of the court and the reporting of them together are what satisfy both WP:RS and WEIGHT. Beyond that, it's not apparent you have a specific content issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: If you're commenting here solely in support of including/keeping the St. Louis County item, you are the one on a tangent - this section is discussing Skyring/Pete's criteria for inclusion. No-one is trying to remove the content. I assumed your joining in, and that fact that you take the same position as S/R (confirmed by your recent quote), that a lawsuit requires an outcome to be noteworthy, meant that you were open to discussing the same, so I directed questions at you. If you don't wish to reply, that's obviously up to you! --Tsavage (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm following policy for article talk pages by focusing on the content at hand. If you wish to have more of a meta-discussion not related to specific content with someone, please take that elsewhere such as a user talk page so this specific section can be wrapped up. If you do have content you want to change, than please say so. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monsanto legal cases article." The discussion here is squarely focused on content improvement, concerning how one piece of content's selection criteria relates to a current RfC. Editors have engaged civilly. If you choose not to participate, fine, no need to chide others or try to impose your view of how discussion should be conducted. You cite WP:FOC, which says, "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor." The focus is cn content, please don't try to spin it elsewhere. --Tsavage (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The focus isn't related to content improvements suggested in this section. It makes encyclopedia building difficult when a discussion is opened on specific content, the content is resolved, but tangential conversation continues unrelated to any ongoing issue with the content. That is usually the time to simply close the conversation. Please either take the meta-discussion to the current RfC discussion if relevant to a certain point, or open a new section (on a user talk page if you are primarily interested in Pete's views as you indicate) to keep this section streamlined to show the content itself is resolved. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:37, 2 September 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)

Premature edit action

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

Blogs and sources

With this edit, Gandydancer started off a restructuring. The content doesn't look controversial, but I'm wondering about the sources. We have the SEC (a primary source) and Climate Progress (a blog). Primary sources are discouraged, and blogs likewise. Do we not have anything better? I've added a "citation needed" template here. --Pete (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:LAW, primary sources are perfectly acceptable (and indeed, more accurate). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring, unless you want me to file an edit warring case, I suggest you restore this material until this discussion concludes. Removal of reliable sources without prior discussion is not acceptable, and the SEC is certainly a reliable source. Per BRD, you've made a change and it has been reverted. It is now on you to discuss why that change is justified. Dialectric (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? Gandydancer made a bold edit, and I reverted a part of it. We are now discussing that. You began an edit war, and your next reversion will be your third. --Pete (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: Seems you've already broken the 3RR rule, crossed the bright line, as it were: [7], [8], [9]. WP:BRD is an essay that suggests a particular editing approach; I don't think it gives you a free revert as far as 3RR (correct me if I'm wrong; as with most of these distasteful-to-me wikilaw details, I'm just learning). --Tsavage (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

3RR and BRD are two different things. You should read up on both and see how they work. I'm happy with my following of both here. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto's restructuring isn't the sort of obscure legal fact that needs us to ferret around in primary sources. I'm sure it has been covered in depth elsewhere. Monsanto, for example. --Pete (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to "ferret" through anything. The SEC disclosure includes the quoted material in the second paragraph. Nor is there any need to find a secondary source when we have perfectly reliable primary source (in case you are unaware, the SEC's form 8-K is the form "companies must file with the SEC to announce major events that shareholders should know about"). Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines state that "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" is disruptive editing (see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS). --

The comment above is mine. As you can see, I neglected to add a signature. I think I left the comment at approximately 20:50 UTC. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It sure does look like an edit war going on. SageRad (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: "primary sources are discouraged" - Not true, they are perfectly acceptable when used appropriately, and at times seem the best choice for easy verifiability. Wikipedia's primary source policy (WP:PRIMARY) is quite clear: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Quoting from a primary source, as is the case here, seems to be ideal. --Tsavage (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources are indeed discouraged. Please don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. We can both read WP:PRIMARY, and I'm not as big a fool as you seem to think:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

I've replaced the primary source with the secondary source – the New York Times – we use in the Monsanto article. That should be fine for everyone. Now about the other content. Do we have anything better than a blog? --Pete (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: You are selectively quoting the policy to give the impression of support for your incorrect claim. The actual policy statement in that section reads (emphasis per source):

"Policy:' Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." - WP:ANALYSIS

The reason for "should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" and "usually rely on" is simply that you can't write meaningful articles only by quoting and directly paraphrasing or describing sources (i.e. by properly using primary sources alone), evaluation and analysis must come from secondary sources. Both types of source are equally legitimate; each has its place. --Tsavage (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm failing to follow your thoughts here. I used the New York Times - the same source as is uncontroversially used in our Monsanto article - to source the division into ag and chem. That looks like an excellent source to me. But you think different? --Pete (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring, please read MOS:LAW: "Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As Notecardforfree suggests, while the NYTimes source is a good addition, the removal of the SEC source is still unjustified. As above, RS primary sources are acceptable and sometimes the best sources available for specific content.Dialectric (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified? That's rubbish. The NYT (or any other good secondary source) is justified. The SEC alone, no. But hey, if you see this is a penis-measuring exercise, feel free to restore it alongside the NYT. --Pete (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are so convinced the SEC filing is an inappropriate source to substantiate the quotation about the 2008 settlement. There is nothing unreliable about the source, and it is much more authoritative than an article by a reporter, who will inevitably put their own spin on the events that transpired. I'm not saying that we should delete the NYT article. Indeed, I think it is a useful source. But what can be more authoritative than a government filing?-- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what I've been saying about the SEC. You are quite wrong, and I reject your view. Perhaps if you calm down and read what I've written above, you may get a clearer picture? Thanks. --Pete (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Skyring, your argument above that primary sources are "discouraged" is specious. The policy you quoted above simply cautions editors to not engage in independent analysis or interpretation of primary sources. In fact, the policy does not use the word "discouraged" and the policy does not say primary sources should not be used. Here, the SEC filing is a reliable source and there is no analysis or interpretation of the source material. All we have is a direct quotation from the original. What is so controversial about this? The source violates no policy and it should be included. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you see what I said about penis-measuring above? The sentence is perfectly well sourced as it stands. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly -- the sentence in question still has a "citation needed" tag. I apologize for escalating the tone of this conversation with my earlier rhetoric, but let's please try to keep things civil (per Wikipedia:Civility) and avoid using crude (and potentially sexist) references to certain parts of the male anatomy. Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two sentences, and only one of them (the second) is tagged. I replaced the primary source for the first sentence (SEC) with an excellent secondary source (NYT). This is the same one we use to source the Monsanto breakup in the Monsanto article and I am puzzled that anybody thinks that this is somehow inadequate. Of course, such folk may, if they feel the need, append the original SEC source as well as the NYT. That seems to be rather pointless, but I can understand if some editor feels the need to piss higher than others. (See page 36) --Pete (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a moot point, now that the SEC source has been restored, but no one was arguing that the NYT source should be removed. We were simply stating that the SEC source should be included as a reliable primary source. Also, you really need to stop using crude (and again, arguably sexist) language. Just because we are volunteers does not mean we should not act professionally (see WP:IUC). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The SEC source is only needed because the blog secondary source isn't what I'd call an excellent source. I'm sorry you didn't get the Murphy Brown reference. One of the show's better moments, I thought. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a guideline. I think the NYT is a sufficiently authoritative source. --Pete (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In contrast to your misleading 'Policies mentioned in RfC' heading from a few days ago, I am glad to see you are now making a distinction between policies and guidelines.Dialectric (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you are nit-picking here, but I take your point. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We still have an unsourced sentence in the section. Does anybody have a reliable source? --Pete (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Pete, as you know one of our goals here is to make our articles easy enough to understand for even kids in high school. Since Monsanto is now more ag-related I thought that it would help the reader to understand that they used to make chemicals and are still responsible for any cleanup that they are charged to do. That's even something that I was not aware of and I'm sure a longways past high school age. You removed my sourcing and added the NYT ref to establish that there was a company split. I did not feel that I needed to source that fact because I do not feel it would be doubted since I wikilinked the split article. But the fact that Monsanto is still responsible for cleanups, as stated in the primary source I supplied, is now unsourced and any editor can come along in a few days or weeks and remove it. IMO you are being disruptive when you continue to ignore the arguments that have been offered re the primary source and continue to insist that I need to find sources that meet your approval. I'm going to return the primary source and the blog source that I supplied. According to our guidelines, blogs are acceptable in some instances. In this case I am using a source that has been in a list of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010"[8] and one of the "Top Five Blogs TIME Writers Read Daily" per our Wikipedia article. It is not being used to establish fact but to help our readers understand the circumstances of the company split. Gandydancer (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The sentence about the split-up is well-sourced. I felt we could do better than a primary source and replaced it with the NYT source from our Monsanto article. Feel free to add the SEC link to the NYT if you really think it needs it. The second sentence about Monsanto-ag bearing responsibility for Monsanto-chem's actions is more problematic, as Monsanto's media release on these cases we're talking about above specifically denies responsibility on the grounds that they are a separate company. I feel we need a better source than a blog. Even an award-winning, literate and popular blog. --Pete (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No that is not their argument. Monsanto is arguing that the companies that bought their products are responsible. As for the blog, yes I agree that my source would not be adequate to stand alone, however I have provided the primary source which is in this case appropriate, which several other editors have agreed to as well. Gandydancer (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. I stand corrected there. Thanks. I see the blog references the SEC document. However, the SEC document is about as clear as a harbour full of toxic mud. I can't see where Monsanto is assuming the liability for cleanups. I'm guessing that, unless you are a legal whiz, you are just taking the blog author on trust? --Pete (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the filing states: "Monsanto has agreed, as between Solutia and itself, to assume financial responsibility for all litigation relating to property damage, personal injury, products liability or premises liability or other damages related to asbestos, PCB, dioxin, benzene, vinyl chloride and other chemicals manufactured before the Solutia Spin-off." (Emphasis added). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just needed a few more swings of the machete, I find. --Pete (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict -- had not yet read Pete's comment) Yes, and I'd also like to say this: If one is going to bother to make edits and comment on the talk pages, they need to be willing to spend the time needed to learn what they are commenting about rather than say things like "the SEC document is about as clear as a harbour full of toxic mud" when it is quite clear. By Pete's responses, it seems to me that he has not been willing to do this.

I hesitated to take this talk page on because I am well aware that it can take many hours of research to make intelligent responses on the talk page and make reasonable edits to the article. It is my impression that editor Sage Red did his/her research and was not willing to be frightened away by the use of this WP policy and that WP policy and to be told that his/her suggestions were just WP:FART ideas (a new one to me, indeed) should be given special honors. Most of us would have quit our efforts long ago, I know I would have, and it is good to see that at least one editor just kept plugging along. Gandydancer (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree, Gandydancer. SageRad has my deep appreciation. Jusdafax 23:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I looked over the SEC document and found it reasonably opaque. A pointer to the exact part of the reference would have helped. I didn't see it amongst the legalese. In fact, my understanding was that the SEC document was a reference for the Monsanto split-up alone. However, that doesn't eliminate the need for good secondary sourcing, and a blog, no matter how well-regarded, isn't really top notch. A primary source and a blog kinda sorta fill the need for sourcing, but I'm not happy with it. Maybe I'll go read that NYT article again.

Sagerad's contributions haven't earnt any glowing praise here. He tried to get a private lawsuit included when it had no adequate sourcing and had already been the subject of a COI discussion, when it emerged that the lawyer filing the case was editing here. His attempts to get these two PCB cases listed have stirred up one of the better shitstorms I've seen, and we're about as far from consensus as ever. My impression is that some (but by no means all) participants have dogmatic views when the topic is Monsanto, and earthly things such as wikipolicy are merely obstacles to be overcome. I can be persuaded by facts and reason, and I'll readily acknowledge when I'm in the wrong. But circular arguments, obfuscation, and ad-hominem attacks have no impact, except to help convince me that I'm on the right track. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-content discussion

*Comment I fully support a request at noticeboard about the disruptive editor Pete, please keep me updated. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC) What noticeboard is that? In all candor, I've lost track. Jusdafax 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC) This is inappropriate discussion for an article talk page. Please read WP:DR, namely WP:FOC on what to do here. If you want to to bring up an editor behavior issue, this is not the place. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Pete/Skyring is messing with comments, he recently moved mine in this edit (no edit summary). The result was that other editors no longer could read the related content, which i posted in response to Dialectric above, where he mentioned, an edit warring case in regards to edits by Pete/Skyring. I notice that Pete really tries hard to get reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talk • contribs) The better option, which would have been more appropriate as I just did, is just hat the comment. Anyone can see it if they uncollapse this, but it's not relevant to the talk page conversation, so this is also an indication not to post in this collapsed section. All threaded comments should have been moved either way and not just leave mine as if it wasn't a reply. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom, requests for cases

A request for an Arbcom [10] case and a AE request to apply pseudoscience discretionary sanctions [11] have been filed that may affect this article. All editors wishing to make a comment should visit the pages linked to. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Closure of RfC questions

User JzG, thanks for closing the RfC. Are you an uninvolved editor, and did you come here from the page on which i just added a request for closure of the RfC? Also, what do you mean by "molehill mountaineering" in your closure comment? And does your conclusion mean that you find clear consensus as to "yes, include the cases asked about by the RfC"? That is the question of the RfC and i think you say there is clear consensus to include them. Just checking. I found your conclusion to sound somewhat inconclusive as the RfC question was "Should this page include a single sentence about recently filed lawsuits by several U.S. cities regarding PCBs contamination, in which Monsanto is a sued party, which are described in the following news articles?" And is there a guideline or policy that speaks to the onus that you speak of being on the person who wants to include a statement rather than those who want to prevent it from being included to achieve consensus? I thought we're all here together, and there is no such burden or distinction, and the work of consensus is to achieve consensus according to what is right for the article, whatever outcome that may be. What makes the burden be more on one side than the other? SageRad (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I echo SageRad's questions and concerns. Rightly or wrongly, the close appears to me to enable the kind of contentious foot-dragging that has marked this simple question from the beginning, and the closer is described as involved in GMO editing in a current statement in the current request for an ArbCom case. My first impression is that the closer is hardly uninvolved. Jusdafax 16:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by the closer:

• Removal of information sourced to Food Babe that may be critical of Kevin Folta, who is recently involved in controversy over ties to Monsanto because the statement is sourced to Food Babe herself (among several edits on the Kevin Folta page that seem to be somewhat pro-GMO if one must categorize them)
• Comment on Kevin Folta talk page in which he chastises another person about sourcing, saying that it's just fine to source about Kevin Folta from Folta's own blog (though just removed the comment by Food Babe as i just noted above because it was sourced to her blog and that's not okay in that case for some reason)....

I could go one probably, but i'm short on time, and i think this is enough to establish that the closer in this case was not an uninvolved editor, in that he has a track record of editing on the topic of GMOs and Monsanto and the whole controversy cluster here, and seems to have a position that is rather pro-industry if one must categorize people into "sides". Therefore, i think we need to request another review by a truly third-party, truly uninvolved person. I'm so damn tired of gang-style editing shenanigans and Wiki-gaming. SageRad (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have requested another closure of the RfC here. We really need this gaming behavior to stop. It's disrupting the good working of Wikipedia severely. This is yet another incident of gaming POV pushing behavior that could be discussed in the current ongoing arbitration case. SageRad (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Add this statement at the current request for an ArbCom GMO case which indicates clear bias. This RfC close is in fact deeply flawed, without question. Jusdafax 17:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

An editor generally uninvolved in a particular topic commenting on something at ArbCom doesn't make them involved. Seems like a good close as it shows there are legitimate concerns from both groups. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Teaching the Controversy" does not necessarily make for a good close, and the closer appears to be making many recent edits in this very controversy cluster (such as those i linked to above, and many more), which doesn't seem like "generally uninvolved". SageRad (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The statement is a clear indication of bias, and I have requested they be named as a Party in the ArbCom case. Agree with SageRad that "generally uninvolved" is inaccurate. Jusdafax 18:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"We really need this gaming behavior to stop." I thoroughly agree. We've spent far too long on this RfC which commenced because SageRad couldn't edit war his way to his preferred outcome. FFS, SR, all you have to do is wait for these just-filed cases to be heard and make a mark. If they gain national coverage you'll have no opposition. So what's your hurry? --Pete (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice way to take my words and try to use them against me. Your behavior is also gaming behavior, right there in that comment itself. This is not about "edit warring" (which i didn't do here) nor is it about me trying to force anything into this article. This is about unreasonable POV protectionism regarding this page by people who are gaming and wikilawyering to get their way, and that is the exact reason why we need someone who is actually neutral and comes without an agenda. That's why i called an RfC and that's why i insist that we need an uninvolved editor to close it out. SageRad (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how my comment above is any attempt at gamining wikiprocess. Certainly not intended that way. Just my irony detector going off. Look, this isn't about "POV-protectionism". Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm some sort of shill for Monsanto. As I've said earlier, I think Monsanto's corporate behaviour and ethical standards set a poor example. You must have missed that. Fair enough. I have no history of taking positions for or against Monsanto. You can't have spotted that either. What I object to is the behaviour of crusaders who want Wikipedia to reflect their views without question, and when someone questions their behaviour, that someone must be an agent of the Great Evil. You have created disruption in this whole sorry affair, not just here but on other noticeboards, and wasted a great amount of time and energy. Maybe you can assemble a gang of fellow crusaders – there seems to be no shortage of people who hate Monsanto with passionate intensity – but this isn't about Monsanto, it's about wikiprocess. Over the years we have developed ways of handling all sorts of diverse editors with all sorts of agendas. Our ways may seem strange and nerdly, but they work, and the proof is before you in the great project constructed by volunteers. Why not go with the flow? Understand the system and work with it. There was a point where you could have gotten half your cake, but no, you wanted the whole hog. Perhaps instead of accusing other editors of wrongdoing, perhaps you could slow down, think about what others are saying and understand the true message? --Pete (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Well said!

--Pete (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

A stirring speech!

--Pete (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Your words: "We've spent far too long on this RfC which commenced because SageRad couldn't edit war his way to his preferred outcome." Those are your words. That is an attribution of my actions that i deny completely. You accuse me of (1) having a desired outcome, with the implication being that this is a POV-pushing desire instead of a desire to have good encyclopedia that reflects the world's reality, (2) accuse me of attempting to edit war to achieve that purported desire, and (3) blamed me for the fact of the RfC and that it took a long time. All three i wholeheartedly deny. Look, there are some people here who consistently make edits and block other edits in ways that are in line with the interests of the industry. There are others here who make edits and block other edits in ways that are critical or skeptical of the industry. Those are both ok with me. There is a level of focus that different people have, because we are different, that is healthy, and from the diversity of views, there could arise a balanced viewpoint, by respecting the spirit of the guidelines. However, in this drawn-out, bullshit saga, there has been misrepresentation of positions and guidelines, and so much ingenuine dialogue that it makes me sick to my stomache, and your defending of that seems to show your substance in regard to this matter. And then you have the gall to blame these things on me. As if i am causing this fiasco.

The tension that exists should play out fairly smoothly. It should not take 100,000 words to get a ONE SENTENCE MENTION OF A WELL SOURCED LAWSUIT into an article on lawsuits relating to Monsanto.

My desire is NOT to twist the guidelines, and is NOT to push things into Wikipedia against policy. I want a tight encyclopedia, where all the relevant information is present. These lawsuits are relevant information. People who Google Monsanto and end up here DESERVE to get the best information that volunteer editors are able to provide on their free time.

People like you and several others here are being obstructionist to a very reasonable progress of this article. You are making it nearly impossible to make any edits, in good faith, with good justification. This is inexcusable. You are doing a disservice to humanity.

There is a principle involved now, and this particular question has become emblematic of the systematic obstructionism that has been going on at Wikipedia for far too long now. It's high time to get the cards out in the open. It's high time for the simmering conflict to come to a head and be truly exposed and eviscerated.

There is a place for caution and care in sourcing, and going slowly, and tempering the zeal of new editors who wish to include every primary study under the sun, but there is also a point where editors are going too far, and have become the lapdogs of the industry, effectively, and have frozen the progress that Wikipedia could make in assisting the people of the world to know more about the world in which they live. SageRad (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Has it really been 100 000 words? That's a fair-sized novel. Good rant, by the way. --Pete (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a "rant". You accuse me of something, then i explain why it's off base, and then you post pictures to mock me and accuse me of a "rant" as well as soapboxing. That's about the gist of what happened. I submit that neutral readers will see what is happening here. SageRad (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not mocking, but applauding. Perhaps we should FOC. --Pete (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Just read the close, which appears ambiguous and questionable: it finds "solid consensus," yet goes on to seemingly undermine that finding. In particular, the caution, "please do remember that policy and guidance trumps local agreement of groups of editors, so be sure to stick to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and all the other WP:TLAs" reads to me as the closer suggesting that a group of editors has somehow ganged up to vote through something that is at least questionable, if not downright against policy, which is the opposite of the situation here: a multiply reliably sourced item, directly on point for the subject of the article. The close also suggests an unclear inclusion standard of "national coverage" - how has the closer arrived at that finding, and where is that determined for these cases? --Tsavage (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The close does not come down in favour of either pole. I find solid consensus to include the cases, which I note most of your opponents do not want, but well-argued policy-based objections to including every single case regardless of how significant the coverage. Long experience indicates that a straight "include" in cases like this is apt to be ministerpreted as a mandate to include (and revert removal of) every single passing mention of a thing, so I noted the policies that support inclusion and those which mitigate against, in order to provide guidance with a much broader acceptance than the small group participating here, in order, hopefully, to provide long-term resolution of a question that's clearly not going to go away.

You got what you wanted: the cases go in, as long as there are high quality sources (to match the high profile of the company and its article). You did not get a blanket pass, and if you expected one then you are rather naive.

I have no dog in this fight. I have never been on a March Against Monsanto, but I have never earned a penny from any industry even tangentially related to Monsanto either. I have over ten years of Wikipedia experience, most of it as an admin, a metric fuckton of edits, and a passing familiarity with at least some of the issues involved. I am scientifically literate so can understand the arguments. I have done OTRS work, so I understand the issues around negative content and how it is perceived by both subjects and readers. I also freely admit that I have personal biases (as everyone does), so I positively invited independent review at WP:AN. I have no dog in this fight, all I care about is accuracy. The British, as a rule, are much less polarised on corporatism than Americans are, but those (like me) whose philosophical base is in the centre left are disposed to accept evidence of corporate malfeasance with relatively weak evidence. You might want to consider the possibility that you are misperceiving everything other than total agreement, as outright membership of "the Monsatan cabal". That could be a major error in the current circumstances.

I would also counsel against fixating on the biography of Kevin Folta. Once a case is listed at ArbCom, all edits are likely to be scrutinised. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, also WP:BLP. Wikipedia is really serious about abuse of our articles to attack individuals in furtherance of a personal agenda. The case is listed at ArbCom, you have a lot of eyes on you right now. The absolute best way to ensure that any COI editing goes unnoticed is to start trying to nobble biographies. That will get you banned very fast, and then you will lose any chance of being heard. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

JzG, a lot of this seems aimed at a very small subset of the editors here, while the language implicates everyone who supported inclusion of the cases. Very few of the editors from this rfc are or are likely to be involved in the Kevin Folta article, and even fewer, I'm sure, have a plan to 'nobble' his or any other biography. While a few excitable anti-GMO editors throw around accusations of corporate COI, that was not a significant factor in this rfc, and it does not characterize the prevailing arguments from either side, which have remained grounded in policy throughout the discussion. Even the minority of editors involved that are stridently anti-GMO are rational enough to avoid the use of your 'Monsatan' terminology. No one is accusing you of ties to Monsanto - the concern was that you have already chosen a side in the larger Monsanto/GMO debate, had said as much in the Arbcom filing, and that that position makes you involved enough in the issue to put your close in question.Dialectric (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested clarification

In response to three specific questions from Dialectric:

1. What do you mean by "molehill mountaineering" in your closure comment? What do you see as being the mountain/molehill in this case?

   In this case I am referring to attempts to inflate the importance of things. For example, if a local paper were to cover a minor zoning infraction that would be a molehill. From that, activists might attempt to erect a mountain of "Monsanto flouts planning laws". This is a hypothetical example only. So, issues must not be blown out of proportion, as a small handful of editors are apt to do.

2. "National level" coverage is an unclear inclusion standard. This wording does not appear in WP:N or several other relevant policies.

   A good point and the one I thought hardest about. The problem is not restricted tot his article. Unpopular companies, people and so on tend to attract a type of editing where absolutely every negative event ever published, gets included. A lot of these are minor issues around local sites or events (see molehills above). Monsanto is a major multinational, it is not too much to expect that any genuinely significant story will be covered by national news sources, and we should not really start to talk about inclusion of anything until it has been published in a source with a national reputation and reach. Investigative journalism in the Mudhole Flats Courant is all well and good but it will be picked up by the Washington Post if it is significant. This enables us to save time poring through the past history of obscure journalists and journals to find out if they have an identified agenda. Once it's in WaPo we can certainly cite the original, it's all about trying to come up with an objective standard by which significance can be measured. It's clumsy, I readily admit, and I am open to better ideas.

3. I don't see any issues with failing to adhere closely to WP:V, WP:RS in the rfc.

   That's the underlying principle of the policy-based objections to inclusion - primarily WP:UNDUE but also WP:RS. There are many polemical sources that may provide some worthwhile information but cannot be used to establish significance of a particular fact. Example: if Daily Kos says a fact about Donald Trump is important, would we accept that? If Fox state that a fact about Bernie is of surpassing importance, would we accept their judgment? I think not.

Hope that helps. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand your 3rd point. I appear to be the only one who explicitly mentioned WP:RS in the rfc, and pointed out the importance of having significant RS coverage for any cases included in the article. I don't see anyone in the rfc arguing that we should use low quality sources in order to get this content in.Dialectric (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It's implicit in other points though, and it needs to be emphasised in the context of a subject which attracts polarised commentary from the fringes. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Apparently Guy or JzG is not an uninvolved editor. prokaryotes (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that i have requested a review of the closure of the RfC just now, at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Hopefully we will recieve the blessing of a neutral set of eyes on this topic. Hopefully it will not be another person with an ideological bent coming in to "do some work" on this topic again. SageRad (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Your request does not amount to "a reasonable consensus" for insertion. Not by you nor any other editor. If the request for review is accepted, then another editor will make another closure. That's the way things work. Trying to misrepresent the situation is not helpful. --Pete (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The RfC was closed by JzG/Guy, was it not? And it was closed, though with some strange language, with a positive assessment regarding the question itself, if i understand the closing language correctly. Do you claim that the RfC has not been closed, or do you claim that it was closed differently than i read it? SageRad (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The RfC was closed with no approval for insertion of the material you wanted. The closure statement was discussed immediately above, same result, and you lodged a request for review at WP:AN. Why on earth would you do that if you thought the result was in your favour? Hard to AGF with you in the face of your behaviour. --Pete (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the result was in favor of including the content? Why would i request a closure review? Because i am not here on a battelground for a "side" -- i am battling solely for integrity of process and dialogue here, and the closing was too vague and weird, and the editor appears to have a prejudice on this topic. It does indeed appear to rule in favor of inclusion, and there are national sources, by the way even though this should not be a requirement, but i wanted to respect the process and all the work that so many people put into the RfC dialogue, and therefore requested a more clean close, from an uninvolved editor. That is why, plain and simple. Your inference to my motivations is not correct. SageRad (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

General Comments on the Article

• Summoned here by Legobot. I skimmed through the comments and read the article. RfC are confusing when taken out out of contest. 2015 law suit regarding PCB is reported in the news. Monsanto is part of it and mentioning it in the section Monsanto legal cases#Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) makes sense. The way it is presented indicates some bias deaths and injuries caused by PCBs manufactured. An easy fix is to use less harsh words (for example, do not use death). I also don't understand what is difference between Monsanto and Monsanto Chemical Company? It is the same article (redirect). Why Monsanto article doesn't mention name Monsanto Chemical Company in Monsanto#Spin-offs and mergers? The start of the page for Monsanto legal cases is also a bit biased mentioning usually over health issues related to its products. It would be more objective to list two reasons Monsanto is involved in many legal cases (patent disputes and chemical pollution) in the first sentence and mention health issues caused by products and class actions in the second. Gpeja (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Gpeja, your comment does not appear to be addressing the closure of the rfc specifically, which is the subject of this section. Would you mind moving it to a different section? Dialectric (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I've now broken this comment into a new section as it appears to cover the article in general.Dialectric (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

What?

Pete/Skyring, what? What are you saying? You are alleging that the RfC for insertion failed? By what measure? SageRad (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As per the statement of the closing admin. If you thought otherwise, then why request a review of the closure at WP:AN?????? --Pete (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As i wrote above, your assumption about my motivations is plain wrong. I read the closing as favoring inclusion of the content, as there is indeed adequate sourcing, and still i requested a closure review simply to get a clearer and simpler closing, as i saw that there seemed to be a bias and strangeness to the closing and wanted a truly uninvolved editor who does not seem to have preconceptions about the topic area to do the closing. That' what RfC's are for, and so i wanted to respect the time and effort that everyone put into the RfC with a cleaner closing assessment. That is because i want to see integrity in process here. SageRad (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Added the content back, with more sources, including national ones, as per the RfC closing review discussion over at Administrator's Noticeboard and the clarifications of the RfC closing by Guy/JzG, and contributing interpretations by other editors. I hope we can simply let this be. It's been quite a saga for the inclusion of a single sentence about three lawsuits with a lot of good sourcing. Editing Wikipedia should not be this way. It should not be a battleground that sucks up everyone's time in order to make an honest edit. It's kind of like the saying about lawsuits -- the only ones who win are the lawyers. SageRad (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There is consensus to include the content and high quality sources. There is no consensus to include low quality sources. The issue, as far as I see it, is that your edit includes both good and bad sources. Stick to what is supported in high quality sources of a standing proportional to the significance of the company itself, as I said above and discussed in more detail below. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Investigate Midwest, Environmental Leader and AllGov are not bodies of substantial reputation (and indeed in at least one case appear to be little more than activist blogs). These sources are more polemical than analytical in tone and are redundant to much better sources anyway (e.g. Reuters and AP/Seattle Times) so I removed them. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Good. These sources should not have been used. Sagerad, if a source appears borderline, discuss it on talk before adding it.Dialectric (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. This is what dialogue is for. Thanks.

Pete just removed NBC San Diego affiliate and Seattle Times as sources here. They can remain, can they not? Is there any reason not to retain those sources? Pete's edit reason was "local sources" but i don't know of any guideline that prohibits using a reputed city newspaper or affiliate of NBC for instance as a source for something like this. SageRad (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Look, we've just been through this. The cases haven't even been heard, and JzG closed the RfC requiring significant sources. I'll accept that Reuters and the Washington Times (barely) fit the criteria of national or international media sources, but the other two are both local and not needed as sources. I suggest you drop the stick, SR, or be prepared to accept the consequences indicated above. --Pete (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We have not 'been through this'. The relevant cases are already sourced to national publications, so we don't strictly need additional sources. The issue is not inclusion at this point, which is what we have already .

NBC San Diego and the Seattle Times are clearly WP:RS and should not be removed. We already have our 'national sources' for this content, so the question of inclusion is behind us for these cases. The new issue is whether sources which are not national in scope but still of high quality should be used for additional information. Certainly they should - these are quality WP:RS sources. There is no evidence that either has an activist agenda. 'local sources' is not sufficient reason for removing quality sources, particularly for a regional affiliate of a national news organization.Dialectric (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to argue over this, anyway. Given the large number of other sources, we could remove it and nothing would change; but on the other hand, I don't understand what Skyring objects to about it. The RFC only requires that we have some national coverage, not that we can never use local papers at all. Even then, I'm a bit dubious to call a paper with a circulation as large as the Seattle Times 'local'; it is technically true, but it feels a bit like lumping the New York Times in with some podunk one-town paper purely because it has a city name in it. The Seattle Times covers much of the northeastern United States, which is hardly 'local'. --Aquillion (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Seattle Times is a reasonably large paper, to be sure, but it included this story as "Seattle news", indicated in the URL, as opposed to an item seen as having greater significance. But that's okay. I just wanted to test the feelings of editors on including local news sources, especially if they add additional pertinent information. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree on every pointDialectric.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"I suggest you drop the stick, SR, or be prepared to accept the consequences indicated above." -- Pete, why do you think it's okay to write to another editor in this way? I asked a question regarding your edit, that's all. Please be civil and please stop being so confrontational. You seem to have it out for me. I'm tired of it. SageRad (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No offence intended, and PKB, brother. --Pete (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Shipyards Sediment Site

I've added a local source and a primary document to the San Diego case. As indicated by Jytdog above, the additional details illuminate the strory. The city of San Diego routinely (from 1900 on) approved or actively engaged in dumping hazardous chemicals such as heavy metals and PCBs (quoting from the judgement: "metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc), butyl tin species, PCBs, PCTs, PAHs, and TPH".) The city allocated $7.5 million to the cleanup. There's more to the story, and I direct editors to the sources provided previously. I'll look into this some more, but it is quite clear that San Diego was found responsible for the pollution and not Monsanto. For San Diego to claim that Monsanto committed a "public nuisance" for acts actually committed or approved by the City is an interesting development, which will be investigated by the courts when these cases are heard. Monsanto has filed for dismissal, and a result on this will be known before the city's lawsuit can proceed (if it does). --Pete (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Those are interesting documents. I note that there is no connection made in any source between the finding that the city of San Diego as well as several private companies were found responsible for allowing the contaminants to enter the Bay, and the current lawsuits involving Monsanto. You claim "it is quite clear that San Diego was found responsible for the pollution and not Monsanto", but the source document states that the City of San Diego, and the U.S. Navy, four private companies, and San Diego Unified Port District were all found responsible for allowing pollution of the Bay. Because this is an article about legal cases involving Monsanto, i suggest that the paragraph should begin with the sentence that describes the lawsuits by the three cities involved: San Jose, Spokane, and San Diego, and then could provide contextualizing details about San Diego if shown to be relevant to the cases involving Monsanto by reliable sources. Would you agree with this? SageRad (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're seeing the whole picture, SR. I suggest you follow the advice above and hunt up more information. Monsanto's involvement in this is tenuous, and the real story lies with the law firm's actions. But with what we've got, the story begins in 2009, and these just-filed cases are the latest installment. I'm pretty sure you're not going to like where this ends up, but we'll have fun along the way. --Pete (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You're performing synthesis. I ask you to provide sourcing for your claims, especially if you're including them in the article itself. You know that editors are not supposed to do synthesis in writing articles, right? We are not the experts. Reliable sources provide the expert knowledge, and we ferret them out, as editors. SageRad (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at. Perhaps you could spell out your concerns? --Pete (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe i've stated my concerns clearly. (1) The ordering of the content should be reversed so that it begins with the legal cases against Monsanto by the three cities, and then provides any additional context. (2) You're performing synthesis. You believe that the case against Monsanto is not significant because you believe that the City of San Diego and not Monsanto is responsible for the contamination, as you said above, even though that's not the story, the whole story, and nothing but the story according to your sources, and you're editing the article to portray that story although the sourcing doesn't seem to support it. SageRad (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No. That's not my position at all. Glad to clear that up. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Good. Glad to hear it. The edits to the article do reflect that leaning, however, and i think it needs to be changed. I will volunteer to do that right now. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. SageRad (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've corrected the timeline to list the 2012 action before the 2015 case(s). That makes more sense. --Pete (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but, you see, the problem is that this article is about legal cases involving Monsanto, and the cases in question are the 2015 cases by the three cities. The content about San Diego is context for one of these three cases. Please self-revert, because this doesn't make logical sense in this article. We're talking about staying on WP:TOPIC, which holds that the best articles are those that reduce extraneous information, moving details into the places where they logically follow. SageRad (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's best to tell the whole story, in sequence. I think you're losing track of the aim of Wikipedia. We're here to inform, not to push any particular line. I can see this Shipyards Sediment Site becoming a separate article. You know that San Diego tried that public nuisance gambit previously and failed? --Pete (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Pete, I don't think you're understanding my point here. The article has a topic, and the topic is lawsuits involving Monsanto, and from that identity of the article, everything in the article branches from that conceptually. The connection in this strand is that there are these three lawsuits filed in 2015. The details you are wishing to include relate to one of those three lawsuits. By your logic, we could also begin with the earlier uses of PCBs in the three cities, and therefore put this item on the timeline back into the 1930s. That does not make sense. The thread here is the 2015 lawsuits.

Secondly, your quote "I think you're losing track of the aim of Wikipedia. We're here to inform, not to push any particular line." is again one more of your dozens to hundreds of noxious accusations against me, and once more i insist that you cease with your insinuations to this end. I am not -- emphatically not "pushing a line" so stop this. In this particular debate, you seem to be doing exactly what you're accusing me of here. You're pushing this material which is not directly related, to overshadow the cases that are the actual connection to the article, and you're performing synthesis that is not supported by the sources, and you are not even recognizing or admitting that you're performing synthesis. This is outlandish. SageRad (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Factual, sourcing and weight problems

The paragraph as it stands is imbalanced for this article, detailing background on the San Diego suit first, and only later mentioning Spokane and San Diego without more detailed explanation, when the three cases are at this point of equal weight. The paragraph should lead with the three cases (which is the form of other items in the article), as this is Monsanto legal cases, not San Diego legal cases. To maintian balance, additional background for the other cases should then be added as available, for example, from Reuters for Spokane:

"While Spokane is seeking unspecified compensatory damages, the lawsuit says the company is responsible for contaminating its wastewater and stormwater with PCBs that the city is legally required to remove before the water flows into the Spokane River. It estimates such treatment amounts to an expected estimated cost of more than $100 million."

Additionally, the summary of the background source for the San Diego case is questionable as to accuracy and clarity regarding of the nature of the findings and penalties. The article reads:

"In 2012, the city of San Diego was found liable for polluting San Diego Bay by approving the dumping of hazardous chemicals (including PCBs) into the harbour. The city later paid a fine of nearly $1 million for its role in the pollution, and set aside $6.5 million for removing the pollutants from sediments.[63][64]"

The source reads (emphasis added):

"On May 13, the San Diego Regional Water Control Board released a settlement agreement requires the city to pay $949,634 for multiple storm-water violations found at hundreds of public and private developments throughout the city in 2010. Violations included the discharge of untreated water into the ocean and bay as well as a failure by the city to fix violations on its own capital improvement projects. ... As for the most recent settlement offer, the water board is expected to conduct a public hearing to finalize the deal in August."

The article should specify that the San Diego Regional Water Control Board was the regulatory authority; "found liable" without explanation is unclear: who found SD liable? Also, the source seems to indicate an unfinalized settlement agreement: whether the deal was finalized, and the fine paid, is not supported in the source (as the source was written before that played out). And the news source does not connect the proposed settlement agreement with the cited water board "Cleanup and Abatement Order" (which does not specify penalties).

Assuming that sourcing is found to connect the cited 2012 Abatement Order and the 2014 news source, also of note is that the relevant order involves six parties in addition to the City of San Diego, and a portion of San Diego's responsibility concerning the Shipyard Sediment Site appears to be for the period"From the early 1900s through February 1963, when the relevant tideland areas were transferred from the City of San Diego to the Port District" (from the Abatement Order); the San Diego Unified Port District is another of the parties in the abatement order. That the order covers several parties, and includes pre-1963 activity, seems relevant, if we are looking into the background on the Monsanto case.

As to the "hazardous chemicals (including PCBs)" mentioned in our article, the news source only mentions "discharge of untreated water" and later "Over the course of several decades, the area located in the center of the eastern shoreline, has become layered with marine waste such as hazardous metals and other pollutants from large shipping companies located in San Diego." A list of pollutants is found in the Abatement Order, which has yet to be connected to the news item.

Overall, this entry appears to be hastily written, without full consideration of sourcing and what the sources actually say.

Finally, if we're agreeing that the overall weight of this item merits inclusion of details of case background, then we should have more information on the Monsanto cases themselves, which is available from the sources. --Tsavage (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree that the section needs further details, as Tsavage explains above. However, it does appear that the 2012 and 2015 San Diego lawsuits are part of a larger narrative involving PCB pollution in the area. I think the sources make this clear enough, but the language of the article should spell this out in more detail. I think it might be helpful to list the 2015 lawsuits first because they involve three cities, and then go into further detail about how San Diego's lawsuit is part of a long series of lawsuits involving PCBs in San Diego. Maybe we can say something like: "In 2015, three cities sued . . . . San Diego's suit comes three years after the city was found liable, and some commentators now speculate San Diego sees suing Monsanto 'as a viable means of recovering costs'." Of course, I think we should tread carefully and note that any connection between the 2012 litigation and the 2015 litigation is merely speculation on the part of commentators. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

One immediate problem with the analysis above - for which many thanks - is the question of how and why we might regard the three cases of equal significance. Are you aware of any connections between them, or are you going on instinct, perhaps feeling that all drink-driving arrests or divorces are more or less the same and we can treat legal cases in a lump, rather than on individual merits? --Pete (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Common sense indicates grouping similar cases, of multiple US cities suing Monsanto in 2015 for water-related PCB pollution, as one item at this time. Several of the sources connect the cases by mentioning other of the three city cases in coverage of one of them. And I believe the sources connect the law firm that is common to two if not all three of them, and if we connect the law firm, we can look into the law firm's statements (web site?) for additional straightforward information. As to equal significance, from the information available, the cases seem roughly similar as far scope of problem (pollution of waterways, cleanup costs), and nothing so far has indicated that one is more outsntanding than the other for any other reason.

We do have to watch getting outside of the general scope and style of coverage of these cases compared to other cases in this article, at a certain point we enter into separate article territory. --Tsavage (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's leave out "common sense", which in this discussion seems to be another word for "personal opinion". It's synthesis, in any case. The sources don't seem to show any links between the cases apart from the law firm handling them. At the moment we have significant additional material for the San Diego case, and I expect to dig up more.

What I'm seeing in San Diego is that the city approved the dumping of various forms of pollution by various organisations by various means over a period of many decades. These pollutants of at least a dozen different types - listed above - only one of which can be linked to Monsanto. The city was found liable, along with others, and had to pony up $7.5 million in fines and cleanup costs. It apparently tried to use "public nuisance" of the other polluters to shift responsibility and costs, and failed.

The city is now suing Monsanto in the hope of finding they committed a public nuisance and will fund the entire clean-up of the Shipyards Sedimentation Site. My crystal ball says this is a crap-shoot, but hey, get the right jury and who knows?

The interesting part is that the law firm is guaranteed to clean up, whatever happens. If there's a settlement in favour of the city, they take a percentage. If they lose, they claim for their expenses.

I think that the reader coming to this article with a genuine desire for information is entitled to get as much of the story as we can present, subject to sourcing and avoiding synthesis. I also think that there are some here who wish to present all three cases as a righteous city administration seeking clean-up costs from a major polluter, and in the San Diego case at least, this would be inaccurate. To be diplomatic.

We'll get to the bottom of this mess one way or the other. My preliminary digging has turned up many leads and I'm confident that as I "walk back the cat" I can get a pretty good picture of what's gone on, well sourced and meaty. There's probably a solid article in this, and Monsanto will very likely turn out to be the smallest player in the game. --Pete (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The article currently reflects Pete's latest edit, which has the problems outlined above: illogical structure and synthesis. I recommend reverting to my previous edit in the time being, and working from there in dialog. I think Pete's version is pushing a line (though oddly he accuses me of pushing a line) and gives a wrong impression to readers, one not based on the sources accurately. I suggest pulling back and then discussing. I ask Pete to self-revert that latest edit. SageRad (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to have to do this, but three hours had gone by and there was no self-revert, and the article stood in a state that promoted an unsupported synthesis tending toward the theory outlined by Pete in the above comment. I revrted here to the stable version that does not add any synthesis. Please discuss further here and address the concerns that i have brought up. SageRad (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you might consider that the light of the sun shines around the planet, bringing night and day to various locations at various times as the globe revolves. It doesn't shine out of your bum, cobber. --Pete (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

More sourcing problems

www.waterboards.ca.gov is a primary source, and redundant to secondary sources. The San Diego Reader is a minor source, we have stronger ones, we should not eb including minor local sources in this article. The way to prevent the endless battles is to keep to high quality sources that give context, rather than a blow-by-blow based on primary sources and minor local papers. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are so concerned with a primary source, why not just improve the article, and stop wasting time of other editors? prokaryotes (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:LAW, primary sources are perfectly acceptable. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That guideline does in fact read: "Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority." SageRad (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Pete said: We'll get to the bottom of this mess one way or the other. My preliminary digging has turned up many leads and I'm confident that as I "walk back the cat" I can get a pretty good picture of what's gone on, well sourced and meaty. There's probably a solid article in this, and Monsanto will very likely turn out to be the smallest player in the game. Pete is certainly free to do this but he must not carry out his investigation in this article. Once he finds RS that agrees with his theory he can add it. In the meantime it's all synth and I am removing it from the article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, GD. I'll start work on the article. That's the place to provide a full history. Monsanto doesn't seem to have been involved at all. --Pete (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)