Talk:Monsanto

Miscellaneous content improvement notes

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

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

Need for a "Controversies" / "Criticisms" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.0 Controversies (as summarized in the article lead)

4.1 Seed commercialization practices

4.2 Litigation

4.3 Government lobbying

4.4 Controversial biotechnology products

4.5 Controversial chemical products

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

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

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

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

Jytdog: You are getting close to being insulting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resetting this discussion

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

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

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

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

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

4.0 Controversies

4.1 Seed commercialization practices

4.2 Litigation

4.2.1 Patents

4.3 Government lobbying

4.4 Controversial biotechnology products

4.4.1 Terminator seeds

4.4.2 Animal genetics

4.4.3 March Against Monsanto protests

4.5 Controversial chemical products

4.5.1 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

4.5.2 rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone)

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

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

The discussion continues, although we seem to be retreading:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

change of archiving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acquisition History

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

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

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

Claims about glyphosate

I removed the claim that glyphosate is safer than all other chemicals it may have replaced, as i do not believe it is justified by the citation that was used (the hagiographic article in Pest Management Science called "Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide" which is a "mini-review" in an agronomy journal, not a systematic review in a medical journal, the latter of which would be the standard under WP:RSMED, as i have been reprimanded so many times by people arguing the other direction than myself, i.e. it has been used to remove claims of potential dangers about pesticides). I also changed the language so it does not sound like it has been approved by all regulatory bodies worldwide, for it has not been. It has been approved by many regulatory bodies. Diff here. SageRad (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

what pesticide that glyphosate replaced is less toxic than glyphosate? Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the source I've found these:

"Glyphosate is one of the least toxic pesticides to animals."

"Glyphosate is not a carcinogen or a reproductive toxin, nor does it have any subacute chronic toxicity. In a lengthy review, Williams et al conclude that, when used according to instructions, there should be no human health safety issues with glyphosate"

"glyphosate is more environmentally benign than the destructive soil tillage and/or herbicides that it has replaced"

Consequently, I see no problem with the statement "is less toxic than all the herbicides it replaced" that SageRad removed, particularly when the source has been cited so extensively by other academics thus demonstrating that it is reliable. I can't find anything to support the bit about regulation though, am I missing something? SmartSE (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's especially the word "all" that i have a problem with, and i also believe this is a synthesis. SageRad (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The source article is 7 years old, which is not considered recent by the guidelines of MEDRS: "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, with newer being better." Toxicity is not a linear and easily quantifiable parameter. There is no hard number like "pesticide A is toxic by 80 units, and pesticide B is toxic by 30 units." Lastly, it is not clear that all glyphosate use replaces other herbicide use, which seems to be implied by the text as well. SageRad (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User Jytdog reverted my edit here with explanation "this is not a matter of belief" -- which i don't understand. Care to explain, Jytdog? I could just as readily say to you "this is not a matter of belief" in supporting my edit, and it would be basically meaningless as an explanation. I'm sick of you reverting my edits in a rough shod way. Please be team player. Please be here to make a good encyclopedia. Please work with other editors. Otherwise you may be subject to reviews and sanctions, as you know. SageRad (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You wrote, "I don't believe the source...." Have you read the source? (the answer is surely no, since you are going by belief - but please answer.) And please answer the question - what pesticide that glyphosate replaced is less toxic than it? Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your question is a red herring and i will not entertain it. Your assertion that i have not read the article is wrong. I understand the premise of it. And your assertion that i am "going by belief" is wrong. Empty rhetoric. SageRad (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, so you cannot confirm that you read the source, and you cannot identify a pesticide that glyphosate replaced that is less toxic. You make edits, based on doubts about a source you haven't read. ack. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand that there is a biomedical claim being made on the basis of a 7-year-old "mini-review" in an agronomy journal, which is not at all a <5 years full systematic review in a *medical* journal? Are you aware of the WP:MEDRS guidelines? Do you realize that this is a very significant claim relating to human health? Do you see why it should be sourced properly if it's to be included in the article? This is how it works around here. I am sure you're aware of that. SageRad (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"As of 2009, sales of Roundup herbicides represent about 10% of Monsanto's yearly revenue. As of 2015, glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the world, and while it is less toxic than the herbicides it replaced, concerns about its effects on humans and the environment persist."

Mere juxtaposition is not synthesis. But to me, "world's most popular herbicide", should come before the % Monsanto's revenue, and fits better as a clause of the previous sentence. "while it is less toxic than the herbicides it replaced" seems inadequately sourced to me. "less toxic than the herbicides it replaced" seems too strong, as glyphosate did not replace all other herbicides, and we have no reliable source that says it is less toxic than all other herbicides. I think it is OR to require a colleague to find RS that there exists a herbicide less toxic than glyphosate in order to refute a claim in WP voice that glyphosate is the least toxic. Hugh (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

there is a source that says without absolute clarity that it is less toxic than herbicides it replaced. There are many more. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a human health claim, right? MEDRS quality refs? How about we reduce the claim somewhat:

"As of 2009, sales of Roundup herbicides represent about 10% of Monsanto's yearly revenue, and as of 2015, glyphosate was the most used herbicide in the world. While it is less toxic than many of the herbicides it replaced, concerns about its effects on humans and the environment persist."

Hugh (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the clarity of this section would benefit from a chronological ordering of content. It awkwardly jumps from 2015 back to 2009. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "less toxic than the herbicides it replaced" Doesn't this need an RSMED quality ref? Hugh (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was completely stupid of me to try to assemble a picture of what the glyphosate market looks like. and there is no point going into detail on glyphosate relative toxicity here. just deleted that. we have a whole article on glyphosate per se. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on limited time so this will be about all I can add for awhile, but I noticed the text being discussed has been removed [1] It does seem well supported by this source:

"Overall, GR crop technology has been found to be more environmentally benign than the weed management technology that it replaces. This is because, as mentioned above, glyphosate is more environmentally benign than the destructive soil tillage and/or herbicides that it has replaced. Glyphosate is less likely to move or persist in ground and surface water than the herbicides it has replaced."

I can't really see grounds for removing the content itself in terms of sourcing except for maybe some slight tweaking. If it's removed just to focus more on the scope of this article, I see no issue with removing it if we're trying to avoid undue weight on glyphosate within the actual scope of this article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Well one ground in terms of sourcing might be that it is partially outdated and gets contradicted to a degree by newer and more comprehensive review articles (the carcinogenity assessment for instance has changed since then).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, from the cited source (for the currently removed statement), Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide, all I could make out as a non-scientist, concerning "is less toxic than all the herbicides it replaced," is that glyphosate binds tightly to soil constituents, so doesn't spread in soil and groundwater as much as the herbicides it replaced (which presumably don't bind nearly as tightly, or maybe bind barely at all), and breaks down relatively quickly, making it overall more "environmentally benign." Is "environmentally benign" equivalent to "less toxic"? Generally, I interpret "less toxic" as "less poisonous" (e.g. less harmful if ingested by something living), not the apparent usage here, which seems more like, "less likely to have an unintended negative impact on the environment in general." What's wrong with "environmentally benign"? It seems the comparative toxicological aspect needs to be sourced and worded separately. As always, apologies and please correct me if my interpretation of the science is wrong. (FYI, been watching this discussion for a couple of days, via my Watchlist.) --Tsavage (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Pipeline products tag

requires updating:

• http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/rna-interference-in-plants.aspx
• http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/540136/the-next-great-gmo-debate/
• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/business/energy-environment/genetic-weapon-against-insects-raises-hope-and-fear-in-farming.html?_r=0

Documentaries and bibliography

Garzfoth recently removed a number of items from the Documentaries and Bibliography section due to fringe/NPOV concerns. That was reverted seemingly missing the NPOV issue. I agree with Garzfoth that most if not all the references were to fringe items except the Forrestal book, but I honestly don't think a bibliography section is needed with all the references we currently have, and most of the current ones don't fit WP:GENREF that well. I'm not sure what Wurezle was ranting about me here about when I wasn't the one who initially proposed those edits aside from removing one additional source, but please be civil.

With all that, what if any sources should stay? Essentially, what isn't fringe per the original edit? The Bibliography does appear to have NPOV issues with some very "selective" books for a general references section, but as I said before, this is a well enough developed article that the section doesn't seem to serve a purpose. For the documentaries, what's demonstrating that any of them are above WP:FRINGE status and would be due weight within the scope of this article? Garzfoth, since you initially made the edits, I'm wondering if there were any of the documentaries you thought might be borderline for inclusion as opposed to some of the more obvious fringe ones or tangential ones? Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for picking this up and expanding it, I was hoping someone would do that! I think that "Faith, Hope & $5000: The Story of Monsanto" is worth keeping based on what I was able to find out about the book, but as I haven't managed to track down a copy and read it yet, I may be wrong about that. It seems like it's an excellent account of Monsanto's history, which seems like the perfect kind of literature for this Bibliography section (although perhaps this should be renamed "Further reading"?)...

I object to the inclusion of the other entries for primarily fringe/npov concerns, but I'll be a bit more specific quickly. "Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply" and "The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and the Control of the World’s Food Supply" are both clearly flat-out inappropriate for this article, I don't think there's any legitimate argument about those. I feel that "Corporate Crops: Biotechnology, Agriculture, and the Struggle for Control" is out of place here as it does not really primarily address Monsanto, and it appears to have some of the problems that the previous two had. It also feels a bit spammy to me. "Baptized in PCBs: Race, Pollution, and Justice in an All-American Town" feels exceedingly spammy, has a very narrow scope, has the previous issues with fringe/npov, sensationalism, etc etc. I do think that it has some partial reasons to stay, more so than the others, but I do not feel that this is truly something that we should include, it's just too problematic.

I went and briefly searched for books on Monsanto to see if there are any other books that deserve inclusion, and the overwhelming majority of the books in my results were clearly in strong violation of NPOV/FRINGE/etc. I didn't go too far in depth with my search, but I didn't see anything viable in it. I'm sure that there has to be a few more books like "Faith, Hope & $5000: The Story of Monsanto" out there, but they aren't easy to find.

As for documentaries, I stated my concerns, but I'll add a bit more detail. "Percy Schmeiser – David versus Monsanto" should not be included at all, it shouldn't be arguable. "The Future of Food" is too broad. "The World According to Monsanto" has the severe NPOV/FRINGE/etc stuff going, but is more focused than the others. "The Corporation" is too broad. "Food, Inc." is too broad. "Bitter Seeds" has the same issues as "The World According to Monsanto". While I still don't think they deserve inclusion (very strongly), "Bitter Seeds" and "The World According to Monsanto" are the only documentaries in the list that are anywhere near "borderline".

I know the anti-GMO folks want to promote their bullshit in here, but this really isn't the place for it at all, and I strongly feel that the only thing we should keep is "Faith, Hope & $5000: The Story of Monsanto". Garzfoth (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No offense, while it is true that the article doesn't need any Anti-GMO folks "bullshit", it doesn't need any by you either. You removed everything for being "biased" but left the promotional book by an monsanto employee. Who are you kidding?--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a great point, Kmhkmh. Garzfoth, seriously? Leave only a Monsanto puff piece? Jusdafax 16:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you both will have problems to remove all these movies, some won awards or were praised by critics, i looked at a few but comparing then those articles to your above statement seems world apart. Also notice this is not a forum to express your personal opinion. Additionally it is normal that we cite relevant films and docus on article talk pages, or have a further reading section.prokaryotes (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Focusing on content and ignoring the drama that tends to come up in this topic, it will probably be better to just work our way down the list bumping off the most obvious ones one at a time to keep people focused. I'm running on limited time, so I won't be able to contribute here for a little bit though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A wholesale removal is hardly addressing any NPOV issue, not to mention that NPOV applies to WP articles and not to external material. Under a documentaries and bibliography/further reading sections belong the most important, most authoritative and most relevant documentaries and literature on the subject. Whether they tend to paint negative or positive picture of Monsanto isn't really a primary criteria here. At best you can argue that, given equal reputation and prominence in reputable media the more positive and more negative ones should be somewhat equally balanced. So if you have reputable literature about Monsanto giving a more positive impression feel free to add them, but I see no reason for a removal of most of the current ones and WP:NPOV certainly provides no grounds for that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

When you say "the most important, most authoritative and most relevant documentaries and literature on the subject", that is exactly why some believe the references should be removed. NPOV applies to article content, which means what we list in the article at all. In the bibliography, we aren't really aren't listing generally authoritative books, and overall, the issues I was bringing up had nothing to do with the sources being negative, but either being tangential, fringe, or not encyclopedic for general references. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course we do list authoritative books in the further reading/bibliography section, that's the whole point of having such a section in articles to begin with. And not everything you claim to be fringe or tangential is actually fringe or tangential. There are actually a few entries for which a tangential or fringe argument could be made but definitely not for all. For the more general documentaries (The corporation, Food, Inc.) there might be possible tangential argument (not a fringe one though) depending on how much of their content really deals with Monsanto. But for instance the "World according to Monsanto" is one of the best known documentaries about Monsanto at all, that was shown on various mainstream TV channels (such as ARTE in Europe), so this one is definitely neither fringe nor tangential. The Schmeiser one is not quite as well known but it was running on various film festivals and collected a few minor awards, which seems to suggest neither fringe nor tangential as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Real world, there is no way those documents and books will not be included in this article. This is not worth arguing about. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kmhkmh fully here. Wikipedia is NOT a PR firm for Monsanto. I find it strikingly disturbing that people talk here on this talk page as if anything critical of Monsanto is fringe or POV, while hagiographic works are seen as the only things worth including. And the word "ranting" in the above dialogue is truly out of place. There is dripping POV pushing apparent here, and it's not from the "anti-" "side". We need to be aware of this and admit it.

Contrary to Jytdog's realpolitik statement, anything should be up for discussion -- as long as the discussion has integrity and is based on principles. I find what i see very disturbing, however. It looks like a strategy session for pro-industry POV pushing. 14:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, please cut the inappropriate drama on article talk pages. You've been warned about that many times and we've got enough drama here already from what I was mentioning with the ranting comment. People don't get a free pass to suspend Wikipedia policy on talk pages because the title of this page is Monsanto. This page is not a PR firm for anyone, and that also includes folks attempting to use the page to vilify the company as we've had problems with in the past. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. I think that the word "ranting" was not accurate and kind of out of line. I saw the edit reason given by Wuerzele for reverting your deletions as fairly valid, in which they wrote, "restore docu/ biblio sections COMPLETELY deleted by Kingofaces,which you wouldnt believe if you just read his edit summary !)" -- it does raise a concern to me as well. Perhaps we're talking past each other. Here is Kingofaces43's deletion, and here is the revert by Wuerzele. Anyone can see the edits, and decide if you think Wuerzele is "ranting" or not. I do not think i am introducing inappropriate drama here. I bring up real concerns. I saw a serious bias in the way the various works were being discussed here in this talk section, such that items critical of Monsanto were deprecated seemingly on the basis of their angle, while those favorable to Monsanto were deemed good. I also don't like the tone you use with "You've been warned about that many times..." I find this paternalistic and it's an issue i've been having with several editors here on Wikipedia. I never said people get a free pass for anything because this is a page about Monsanto, and i do recognize that people can also push POV in the other direction. I recognize those points fully and i still stand by my comment. SageRad (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with SageRad, point for point. It looks very much to me like the phrasing, assumptions of superiority, and borderline ordering and bullying are out of control, and it's time to ask Kingofaces to stop. I formally warn you, here and now, that no more will be tolerated. You need to review WP:OWN and WP:BULLY. Jusdafax 18:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax, asking people to focus on content instead of engaging in editor behavior drama on this page is the opposite of OWN and BULLY. It's policy. As mentioned below, the engagement in drama has derailed this attempt at civilly working through specific pieces of content, so I have no intention of pursuing this content discussion further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply noted. Jusdafax 22:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"which you wouldnt believe if you just read his edit summary" That was the key problem SageRad as I was primarily restoring the previous removal. There should have been no surprise that I was removing the sections if someone read my edit summary or was referring to the previous edit. It was nothing more than drama in that quoted part of the edit summary. Time to move on. It's only serving as further distraction from the goals of an article talk page. Again, please focus on content SageRad. Take it to user talk pages if you have specific editor behavior concerns as you've been asked to do before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Real world yes. However, we shouldn't be creating the expectation that we let stuff creep in because of the article title either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We list that in the article which appropriate and inline with policies, but simply that which simply matches a rather peculiar policy reading a la Kingofaces43.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 and Jytdog are bullying me on my talk page now, including peculiar policy readings, without providing any difs.prokaryotes (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Asking you to slow down is not bullying; more importantly that comment has nothing to do with the content under discussion here; please use the Talk page for working on content per WP:TPG. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean to slow down? Do you suggest i should not edit? And you not answering me in regards to your various other claims, which are intimidating.prokaryotes (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, The problem I was mentioning was that people get hyper-active about including negative material when other editors are trying to focus on relevant policy like WP:NPOV, guidelines like WP:FRINGE, or essays like WP:COATRACK. Often times that hyperactivity causes WP:AGF to be suspended and the person opposing the material is polarized to a shill, POV-pusher, etc when in reality they're a much more neutral editor. Those two things coupled together been a systemic problem here that we unfortunately seem to be stuck with on this page, so I'm just asking the people be mindful of that when considering WP:WEIGHT. I for one have seen enough drama here and distraction from the talk page that it doesn't seem worthwhile to attempt any discussion of content on this topic anymore. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is when you put labels on content, such as fringe, based on your POV, without providing any evidence whatsoever. Also citing repeatedly wiki guidelines isn't considered constructive. prokaryotes (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: As I pointed out above Garzfoth did not enforce policy here, if anything he made a POV edit himself. As far as the entries are concerned, they each need looked at for their own sake. As I stated above for some you can indeed make policy/guide based argument for removal (or simply a common sense one), but for others you can clearly not. My issue was with wholesale removal of everything but the promotional book of a Monsanto employee, such an edit is clear no-go. Now if the discussion here yields that some individual of the entries are indeed questionable (a few candidates have been named by me and others), then I have no objections against the removal of these individual ones.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The World according to Monsanto is a critically acclaimed documentary by Marie-Monique Robin produced by the National Film Board of Canada and Arte. Certainly it is not fringe and is something that would interest many readers. I think The Corporation should be omitted if for no other reason that it is not about Monsanto in particular. TFD (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I would concur with those judgments. SageRad (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

conventional seed

Seminis is a conventional seed company, for the most part. if you look at the 10-K linked to in this article, Monsanto made $821M in 2013 from sales of conventional vegetable seed. Folks who think monsanto does only GMO don't understand their business. This is understandable as there is a lot of crap on the internet and people unthinkingly come here to edit accordingly. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)