Talk:Monsanto legal cases/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Monsanto legal cases. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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. Jus da fax 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. Jus da fax 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. Jus da fax 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)

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

--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:

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.
"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.
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)

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)

Nobody's winning any PCB lawsuits against Monsanto

Looks like a mistrial here: [1] --Pete (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again... St Louis lawsuits

Pete/Skyring reverted my recent edit here. I had modified the content to more accurately reflect the sources. The lawsuits were not stated to be "class action" in either of the sources although it was claimed in the content of the article, and the judgment in the case was not stated to be that the companies "were not liable for deaths and injuries caused by PCBs manufactured by Monsanto Chemical Company until 1977". The articles used as sources are quite specific in these regards, and i had changed the article to more accurately follow the sources.

Please provide very specific and detailed reasoning if you disagree, Skyring or anyone else. Thanks. We need to get the articles right. SageRad (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to be too coy about what constitutes a class action. Here's a quote from one of the articles: "The jury found in favor of the agriculture giant after a full day of deliberations Monday, according to a St. Louis County Circuit Court clerk. The trial, involving plaintiffs from around the country, took nearly a month. The lawsuit, filed against Monsanto, Solutia, Pharmacia and Pfizer, sought relief for plaintiffs who developed lymphohematopoietic cancer after being exposed to PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, made by Monsanto."[2]

One lawsuit, many plaintiffs from around the country. That's a class action.

SR, you complain about the wording, "Monsanto, Solutia, Pharmacia and Pfizer were not liable for deaths and injuries caused by PCBs manufactured by Monsanto Chemical Company until 1977" and yet the source (same as above) states, "A St. Louis County jury has found that Monsanto is not liable in a series of deaths and illnesses suffered by people who were exposed to the PCBs manufactured by the company until the late 1970s."

What is the specific nature of your complaint, please? Our wording looks like a good summary of the source. --Pete (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A quick point of clarification: a "class action suit" is a term of art in the law. If a case is not certified as a "class action" by the court (even if it involves many plaintiffs from around the country), then it is not a class action in the technical sense of the term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. Fixed. --Pete (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: Thank you for requesting clarification. My point is that saying "X, Y, and Z were found not liable for deaths and injuries caused by PCBs manufactured by Monsanto Chemical Company until 1977" is a much broader statement than saying "X were found not liable for a series of deaths and illnesses suffered by people who were exposed to the PCBs manufactured by the company until the late 1970s." The first statement implies that the parties were found not liable for all deaths and injuries caused by PCBs, whereas the actual finding of the court was that the parties were found not liable to this specific series of deaths and injuries cause by PCBs. It's not an establishment of a precedent, and the Post-Dispatch article makes that clear when it later says "It’s unclear what impact, if any, this ruling will have on other pending litigation involving Monsanto and its PCB history." That's the difference there and why i had changed the language to "not liable for specific harms in a series of deaths and illnesses suffered by people who had been exposed to PCBs" in my edit. Thanks for asking. SageRad (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That was easily fixed. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Skyring, if you're speaking of your edit here then please note, that only fixed one thing, the calling of it a "class action" lawsuit. That doesn't address the point i made in the above comment about misstating the results of the lawsuit. It also doesn't address the inclusion of the next lawsuit of the same sort in this paragraph. Will you address these points please? SageRad (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

See this edit made 55 minutes before your comment above. Likewise see the discussion below, in which you responded to my comment made two hours and sixteen minutes before your comment above. Please read what other editors contribute rather than complaining that they haven't! --Pete (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My mistake on this. Thanks for making that edit. Note that i did start my comment with "if", and i thank you for alerting me to the other change you'd made. SageRad (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

And yes, i did also add that there is another similar lawsuit begun, sourced to the same newspaper as the other two sources, St Louis Post-Dispatch, which are what Pete/Skyring used to add the content on the first lawsuit. I hope that it's not only suitable to use this source for a lawsuit when the outcome is favorable to Monsanto. SageRad (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The key word there is "outcome". I don't care which way it goes, but I do object to filling up our article with reports on cases where there is little to record apart from the well-sourced fact of filing. What's your big hurry? --Pete (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In regard to this question, i think we had already established that there is no guideline that prohibits inclusion of relevant well-sourced lawsuits in progress if they seem to be of import. I found this one to be of import, and the sourcing is equivalent to the sourcing you used to insert the case that you favored (same paper, exactly). There is no "big hurry" but there's also no need to wait X number of days or until the lawsuit is completed, either. I know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS but when i came across this, i had the time and added it as a relevant piece of information in the article that i do think adds to the content of this paragraph in a good way for readers. They will see that there are a series of similar lawsuits and be able to follow up more if they want. SageRad (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Given your stated views on Monsanto, perhaps you prefer to air accusations before they are heard? Sling as much mud as possible before the facts and the outcome are established. I guess we could balance the story by quoting from both sides, but you may not like what Monsanto has to say. Sourcing isn't the issue, as noted above at considerable length, so please drop that stick. --Pete (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly we must include every instance where someone wrote so much as a snotty letter to Monsanto. Anything else would mean that we are tools of the corporate shill machine. Or something. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The above two comments by JzG/Guy and Pete/Skyring strike me as out of line. In terms of balancing the story by quoting Monsanto as suggested by Guy, note that we also don't quote the plaintiffs. We simply reported what the sources said. And no, "slinging as much mud as possible" is not my modus operandi. SageRad (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I've asked for an example of a reliably sourced and reasonably trivial suit involving Monsanto, and despite repeated editor concerns to the contrary, that we are in danger of filling up the article with legal trivialities, no-one has presented even one example. I've looked myself, and found none. On top of that, this article currently covers at least 30 cases, so for the article to be overrun by these trivial cases, there would have to be quite a number of them - and I've still to see example one. So I'm not sure what this argument, about reliably-sourced-yet-too-trivial-to-cover Monsanto cases, is in fact about. How can we argue about the possibility of something that cannot actually happen? --Tsavage (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

So, to complete this discussion, i would like to add back the mention of the other, ongoing lawsuit that i had added and that Pete/Skyring deleted, as per the discussion above. That content is:

Further similar trials continue.Barker, Tim (October 1, 2015). "Monsanto faces another PCB trial in St. Louis". St Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved 8 October 2015.

Agreement / objections? SageRad (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: how about you stop obsessing over the addition of as much critical material as possible into articles relating to glyphosate and Maonsanto? I object to adding this, because there's just the one small story and if and when it turns into a real thing, it will be more widely covered. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Not "obsessing" and i find your comment onerous. Please stop telling me what to do, please stop trying to strong-arm. Your "argument" is not an argument, but rather you saying "go away kid". It's not Wikipedian. SageRad (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You know what? Do what you want. You'll end up topic banned, you know it and I know it. And the articles will look like grudge-fests and will undermine your actual agenda by simply putting readers off, and that's fine by me too. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not wait until there's something encyclopaedic to record? Wikipedia doesn't have to be the grand "Let's hate Monsanto" site of the world, tilted as far as possible towards what looks to be an obsession with you. You know my position on legal cases. Reporting allegations in Wikivoice without a counter view is POV and unbalanced. --Pete (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Regarding "further similar trials" objections, read the source. By core policy, a proposed addition that is both reliably sourced and directly relevant to an article's topic should be included, to maintain balanced and neutral coverage. A well-sourced Monsanto legal case, for inclusion in an article titled Monsanto legal cases, meets these criteria. Additionally, in this instance, the cases in question are directly related to the case already covered, in that they all originated with a single 2010 lawsuit that was split up. From the source:

"It is the latest in what is expected to be a series of trials, with the company facing several similar lawsuits in local courts, along with some in California. This particular case is part of a lawsuit that was filed in 2010. After the lawsuit bounced into and out of federal court, the dozen or so plaintiffs were broken into four separate trials as a way of dealing with the large number of plaintiffs.

"The first trial, which lasted nearly a month, took place this summer, with a St. Louis County jury ruling in Monsanto’s favor. The attorneys for plaintiffs say they have no plans to appeal that verdict. The latest trial could wrap up as early as Friday." [3]

Unless there was another Monsanto PCB lawsuit wrapped up in the summer in St. Louis County, then the trials are connected, making this additional information exactly the sort of bigger picture encyclopedic coverage we are here to provide. I'm puzzled by the strong objections to this content, combined with the apparent failure to actually read the source before opposing it. --Tsavage (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Geez. It's like having an encyclopaedic record of weather forecasts instead of the weather, and we only mention forecasts of rain because a couple of editors prefer rain. --Pete (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: (I do not see the relevance of discussing weather.) In light of the new source (quoted above), a proposal to exclude that information would seem to be a direct violation of our neutral point of view policy. To clarify, according to the sources we have now:

1. there was a federal lawsuit in 2010 involving Monsanto, multiple plaintiffs from various locations in the US, and harmful effects of PCBs;

2. that case was split into four cases, as a way to accommodate the number of plaintiffs;

3. one of those cases recently ended, finding in favor of Monsanto << this is all that we report at present, without larger context;

4. another of those cases is now underway;

5. two additional cases are pending in some form.

This is broader, more informative, though still incomplete, coverage than simply noting a single isolated case without the larger context. In fact, deliberately leaving out available information like this creates a biased impression, by minimizing the apparent scope of a particular case through failing to connect it to the larger case it is part of. Please make your argument clear in light of the facts and sources at hand.

Please also remember that this article is Monsanto legal cases, and every case where Monsanto is a defendant by definition involves complaints against Monsanto, therefore, claiming that a straightforward description of the complaint in a reliably sourced case where Monsanto is the defendant, is in any way, at any time, an ADVOCACY-motivated attack on Monsanto, appears as an argument against the guidance and spirit of our neutrality and verifiability policies (insofar as an advocacy argument is used as a means to exclude content). This is, after all, what this particular article is entirely about: legally-formed complaints by and against Monsanto that we have gathered from reliably sourced reports. It shouldn't be made to be more complicated than that. --Tsavage (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If we only report filings of lawsuits against Monsanto, then that is a breach of NPOV, because it is an unbalanced view. If you see lack of balance as a good, thing, perhaps you should go into political activism, rather than writing an encyclopaedia --Pete (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC).

Skyring/Pete: In Monsanto legal cases, we report cases filed by Monsanto and cases filed against Monsanto, with noteworthiness (basis for inclusion) determined primarily by reliable, independent secondary source reports. That is the baseline neutral point of view balance for this article.

What you are suggesting is not balance, it is a "fairness" argument. Essentially, it means using Wikipedia to argue a legal case by presenting or excluding well-sourced information on the basis of whether you, or any other editors, decide that a fair balance of claims and refutations exist - you wish to ensure a he said/she said situation, where both sides appear to have an equal say, and call that balance, when in the absence of adequate supporting sources, that would instead be original research. To avoid OR, you then argue that we must wait until sources deliver more information, but in doing so, we are violating NPOV by suppressing the existence of reliably sourced court cases.

We are NOT here to interpret "balanced coverage" as "making sure both parties in a legal case get their say in our article," we are here to accurately reflect the substance and balance of reliable sources.

We do not have policies or guidelines suggesting that legal cases cannot be mentioned until there is a final disposition. In fact, pending cases are routinely reported in news media, and elsewhere in Wikipedia. At the moment of coming into existence, a court case has significant real world impact, it is not a triviality until some point further along. If a court case exists, it does not exist less because it is ongoing, or exist more because it has been completed, it just exists, and we can and should report on any relevant case when it is well-sourced. --Tsavage (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You miss the point. Of course these things are reported in reliable sources. That is not an issue, and we don't need anyone to pretend that it is. Again. But look at those sources. They don't present the unbalanced view that you want here. Why are you so insistent that we violate NPOV in this instance? I can't see any good reason to do so. Please explain. --Pete (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) Skyring/Pete: I've replied as best I can to your objection, as far as I am able to understand that objection. You have not provided a clear argument against inclusion - you have referred to WP:NPOV and provided your opinion that mentioning this case would be unbalanced, and a violation of NPOV. You have not explained what that balance is: what are we seeking that is lacking?

You and JzG/Guy are the two editors arguing against inclusion in this thread, and the gist of your arguments, which seem to be the same, can be found in these comments:

"Why not wait until there's something encyclopaedic to record? Wikipedia doesn't have to be the grand "Let's hate Monsanto" site of the world"' -Skyring/Pete

"I have a suggestion: how about you stop obsessing over the addition of as much critical material as possible into articles relating to glyphosate and Maonsanto? I object to adding this, because there's just the one small story and if and when it turns into a real thing, it will be more widely covered." -JzG/Guy

This position only raises puzzling questions that go against my understanding of "how Wikipedia works," or is by core policy intended to work:

What is the actionable meaning of "something encyclopaedic" or "a real thing" - what are we looking for in this instance, over and above the cited, reliably sourced information, to satisfy these proposed criteria or standards?
How can including reliably sourced information about cases be construed as being critical of, or hating, Monsanto (and why is that even an issue?)?
Are we expected to evaluate the quality of edits and sources by taking into account beliefs about editor motivation - if an editor is seen to be "hating Monsanto," does that affect the quality of sources (I don't see how, therefore, why is editor motivation being repeatedly commented on in a content discussion?)?
Why is there a suggestion that inclusion of reliably sourced material that fits squarely within this article's scope should be delayed, in order to avoid it being perceived as editorial criticism or bias against Monsanto?

A case is a case, regardless of what stage it is at. Arguing to exclude reliably sourced cases in an article about cases introduces bias, and neutrality is broken. Speculating about what editors are thinking should not be part of the discussion. Unless you can explain the nature of the imbalance you're seeing, and how that is policy-based, there should be no issue here with mentioning a reliably sourced legal case, in an article about legal cases. --Tsavage (talk)

Well, okay. Say you're running for election. You want to be in Congress, get your hands on some of that sweet, sweet power. The perks, the pension, the interns. Yeah! But you've got to get your name out there, get people talking about you. The incumbent has all the momentum here, because everyone knows him, name's been on the ballot paper like forever, always on the news commenting about this and that. People say he should maybe run for President, that story makes the rounds every four years about fundraising time. But nobody knows your name, and you mortgage the house, spend up on a little advertising, get the ball rolling. But wait. Some evil-minded bastard has filed a lawsuit on you. That night you volunteered to drive a Girl Scout home, the car broke down, you spent a cold and uncomfortable night as the floodwaters rose over the bridges… Now, eighteen years later, out of nowhere, a young man is suing you for his college money, claiming you are his natural father and have ignored his needs. It's complete nonsense of course, and anybody who knows you would dismiss it utterly - you're always careful. But the suit has been filed, the story's on the front page, every week more details emerge, each juicier than the last. Everyone's talking about you, your name is on everyone's lips, the political cartoonists are having a field day.

Is it okay for you to accept that this is a legitimate news story, the allegations are out there, everyone's talking about you, but it doesn't matter. You'll clear your name in court, if it ever gets that far. Or would you like to present your side of the story. For balance.

You do understand balance? You maybe should read our neutral point of view policy. I can understand why you might like to present this as a sourcing strawman, but really, NPOV is pretty important and you should address this point. --Pete (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: A made-up story about an "evil-minded bastard," and a suggestion that I read WP:NPOV, do not further clarify your position. I gather you have a feeling that the reliable source is missing some more nefarious aspect of this upcoming case, so we should hold off on acknowledging the case's existence to give a chance for this stuff to surface?

What is "something encyclopaedic" that you're looking for, and how does whatever you find missing supersede basic policy that says material that is reliably sourced and within the scope of an article (i.e. noteworthy) should be included in that article, e.g. a reliably sourced Monsanto legal case in Monsanto legal cases?

You say you have no complaint with the source, which presumably means you accept the source as unbiased and accurate. To repeat from above, according to this source, the following information is made available:

1. there was a federal lawsuit in 2010 involving Monsanto, multiple plaintiffs from various locations in the US, and harmful effects of PCBs;

2. that case was split into four cases, as a way to accommodate the number of plaintiffs;

3. one of those cases recently ended, finding in favor of Monsanto; << this is all that we report at present, without larger context

4. another of those cases is now underway;

5. two additional cases are pending in some form.

This presents a more complete picture than noting only a single isolated case without the larger context. Where is your imbalance - your evil-minded fellow filing malicious and unfounded lawsuits - in this specific editorial situation? I an quite familiar with the NPOV policy, and don't see where it supports your position; if there is a section that you feel suggests we exclude these facts, please point to it. --Tsavage (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you don't understand. I really am. It just makes life more difficult for us all. Forget about reliable sources. That question was settled a long time back and was never really an issue once we'd found some. It's about presenting a neutral point of view. You want to report on the allegation alone without presenting any balance. The respondent's side, in this case. As mentioned in the reliable sources you say you have read. Do you really not understand the problem you are creating? --Pete (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: You're not adding to your point in this discussion, only repeating it, and I am also only repeating my view. I've summarized, as I understand them, our respective positions concerning the inclusion of well-sourced, directly relevant pending lawsuits:

You are of the opinion that legal cases that do not have some degree of coverage of the proceedings that indicates the defendant's response, and preferably a final verdict, are imbalanced because all that exists are the plaintiff, defendant, and complaint, and publishing the complaint alone (or even the existence of a case alone) airs the allegation but not the defense.

I maintain two connected points: 1) that a lawsuit is a distinct entity, it has its own existence, and is most basically defined by a plaintiff, a defendant, and a complaint - description of a defense is not required to cover its existence in Wikipedia; 2) Wikipedia core policy requires reliable sourcing and relevance within the article's scope as the basic conditions for inclusion (met here by reliable, independent secondary sourcing, and being a Monsanto legal case in an article about Monsanto legal cases).

I continue to discuss this with you, because your position is apparently supported by other editors as well, here and in a recent RfC (RfC: Should this article mention current lawsuits by U.S. cities against Monsanto?), namely by you, JzG/Guy, Kingofaces43, and Jytdog, all veteran editors. So I have done my best to understand how the policy interpretation of these editors could essentially trump core inclusion policy of reliable sourcing and relevance (WP:V, WP:NPOV). Adding to my puzzlement, in that RfC, 14 editors (and no dissenting editors, other than you, Jytdog and Kingofaces43), including some who are editing Monsanto articles, and others not editing Monsanto articles, all unreservedly agreed that relevant, reliably sourced pending cases merit inclusion, this consensus including a 26,000 word discussion, led largely by you, yet, in the next instance of a well-sourced pending case that arises (this one), you've nonetheless returned to the same argument. Apparently, well-executed editorial dispute resolution methods are not working in this instance. --Tsavage (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not my position at all. You still haven't got it. I didn't mention this NPOV aspect until a few days ago, on 9 October. My point is that reporting an allegation without a balancing view is necessarily unbalanced. Take a look at our sources - they don't just report on the lawsuit, they also get statements from both parties. This is basic journalism ethics, and despite Wikipedia having a similar NPOV policy, you don't think we should include the respondent's views on what they see as a misguided and wrong legal case. You just want to present one side. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You may not have mentioned NPOV in the specific context of the St Louis case until recently, but your arguments around NPOV here are substantially similar to those that you made over a month ago in the rfc on this talk page.Dialectric (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No. That's just bizarre. Perhaps you could list the points of similarity you see and we can sort out the misunderstanding? --Pete (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, this strongly appears to me to be filibustering obstructionism. I don't see valid and reasoned opposition, but really a whole lot of strained arguments against inclusion or proper description of these cases regarding PCBs, and it really looks to me like agenda pushing. SageRad (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you've jumped in, SR, speaking of agendas. I've explained my position previously. As for Monsanto, I think they have some atrocious business practices. I am no shill for Monsanto. What I'm against is turning Wikipedia over to fringe theorists and single-minded cranks. Go check my involvement in Kennedy assassination and Port Arthur massacre, for example. Just because someone stands up for wikipolicy doesn't make them a shlll for Monsanto or a CIA stooge or whatever. Wikipedia's policies are worth defending because they work. We ask for reliable sources so that people don't just simply insert their own personal views, or quote some biased crackpot blogger. We insist on NPOV so that we give due weight to all points of view. We don't give much weight to fringe theorists, but we'll lean heavily on scientific consensus. You appreciate Wikipedia's position on this, I trust, or do you think that there should be some exemption for your strongly-held views? --Pete (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I ask only for good sourcing and civil cooperation among editors. In this case, we have clear sourcing to mention the current lawsuit in this group of lawsuits. We are trying to follow the lead of the source and to describe the reality using the sources as our guide, here. I don't see what fringe theorists you're speaking of. I have a healthy skepticism of the chemical industry in general, and that informs my point of view, but i'm not pushing an agenda into articles. I'm working with the sources we have to report the reality as best we can do, as Wikipedia editors. We're not experts ourselves, but we do the work of finding good sources and editing accordingly. Usually that is fairly straightforward and smooth, but in cases like this it feels like it takes a week and 10,000 words to make one good edit, a rate that is not sustainable for a project based on volunteer labor of love. I don't like the insinuations in your comment. I agree with the guidelines about sourcing, of course, and appreciate the diversity of viewpoints among editors when the dialogue is in good faith and sourcing is respected. In this case, we have good sourcing to edit the article fruitfully about these lawsuits, so readers will be as well informed as possible. It's not about an agenda. It's about reflecting the world as it is, through reliable sourcing. SageRad (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There's more to wikipolicy than reliable sourcing, SR. Now, what, exactly, did you mean when you said, "…it really looks to me like agenda pushing."? --Pete (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What i meant is simply that from the past month's history of this article, knowing in detail what has gone on, i think that you have a particular outcome that you want to see on this page, including some ideas about Monsanto not being liable at all for PCBs contamination, and that you are working toward that outcome, to the point where you're belaboring points that seem fairly simple to me and to other editors here. We've made progress in this section, and corrected some things about the cases not being a legal class action suit, for instance, but it feels like a steep uphill climb. We're still debating whether we can mention the current lawsuit and put these legal cases in a bit more context. You've already stated a particular synthesis in a previous section of this talk page and tried to insert it into the article. That took the protests of many editors to convince you otherwise. In this section, i see your dialogue with Tsavage seeming to go on at great length and not seem to be saying much new, but yet not to cede a point. That reminds me of filibustering. SageRad (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't give a rat's arse about Monsanto. It's up to the courts to determine liability. It's up to Wikipedia to provide accurate, reliable information about what's going on, and in that respect you don't seem to want to do this. You don't want a balanced coverage, you want every possible negative aspect to be given as much space as possible, and you want anybody who stands in your crusading way to be removed. You see Wikipedia as a vehicle for your own opinion. That's how I see it, and I'm by no means alone. You even admit it when you get emotional: that you're an activist, and you want people to see things your way. --Pete (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the source, we read, The evidence simply doesn’t support the assertion that the historic use of PCB products was the cause of the plaintiffs’ harms. We are confident that the jury will conclude, as two other juries have found in similar cases, that the former Monsanto Company is not responsible for the alleged injuries,” the company said. Is there a problem with us reporting this or similar statements? --Pete (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

~~Pete, the source does not say that. The source says that Monsanto says that.~~ SageRad (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a direct quote from the source. The phrase "the company said" indicates that the preceding words came from Monsanto. Is there a problem? --Pete (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What other interpretation did you see in the phrase "the company said"? Those are the words I used in my comment above. --Pete (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, and i'm sorry, for here i missed the words "the company said" in your comment. SageRad (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Copy much improved by Tsavage. SageRad (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You see any objection here? No. This isn't a war zone, SR. We're all supposed to be on the same side. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Observation and Proposal

I have not looked over the article in a while, and coming here today, I see that this article is in horrible shape. The lede is one sentence that is so vague as to be meaningless. The organization is completely shot, and it is poorly written. I am going to post a request at WP:LAW for some legal editors to come in and help improve this article. Minor4th 21:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Done: [4] Minor4th 21:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I hope they come, that would be interesting. After reading this, I looked again at the article, and besides the generally poor organization and writing, there seems to be a notable difference in overall impression between a couple of the cases as covered here, and in the leads of their own articles. For example, in Bowman, the narrow scope of the decision reported there is a noteworthy aspect that is not indicated here (and I noticed the...fighting that went on in that article). Hopefully, expertise will indicate a source-based way to determine relative importance of, and some larger context for, what now seems like an arbitrary list of cases with uneven amounts of description and not much larger context. It seems like a big job, and worthwhile. --Tsavage (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be a huge task. i would propose for starters dividing the article into logical sections, like: Toxic chemicals, Patent litigation and enforcement, Fraud and deceptive advertising, GMO labelling ... Minor4th 16:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)