Jump to content

Talk:Monsanto

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moeburn (talk | contribs) at 15:28, 17 March 2015 (→‎change of archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

  • 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)[citation needed] (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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Perfect. --Tsavage (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monsanto&oldid=651791304"