Talk:Monsanto legal cases

Legal content

Just a note that the current state of this article will likely need some reorganizing as the current content was just moved from Monsanto. There may be some cases that need to be made more prominent, while others may not actually be noteworthy for inclusion here, but I just included everything so it can be reviewed to decide how to shape this new article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This should not be an intricate list of every court case, and WP:WEIGHT should be observed: no cherry-picking or one-sided presentations. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Vermont GMO labeling law

User:Kingofaces43, please clarify your reason for deleting this material.--Tsavage (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Vermont GMO labeling law (text deleted from article)

In May 2014, the governor of Vermont signed into law a mandatory GMO food labeling act, Act 120, the first in the US, to take effect on July 1, 2016. In June 2014, four national trade associations, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, jointly filed suit against Vermont in US federal court, seeking to overturn the law, claiming that food labeling is a federal matter, and states are Constitutionally prohibited from involvement. Vermont vowed to vigorously defend the law. Activists associated Monsanto and Starbucks with the lawsuit; neither are plaintiffs but both are GMA members. A Monsanto spokesperson commented, "We believe a state-by-state patchwork of labeling laws will create confusion and uncertainty for consumers, and additionally would force consumers to pay more for the food they need. We support the food industry’s decision to challenge the legality of the labeling law in Vermont. Monsanto is not a plaintiff in the lawsuit, but we are a member of GMA." (Starbucks publicly distanced itself from the lawsuit, claiming non-support.)

For pending litigation, due weight cannot really be assessed. It's pretty standard with that in mind to wait for the result of the litigation to determine where it stands in the grand scheme of things. Besides that, it's a bit of a WP:COATRACK here. Such content about labeling laws would be more within the scope of GMO articles rather than trying to fit it in here. Monsanto's relevance in this content is pretty tangential at best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) thank you for finally following WP:BRD TSavage and standing down from editing warring. I deleted this for the following reasons. 1) it is pending litigation and the noteworthiness is unknown. 2) The discussion of Starbucks is off topic. 3) The phrase "Activists associated Monsanto and Starbucks with the lawsuit" is unnecessary and frankly POV - Monsanto acknowledges being part of GMA and supporting the litigation, but the content makes it seem like activists "busted them". I probably would have let this fly but for 2) and 3). Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I understand your points. Here is my reasoning:

• Considering all of the Monsanto activity over the last couple of days, I placed this item here, as opposed to positioning it as a controversy item in the "Legal actions and controversies" section of the main article, to allow any other activity to play out, particularly, to see if reorganization would move ahead. (This would easily fit in a straightforward Monsanto "Controversies" section.)
• Noteworthiness to Monsanto is clear and based not on the actual court case, but on Monsanto being publicly associated with it in a highly visible, publicized way. The outcome of the case doesn't have any bearing on this aspect, as Monsanto is not directly a party.
• The case itself is extremely noteworthy, as Vermont is first to enact a GMO labeling law. Preventing labeling is one of the big corporate food fights, heavily funded, seriously fought. So Vermont is a milestone.
• Starbucks is mentioned because active labeling supporters (activists) singled out, from some 300 GMA members, Monsanto and Starbucks, to be associated with the lawsuit they weren't directly part of, Monsanto for its notoriety and Starbucks for its perceived vulnerability to public opinion. This aspect won't change through the court decision and on into the future. It is not a news item.
• The specific wording "Activists associated Monsanto and Starbucks with the lawsuit" is a draft and not ideal, it simply represents the previous point: the noteworthy story here is that Monsanto (and Starbucks) were singled out. "Unnecessary and POV" is absolutely wrong, this is the heart of the matter.

As far as I can make out, Monsanto's controversiality has a kind of life of its own, it is always high visibility and generally noteworthy, both when it is tied to actual events, and when a protest is the event in itself (as in "March Against Monsanto protests").

This was deleted without allowing the editing process to proceed. Nothing in this posts violates Wikipedia policy, deletion before discussion is an editor choice. The wording can be adjusted, and the points finetuned, I simply placed this here as a cited first draft that of course anyone is free to edit. Please reconsider your objections. --Tsavage (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in working toward consensus, I have told you what I will accept which is about 90% of your proposed content. WP:NPOV is policy and WP:OFFTOPIC is a commonly cited essay. If we discuss Starbucks why not discuss he other zillion companies involved? There is no reason to include any of them. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on our previous discussions I'd really rather not engage with you to avoid conflict, but since you have delete my edit I don't have a choice (although Kingofaces43 is the current deleter). Please reread my previous comment: "Starbucks is mentioned because active labeling supporters (activists) singled out, from some 300 GMA members, Monsanto and Starbucks, to be associated with the lawsuit they weren't directly part of, Monsanto for its notoriety and Starbucks for its perceived vulnerability to public opinion." There are no "zillion other companies" in this situation, just Monsanto and Starbucks.

By way of more context: "In November 2014, a petition claiming coffee giant Starbucks had 'teamed up' with agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over a GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling law began to circulate heavily on social media sites." --Tsavage (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an article about Monsanto litigation. It is not an article about challenges to the Vermont litigation generally where Starbucks might be relevant. And please hear this - activists do not drive wikipedia content - ever - please see the policy WP:SOAPBOX and please see WP:ADVOCACY which is not allowed here. and please do not write here about what activists are tweeting about - this is WP:NOTFORUM. This is a controversial article - please reach for high quality sources like the NY Times, AP, Reuters, WSJ, Bloomberg News etc. You will find that I do the same. If you look at those sources' discussion of this litigation you will find it serious and not distracted by trivia on twitter. They generally mention Kraft, General Mills, etc. Not Starbucks, which is peanuts in the actual matters at hand. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC) (add text in italics Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC))

I was going to post much the same. I think the undue weight issue would still remain even with the 90% you mentioned. The scope of this article is about topics that squarely focus on legal cases involving Monsanto and describing them. This section doesn't seem to be focusing on litigation per se, but a much larger topic of the controversy behind the GMO labeling laws. There doesn't seem to be a case to really describe from what I see right now, so it seems like we're getting into the weeds a little bit on this one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43: My first point exactly; where would you suggest positioning it in the main article?

The following are a few reasonably reliable sources that cover this Monsanto-Starbucks Vermont GMO labeling law controversy, and that's not from hard searching, it's one after another:

• Starbucks Says It Has Nothing to Do With a High-Profile GMO Lawsuit TIME "launch a boycott of Starbucks on Sunday, accusing it of joining forces with Monsanto to sue Vermont, and stop accurate food labeling.”
• Neil Young calls on fans to boycott Starbucks The Guardian "it’s disappointing that it is working with the biggest villain of them all, Monsanto,” he wrote. “Monsanto might not care what we think – but as a public-facing company, Starbucks does.”"
• Starbucks Criticized for Ties Vermont GMO Law’s Opponents BloombergBusiness "An advocacy group called SumOfUs wants Starbucks to sever ties with the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which has sued to block Vermont’s legislation -- a move supported by Monsanto Co."
• Starbucks addresses involvement in GMO labeling lawsuit CBS News "he claimed the coffee company had teamed up with Monsanto to sue Vermont for a new law on genetically engineered foods"

If "activists" hold a protest march, and that march is deemed noteworthy and covered in Wikipedia, is that not "activists driving Wikipedia content"? --Tsavage (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in the main article at all. The focus here isn't about Monsanto, but the controversy behind the law itself. Such a topic would better fall under Genetically modified food controversies. However, there I'd probably only mention that the law was challenged in a lawsuit at best, but I'd still be prone to waiting for a decision on the case first like we normally do to avoid WP:RECENTISM. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just like March Against Monsanto protests in the main article, it is entirely about the controversial nature of Monsanto. False information was communicated to millions, online and via reliable news sources, saying that Monsanto and Starbucks were suing Vermont. It's only not noteworthy when one does not accept that Monsanto is controversial, as in a "Controversies" section. Thanks for the input. I will rewrite it when I get a chance. --Tsavage

It looks like you're not hearing, but it's starting to look like you're too focused on controversy and Monsanto here. That's a POV problem though so I'm not going to discuss that aspect further on an article talk page, so I highly suggest taking a broader view as I've been alluding to. Statements like ,"It's only not noteworthy when one does not accept that Monsanto is controversial" are not helpful at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"It's only not noteworthy when one does not accept that Monsanto is controversial" simply refers to not having a Controversies section in the main article, which was the recent main topic of discussion (meanwhile, we now do have a controversies section again). Like March Against Monsanto protests, this item, where anti-GMO activists used Monsanto and Starbucks in a well-designed media attack on the Vermont lawsuit plaintiffs is simply another installment in Monsanto controversy. Whether it is noteworthy enough to include is one thing, but having to fit it into some other section, like Legal cases, is where I see the problem.

If you're questioning my good faith editing, you've seen my recent edits, and can easily check the record by looking up my occasional Monsanto changes since 2004. --Tsavage (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this is getting too drama tinged, so I'm withdrawing for now. My comments on POV were simply on your focus about controversy that you are currently presenting, nothing to even broach good faith at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, cool, later on. --Tsavage (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto response

KTo288 you restored unsourced content to the article in violation of policy. I don't much care if the content is there or not, but if it is there, it must be sourced per WP:VERIFY. Thanks. If you see it differently, please discuss. Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog That the claim was at one time referenced, meant that it was at one time verifiable, and has been unchallenged, it seems that only with the creation of this new article that it was discovered that the link was dead, it being tagged so on Feb 2015. Although unreferenced claims can be removed at any time, if you take the dead ref tag as being the equivalent of a citation needed request, then cutting the reply so soon suggests to me undue haste and, given your other edits and stated ambivilance to this article, POV pushing. Given that the statement was backed up by a reference from a primary source, maybe it should indeed be cut, but I suggest that you may not be the best person to do this pruning.--KTo288 (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It fails WP:VERIFY, period. I do not know what you mean by "may not be the best person to do this pruning" but we don't discuss contributors, we discuss content. If you would like this content to be in the article, please add it with a valid source, so that the content can be verified. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't

Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.

— Wikipedia:Link rot

--KTo288 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You are adding content to the article based on a dead link. Shall we take this to RSN, to see if the community finds that dead link to be a reliable source for the actual content that you want to add to the article? Again, if this is so important to you, please find a reliable source so that we can verify the content. If you find a reliable source, I will not oppose this content being in the article. (i don't think it deserves any WEIGHT at all, which was the additional reason why I removed it on top of VERIFY... but like i wrote above, if it is actually sourced i won't object it to being in the article.) Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In the the case of a broken url, the content still needs to be verifiable. Best to find either a working link or non-url source. Right now though, no one knows what the source actually said, so I'd go with deleting it until a source can be found to discuss weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No I am not adding new content based on a dead link. I was restoring old content removed because of a broken link. This article is spun off from the Monsata article, and the removed content is a legacy of that article. I have no way of knowing but at the time it was added to the article that link worked, and from the time it was added to the time until the link died, no one thought that it was inaccurate. Again to quote Wikipedia:Link rot "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link."--KTo288 (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

JytdogI've taken up your suggestion and started a thread on RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Content_removed_because_of_link_rot, less perhaps because of this content, and more because I'm curious as to how others see the verifiability of dead links.--KTo288 (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the notification. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Timing and whether the item is likely to be verifiable seem to be the issues here. Except with regard to living persons (WP:BLP), WP:VERIFY does NOT suggest deletion as the immediate remedy for material without an inline citation. The policy details the suggested course:

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

The note at 4 goes into further detail on considerations surrounding a decision to delete, and concludes that, before deletion: "For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified."

In this case, a dead link suggests that in fact the item was verifiable and therefore may be again, so, especially when an editor is actively working on it, immediate deletion is not the remedy suggested by WP:VERIFY, allowing time is. --Tsavage (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

moot, i found another source. the entire discussion above was 100% moronic. took me less than a minute to find it. stuff like this makes WP suck. let's fight over bullshit instead of getting rid of trivia or getting an actual fucking source for the trivia. fuck all. 00:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)