Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:23, 24 August 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monsanto legal cases article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Agriculture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Companies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 72.193.227.237 (talk · contribs) / Monsanto legal cases This user has contributed to the article. (probably the attorney per this COIN case See also tag on Talk:Monsanto)

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 76.218.111.31 (talk · contribs) / Monsanto legal cases This user has contributed to the article. (probably the attorney per this COIN case See also tag on Talk:Monsanto)

Gut microbiota lawsuit

added in this dif which i reverted here. Same content is under discussion here: Talk:Glyphosate#content_about_lawsuit.2C_sourced_to_lawsuit. Please discuss there, to keep it one place. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Have opened a discussion about the content and sourcing as used in this article here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Content_sourced_from_lawsuit_brief Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is better to discuss relevance to this page on this talk page for this page. I think this lawsuit is relevant here, under the section called "False Advertising" because it shows the ongoing nature of a trend that begins with the first thing reported in that section, which was a political tussle with the AG of New York also over statements about the safety of glyphosate from Monsanto. And then in 1999, a similar dynamic. Then 2001, then 2012, more claims about glyphosate. There is a pattern here, and the current lawsuit is one more, and i think people would be served by seeing it mentioned. SageRad (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that we've established that the document is an acceptable source to document that the lawsuit exists, and then we need to determine if we want it mentioned here. I know you don't want it mentioned, Jytdog, but i'm talking about consensus or compromise. SageRad (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

At RSN both you (here) are Tsavage (here) said you were dropping this for now. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that using primary sources to establish a pattern risks becoming WP:OR; that's the kind of thing where we would want to cite eg. a newspaper article saying "Monsanto has had a history of problems with lawsuits over XYZ, such as..." rather than throwing a bunch of primary sources together. Anyway, I took some time to look up this case on Google News, and it doesn't appear to have a huge amount of coverage yet; it's mentioned in the Centre for Research on Globalisation (an organization "committed to curbing the tide of globalisation and disarming the new world order") and the Examiner (which is based on user-generated content); but those are not reliable sources. The other mentions I could find looked like blogs (although it's hard to sort through all this, since Monsanto, as this page says, has faced a lot of lawsuits.) You can look over them here and see if you can find more coverage; it might get more later, too, so you could set up an alert and add it later if it appears in more reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Jytdog, i am okay with leaving it until such time as it may be covered by a news source with an editorial process. Hopefully that will happen, and if it doesn't then i guess it's not something the world cares to notice (beyond myself and a few people who follow glyphosate developments closely). SageRad (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source, but not notable, due to lack of secondary sources. Now got this page on my watchlist. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I would wait for the first decent secondary source: a news report, or coverage by a university law project, or whatever.

@SageRad: I do see your point entirely, and don't find it inconsistent with what you said at RSN. I find it a significant suit for Monsanto and the history of glyphosate/Roundup being promoted as relatively safe, it seems agreed that it's verifiable, and since we are not considering an article, only noteworthiness as content, local consensus I believe could see fit to include it sans secondary sources. However, in this case, I'm not familiar enough with the course of class action lawsuits, or law suits in general, to judge how significant this filing is at this point, even though we know it is in the legal system, and I'm personally not inclined at the moment to research that to my own satisfaction. A secondary source would put things in better perspective overall for me. I don't see the need for haste: if the suit fizzles, the mere noting that it was filed won't mean much in the greater scheme of all things Monsanto, and if it gains traction, then there will be more sources and more information. That said, there's also a small amount of deliberate disengagement involved as well, which comes in handy when you're otherwise busy. Since you've spent so much time explaining yourself recently, I'm taking that in good faith and sharing my humble little process, for what it's worth. :) --Tsavage (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI, someone added a paragraph about this lawsuit (in this diff) and i removed it as per our discussion that until it appears in a news source that's not a self-publishing source we'll table this discussion. SageRad (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that it's been added again by another unregistered user, and then removed by another editor. That is the third time it's been added by three probably unique users of Misplaced Pages. SageRad (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

drive-by POV pushers add crap to articles on a regular basis. Happily, content is governed by our policies and guidelines, not by "likes" (or "unlikes") Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that it's been added by three people now. Of course i agree that this is not the arbiter of what is relevant, just a datapoint. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

not information, just noise. and we have no way of knowing if all three edits were made by the same or different people nor how many - the IP addresses could be the same person, and could be you. (i am not saying they are you) it is just noise. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of how many users add it, the lack of reliable secondary sources is what keeps it out of the article. If it is notable, then it will be reported in the wider world. --Pete (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the most recent attempt, the source used appears to be a fringe Wordpress blog devoted to extremist notions - such as the US participating in the 9/11 attacks - which is being used across WP to back up all sorts of fringey notions. Looking at the most recent reference, I see the following:Matthew Phillips, the attorney suing Monsanto in California for false advertising on Roundup bottles, has asked the LA Times, New York Times, Huffington Post, CNN, and Reuters, one of the world’s largest news agencies to report on the lawsuit (Case No: BC 578 942), and most enforced a total media blackout. When I spoke with Phillips over the phone, he said that he has tried posting the suit in Misplaced Pages’s Monsanto litigation section, but it keeps ‘disappearing.’ He says that he has also noticed posts on Facebook about this lawsuit get removed. Phillips points out that as long as Monsanto can keep this lawsuit off of most of America’s radar, then his client base would be relegated to just the citizens of California.

This looks to be an attempt by a lawyer to use Misplaced Pages as advertising. --Pete (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Different article, but any idea on which edit is being referred to? The edit would have occurred between April 20 and May 25, but I don't see any edits to the litigation section in that period. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks like they were more likely referring to this article rather than Monsanto. An IP editor based out of Nevada (same as Phillips) has been trying to add the content in, and another (maybe a dynamic IP or same person just traveling) added it more recently. Might be worthwhile to bring up at WP:COIN if problems keep coming up though just to have a record of it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted there, using my text above as a basis. I haven't checked to see whether there have been any such edits, but the claim itself looks to be worth further discussion. --Pete (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

oh that is rich. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We've discussed adding this lawsuit to the article in the past, but objection was made on the basis that the source (Examiner.com) was a non-edited newsblog. Well, here is another source, an edited publication, by a real journalist. So what do you say? I say that we should include it under the "Legal cases / Advertising controversy" section. I find it relevant and worthy of a single sentence with this source. I think the time has come to add this case. I think it's notable enough for a one-sentence mention. SageRad (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's get some other opinions here. I posted for comments at RSN here. SageRad (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Here is another source for including this lawsuit in this article: LegalNewsOnline article. Please discuss. This is a news source with an editorial process, who thought the story worth reporting. SageRad (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The objections of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE are going to remain. A recycled press release in a blog is just WP:FART. Please stop scraping the bottom of the sourcing barrel. If this ever becomes significant, we will all know about it. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, buddy, that is not a blog. It's a news source with editorial process. Your previous objection to Examiner.com was justfiably that they have no editorial process and therefore it *is* a blog. As for your WP:FART reference, that's just plain rude. SageRad (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:FART is a useful essay. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you think so, but it seems off base to me, in this context. That essay explains that there is a lot of verifiable information that is not of import, but this is an article on Monsanto Legal Cases, and this is a lawsuit against Monsanto that has garnered enough interest to be written about in a publication about legal affairs, and some editors would like to include a single sentence mention of this case in the section on fraudulent advertising. You think this is as irrelevant as "somebody farted" whereas i think it would be of interest to someone who comes to this page, presumably to learn about what legal matter Monsanto is involved with. Please, instead of implying something by citing an essay about farts, say what you need to say explicitly and clearly. You'll notice that the essay is mainly cautioning against too much information and uses celebrity gossip as the main subject matter in question. This is not that. SageRad (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

to see what legal matters Monsanto is involved with = gossip. Not encyclopedic information. WP:FART. As I have pointed out to a bunch of times, zillions of lawsuits are filed all the time, some righteous, some pure assholery, some in the middle. Just in US federal district courts (not including state courts or US federal appeals courts), there were 284,604 civil suits filed in 2013? (ref) That is about 800 filings a day. In California state court alone, about 1,000,000 (yes about a million) civil cases were filed in 2012 alone. (see data here).That is just in the US. If your standards for what is encyclopedic are that any lawsuit filed by anyone anywhere in the world is "encyclopedic content", you do not understand what we are about here. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion may be that it's gossip, but my opinion is that it's important. Let's get the opinions of others here. This is a matter of reckoning, and you have made yourself clear. The argument about volume of filings per day doesn't matter. Thousand of people may die of car crashes per day as well, but if a notable person dies of a car crash, that may be of import. Monsanto is a company of note, and this action regards Monsanto. This article is a case in point, as there exists an article specifically about legal matters with which Monsanto is involved. You oppose including a legal matter that involves Monsanto in an article about legal matters involving Monsanto, calling it "gossip"? SageRad (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

every. thing. in. this. article. is. something. finished. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a different point entirely. I acknowledge that the other legal cases appear to be finished. I don't think that means a blanket ban on including lawsuits in progress, but it does indicate a cultural precedent.

One more news outlet with editorial oversight who printed about this lawsuit: AntiMedia report on Los Angeles lawsuit Will it take a mention in the New York Times? The author of the above article, Carey Wedler, appears to have written 220 articles for the publisher. It appears to be a legitimate piece of journalism, despite the publisher's name. SageRad (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And here is yet another article about this lawsuit -- for a fart, it sure is getting a lot of coverage. Not in the mainstream press, as the point of this article is, but in enough alternative press with valid editorial process, that i think it shows that it is noteworthy and belongs in Misplaced Pages. SageRad (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in any major media. Did you even read that dreck of a source? it is hosted by some micronews blogsource and written by someone from "theantimedia.org" - and for the twenty bazillionth time, we generally incorporate litigation when it is finished. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That is NOT a rule or guideline. Show me a guideline that specifically says that Misplaced Pages does not incorporate legal proceedings until they are finished. Show me or stop saying that as a policy. You can say that as your preference, or as a precedent of Misplaced Pages culture, but not as a policy. Are you saying that is a policy?

Do you also intend to cast aspersion upon a news source because it's called the AntiMedia? If so, i think that is a foul as well. Let's get real here.

You can oppose inclusion because YOU don't think it's noteworthy, but you cannot strong-arm everyone else into not including it by wikilawyering. Let's discuss the real matter -- is it noteworthy? We'll get varying opinions, of which yours is ONE. Yours is not THE opinion. Get off your high horse and work WITH others. SageRad (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I fully understand that in your world, as someone Very Concerned about Glyphosate (which you expressed clearly on your Talk page), this litigation is Very Important to you. What I have been trying to tell you in that per the policies, guidelines, and norms of Misplaced Pages, it would be possible to consider including content about this, if and when it is covered by major media, and even then it will be subject to discussion as to whether to not it is UNDUE since Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTNEWS and ongoing litigation is very arguably not encyclopedic. This is an encyclopedia, SageRad, not a newspaper or a site for activism or "getting the word out". Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice way to snidely mischaracterize me, and i don't need your lecture to tell me that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper (nor a crystal ball, nor an advert channel, etc.) I'm aware of what Misplaced Pages is, and for the comprehensiveness of this article i think this inclusion is a good thing. I see your opposition as being advocacy-oriented, for what it's worth, so you know that what you may perceive as advocacy in me is a counterpoint to what i perceive as advocacy in you. We are different people, with different experiences and values. To your point, where is the graph that shows what is "major media" and what is not? Where is the policy that says that only things covered by "major media" are allowed? I'm serious. You cannot draw lines like that. SageRad (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing snide in what I wrote. You have made it clear that to you this litigation is a big deal, and I and others have been saying to you that it is not a big deal in Misplaced Pages at this time, and you just will not hear that. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so you think that A.A. Milne style capitalization to the point of accusing me of being a Really Special Misplaced Pages Editor On A Mission is not snide? You begin a comment with "I fully understand that in your world..." and think that's alright? Holy bejeezus, Batman. SageRad (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen. Let's call a halt to this, please.

My reading of the situation is that discussion has explored all relevant points. This particular case is not going to feature in Misplaced Pages until it becomes a good deal more notable. There is no consensus for inclusion, and if any attempts are made, it will be removed. SageRad, you have been repeatedly warned for disruption. Take heed. --Pete (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see now. Threat and shutdown of discussion, and declaration of unilateral action. No consensus for inclusion but no consensus for exclusion, either, i.e. a situation for dialogue. The other discussion on "antimedia.org" was hatted, with a few parting insults directed at me (thank you gentlemen). I wasn't finished there, but whatever. There seems to be a side who say that "mainstream media" is "whatever agrees with my ideology" and rejects that as a source for notability.

Also rejected was The Epoch Times... on what basis? Here's one person's assessment of the source: "Bold, encouraging, thoughtful, the Epoch Times has become one of Canada's premier publications. For ten years now, the award-winning newspaper has been building bridges between communities and covering the stories that are shaping our world... the Epoch Times immense success is a testament to the public's appetite for a fearless independent voice. I'd like to commend the Epoch Times for a decade of journalistic excellence." -- Peter Kent, Canada's Minister of the Environment, former journalist, producer and anchorman. Yeah, not the type of paper we want to use as a source. SageRad (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

theantimedia.org

Disclaimer: page does not list ongoing litigation

If this page is going to actively omit all reference to ongoing litigation involving Monsanto, then we need to make that clear, otherwise it is misleading.

Before you get all up on me, gang, this is NOT solely in regard to the class action lawsuit regarding false advertising. This is also in regard to ongoing actions by San Diego and Spokane regarding PCBs, among other things.

I wish i didn't even have to say this, but please don't hat this section without discussing that first. Just because YOU think a conversation has covered all bases, or gone off base, or is pointless, doesn't mean everyone agrees with you. Premature hatting is a unilateral closure of dialogue and not very friendly.

So, i added this disclaimer to the lead paragraph. If we'd like to be open to ongoing litigation, i would like to include reference to the lawsuits about PCBs, which is an important topic in legal cases involving Monsanto.

Nowhere is there a policy that prohibits mentioning ongoing litigation. This notion seems to be that of some editors here. It is not Misplaced Pages policy.

I understand that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, and i understand concerns about recentism, but i also think that being fairly up to date is an important and valid goal. I think that people who come here to learn about Monsanto's legal issues deserve to get a fairly decent broad overview that mentions legal issues that are of interest and note to understanding the company and its relation to society.

SageRad (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see MOS:SELFREF. And I know that you want to include all kinds of trivia and content that violates WP:NOTNEWS in Misplaced Pages. There are loads and loads of blogs for campaigning; that seems to be the more appropriate venue for what you want and would be more productive for you. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You are so wrong about me here, and that comment seems to constitute a genuine personal attack against my character and motivations. I reject all your mischaracterization of me in the above comment and i hope you'll consider retracting it. SageRad (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

To attempt to still have this dialogue even in the soured atmosphere of that comment by Jytdog, who also reverted my edit, then let's have reference to ongoing litigation. There are many very good (even by the conservative establishment standards of some here) that show notability of lawsuits by cities against Monsanto at present in regard to PCB contamination, so i am going to go ahead and add a bit on this rather soon. I don't subscribe to a rule that i don't think exists against mention of current litigation. I think it's relevant and useful to the public to see it here. I think it will improve the article. I think it's also what people expect when they use Misplaced Pages as a source of knowledge. They expect fairly up to date articles.

Loathe as i am to even reply to Jytdog after that last comment, i clearly stated that i know that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. However, there is genuine utility and benefit in being somewhat up to date. WP:NOTNEWS is rather clear. SageRad (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we please have a civil discussion, please? Like for real?

So, i see the point about the stylistic preference against referring to the article in the article. I do not see the point about "original research" being referenced in Jytdog's comment. I'd like to know what that has to do with this.

The reason i added the disclaimer is to let readers know what algorithm guides the page. They won't know without reading the talk page that the editors have decided to not include any current legal cases, which could otherwise be reasonably assumed to be included in the title of the page, "Monsanto legal cases". As long as a reader knows the filter is there, fine. Otherwise, they will miss that segment of the information possible under this topic, without knowing that, which i think can be deceptive whether intentionally or not. We are here to serve the reader with the most accurate and useful encyclopedia we can co-create. SageRad (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why Jytdog would say that i am edit warring with his recent revert of my addition of the lawsuits by U.S. cities regarding PCBs. What makes that edit warring? I'm here, in dialogue on the talk page, explained my addition and the rationale behind it, and then did it. Jytdog reverts me and then makes this accusation of edit warring. Really, what's that about?

I have a right to add this content. It is not spurious. It is well sourced. It is reliable, verifiable, and notable. It is a Monsanto legal case, which is the topic of this article. I know Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTNEWS but does benefit from being fairly up to date, and if someone is willing to put in the work and update an article then why reject it? It's not breaking news. It's a salient ongoing event that was noted. I also updated the quarry matter. Why not delete that, too? And by the way, the quarry investigation was indeed on this page while ongoing. That is how it can work. Please step up with some integrity. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Who is actually being WP:DISRUPTIVE here? The answer is clear to me. I find behavior like this disruptive to the editorial process and to Misplaced Pages's operations in general. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You added content about this to the PCB article in this diff. I removed it in this diff. You had a little meltdown on that Talk page and I added content about the PCB contamination in Washington to that article in this diff. So -- knowing full well the context discussions we've already had about lawsuits being filed, and without consensus, you added the content about in this article, in this diff. Edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC) (REDACT Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

I really genuinely fail to see what you are saying is edit warring. I also resent your phrase "a little meltdown". I think i spoke clearly there. I added content about the lawsuits to this page, with explanation on talk page, and WP:BRD is right there with me on it, i think. PCBs is a different article entirely, and i don't see what your point is here, what connection you're making, which would make my addition about these legal cases on this page "edit warring". I did very much appreciate your adding back info about Washington on the PCBs page, though the road to getting there was rocky. I really do appreciate when we are able to work together in collaboration. SageRad (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

it is edit warring to add the same content to two different articles - which was rejected for the same reason both times. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to emphasize this point that i've made before: your assertion that "we don't add content when suits are filed" is your opinion or wish, and not actually Misplaced Pages policy. It seems to me that it's a matter of reckoning whether a lawsuit filing is notable or not, and a way to determine that is through extent of media coverage. I have tried to nail you down on this "policy" that you have stated and i don't think i've gotten a clear answer yet. I don't think it's a Misplaced Pages policy, and you're trying to enforce it as if it were a policy. Lastly, i think it's a real stretch to say that my adding reference to that lawsuit in the PCBs article a few weeks ago, and adding it to this article -- specifically an article on "Monsanto legal issues" -- is the same context. I think that the lawsuit should have been mentioned in both articles. I see no reason why not. It's substantially covered in the media and it's important, i reckon. A one-sentence mention broadens the articles, both of them. Yet the relevance to the articles is also different because the articles are focused on different topics. I hope this makes sense. I hope you can see i'm not edit warring here. We should be at the "D" of the "BRD" cycle right now, i suppose, and i hope it's a genuine discussion to resolve the differences. SageRad (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Time and again you've kept trying to push various content related to lawsuits like this into articles to have it rejected each time by multiple editors. We've reached the point that WP:SNOWBALL is pretty appropriate here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

One thing at a time, please. Sweeping generalization not really so accurate. I've added a lawsuit about false advertising here, and i've added these current lawsuits about PCBs now. That is two. I've also added the same PCBs lawsuit to the PCBs page, a few weeks ago. Your logic evades me here. What's your point? Do you have others in mind? And Wikilawyering by others does not make me wrong. If i add a lawsuit mention and it's rejected because of lack of source, and then I add a source and it's rejected because it's not an edited source, and then i present an edited source and it's rejected because it's not the New York Times, and then the whole thing is rejected because "We don't report on lawsuits until they're finished" being presented as if it's policy, that pattern doesn't necessarily indicate that i am being impetuous or wrong here. Your word "push" too -- i'm editing an article, hopefully improving it, making it more useful to the public, more reflective of reality. You attempt to frame it as a bad thing. And "multiple editors" doesn't hold much weight when there seems to be gang-like behavior on so-called "controversial" articles like this one. That could very equally indicate that a few people with similar tendentious editing practices have it on their watchlist and pass off among each other. I'd like to edit by policy and genuine dialogue. SageRad (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, good. Why not draft your material, post it here, and it may be dialogued without the apparently inevitable edit-warring that occurs when you post it to the article first and it gets removed? Your current approach leaves no happy faces, and that's hardly a good thing, is it? --Pete (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a recommended guideline. There was no edit warring here. It's not necessarily my approach that is leaving no happy faces. Others are acting here, too, and could act differently. To return to talking about the article itself, do you think that this addition was valid and acceptable in this article? As an editor, why or why not? SageRad (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent reverts / Spokane and San Jose cleanup lawsuits.

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Agriculture articles
• Unknown-importance Agriculture articles
• WikiProject Agriculture articles
• Unassessed company articles
• Unknown-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• C-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors