Talk:Monsanto legal cases

Premature edit action
The Bold - Revert - Discuss cycle is a useful part of Wikipedia procedure.

Deletion of my quotation of the judge in the Roundup trials
My contribution to the article, from a book that just came out this year: However, Judge Chhabria pointed to scientific testimony from epidemiology, oncology, and other medical specialties in the first three trials. Then he wrote, "Monsanto lost the battle of the experts."

15:20, 15 March 2023‎ KoA  talk contribs‎  100,932 bytes −453‎   Pretty WP:UNDUE compared to reliable sources, and definitely shouldn't be pulling from someone involved in the trial. undothank Tag: Undo

In other words, KoA appears to be claiming the JUDGE in the case -- a person selected to be objective in the trial -- is not reliable. Also, this quotation appears in a book published this year by Johns Hopkins University Press. Would KoA say Johns Hopkins University Press is unreliable?

And wouldn't we be using a double standard if Wikipedia quotes Clarence Darrow, an attorney, for 54 words in direct advocacy for his client, and doesn't let me quote seven words from a judge -- not an attorney, but a judge? Sunandmoonandstars (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The book is written by one of the people who testified at the trial (and tried to make claims considered WP:UNDUE here) claiming that glyphosate caused cancer. That is far from an independent source to use for depictions. KoA (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you believe Johns Hopkins University Press would say the judge in the case said, "Monsanto lost the battle of the experts." if he did not say that?
 * We should be able to quote the judge just as we quote Clarence Darrow (or any noteworthy person) about his client.
 * You don't have to agree with the quotation. The judge could even be wrong. However, it is the ACCURACY of ATTRIBUTION that makes this Wikpedia material, not whether you like it. If we can quote Clarence Darrow, we should be able to quote ANYONE of interest. Sunandmoonandstars (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS is pretty clear that verifiable doesn't not equate to automatic inclusion. That is why I mentioned WP:DUE policy, especially with low quality sources like this. KoA (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit request?
@Yngvadottir, I was a bit confused by your edit summary Updated Right to privacy section with 2021 fine, as requested and as noted at the unnameable site. Could you clarify where that edit request came from or by who? There are a few topic-banned editors in this topic, one being that was involved in this particular bit of content before they were banned. Hopefully I'm wrong and it came from somewhere else, but if it's the website I assume it is, I won't go into details here except it at there's a pretty high likelihood of inadvertent WP:PROXYING. KoA (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The request was the addition of an update section tag on 24 August by . You may want to reinstate it and/or move the section to "investigations", because it's the same matter but a fine by a government agency rather than a settlement of the lawsuit; Skyerise may want to weigh in on that. My attention was drawn to the tag by a post on the site you are probably thinking of, which linked to an update on fr.wikipedia. I made my own search, hoping for an English-language source, and as noted in my edit summary, found one; I also saw that our account required some copyediting (& in the text) and named a person without explanation, so I fixed that while I was at it. I often make improvements to articles that are highlighted on that site as having deficiencies. I hope that allays the concern about proxying, which I had in mind when I was upfront in my edit summary, since I haven't edited this article before; but I see now that the "as requested" part referring to the tag was less than clear, partly because I removed a blank line so the diff isn't side by side. I'm sorry, on a contentious topic like this I should have explicitly said "removed section update tag". If it does not allay the concern, you or anyone else can of course undo my edit and replace it with a better update. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I spent some time looking at that site, and didn't find the mention there (which I might have just missed). I don't know who the account was that posted whatever caught your attention, but especially given that the material is on fr.wikipedia, I have a significant concern that this might be someone who is topic-banned from editing this page. As such, I still think that there are some concerns about WP:BAN, even if unintentional. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If anyone disagrees with my position that the update tag, my fixing other issues with our summary, and my addition of an English-language source that I searched for don't constitute enough of an independent reason for me to make the change under WP:PROXYING, then as I say, go ahead and revert and update the article in a better way instead, with or without reinstatement of the tag. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw the post you are referring to then and won't say anything more about it specifically here since it's off-site stuff. That said, when someone points out things while off-site to hint at getting someone else to edit, that is pretty textbook proxying (on their part). As I alluded to, I assumed it was entirely unintentional on your part not knowing about the topic-ban. I do feel like we have to take a hard line against that though since it taints even well-meaning edits. I'm going to sleep on it anyways (busy season here), but it's just a pain for everyone around to have to deal with because of how attention was drawn to it. KoA (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)