Talk:Monsanto legal cases/Archive 2

Monsanto found not liable for PCB injuries in St Louis
I added the reference to the recent St Louis case because it was verified by reliable sources, as a nation-wide class action appealled to multiple courts it seemed significant, and it looks to be setting some sort of precedent. Most importantly, it had a result. --Pete (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Skyring/Pete: Your two-sentence St. Louis entry calls into question much of what you have been arguing here about the substantial information available only from a completed trial. You include barely any detail. For example:
 * "not liable for deaths and injuries caused by PCBs" is the entirety of the trial detail included (omitting much information from the cited sources, like, "The lawsuit ... sought relief for plaintiffs who developed lymphohematopoietic cancer after being exposed to PCBs ... made by Monsanto," citing negligence in the production and marketing of PCBs
 * the only other description of the proceedings is the duration of the trial and deliberation - why is the timing the only other critical detail?
 * Why did the jury find for the defendant? (It's there in the sources.)
 * You fail to clarify why "Monsanto, Solutia, Pharmacia and Pfizer " were sued, when it was Monsanto that made the PCBs, and the title of the post-trial source article is "Monsanto prevails in PCB lawsuit" (that explanation is in the sources)
 * There are also factual and verification errors:
 * You call it a "St. Louis court," while the sources refer exclusively to St. Louis County, are they the same? (In fact, St. Louis, the city, is not in St. Louis County.)
 * You say that Monsanto manufactured PCBs until 1977; the sources say 1977 is "according to the lawsuit," which isn't the best source for that unattributed statement.
 * And here you comment that "it looks to be setting some sort of precedent," while the one post-trial source (the other source is a pre-trial article) says, "It’s unclear what impact, if any, this ruling will have on other pending litigation involving Monsanto and its PCB history."
 * All this poorly executed addition seems to support is that you think trials should be mentioned only when they are completed, and that you're trying to make a quick point with regard to the current discussion. --Tsavage (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with the observation from Tsavage.prokaryotes (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I spotted the case early this morning, put in a brief mention with a couple of sources. Looked good as a starter for more detail when I had time. I've been doing other stuff today. Life intrudes, y'know? Feel free to add more detail, it's not as if I have any ownership of the thing. --Pete (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Skyring/Pete: The point is, per your extensive comments here about item quality and selection, what criteria did you use to select this item from all other less noteworthy Monsanto cases, as the information you included dies not indicate anything but the fact that it's Monsanto and there are sources? --Tsavage (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I read the sources, buddy. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise? Geez. --Pete (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You've unilaterally included content, I am asking what are your grounds for noteworthiness? There have been many lawsuits against Monsanto, including class action suits, what makes this one stand out? From your entry, there is nothing outstanding, except that there was a case looking for damages from PCB-related death or injury, and the defendants won. Nothing special there, PCB cases happened decades ago. The article already notes that "Monsanto faced several lawsuits over harm caused by PCBs" in the 1990s, and treats them colletively, without detail. I'm curious as to why this one case gets specifically covered, but doesn't get more detailed coverage per the sources. I am asking of you what you've asked of others.


 * And yes, I am seriously asking (unless all of your argument about cities lawsuits was...just a joke). You've spent a lot of editors' time trying to establish criteria for lawsuit selection, I am probing it in light of your own content choices. "Buddy" is pretty weak. --Tsavage (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)--Tsavage (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As indicated above, I looked at the sources, checked that they were reliable, noted that the trial had had a month of proceedings (given the American legal system, that's some serious money being spent by both sides, so it's more than just the buck fifty it costs to file a case), and that an outcome had been arrived at. I don't care about spinning this to follow any particular agenda, so if anyone wants to add more to the case about PCBs and their health risks, that's fine. On the con side, there's not a great number of good sources. It's basically one St Louis media outlet and a few bloggy/fringey/ratbag sites. Some of the latter, I notice with amusement, make much of the case being launched but not so much said about the outcome. --Pete (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsavage has made some excellent points, Pete. It increasingly appears to me that your methodology in editing this article is questionable. As Tsavage notes, you seem to want it both ways. I strongly object. Jus  da  fax   18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? Your perception is incorrect. In the St Louis case we have some facts to report. In the just-filed cases, all we can do is quote or paraphrase the PR puffery. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be any problem with the content. The lawsuit was completed and the decision was described by secondary sources. That appears to meet the criteria we've been discussing all along for what meets due weight in this article. It's a minimal case that just meets expectations from my perspective, but it's noteworthiness is much more established than previous cases recently discussed here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsavage pointed out one clear, if minor problem with the content - the St. Louis vs. St Louis county issue. Are you suggesting Tsavage is incorrect about the distinction? While the addition of this case to the article was somewhat WP:POINTy given the ongoing rfc on similar lawsuits, I don't see anyone suggesting that this lawsuit be removed entirely. I support the inclusion as it is covered by multiple reliable sources, just as I support the inclusion of the recently filed cases which are covered by multiple reliable sources.Dialectric (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I made no comment on Tsavage's points, just that it the case would meet the bar for inclusion here, nothing more. That being said, I changed the content to include county as anyone would have been able to do. I have a preference for keeping things short, so I like the concise statement (though the length of the trial isn't absolutely needed). Either way, I think we're ok as is, but that means anyone else welcome to suggest improvements according to the source if they want. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Kingofaces43: In a recent discussion here, you said, "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."


 * In a nutshell, that is what Jytdog, Skyring/Pete, and you are arguing here, yet the view of several editors in the current cities/PCB RfC does not seem to support that position. Also, as I illustrated earlier, both in Wikipedia and in reputable media, reporting on pending litigation, from the point of filing onward, is quite common. On what are you basing that our standard practice is to exclude lawsuits that have not been decided (ignoring the fact that this article already contains detailed coverage of one such pending case, for no outstanding reason other than that it is within the scope of the article)?


 * In addition, in this St. Louis County example, how did the decision affect assessment of due weight? In the article, it seems wins, losses, dismissals and settlements, with Monsanto as plaintiff and as defendant, are all covered similarly, reliable sourcing seems to be the only evident inclusion criterion. --Tsavage (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds like one of those made-up rules that are used to keep unwanted information out of an article. To file a class action lawsuit against a major corporation is certainly notable and deserves mention, and most certainly in this article which is particularly for legal actions.  Gandydancer (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying to assume you aren't talking about editor POV issues, I'm not sure what you mean by "unwanted" related to content. In this case, we have a completed case with a noteworthy finding according to sources that meets weight requirements as opposed to a broad rejection of the suit without any specific findings that wouldn't lead to inclusion here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're going off on a tangent here Tsavage. Discussing the content at hand, please remember the policy WP:NPOV, namely WP:WEIGHT. Reliable sourcing is only the first criteria for inclusion in an article. In this specific piece of content, the findings of the court and the reporting of them together are what satisfy both WP:RS and WEIGHT. Beyond that, it's not apparent you have a specific content issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're commenting here solely in support of including/keeping the St. Louis County item, you are the one on a tangent - this section is discussing Skyring/Pete's criteria for inclusion. No-one is trying to remove the content. I assumed your joining in, and that fact that you take the same position as S/R (confirmed by your recent quote), that a lawsuit requires an outcome to be noteworthy, meant that you were open to discussing the same, so I directed questions at you. If you don't wish to reply, that's obviously up to you! --Tsavage (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm following policy for article talk pages by focusing on the content at hand. If you wish to have more of a meta-discussion not related to specific content with someone, please take that elsewhere such as a user talk page so this specific section can be wrapped up. If you do have content you want to change, than please say so. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monsanto legal cases article." The discussion here is squarely focused on content improvement, concerning how one piece of content's selection criteria relates to a current RfC. Editors have engaged civilly. If you choose not to participate, fine, no need to chide others or try to impose your view of how discussion should be conducted. You cite WP:FOC, which says, "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor." The focus is cn content, please don't try to spin it elsewhere. --Tsavage (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The focus isn't related to content improvements suggested in this section. It makes encyclopedia building difficult when a discussion is opened on specific content, the content is resolved, but tangential conversation continues unrelated to any ongoing issue with the content. That is usually the time to simply close the conversation. Please either take the meta-discussion to the current RfC discussion if relevant to a certain point, or open a new section (on a user talk page if you are primarily interested in Pete's views as you indicate) to keep this section streamlined to show the content itself is resolved. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:37, 2 September 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy, then i think you're misrepresenting Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy, not what someone asserts is policy unjustifiably. I am listening. Are you? SageRad (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, on what basis are you saying that, "The filing of lawsuits is not noteworthy", other than your personal opinion? In this case, the article is about legal cases, and includes sections on "Investigations" (a step before formal legal action), and "Not a party, but involved" (which establishes the scope of the article as quite broad and inclusive).


 * Deciding whether a filing is noteworthy would seem to be mainly a based on relevance to the subject of the article. For example, a case of a single homeowner suing over claims of excessive disturbance from one of a company's many facilities would probably not be considered noteworthy, unless it received significant mainstream media coverage for whatever reason (probably as a novelty news item, and our content would note it as such). On the other hand, a case hitting to the heart of a company's business is by definition noteworthy - an argument for exclusion could be based on not giving it undue weight, but that is a tough sell in a daughter article dedicated to...cases concerning that company.


 * Meanwhile, a blanket exclusion based on the precise type or stage of a legal case does not seem to be supported by policy. --Tsavage (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As noted above, these cases do not go to the heart of a company's business. Monsanto produces agricultural products. They are minor cases filed in local courts and will very likely be dismissed before proceeding much further. If these were important cases, then there would be wider coverage. --Pete (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fine, but that does not answer my question (to Jytdog), concerning filings of lawsuits being categorically non-noteworthy. If we're discussing content, we should try not to muddy the waters with claims about what editors can and can't do based on personal opinion. I've encountered this way too much recently (including the very same claim about lawsuits elsewhere, before I became better-informed), and it is distinctly unhelpful. --Tsavage (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is quite clear; the mere filing of a lawsuit is not notable in itself. As noted, there are many filed every day and we cannot list them on that basis, just as (say) our article List of people from San Francisco is incomplete. We only list those shown to be notable, and we identify those by examining the sources, rather than relying on the personal opinions of random editors. --Pete (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To a large extent, coverage establishes notability. Lawsuits are not inherently notable. If the filing and/or early stages of a lawsuit are covered by multiple reliable sources, I see that as substantial enough for a mention in a larger article. The bar here is lower than having an entire article about the lawsuit. This is where Pete's example differs from our issue here - lists of people fall under Stand-alone lists. We almost always require each entry in such a list to have its own article. Monsanto Legal Cases, however, is not a list article. In its current non-list format, it covers cases and details that don't have their own articles, and as such, addition of well-referenced in-progress cases is warranted. I agree with TSavage that filings of lawsuits cannot be dismissed as categorically non-noteworthy- as long as there is significant WP:RS coverage, the general notability guideline is met.Dialectric (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The existence of this article is weird, I agree. It was split out of the Monsanto article, mostly driven by Tsavage's objections that the Monsanto article was too long.  See here.  I don't care where this content resides in WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, I don't know what relevance how this article came to be has to this discussion, but in fact it was created by Kingofaces43, with the edit note: "Creating daughter article of Monsanto per talk there from topics where the scope is primarily about details of legal cases and not overall controversies." --Tsavage (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * above you wrote "On the other hand, a case hitting to the heart of a company's business is by definition noteworthy".   Monsanto (and everyone else) stopped making PCBs in 1979 (that is 35 years ago) and became a business 100% focused on ag in 2000, 15 years ago.   Yes it is still involved in cleanups from its prior involvement but your description is just wrong - wildly wrong.  Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, my question here is about your claim that legal filings are never noteworthy, I wasn't referring to specific cases, I only mentioned hypothetical examples.


 * Commenting (for the first time) on the relevance of these clean-up cases, one key legal aspect is that, from the main Monsanto article, we explain that the recently created ag/life sciences Monsanto indemnified all those (Pharmacia, Solutia) who could be held responsible for its old chemical business. Now, per an excerpt of their statement in one of the news sources, they are claiming no responsibility for old chemical business liabilities. So this would seem to be a new development in an ongoing Monsanto corporate and legal story, about how it has reinvented itself over the last couple of decades, retaining the name and the ag business, and ditching the chem and pharmaceutical parts of original Monsanto, while becoming an all-new corporate entity, and how the new Monsanto is dealing with ongoing problems from its past. --Tsavage (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * More generally, nobody here has said anything about what encyclopedic value content about the lawsuit filings would have - how it is not WP:NOTNEWS. What is the significance -- why does it matter to anybody or anything in the real world?  I get it that it pleases advocates, but we are not here to please advocates. I look forward to some reasonable discussion about why mention of the filings is not UNDUE other than their mention in reliable sources (this is a question about WEIGHT, not the reliability of sources).  I really am open to reasoned arguments about encyclopedic value. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing new in the litigation under discussion except that these particular entities are suing Monsanto over this specific PCB pollution. Same kinds of arguments, same kinds of responses, have been made before. You are literally just making up things to say now. It is not the "heart" of their business and no new kinds of arguments have been made in this litigation so far. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The lawsuits fall under the topic of this article, are happening, and are of enough note to be reported in reliable sources that establish notability. What more do you want, Jytdog? It's significance here is that it's part of the story of Monsanto, part of the picture of the company and its involvement and relations to the world at large. Your resistance to its inclusion is what puzzles me. Completeness is a desired goal for an encyclopedia. Readers can draw their own conclusions better if there is a balanced and complete view in the articles they use. If there is a filtered blocking of some aspects, that creates a bias.
 * Note, i find it rather odd that you participate in this discussion without referring to the open question about your promotion of the notion that lawsuits are not included in Wikipedia as a matter of policy and practice, which i and others have here questioned. I wonder if you'd answer to that open question, for completeness of dialogue. You see several people here strongly questioning that assertion that you made several times here. For integrity and completion of dialogue, please. SageRad (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Completeness is a desired goal for an encyclopedia." Let's just finish up List of poems, first. Only four poems from Nobel laureate William Butler Yeats in this poor excuse for a "list". No. We do not list everything in Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not disputing that the lawsuits were filed. That happened. Lots of things happen.  The question is, what is the encyclopedic value of the filing?  If this becomes some huge dragged out battle, it could become noteworthy.  If there is a settlement or verdict where Monsanto agrees to, or is required to pay, a ton of money, that would be noteworthy.  It may be that the lawsuit goes absolutely no where and never amounts to any thing.  We don't know yet.  As it is, it is just news, as far as I can see, and we are not a newspaper.  I really do look forward to hearing an answer to the question I asked. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think i gave you an answer to the question you asked, and you chose not to hear it in typical fashion. You also ignored my very explicit question and call-out about the incompleteness of the dialogue in which you seem unable to acknowledge your mistake in asserting that lawsuits cannot be included in Wikipedia articles until completed.
 * That said, there was not question of dispute on whether the lawsuits are filed. That sentence of yours is an apparent red herring here.
 * As for the encyclopedic value of the filing itself, that is determined by the outside world by its being reported in media sources that establish a notability factor. You're the one who has lectured me on this time and again in every forum, and now you're not seeing that?
 * As for encyclopedic value, it's part of the real world that Wikipedia reflects, and when someone comes to this page, this is what they'd expect to find here. A fairly complete list of notable legal cases involving Monsanto. So... for completeness, for representation of the world, it's a good add.
 * I say it again, you seem to be obstinately obstructionist and willfully thick in your dialogue behavior, and i hold that you are disruptive to the smoother functioning of this editorial process. I ask you to have integrity here. This simple edit should not be taking hours of debate, but it is, and the behavior seems designed to distract, unfocus, filibuster, and obstruct the actual process of editing that is ideal on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP articles are not WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists of everything there is to say about something The "completeness" argument is not a valid argument in WP. Please actually describe what is of encyclopedic value about these lawsuits, at this time. (HINT - It should be something that is New and Important in the kinds of arguments being made, or the size of the damages sought, or Monsanto's response... something intrinsic to these filings in relation to others, that is stated in reliable sources) Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For the 10th time, i know that Wikipedia does not include everything, and that is why i have referred repeatedly to significant coverage in reliable news sources that show that this is something of note in the world at large and is due here in this article. However, "completeness" is most certainly a useful argument, or rather ideal for articles. We want them to be as complete as possible, balancing the weight of various aspects of a topic. I'd ask you to read this on the topic of indiscriminate lists of information. Despite repeatedly ignoring my direct questions, you ask "What is of encyclopedic value about these lawsuits at this time?" I ask you what is of "encyclopedic value" about the article on chili peppers mentioning all five species of domesticated chili peppers? It's because it reflects the reality of the world. How much simpler can it be? Why do i have the feeling of being spun in circles? SageRad (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "This simple edit should not be taking hours of debate." I agree. Time to move on and do useful work. --Pete (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do i read this right as you wishing that i would go away and do other things? Or are you referring to yourself here? If one gives in to filibustering and other bad tactics, then one allows this pattern to continue and bias the encyclopedia as a whole, so when one encounters a problem of this nature, it may be best to persevere and insist that the dialogue and process do reach integrity and completeness. SageRad (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is any doubt about the sources used to establish notability about these current lawsuits by U.S. cities about PCBs, here is a list of a few:
 * Reuters
 * Washington Times
 * The Spokesman-Review (Spokane)
 * NBC News (San Diego NBC channel)
 * SageRad (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to say "noteworthy", you keep talking about "notability." Please actually read WP:NOTABILITY - it applies only to whether an article exists or not, not to specific content.  The issues at play have to do with article scope, and with whether this is WP:UNDUE, specifically per WP:NOTNEWS (which is also policy).  Please address the policy issues that I've been raising. Thanks.  By the way, it is very common for editors to disagree on the application of policy to content, and for this reason there are many ways to resolve disputes.  I encourage you to engage with those processes. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, same difference. Whether the fact of the lawsuit is of enough significance in the world to warrant inclusion in this article. You can't dance around the issue with semantic wordplay. Yes, it's common for editors to disagree on application of policy to content, but i don't see you responding to some people's direct questioning of your assertions that lawsuits in progress are never included in Wikipedia, and i was using dialogue as a way to resolve disputes and i don't need a lecture on this, thank you. If you'd respond with more integrity in your part of the dialogue, we'd have this dispute already resolved. And yes, i know about NOTNEWS and UNDUE for the 10th time, and i think with all my heart and mind that this inclusion still qualifies, and i think you're being unduly oppositional about it. SageRad (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We appear to be way overdue for some third-party oversight here. We have contentious and obnoxious disruptive behavior happening. SageRad (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In response to repeated links to WP:NOTNEWS in this section and the rfc below, the only potentially applicable part of WP:NOTNEWS is 2, News reports. The only specified target of this section is "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Coverage of multiple large metropolitan areas suing a large corporation is not by any reasonable standard routine news reporting. These cases matter because regardless of their chances or legitimacy, they are part of a long and extensively covered issue, the legal and environmental fallout from pcb contamination, going back at least to the GE Hudson River contamination. The existence of such cases shows that this issue has not gone away for large corporations including Monsanto.Dialectric (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Belatedly: I agree that the filing of lawsuits is not automatically noteworthy.  However, some lawsuits are clearly noteworthy even before they're finished; when an article is getting direct coverage from multiple major mainstream news outlets (that is, articles about it specifically), I think that that's a sign that it's worth a mention.  Remember that this is the "Monsanto legal cases" page, so the standard to put a lawsuit here is lower than it would be on the Monsanto page itself.  Also remember that WP:RECENTISM is not automatically considered a negative; covering things rapidly as they happen is part of what makes Wikipedia valuable, too.  In this case, it will be easy to remove the sentence or so mentioning these lawsuits later down the line if they turn out to have little overall significance.  --Aquillion (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Blogs and sources
With this edit, Gandydancer started off a restructuring. The content doesn't look controversial, but I'm wondering about the sources. We have the SEC (a primary source) and Climate Progress (a blog). Primary sources are discouraged, and blogs likewise. Do we not have anything better? I've added a "citation needed" template here. --Pete (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:LAW, primary sources are perfectly acceptable (and indeed, more accurate). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Skyring, unless you want me to file an edit warring case, I suggest you restore this material until this discussion concludes. Removal of reliable sources without prior discussion is not acceptable, and the SEC is certainly a reliable source. Per BRD, you've made a change and it has been reverted. It is now on you to discuss why that change is justified. Dialectric (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Gandydancer made a bold edit, and I reverted a part of it. We are now discussing that. You began an edit war, and your next reversion will be your third. --Pete (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Skyring/Pete: Seems you've already broken the 3RR rule, crossed the bright line, as it were:, , . WP:BRD is an essay that suggests a particular editing approach; I don't think it gives you a free revert as far as 3RR (correct me if I'm wrong; as with most of these distasteful-to-me wikilaw details, I'm just learning). --Tsavage (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 3RR and BRD are two different things. You should read up on both and see how they work. I'm happy with my following of both here. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Monsanto's restructuring isn't the sort of obscure legal fact that needs us to ferret around in primary sources. I'm sure it has been covered in depth elsewhere. Monsanto, for example. --Pete (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to "ferret" through anything. The SEC disclosure includes the quoted material in the second paragraph. Nor is there any need to find a secondary source when we have perfectly reliable primary source (in case you are unaware, the SEC's form 8-K is the form "companies must file with the SEC to announce major events that shareholders should know about"). Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines state that "repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors" is disruptive editing (see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS). --
 * The comment above is mine. As you can see, I neglected to add a signature. I think I left the comment at approximately 20:50 UTC. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It sure does look like an edit war going on. SageRad (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Skyring/Pete: "primary sources are discouraged" - Not true, they are perfectly acceptable when used appropriately, and at times seem the best choice for easy verifiability. Wikipedia's primary source policy (WP:PRIMARY) is quite clear: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Quoting from a primary source, as is the case here, seems to be ideal. --Tsavage (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Primary sources are indeed discouraged. Please don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. We can both read WP:PRIMARY, and I'm not as big a fool as you seem to think:
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
 * I've replaced the primary source with the secondary source – the New York Times – we use in the Monsanto article. That should be fine for everyone. Now about the other content. Do we have anything better than a blog? --Pete (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Skyring/Pete: You are selectively quoting the policy to give the impression of support for your incorrect claim. The actual policy statement in that section reads (emphasis per source):


 * "Policy:' Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." - WP:ANALYSIS


 * The reason for "should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" and "usually rely on" is simply that you can't write meaningful articles only by quoting and directly paraphrasing or describing sources (i.e. by properly using primary sources alone), evaluation and analysis must come from secondary sources. Both types of source are equally legitimate; each has its place. --Tsavage (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm failing to follow your thoughts here. I used the New York Times - the same source as is uncontroversially used in our Monsanto article - to source the division into ag and chem. That looks like an excellent source to me. But you think different? --Pete (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , please read MOS:LAW: "Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As Notecardforfree suggests, while the NYTimes source is a good addition, the removal of the SEC source is still unjustified. As above, RS primary sources are acceptable and sometimes the best sources available for specific content.Dialectric (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Unjustified? That's rubbish. The NYT (or any other good secondary source) is justified. The SEC alone, no. But hey, if you see this is a penis-measuring exercise, feel free to restore it alongside the NYT. --Pete (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you are so convinced the SEC filing is an inappropriate source to substantiate the quotation about the 2008 settlement. There is nothing unreliable about the source, and it is much more authoritative than an article by a reporter, who will inevitably put their own spin on the events that transpired. I'm not saying that we should delete the NYT article. Indeed, I think it is a useful source. But what can be more authoritative than a government filing?-- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood what I've been saying about the SEC. You are quite wrong, and I reject your view. Perhaps if you calm down and read what I've written above, you may get a clearer picture? Thanks. --Pete (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , your argument above that primary sources are "discouraged" is specious. The policy you quoted above simply cautions editors to not engage in independent analysis or interpretation of primary sources. In fact, the policy does not use the word "discouraged" and the policy does not say primary sources should not be used. Here, the SEC filing is a reliable source and there is no analysis or interpretation of the source material. All we have is a direct quotation from the original. What is so controversial about this? The source violates no policy and it should be included. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you see what I said about penis-measuring above? The sentence is perfectly well sourced as it stands. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not exactly -- the sentence in question still has a "citation needed" tag. I apologize for escalating the tone of this conversation with my earlier rhetoric, but let's please try to keep things civil (per Civility) and avoid using crude (and potentially sexist) references to certain parts of the male anatomy. Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two sentences, and only one of them (the second) is tagged. I replaced the primary source for the first sentence (SEC) with an excellent secondary source (NYT). This is the same one we use to source the Monsanto breakup in the Monsanto article and I am puzzled that anybody thinks that this is somehow inadequate. Of course, such folk may, if they feel the need, append the original SEC source as well as the NYT. That seems to be rather pointless, but I can understand if some editor feels the need to piss higher than others. (See page 36) --Pete (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a moot point, now that the SEC source has been restored, but no one was arguing that the NYT source should be removed. We were simply stating that the SEC source should be included as a reliable primary source. Also, you really need to stop using crude (and again, arguably sexist) language. Just because we are volunteers does not mean we should not act professionally (see WP:IUC). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The SEC source is only needed because the blog secondary source isn't what I'd call an excellent source. I'm sorry you didn't get the Murphy Brown reference. One of the show's better moments, I thought. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a guideline. I think the NYT is a sufficiently authoritative source. --Pete (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In contrast to your misleading 'Policies mentioned in RfC' heading from a few days ago, I am glad to see you are now making a distinction between policies and guidelines.Dialectric (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you are nit-picking here, but I take your point. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We still have an unsourced sentence in the section. Does anybody have a reliable source? --Pete (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Pete, as you know one of our goals here is to make our articles easy enough to understand for even kids in high school. Since Monsanto is now more ag-related I thought that it would help the reader to understand that they used to make chemicals and are still responsible for any cleanup that they are charged to do.  That's even something that I was not aware of and I'm sure a longways past high school age.  You removed my sourcing and added the NYT ref to establish that there was a company split.  I did not feel that I needed to source that fact because I do not feel it would be doubted since I wikilinked the split article.  But the fact that Monsanto is still responsible for cleanups, as stated in the primary source I supplied, is now unsourced and any editor can come along in a few days or weeks and remove it.  IMO you are being disruptive when you continue to ignore the arguments that have been offered re the primary source and continue to insist that I need to find sources that meet your approval.  I'm going to return the primary source and the blog source that I supplied.  According to our guidelines, blogs are acceptable in some instances.  In this case I am using a source that has been in a list of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010"[8] and one of the "Top Five Blogs TIME Writers Read Daily" per our Wikipedia article.  It is not being used to establish fact but to help our readers understand the circumstances of the company split.  Gandydancer (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence about the split-up is well-sourced. I felt we could do better than a primary source and replaced it with the NYT source from our Monsanto article. Feel free to add the SEC link to the NYT if you really think it needs it. The second sentence about Monsanto-ag bearing responsibility for Monsanto-chem's actions is more problematic, as Monsanto's media release on these cases we're talking about above specifically denies responsibility on the grounds that they are a separate company. I feel we need a better source than a blog. Even an award-winning, literate and popular blog. --Pete (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No that is not their argument. Monsanto is arguing that the companies that bought their products are responsible.  As for the blog, yes I agree that my source would not be adequate to stand alone, however I have provided the primary source which is in this case appropriate, which several other editors have agreed to as well.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I stand corrected there. Thanks. I see the blog references the SEC document. However, the SEC document is about as clear as a harbour full of toxic mud. I can't see where Monsanto is assuming the liability for cleanups. I'm guessing that, unless you are a legal whiz, you are just taking the blog author on trust? --Pete (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of the filing states: "Monsanto has agreed, as between Solutia and itself, to assume financial responsibility for all litigation relating to property damage, personal injury, products liability or premises liability or other damages related to asbestos, PCB, dioxin, benzene, vinyl chloride and other chemicals manufactured before the Solutia Spin-off." (Emphasis added). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just needed a few more swings of the machete, I find. --Pete (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict -- had not yet read Pete's comment) Yes, and I'd also like to say this: If one is going to bother to make edits and comment on the talk pages, they need to be willing to spend the time needed to learn what they are commenting about rather than say things like "the SEC document is about as clear as a harbour full of toxic mud" when it is quite clear.  By Pete's responses, it seems to me that he has not been willing to do this.


 * I hesitated to take this talk page on because I am well aware that it can take many hours of research to make intelligent responses on the talk page and make reasonable edits to the article. It is my impression that editor Sage Red did his/her research and was not willing to be frightened away by the use of this WP policy and that WP policy and to be told that his/her suggestions were just WP:FART ideas (a new one to me, indeed) should be given special honors.  Most of us would have quit our efforts long ago, I know I would have, and it is good to see that at least one editor just kept plugging along. Gandydancer (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, Gandydancer. SageRad has my deep appreciation. Jus  da  fax   23:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked over the SEC document and found it reasonably opaque. A pointer to the exact part of the reference would have helped. I didn't see it amongst the legalese. In fact, my understanding was that the SEC document was a reference for the Monsanto split-up alone. However, that doesn't eliminate the need for good secondary sourcing, and a blog, no matter how well-regarded, isn't really top notch. A primary source and a blog kinda sorta fill the need for sourcing, but I'm not happy with it. Maybe I'll go read that NYT article again.


 * Sagerad's contributions haven't earnt any glowing praise here. He tried to get a private lawsuit included when it had no adequate sourcing and had already been the subject of a COI discussion, when it emerged that the lawyer filing the case was editing here. His attempts to get these two PCB cases listed have stirred up one of the better shitstorms I've seen, and we're about as far from consensus as ever. My impression is that some (but by no means all) participants have dogmatic views when the topic is Monsanto, and earthly things such as wikipolicy are merely obstacles to be overcome. I can be persuaded by facts and reason, and I'll readily acknowledge when I'm in the wrong. But circular arguments, obfuscation, and ad-hominem attacks have no impact, except to help convince me that I'm on the right track. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I fully support a request at noticeboard about the disruptive editor Pete, please keep me updated. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What noticeboard is that? In all candor, I've lost track. Jus  da  fax   22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is inappropriate discussion for an article talk page. Please read WP:DR, namely WP:FOC on what to do here. If you want to to bring up an editor behavior issue, this is not the place. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Pete/Skyring is messing with comments, he recently moved mine in this edit (no edit summary). The result was that other editors no longer could read the related content, which i posted in response to Dialectric above, where he mentioned, an edit warring case in regards to edits by Pete/Skyring. I notice that Pete really tries hard to get reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talk • contribs)
 * The better option, which would have been more appropriate as I just did, is just hat the comment. Anyone can see it if they uncollapse this, but it's not relevant to the talk page conversation, so this is also an indication not to post in this collapsed section. All threaded comments should have been moved either way and not just leave mine as if it wasn't a reply. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom, requests for cases
A request for an Arbcom case and a AE request to apply pseudoscience discretionary sanctions  have been filed that may affect this article. All editors wishing to make a comment should visit the pages linked to. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)