Talk:Monsanto/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Category: corporate crime

I think this category is worthy of being listed for this page. The article states numerous crimes committed by the company. If there are no objections I will add it. --T1980 (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The company was fined and in a couple of cases charged with a crime, but where do you see in the article that it was convicted of anything? The company payed a fine and settled in the Indonesian case, a case in which the company discovered the crime first and alerted authorities on it's own. I'm not a big Monsanto fan; I patrol this page because it's the target of a lot of folks who want to add excessive POV to it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Payment of a fine is either admission of guilt or hushmoney--69.248.225.198 (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So every company who's ever employed an employee who committed an illegal act should be listed under corporate crime? Not how it works. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think to have a corporate crime section in every company wikipedia page is as justified as having a Human Rights section in every country's wikipedia page.Gw2005 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If they have not been convicted, then why is one section titled "Indonesian Bribing Convictions"? Either the category should be added or this section removed. --T1980 (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Controversial"

Is having "controversial" in the first sentence a NPOV violation? The article does a good job amply documenting why Monsanto is controversial, so why not just leave it at that? I'm going to go ahead and remove the word. Kansan (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Yes, they have been involved in controversies, but I agree that it's POV for us to assign that label in the lead. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

POV

I'm no fan of Monsanto... but by saying "they are easily the most reviled" isn't exactly a neutral viewpoint, nor is it particularly informative.Snefreely 05:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But, you could easily find and add references to public polls that state exactly that. Would that be okay? Personally I am impressed with how neutral this article is considering the subject. Carewolf 14:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The following contrib was removed 21:27, 10 March 2008 by 69.110.4.68 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), 4 minutes after removing the {{POV}} tag from the accompanying article, each without recording a summary of the corresponding edit. Restored by Jerzy•t 08:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

I am not. This article is a rant, and random users stumbling across it get a sense of its biased tone (see bottom two headings). It includes every anti-Monsanto bit of trivia available and cites several anti-Monsanto sites as references—and that's for the few claims that are cited. Cool Hand Luke 15:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

yes please show us the forum poll that you posted at peta. its totally legit considering how smart those guys are
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2008

That is a personal attack, and a violation of fundamental policy. (Except for the 2nd sentence, which is terminally vague, other than appearing to involve sarcasm.) You can ask for specific data, and when presented you can contest its objectivity.
--Jerzy•t 00:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

re - "that they are easily the most reviled"
As the course must be set for neutrality - I would encourage that the facts about Monsanto be presented early - the extermination of countless seed and food varieties, as well as their deliberations meant to end humanity's age old basic survival tactics of allowing farmers to grow and reproduce their own seed - which are 2 factual statements - just as it is written neutrally in Wiki. that "Hitler's bid for territorial conquest and racial subjugation caused the deaths of 43 million people, including the systematic genocide of an estimated six million Jews as well as various additional "undesirable" populations in what is known as the Holocaust".
In this case it is difficult for me to agree with 'neutral'. I believe the statement is quite factual and constructively informative "that they are easily the most reviled". It is the same as saying that the Beatles were easily the most popular pop group in one certain era - or as Wiki. writes; "The Beatles are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music".
It is very difficult to see these realities being hidden in any way, from any light - and perhaps the truth of these statements will only be realized in the future, when we witness more of 'what hath been wrought' by this frankenstein of a company . I wold say that it can be argued that it is factual, rather than neutral that they are the most reviled, especially since they have more than earned this specific reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddydee (talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This has got to be the most POV article I have ever read in Wikipedia. Holy cow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.203.194 (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As Plaintiff

A paragraph in the "As Plaintiff" section states:

Monsanto specializes in production of genetically modified seeds for crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton, and has a financial interest in securing various monopolies through patents.[60] Though Monsanto's large market share over the seed-buying market there is little choice between Monsanto or its top competitor,[51] DuPont.[61][clarification needed] Genetically engineered seeds have had many more effects than allowing companies like Monsanto to corner seed markets, such as the rise of pesticide-resistant weeds.[62]

This paragraph does not appear to refer to any specific case in which Monsanto was a plaintiff, and it does little to clarify Monsanto's role as a plaintiff in general. IMHO if this information is to be included at all, it should be moved to another section of the article. Albickers (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the paragraph as there was no objection after two weeks. Albickers (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Flip Side

It’s a suggestion to Wikipedia - To have a new section as "The Flip Side" where in people can talk about the actual long term negative / positive impact on the society of all the human activities. In the below article, the author has mentioned about the damage the Monsanto has caused but looks like he is trying to give an emphasis on the amount spent by the firm for damaging the environment & human life. Can you please emphasise instead upon the fact it took more than 4 billion years approximately to get the environment that we live in. Further, how can Monsanto pay for damaging something so precious? Further, how can some one pay for one's suffering. If such a payment is legalised then I think the below act too should be legalised. "Any one should be allowed to Murder a person and then pay a few Million dollars to the family and say we have settled your account." But isn't this law already present, where in Monsanto's action has not only killed the environment but Murdered many people and they claim to have settled their accounts. I wonder what the law and order is doing and why are they even there? I think it's time we understand that such behaviour is not acceptable to the society and we as humans should get RID of all the causes that lead to such behaviour.

"Environmental and health record: According to an anonymous 2001 document[25] obtained by the Centre for Public Integrity, Monsanto has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being a "potentially responsible party" for 56 contaminated sites (Superfund sites) in the United States. "Monsanto has been sued, and has settled, multiple times for damaging the health of its employees or residents near its Superfund sites through pollution and poisoning".[6][26][27] In 2004 The Wildlife Habitat Council and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Environmental Performance Track presented a special certificate of recognition to Monsanto Company during WHC's 16th Annual Symposium.

Monsanto is the largest producer of glyphosate herbicides through its popular brand, Roundup.

Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications (referring to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) explained the company's regulatory philosophy to Michael Pollan in 1998: "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA's job."[28]"

Just a short note: Human behaviour is conditioned and since we follow an evil practise of monetary system, we are facing all our vows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.72.153 (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Untested products?

I am doubtful of this statement at the end of the article's introduction:

"Some genetically engineered products are regulated by existing environmental laws, while other products have not been rigorously tested for safety."

Is this meaning to claim

1. Monsanto is violating envionmental laws with some of their GMOs?
2. Environmental laws don't cover some of their GMOs? or
3. Monsanto's GMO's are regulated, but some other (non-GMO) products aren't tested?

Regardless of which was the intended meaning, the statement is too vauge. If someone can clarify what this statement means, and provided some sort of source for the intended claim they should add that back to the article, until that happens, I am removing this statement. kenj0418 04:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

See, for example, this article [1] at Alternet for some substantiation. (It also contains some suggestions for where to find the relevant scientific literature.)boombaard (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If the page is about the current Monsanto corporation, information prior to 2000 is not accurate

Since this page states it is about the Monsanto corporation, it is not correct to include information about other companies called Monsanto that existed prior to 2000. According to legal documents, the current Monsanto Company was incorporated in 2000 in Delaware - [2].

MarkISutherland (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:Common Name. Monsanto is commonly used to refer to all incarnations of the company. The incorporation in Delaware in 2000 is just the culmination of several mergers and acquistions over the years that have resulted in its current corporate structure. Please do not content fork the article unless you gain consensus here on the talk page to do so. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Eric. However, if common usage is contradicted by official legal filings, to go with common usage over what is recognized by the US government seems to detract from the value of Wikipedia as an informational source. Maybe a solution would be to diffentiate betweent the two, as most of the chemical history mentioned in this entry is not part of the Monsanto Company incorporated in 2000 and in existence today. Those are owned by Solutia, Pharmacia, Pfizer etc.

MarkISutherland (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As excerpted from the history section of the article:

• 2000: Monsanto merges with Pharmacia and Upjohn, and ceases to exist. Later in the year, Pharmacia forms a new subsidiary, also named Monsanto, for the agricultural divisions, and retains the medical research divisions, which includes products such as Celebrex.
• 2002: Pharmacia spins off its Monsanto subsidiary into a new company, the "new Monsanto." As part of the deal, Monsanto agrees to indemnify Pharmacia against any liabilities that might be incurred from judgments against Solutia. As a result, the new Monsanto continues to be a party to numerous lawsuits that relate to operations of the old Monsanto.

It would seem that the two are still linked. If you would like to improve the history section of the article to point this out, it would be very useful. Take a look at WP:RS it will tell you about using reliable sources to expand the article. Solely relying on the Monsanto webpage would probably be insufficient since it is inherently promotional. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Poor Choice of Wording

In the rBGH section the author says these hormones are linked to increased levels of "pus". Can this be rephrased to say increased levels of mastitis and then if needed discuss what mastitis really is. This feeds to much into the PETA concept that milk is pus and I really don't think that's NPOV. --Lark61 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Strong-arming" of the seed industry is to say the least a 'poor choice of wording' and clearly raises the question of objectivity due to such 'loaded' phrases.121.54.54.57 (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Owning Blackwater

I'm removing the section about Monsanto owning Academi (nee Blackwater/Xe). This appears to be complete BS, and the assertion is not supported by the linked references. The references do claim that Monsanto hired an Academi subsidiary for security purposes, and that Academi's founder/CEO sold a stake in the company (but the buyer isn't specified). The Academi page doesn't mention Monsanto at all, lists the company as being privately held, and while it does mention the founder's retirement and relinquishment of "some ownership rights", it's not clear that Monsanto or anybody else purchased these rights.Plantdrew (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agent Orange...

I think that this article is lacking almost any information about Monsanto's role in Vietnam, and the sometimes quite toxic effects of agent orange. Xarxis 03:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC

The following statements are in the article:

In "History": "Other major products have included dioxin (in the herbicides 2,4,5-T and Agent Orange), aspartame (NutraSweet), bovine somatotropin (bovine growth hormone; BST), and PCBs." and "In the 1960s and 1970s, Monsanto is the leading producer of Agent Orange for US Military operations in Vietnam."

In "Legal Issues - As Defendant" : "It was sued by veterans for the side effects of its Agent Orange defoliant, used by the US military in the Vietnam War."

Much more information regarding Agent Orange, its use during the Vietnam War and subsequent lawsuits can be found in the article. Is there something specific that you feel should be mentioned on this article that isn't currently?
kenj0418 18:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The leading producer? Who else produced it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.221 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2007

Dow was the leading producer, but many of the major chemical companies produced some of it. See Agent Orange. Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

god if you people watched few docuementaries on youtube and learned more chemistry you would realize that agent orange itself was not toxic or carcinogenic but it's rather excess heat during the reaction that can result in dioxins as impurities —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2008

• _ First, don't interrupt others' signed talk contribs with your own.
  _ One of the neat things abt WP is that if you had clicked on Agent Orange, you'd have learned in the first sentence that w/in WP, "Agent Orange" doesn't refer to a compound, but to a supply item available to US forces (and in the context of Monsanto, it's reasonable to use that term for the product they provided, impurities and all). Now, if the accompanying article, or the AO one, uses the term inconsistently, that would be of interest.
  _ BTW, WP is committed to verifiability and NPoV, while the video medium is on one hand hard to use for either research or verification, and on the other, relatively heavily dedicated to changing people's opinions via their gut rather than via evaluation of facts. (Last time i recall using YouTube as a WP source, even informally on a talk page, was to clarify who did what on Letterman when Earl Scruggs and Steve Martin were on.)
  --Jerzy•t 23:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  

"Agent Orange caused an immense damage to health, also for US-soldiers, not at least by genetic modification.[9][10]" - Besides the grammatical errors (at least three, in one short sentence), the references cited for this claim are two highly sensationalized newspaper articles, certainly neither primary nor unbiased sources. Despite much controversy over many years, it's still unclear whether _any_ adverse health effects could be attributed to exposure to Agent Orange. I recommend that this sentence be removed unless it can be much better substantiated. HScrimgeour (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

rBST

In the section on rBST, it states: "IGF-1 is a natural hormone found in the milk of both humans and cows causing the quick growth of infants." I've added a "citation needed", because this sentence seems to imply that the rapid growth of infants is due to the presence of IGF-1 in their milk. This is not correct; IGF-1 is produced endogenously in response to somatotropin, and infants on formula (IGF-1 free) continue to grow rapidly. See the Wikipedia entry: Insulin-like Growth Factor HScrimgeour (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Terminator

How should these plants pollinate if they have been made unable to flower???

(Dominiquee (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Ignoring the question above, there is a significant logical inconsistency in this section, and I fail to see how it relates to concerns about the company's environmental and health record. If the Genetic use restriction technology was indeed developed by Delta and Pine Land, which Monsanto acquired in 2007, how could Monsanto be promising not to use it back in 1999? The first sentence is entirely inaccurate, and there is already an entire Wikipedia entry devoted to so-called Terminator Technology. This section appears to based on a single Guardian article, which hardly espouses a NPOV. Given that this technology has neven been field-tested, merely patented, how does it relate to Monsanto's environmental and health record?JoeyJoJoShabbaduJr (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Spreading sterility

I wish to highlight a factual problem with part of the section on "Terminator Technology", aka GURTs. While the GURT page has more detail, I take issue with this sentence, in particular the final clause:

"There is also concern that the Terminator effect will be spread to native vegetation through pollination, rendering all plants unable to reproduce fruit."

I made an edit previously pointing out that sterility by definition cannot spread sexually. The first generation of seeds cross-pollinated with a GURT would not grow, thus stopping its spread. This is a basic principle of evolutionary biology - that deleterious genes are eliminated from the population. My edit was quickly reverted with no explanation by User:Nutriveg, so I think although this is an obvious biological constraint it appears that it needs to be discussed so that some amount of a consensus can be reached among community members.

I flagged the sentence as needing a citation because there is a factual claim being made that needs to be backed up or changed. At the very least, pointing out some of the detail already on the GURT page would be a good idea considering that it addresses the pseudobiological "spreading sterility" concern. Finally, the fantastical idea that something as mundane as sterile seed could "render all plants unable to reproduce fruit" has no basis, and isn't even grammatically correct. I'm willing to dig up a reference for the debunking of these claim, including adding more detail to the GURT page. I thought I would bring it up now on the discussion page to get more input--76.210.74.249 (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Of note, while a sterile plant (i.e., a plant that does not produce viable seed) cannot directly spread its sterility (for obvious reasons), it is possible, however, for a plant that cannot produce viable seeds to pollinate other non-sterile plants, and therefore spread a recessive genetic trait for lower fertility rates. --Thoric (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Second largest producer of genetically engineered seed

Sometime in April this was changed from saying Monsanto is the largest producer of genetically engineered seed with 90% of the market to the second largest at 49%. I don't see a citation and can't find any information backing this up. Who is the largest producer with the other 51%? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.29.44 (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

i addressed this. good catch! Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sanitizing

Anon users in the 71.142.216.* range (such as 71.142.229.107) seem to be attempting to "sanitize" this page by deleting references to legal actions and controversial products that the company has been associated with. I don't think such information should be removed, as it is all verifiable, but I don't want this this article to read like a burning effigy of Monsanto either. I deleted one of the external links (there were already several that described lawsuits and controverseys). Would anyone else care to re-review this for NPOV? Jasmol 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's different cases, why not include them all? I think they are all of interest.

The statement regarding Schmeiser vs. Monsanto reads as the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in favour of Monsanto. The section may have been cut down for space, but the content left is in itself misleading. The supreme court of Canada did rule in favour of Monsanto on some issues, but overruled the Federal Courts of Canada ruling against Schmeiser ordering him to pay monsanto $15/acre technology fee. The judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada for the independant canola farmer is noteworthy against an agricultural giant like Monsanto.

Response: It shouldn't be about a little guy beating a big corporation, it should be about the facts. The facts of the case should be presented accurately and for the most part, in this article they are not. It seems that several people involved with writing this article have had a heavy bias in the subject and they should withdraw their contributions. For example, "seeds blew off a truck and into his field" is blatantly mis-stating the facts of the case, as court evidence showed, it's physically impossible to plant 900 acres of a pure stand of canola without deliberately doing so. His motives were clearly to enrich himself by knowingly committing fraud. The propaganda to the contrary is clearly generated to favor the anti-gmo point-of-view, and should be eliminated from this discussion. This is not a forum for furthering the causes of the anti-gmo movement.Landroo 03:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

While inclined to agree that the article may need improvement, and removing any inaccuracies such as that above, I think it quite possible that a "balanced" view will not present Monsanto in a creditable light. It may assist balance by asking contributers to disclose any interest Winstonwolfe 04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC).

Once again, let the facts speak for themselves. Who cares about what "light" is cast? Who cares which agenda is supported? If you want to contribute to an encyclopedia, leave your personal attitudes at the door, and stick to the facts.Landroo 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Selecting which facts are portrayed is hardly unrelated to personal attitudes - nor are they something that can be left at the door. This is not to deny that there may be an objective reality, but any simplification into an brief encyclopedia article will inevitably - even with the best of intentions - be tarred with the bias of contributors. Anything manifestly incorrect should not be tolerated, but what you view as "the facts" may not be something others agree with; for example, clearly there is disagreement over the significane of the legal ruling above. Legal decisions are usually not black and white x is right, y is wrong, "facts", so this is hardly surprising. In a wider view, the major historical interest in Monsanto may not be its bottom line, or directors, but the ethics of its production of GMOs, and if that is where most contributors interests lie, that may justify it being the major part of this article. Incidentally I am not personally opposed to responsibly handled GMOs, nor am I defending my own writing - if you view logs you will note I haven't contributed to the case law being criticised. Winstonwolfe 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Monsanto editing it's own Page I see lots of edits by 164.144.123.1 - the Whois Lookup shows this to be Monsanto themselves getting into the fray. Not surprising that they are heavily editing the contributions by the rest of the free world. 209.217.93.134 00:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. What the hell?Joethedope (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't have people who know about the company editing this article. 85.0.177.215 08:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Perhaps the view is biased, but at least there would be some balance overall. And yes, I am someone who knows about the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.17.99 (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Balance, is important, along with evidence of the impact of Monsanto's choices and actions. Sources need to be referenced to credible sources; any Monsanto deletions can easily be reversed, and spin should be kept within editorial guidelines.

Is there evidence to back up today's claim that "Monsanto's roundup gene will affect the prairie provinces (in Canada)"?

--wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 23:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with Monsanto's people doing edits. 1) It's an open Wiki 2) They are entitled to have their view presented. But... doing it from behind an IP-address without disclosing their affinity is *not* OK. You Monsanto people out there: If you feel the company is being treated unfairly and/or misrepresented, please state so and provide documentation/evidence to back up your claims. Anything else will just reinforce people's negative opinion of Monsanto and confirm them in their belief. 83.249.105.199 (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is something wrong with someone who actually is from Monsanto doing edits that don't further or preserve a {{WP::NPOV|neutral point of view}}. This is a clear {{WP::COI|conflict of interest}}. That said, as long as the edits are NPOV, it actually *is* okay for them to edit anonymously without disclosing their affiliation, though this activity is strongly discouraged per {{WP::CIO}}. Looking over the article and talk page, though, this doens't seem to be as much of an issue anymore. Arathald (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious Edits

Having firsthand knowledge of everything that went on at Fort McClellan Alabama, it is very obvious to me that someone is editing this article on behalf of Monsanto. The chemical weapons in Anniston Alabama were manufactured for the Army by Monsanto in a factory located 2 miles from the base because the chemicals were too dangerous to be transported. The chemicals were then used and tested during training of troops. It is no secret at all just ask any one of the 78,000 soldiers that were sprayed with live nerve and blister agents. 30 yrs later I STILL have chloracne. Thanks for covering it up guys ! Semper Fidelis! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.148.89 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So the link to to AFACT does not go to the intended page. d20 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)mstngofire

Strange how the article has gone from an anti-Monsanto POV to a conspicuously pro-Monsanto POV. Wikipedians worry about unsophisticated vandals, but need to pay more attention to corporate infiltrators who are savvy enough to use complete sentences and cite their sources. groupuscule (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you could give some examples of the POV, we could fix it.

Also, I fixed a mistake in the citation you added - you wrote that Monsanto had spent 1.7 billion lobbying in California, whereas they have only spent 1.7 million according to the source. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed that the link to your source was broken ("www.examiner---com" instead of "www.examiner.com") and tried to fix it, and found out that the site is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. I've reverted your changes for now, but please feel free to find another source with the information. (You could also ask for the blacklisting to be removed at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. I don't know anything about the quality of the source myself, so if you ask them I would follow their judgement on that.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Pig patents

There is a paragraph here on certain patent applications that Monsanto filed related to pig breeding, all of which have been abandoned. They are not issued, they are not enforceable. I deleted this paragraph as it appears random, and is a dead issue in any case since Monsanto abandoned prosecution. Another user. Kmhkmh. undid the change, saying that "undoind (sic) deletion of sourced content, pig patents are not randomly out, they are particulasr (sic) controversial and received broad media coverage".

So, if you do a search at WIPO, you see that Monsanto has filed about 1200 PCT applications - that is just PCT, not even national stage. http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/result.jsf?query=FP%3A%28monsanto%29&maxRec=1209&filter=PCT&filterField=CTR&prevFilter=

If you do a google search on "Monsanto patent", you get about 2,200,000 hits.

1) People file patent application for all kinds of reasons. What matters is what patents issue and what you do with the issued patents. These will never issue as they are abandoned. There are plenty of issued Monsanto patents that are being used in controversial ways. It is hard to see why this one matters. 2) This is an encyclopedia article, meant to give an overview of the company. While some editors want to seem to make this page some kind of detailed list of Monsanto crimes, that would seem to be an inappropriate use of the page. The page should give a big picture of important issues. How is this worthy of inclusion? Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is not whether Monsanto has ultimately abandoned the patent or changed its mind. It is also irrelevant that the pig filing is only one out many patents filing (by that logic no filing would relevant). The criteria for inclusion in the article is the reflection in external sources and media, which has seen extensive coverage of pig thing, iirc. In other words whether we mention particular filings (out of their many), depends on the coverage they received in external sources. "Monsanto's crimes" or past lapses do of course belong in the article. That's the same with any other company article, but not all companies have committed lapses extensively covered by external sources/the media. We're not writing a company brochure or a yellow pages entry, which in doubt just contains Monsanto's current state of affairs, rather we are summarizing what reliable external sources/media coverage have reported on Monsanto throughout Monsanto's existence.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Since so much has changed now, I'm not sure which part of the article my revert originally concerned. If it was just about mentioning the pig patent issue in the lead, I'd agree that it doesn't have to be mentioned there. If it is about removing it from the article altogether, I strongly disagree for the reasons stated above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

content on pig patent applications is still very much there, as per your suggestion and reasoning. It is just with all the other patent related content now. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Public officials formerly employed by Monsanto

The third and fifth people on this list aren't in this category. According to the source, Friedman was only employed by Monsanto after leaving the FDA, and Rumsfeld was never employed by Monsanto at all. I think they either need to be removed or the title needs to be changed. Normally I would just do the edit, but I don't want to be accused of trying to sanitize the article.

Also, the source for these appears to be an opinion piece. (The emotionally-charged title doesn't help either.) Is Vanity Fair a reliable source for this article? Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

tough call. the authors are respected investigative journalists who have won pulitzers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_L._Barlett) and there is lots of factual stuff in the article. it is true that the article is extremely POV - their goal was very much to expose what they considered to be bad behavior. i wish they had provided more context but much of what is there is indeed just bad behavior. i'd say leave it in, but anything that is supported by it should have other citations as well....Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. That sounds like a good way to proceed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

At first glance I see no issue with Vanity Fair article and I don't seem to be an opinion piece either but rather an investigative piece (at least it is labeled as such and imho it reads as such as well). No doubt the authors don't have a favourable opinion of Monsanto and yes the title is emotionally charged, but that is not uncommon in investigative journalism and partially a marketing strategy, you need a provocative title to create attention. However what matters here in regard as the use as source is that the reporting is accurate, i.e. the stated facts are correct and assessment are fair (as in well founded rather than made up for purely ideological purposes or plain spin doctoring). Consequently I don't think anything sourced by this article would require a second source, that would only be the case if the content in question is highly disputed and/or there is good reason to believe the article got it wrong.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I also believe that the ref is adequate. I changed the heading--is that better? Gandydancer (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh I just realized that I was looking at the Corporate Governance section which has overlapping material. you may have noticed but I went through that section and verified the names - turned that there was one person listed there who was not mentioned in the article; it also turned out that the wiki article said that all those folks were "currently employed" by Monsanto -- one of them had never been employed but had been on the board (not now though) and the others were former employees so edited to correct. I am going to move that section down to this section now that I saw this! Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Toxicity

Jytdog, I'm not sure it's wise to remove the discussion of toxicity from the genetically-modified organism section. If there is a peer-reviewed study suggesting that these organisms are toxic, I think we should include it—particularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupuscule (talk • contribs) 04:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the dialog! If you look at the article on GM food, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food, you will find there is a section there on safety, pretty long, with about 21 citations. There is another section on allergies with two more citations, and another section on human exposure with 5 citations, and another section on gene transfer to gut bacteria with about 8 citations. And more. So... several things. What makes that one article so different or important that it is cited on the Monsanto page instead of the other 30+ citations - what is the rationale for leaving the others out? If we are fair and reasonable and bring the whole discussion over, what is the point of having the same section over in GM Foods? In my mind, this article is about Monsanto and its products; deeper discussion of GM food in general -- which applies to products made by many companies, not just Monsanto, belongs over in the GMO/GMF articles. Does that make sense? Very open to hearing other thoughts. Thanks again.Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Haiti

Once again, I have to disagree with many of the changes you two have removed from the Haiti section. For example, the number of marchers in the demonstration was removed, with the comment that the source didn't support it. But the source says: "Ten thousand members of the Mouvman Peyizan Papaye (Peasant Movement of Papay, MPP) led by Chavannes Jean- Baptiste took to the streets to protest the planting of the Monsanto crops that were accepted by the Haitian Min- istry of Agriculture."

And the first change made was to eliminate a description of the Haitians' apparent central concern, which is that Monsanto is trying to make Haiti dependent on Monsanto. groupuscule (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I that case the figure should be reintroduced into the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)=

Thanks for the feedback. Of course I can't speak for Jytdog, but for my own edit, I think you're referring to this statement: "Another problem is that the pollen from the Monsanto seeds could contaminate local crops, preventing any crops to be replanted, and in turn making the entire country dependent upon Monsanto or another seed company." This was stated as fact, not as opinion. First, unlike what you said in your comment, the statement doesn't say that Monsanto was trying to make Haiti dependent on them. The statement (and source) also do not say that it was the farmers' "central concern." (Of course, please produce reliable sources if you have them.)

The statement itself contained several highly dubious assumptions - that hybrid seeds crossbreeding with local crops could (in an unspecified way) "prevent" the local crops from being replanted; that it would spread across the entire country and apparently replace all the local crops; that this would cause the "dependence" (whatever that means in this context) of the entire country. Besides all that, there is no difference between introducing hybrid seeds and introducing seeds from any source. Genes are still genes, wherever they come from (and even if they were GM, for that matter). It is not as though the recombination of the genes from a hybrid would suddenly "produce negative characteristics" and fail to produce food, any more than that would happen during pollination of non-hybrid crops. The only difference is that one particular generation of plants has been bred (normal artificial breeding) such that all of its members "win the genetic lottery," so to speak. That is, in subsequent generations, there is regression to the mean but not the gambler's fallacy.

Anyways, the actual argument from the source (which is not what was in the article) seems to be that any Haitian seed/Monsanto seed hybrids would require extra fertilizer, forcing the farmers to buy that fertilizer. This does seem to require the assumption that the extra value from using the fertilizer is less than the extra value from having better corn (plus that the plants couldn't grow without fertilizer?) but I wouldn't object to reinserting that statement as an opinion - not as a fact, because it's a scientific statement and this is not a scientific source - if due weight could be established. I looked briefly for some sources, but didn't find any. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment: Jytdog's edit summary about the Epoch Times was not that the source doesn't support it, but that the source is not reliable. I think it's reliable, although I hadn't heard of it before - I only selected it because it was the only actual news source I found that gave an actual number (a vague statement like "thousands of" is very close to WP:WEASEL). That being said, if there is dispute (and especially if no other option is available), one option is to attribute it, e.g. "The Epoch Times reported that..." Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In general it is well known that (monsanto) hybrids crossbreed and the dependence is probably just a legal one, i. e. farmers may not be able to produce "natural" corn without violating monsanto patents (there have been such court cases in the past already, though afaik not on Haiti).--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I initially thought as well, but it's not the argument presented in the source. (Although to be fair, it's first made as a very general statement and the description isn't given until the sentence after, so I suppose it could be said that the first part is meant to refer to any possible mechanism of dependence.) I wonder if the fact that it was a gift would make a difference. Can anyone find a source for whether an agreement was signed? I think that would be important to mention in the article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to quibble about the exact formulation of the statement in WP. But I don't see where the report of the Epoch Times is dubious. As far as the Epoch Times it is concerned its explicit argument is about legal issues. It talks about dependence due legal issues forcing farmers to buy their seeds every year from Monsanto (see also Genetic use restriction technology). The cross pollination of corn and associated potential patent violation by farmers is well known and documented in various other sources as well, so I don't see anything dubious there. The (dubious) fertilizer argument you've mentioned above is not in the Epoch Times at all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about the citation that was present in the article before I made the edits, and which the statement was sourced to (1) - it does indeed seem to make that argument, although perhaps someone who speaks better Spanish will contradict me. The second paragraph of my response above is a description of why the statement that was in the article was dubious - it did not mention legal issues and based on the source that didn't seem like a likely interpretation. I agree that the Epoch Times source (the one that I added) references legal issues and dependence, but it still doesn't use the term "forced" - nor do I think it should, because in subsequent years the farmers can buy from anybody or use non-patented seed. I don't object to the statement being added back in that context - even though it still doesn't really seem like a good argument to me, because having extra crops specifically during a famine year and then not being able to replant them still seems a lot better than never having gotten those extra crops at all. Anyways, I need to go to bed (and I think we need to wait for Jytdog to reply), but if the argument takes the legal perspective, I'll point out that according to Monsanto they have never pursued an accidental contamination case (link) - e.g. one of the key points of the Schmeiser ruling was that accidental contamination was implausible. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO this discussion will go nowhere fast if we start to debate the integrity of Monsanto using their own information as evidence. Keep in mind that in the Percy Schmeiser case, the judges voted 5/4, so apparently 4 of the 9 did believe Schmeiser presented a good argument. Also note that Monsanto was forced to pay for contamination at a later date. Gandydancer (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(Inserting brief comment here because of the length of Jytdog's response.) I wasn't saying Monsanto was necessarily telling the truth, but if they aren't there should be evidence (e.g. since the cases are publically available, it seems reasonable that we should be able to find the specific cases in question). Also, according to Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser, the argument of the four dissenting judges had to do with whether the patents were valid and applied to Schmeiser's case, not that the contamination was accidental. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yes thanks for the feedback! I removed the number of demonstrators because the Epoch Times article is POV - from its very title to several statements within it, some of which are not true (e.g description of Monsanto's hybrid seed selling practices --see below). I was happy that Arc found it because there is almost no reporting to be found on the event itself - it was good to at least have something that reported on the actual event, and not about the announcement that it was going to happen (which lots of people talked about). If there were articles from mainstream press I would have removed the article for being POV. Now... estimates of crowd turnout are infamously difficult and subjective. I see no reason to believe that the 10K figure is accurate because of that difficulty, and the problem is exacerbated because the article is so POV and sloppy -- the number could have been twice that, it could have been half that or a quarter of that.

On the hybrid thing - the Epoch Times article has the legal picture and biology wrong. Monsanto has patents on the GM seeds it makes, which are 100% endlessly replicable (in other words, if you harvest seeds you can replant them and get the same thing, again and again). Because of that, Monsanto has farmers sign contracts that they cannot replant. With hybrids the situation is different. Hybrids are not GM -- they are the product of breeding, and only the first cross has the desired qualities. So there are no "scary" genes from other species in them. WIth hybrids the next generation is fertile, but doesn't have all the qualities that the parent seed had - they are the product of different crosses and so the child-seeds are not the same as the parents. The child seeds still make plants that make food, but perhaps not as much, or they don't grow as fast, etc. So there is no need for contracts and Monsanto doesn't go through all the expense and hassle of doing them. And users of the hybrids are not "locked in" to Monsanto in any way by using the hybrid seeds.

The edits I made told the story simply. Monsanto made a donation of hybrid and normal seeds, many of which were coated with pesticide/herbicide. The gov't accepted it. Some people were upset about it because a) they were afraid they were GM seeds; b) haitian farmers were not really ready to manage the pesticide coatings; c) some farmers would have preferred money to seed; d) they felt that Monsanto was trying to take advantage of the crisis to break into the market. The edits I made said that without going into great detail with long quotes. If somebody feels that this worthy of a lot more elaboration, perhaps there should be a separate article about it.

Dealing with other matters -- genetic restriction technology is not in commercial use anywhere -- not relevant. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick additional note for Gandydancer - Monsanto has not yet lost an infringement case they brought.. they only take a case to court if there is clear infringement and the infringer doesn't stop the infringing behavior. There have been cases in Europe in which seed distributors have accidentally mixed GM seed with non-GM seed and sold that mixture as non-GM (I am assuming it was accidental because non-GM seed is cheaper and the distributor therefore lost money on the sales). When the GM plants were discovered the distributors have had to pay fines and restitution as the crop had to be destroyed. I am not aware of any case of gene flow from GM crops to non-GM crops. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

After looking through the sources I think "this does not appear to have occurred" is WP:OR, unless there's a specific source that makes this statement.

I'm also unsure about the protester count, but having looked up the Epoch Times on WP:RSN it's unclear (1,2,3). The first two of these seem to conclude "no," but the third (and most recent) seems to conclude "yes." To be fair, the discussions I linked generally deal with its POV in reporting on China; it's possible that we could start a new topic, but without doing that I think that citation with attribution ("The Epoch Times reported that...") should be included.

How about, "The Epoch Times reported that there were 10,000 demonstrators, but did not report on the burning of any seed"? I think that noting the omission in this form is reasonable since AFAICT it's the only news organization of any kind that was present, and then readers can draw their own conclusions. Arc de Ciel (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I also found a video of the protest and I posted that has been in the article as a citation for a while as well. If you watch it, that source does not mention or show any burning either. I'd like to note that before I made my edit, the article said that the burning actually happened: "A Haitian farmers' association, the Peasant Movement of Papay, organized a demonstration of ten thousand people on June 4, 2010, during which they symbolically burned maize seeds.[151][153][154]" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monsanto&oldid=509590996 None of those three sources says that seeds were actually burned. I could find no source that said that they did it. So we had a problem. I considered just deleting reference to the burning, but it seemed important to all the sites that discussed the PR, that the protesters intended to burn seeds, so instead of deleting mention of it altogether, I did what I did - said that they intended to do it but it doesn't appear that they did. Your suggestion is good but could we also mention that the video does not report any burning either. Those are the only two sources we have - that might be worth saying too. Something like, "There only two available reports of the actual event; one reports that there were 10,000 protesters and neither reports that seeds were burned." If other sources emerge we can of course change it! How is that? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the video, but I thought that the omission wasn't surprising since it was just an interview with video of the protestors as the backdrop, rather than an actual news report or even a summary of the protest. I also wouldn't want to say that there are "only two available reports" - the correct statement is that we can only find two, but there may be more (unless, of course, there's a source for that. :-) ). (I can tell from your reply that you recognize this, but without a source, I think the possibility that it's wrong would be sufficient to prefer a different wording.) For example, when I was searching, I did see some references to television reports, although I couldn't find them.

Also, I had thought that the original text only said they were planning to do it, as the sources said, so I didn't mention it in my reply. I agree that the article shouldn't simply state that it occurred, unless a source can be given. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

OK I went ahead and made this change - hopefully this version is OK! By the way I found evidence that seeds were burned!

http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Tools/Photos-and-Graphics/Haitian-Farmers-Protest-Monsanto-s-Seed-Donation-June-4-2010/Symbolic-burning-of-Monsanto-s-hybrid-corn-seed-in-Haiti A tiny little pile. Symbolic indeed.

While I was looking at the rest of the paragraph I made an unhappy discovery. Before my edits the article said:

Haitian farmers' organizations said the seeds would not increase Haitian food sovereignty. However, social movements in Haiti considered the offer from Monsanto detrimental to the local economy. "People in the U.S. need to help us produce, not give us food and seeds. They're ruining our chance to support ourselves," said farmer Jonas Deronzil of a peasant cooperative in the rural region of Verrettes.
the ref is http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/06/haitian-farmers-burn-monsanto-hybrid-seeds/#.UDyy9WjybNA

That source, foodsafety news, which is dated JUN 07, 2010, lifted the quote from this article: http://www.otherworldsarepossible.org/another-haiti-possible/haitian-farmers-commit-burning-monsanto-hybrid-seeds Dated May 17 2010. The author of the Other Worlds article, Beverly Bell, has a relationship with the guy and published a long interview with him in Sept of 2010. http://www.otherworldsarepossible.org/another-haiti-possible/help-us-produce-dont-give-us-food-food-sovereignty-haiti-part-iv

The problem is that in her May article, Ms. Bell was conscientious and explicitly noted in footnote 5: "5 Jonas Deronzil’s comments are from an interview in April. He was not specifically discussing Monsanto." It is terrible that the Food Safety author just stole from Ms. Bell and didn't acknowledge where the text came from, nor did the author include the footnote. So it is no wonder that earlier editors of this page propagated the error.

Anyway, two choices. One is to keep the quote but put it in its proper context. 2nd choice is take a quote that actually is about the Monsanto donation and use it. I found a great article reporting on the protest and decided to take information from there. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note, since I don't have much time right now. :-) I think the point that this is part of a larger issue that does not involve only Monsanto could be included - that is, there were objections to all sorts of donations, and the objections did not always focus on Monsanto in particular. Of course, that doesn't require going into detail (and not necessarily a quote). However, I don't think that any argument along the lines of "reject all (or most) donations" is likely to pass WP:DUE. For example, I don't see anything about this in 2010 Haiti earthquake despite discussion on the talk page, and in-depth information on the donations included in the article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment

(Moved from User talk:Jytdog in case anyone wants to add anything) Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! About your summarizing of the glyphosate-birth-defects statement - I think the detail should stay in the article. It's not long, and it's likely not information that people would know. I don't think it would be undue weight in the location where it is now.

Also, as a meta-comment - if you remove something like that entirely, even if it's appropriate to do so, it means that people who read it in the future will want to add it back - except that given what article this is, it's likely that the new edits would be non-neutral. In fact, if you remember, it had remained that way up until the point when I fixed it. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

hi! Thanks for your thoughts on dealing with toxicity issues (I think you are referring the section on glyphosate in the Monsanto article, right?) This exemplifies something I have been really struggling with in this article, and the GM food and GM crops articles... where does the detail belong? I made a parallel move in the GMO section of the Monsanto article, (taking out the detail, putting in a "see main" note, and leaving a summary statement. That move was questioned on the talk page, and my justification for that, was "Thanks for the dialog! If you look at the article on GM food, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food, you will find there is a section there on safety, pretty long, with about 21 citations. There is another section on allergies with two more citations, and another section on human exposure with 5 citations, and another section on gene transfer to gut bacteria with about 8 citations. And more. So... several things. What makes that one article so different or important that it is cited on the Monsanto page instead of the other 30+ citations - what is the rationale for leaving the others out? If we are fair and reasonable and bring the whole discussion over, what is the point of having the same section over in GM Foods? In my mind, this article is about Monsanto and its products; deeper discussion of GM food in general -- which applies to products made by many companies, not just Monsanto, belongs over in the GMO/GMF articles. Does that make sense? Very open to hearing other thoughts. Thanks again.Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)" I would say the same thing about glyphosate... detail about toxicity belongs in the glyphosate... it is enough in the Monsanto article to note that there are concerns.... If we don't do that, we end up with long, parallel-but-different discussions of the same matter.

In general, while we are talking, I have been struggling with how to deal with discussions of "toxicity". In the glyphosate article, there is study after study were some research scientist has tested glyphosate or formulations directly on cells and found "toxicity", usually with some tiny N of 3 or the like. Everyday people look at these studies and are scared. But these studies are so artificial in so many ways... they have almost nothing to do with how these products are used in the real world or how they might be effecting you or me. (Also, as an aside, even though they are published scientific articles, it is not clear the results are real. There have now been 2 studies from scientists at pharma companies, in which company scientists have finally published the results of their effort to duplicate and therefore validate findings by university scientists -- they do that before launching big expensive drug discovery programs based on the originally published study. In both articles they were only able to replicate something like 20% of the published findings! It's unlikely that this is from bad faith on anybody's part... more likely that journals accept small numbers of repetitions (N of 3 or so) and scientists pick their best three and publish them. But if you go back and do an N of 20 as if a lot of money depended on the results.... the results don't hold. That is another ball of wax though). In any case, I think it is kind of silly to have these articles in the glyphosate article at all, much less so, SO many of them. I want to do some editing to put those studies in some context and reduce the amount of real estate they take up but am not sure how to do it. What do you think about this issue, and if you agree, how do you think we could do it reasonably?Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Hope you don't mind my moving your reply to keep the conversation in one place. I'm a bit busy right now, so I'll reply later. Also, I was just intending to leave you a brief note, but if this turns into a discussion on how editing should proceed, it would probably be better to do it on the article talk page. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Happy saturday. The move here is fine, and we can indeed bring it to the article page if you like... it's more of a general issue that I am trying to sort out in my head but this is a good example to work it out on.Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

(Yes, I was talking about the Monsanto article. :-) ) My first guidelines for whether to include information are whether it is relevant, and whether it is information people would want to know about in this context. The first is debateable, but I think the second is likely. I agree with the reasoning you present (especially because of the point about having to selectively choose citations), and that the article has overaccumulated negative information – I agreed with your other move because the scientific consensus is that GM food is generally safe. However, it’s less clear in this case, and the sentence isn’t very specific about what criticisms have been made. I think "concerns about its effects on humans and the environment persist" is too vague, and it doesn't contain the information that there is evidence (in both directions). In fact, it’s actually fairly close to "some say..." which is WP:WEASEL. Of course, it doesn't have to be the exact wording (for example, I was thinking that the specific reference to "birth defects" should be replaced with the scientifically correct term “teratogen,” since the former is a word that has collected negative connotations).

For the second issue, I do know about the issue with non-replicable results, but unless there is specific reason to doubt particular studies, they’re still the best information we have. Using this case as an example, a study with n = 3 is still evidence, it's just weak evidence – and same idea for experiments in cell culture. So they would be discounted if there are better results available (I don't know if there are). If there is a proposed mechanism, then it becomes much more compelling – given that we also know it causes problems in animals, and the mechanism is well-conserved in evolution. (I’m assuming the retinoic acid proposal has been corroborated to some degree). Unless there’s a competing mechanism proposed, e.g. if someone showed that we metabolize glyphosate at a rate that would prevent its buildup.

For the more general question about how to treat the issue, the most important thing is (of course) to accurately summarize the state of knowledge – that is, the scientific consensus – with reference to reliable sources. Fewer references is fine as long as they accurately summarize the current state of knowledge, and if it's possible it's usually better to eliminate redundant ones (see WP:CITEKILL). The scientific consensus can include (peer-reviewed) studies sponsored by companies, but unless there’s a specific reason to use them (e.g. if they have a much higher N), they’re not the best choices for citations – especially on an article like this one.

Anyways, that’s all general philosophy about Wikipedia. Of course, as you know, I don’t know the specific issues in detail, so I’m only able to comment on them superficially, edit them for NPOV wording, etc. (I also haven’t really looked at the glyphosate article.) If you think that broader input is needed, there’s always the option of a request for comment to the Wikipedia community, but in that case you generally get the clearest feedback if there is only a single question being asked. Also, if you don’t object, I’ll move this discussion to the talk page after you’ve seen this message. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

where does "Labeling of genetically modified food" fit?

right now this section is under "Other legal actions". But this is not "legal action" - it is not litigation nor an investigation by an authority.

it seems to me this is lobbying, and it should be under that section. I'd like to move it there. thoughts?Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Monsanto Article Hi-jacked

Has any one been studing the edit history for this article, in particular the frequency of edits by the same editors day in day out. Can you see, those of you who have eyes to see. I would like to have this article locked. Allowing edits only after being reviewed by at least 10 editors.--2.25.98.11 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "hijacked." The article remains open to editing for people who care. I have also thought about semi-protecting this article, because people jump in on IP addresses and vandalize it. I don't believe that wiki has a procedure as you describe, however, where edits are approved only after 10 editors review it. See protection policy. I have been working on the article a lot, to make it comply with wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and also to make the article Good as wikipedia's Manual of Style-- to make it useful for learning about the actual company. PS. What is that quotation from? Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)\

Monsanto is obviously involved in using their $ to alter their public brand image. Since their company is involved with potential crimes against humanity, we should block all monsanto-related IP addresses from editing the article!67.244.131.252 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to this although this seems to be another drive-by comment. Please see response above. I do not work for Monsanto nor do I have any relationship with them. All my changes have been good faith efforts to follow the Five Pillars. I am happy to discuss any of them. About your suggestion to bar Monsanto IP-addresses; wikipedia is a fundamentally democratic encyclopedia. People do get barred, but it is for that they do in Wikipedia, not for what they do outside. So I don't think that's going to happen.Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources for consideration

St Louis Circuit Court

• SETTLEMENT DOESN'T END MONSANTO WOES. 25 November 1991. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
• MONSANTO'S PCB SUIT ENDS WITH A SETTLEMENT. 16 November 1991. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.   — C M B J   13:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I tried to find these online and could not. I have no idea what they say or even what they refer to, so I cannot use them to support any current statements in the article nor to generate any new text. I looked at your userpage and see you are very experienced in wikipedia. What use do you think these two sources could have? thx Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Update - CMB pointed me to factiva, which most libraries have. I read these articles and added information based on them to the Monsanto article. They report on lawsuits in the early 1990s by employees of Westinghouse, who had gotten sick and understood that their illnesses were due to exposure to PCBs as they assembled electrical equipment. They sued Monsanto after their efforts to sue Westinghouse failed. The basis of the suit against Monsanto was negligence. Monsanto settled some of these and won the others - courts generally found that Monsanto adequately explained to its customers that PCBs were very dangerous and utmost care needed to be used when handling them. Monsanto's customers were companies like Westinghouse. Companies like Westinghouse put the PCBs, in electrical equipment, out into communities. and had different liabilities than Monsanto. The lawsuits being reported on were not about dumping of PCBs by Monsanto - different ball of wax.Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Monsanto put in an extremely good light

Why does this article start with all accolades for Monsanto, completely ignoring all the shadiness that is Monsanto? It seems like the introduction has been written by a Monsanto employee, boasting of being proclaimed by Forbes as "Company of the year" (even though the same authors of the very-biased article issued a retraction: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlangreth/2010/10/12/forbes-was-wrong-on-monsanto-really-wrong/ ). That is definitely not a neutral point of view. Iateyourgranny (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Point well taken on the Forbes stuff. I just deleted it. Thanks! The lede is very clear that Monsanto is controversial, and the article describes negative actions by Monsanto, so I don't understand the basis for you saying that it "completely ignores" any negative things. On your broader note, I have done a lot of work on the article over the past few months, working to bring it to a NPOV and in line with the Five Pillars. I am not an employee of Monsanto nor am I connected to Monsanto in any way. Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

specific mentions of "good" and "bad" products in lede

the lede already, at the end, mentions controversy. If you would like the additionally name specific "bad" products that Monsanto made, it is only reasonable that the lede would also specifically name specific good things that Monsanto made. NPOV is important to maintain.Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

this is not a "good" or "bad" issue. They produced those products, and gained notoriety for doing so, it's that simple. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It is true that every one of these "good" and "bad" things are factual. The judgement comes in, with respect to what facts to mention, and what facts not to mention. It is on that level that I looking to keep NPOV. I have not questioned that the "bad" things are factual -- that is not the point. In your last edit you left the "good" alone so I take it we have to come agreement?Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We mention what's notable, the matter of controversy exists, it's not a simple matter of good versus bad, if the more controversial aspects happen to be more notable, we shouldn't try and "balance" it with what you call "good" content. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Semitransgenic here for the most part. Being NPOV doesn't translate necessarily into a 50:50 percent treatment, but public & academic relevance & reception as well treatment in media factor in as well here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but the development of something like CAH is indeed highly relevant academically. :-) You can read that article for more details - also, for an example of how a similar situation is treated, compare to the development of PCR by Cetus Corporation. Arc de Ciel (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is all reasonable.. does somebody really wanting to say that making the LED widespread and cheap is not notable? I know it is irrelevant to the anti-GMO folks but with respect to the bigger picture that is a big deal. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Imho the LED and the nobel prize thing could be in the lead, but they don't have to be. It is not really what monsanto is "famous" for. And actually at least on top of my head I don't recall other company articles having their nobel prize winners (that researched with the company) in the lead, but i might be mistaken and maybe it simply doesn't happen all that often.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fame is a relative thing. Among the anti-GMO/environmentalist crowd Monsanto is infamously famous for GMOs, rBGH, PCBs, etc - maybe public enemy #1. Among the drug crowd they are famous for creating Celebrex. Among the chemistry crowd, for the nobel prize winning chemistry. Among the electronics crowd, for the LED.Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The point was that to general audiences at large monsanto is mainly known as a GMO company (so nevermind the much more specific crowds).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What is your data to support that assertion? I am a reasonably well educated guy and work in the biopharma space. If you had asked me at the start of last summer, "What pops into your head when you think of Monsanto", I would not have said GMOs - I would have said Celebrex. I really get it that among environmentalists Monsanto looms very large.... I don't believe that this is the case in the general public and would really be interested to see data supporting your assertion. Might be true! But I doubt it. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm neither in biopharma nor in a anti-GMO-group and before I read more detailed information on monsanto myself, I was only aware of its GMO activity, because at least here almost all mentioning of the company in the mainstream news (TV in particular) for the last decade or even longer was in GMO related issues. In addition various documentations about GMO in the mainstream media usually mentioned monsanto and two monsanto documentations prominently featuring its GMO activities where shown on mainstream tv. So the audiences at large are much more likely to come across Monsanto in connection with GMO topics than with any other topic.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you also have only your own experience too. Neither of us have any data as to what the public associates with Monsanto.Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say that public interest is not the same thing as public relevance, and that public relevance is basically the same thing as academic relevance. I’m probably splitting hairs with the terms (and of course you can define them in many ways), but I’d like to make a distinction between what people are interested in and what is actually relevant – and the second is more important.

Also, I wouldn’t say that the Nobel must be in the lead, but I think it’s better than "breakthrough" which is vague. I will note that the previous version did not attribute the Nobel to Monsanto either (cf "or its employees"). Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to take a shot at fixing, Arc. I am finding it hard to achieve consensus-able language. I thought prior versions were fine too but am trying to address objections....Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikileak cables

states: "Spain's MON810 corn crop is under threat from an emerging well-coordinated campaign to ban cultivation of genetically engineered seed varieties in Europe, according to industry sources." So we are now citing a primary source, that offers the POV of an industry source (Monsanto)? We need better sources for this. Semitransgenic _talk. 02:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

yes, we need better sources indeed. In particular since this "well-coordinated campaign" does actually reflect a large public sentiment in Europe, rather simply being special interest by few companies looking for profit (as it is the case with most k,onsanto lobbying).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The wikicable has been on the page for a very long time. This seems to be an important issue to the anti-GMO crew, one finds this referenced everywhere in anti-GMO pages. With respect to reflecting public sentiment, that is difficult. First, sentiment changes (http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/stories/415.an_overview_european_consumer_polls_attitudes_gmos.html). Secondly. a well-coordinated campaign that is successful actually shapes public opinion. So you get into a chicken and egg thing there.Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sentiments can change - yes, but that doesn't matter that sentiment matters here, because as described above the reading of "well-coordinated campaign" depends on the context. It is not simply a chicken and egg thing, as there different "campaigns" with different motivations and they are not simply all the same.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

They are not the same it is true, one wants GMOs and one does not. I would say there were (and are) two well-coordinated campaigns being waged. "well-coordinated campaign" does not sound morally judgmental to me. But that is as far as we can go on wikipedia - we cannot say that Monsanto is the bad guys and the anti-GMO side are the good guys. Cannot. Wikipedia is not the place for moral judgements - it just describes what is going on with a NPOV.Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying Monsanto needs to be described as the "bad guys", in fact WP should stay away from simplistic good/bad schemes, but the campaigns (and of course monsanto) should be described for what they are not treated with "it's all just variety of the same thing"-brush.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

i don't understand. please say how they are different, how they are not the same thing. thanks!Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Interjection: I wouldn't say that "well-coordinated" is necessarily POV in all cases, but I would use it carefully since it can easily go in that direction. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

[Untitled Discussion re Cancer]

The following three contribs (of 21 Aug 2007, 5 October 2007, and 1 December 2008) were initially positioned in a section "Neutrality", following one contrib dated 29 October 2006, that apparently elicited no responses; nothing in the three suggests any of them are intended as such responses. I was curious about the part on causing cancer, I read the two sources provided and they do not seem like scientific articles. Specifically reference 11. There were limited test subjects and I didn't read anything saying the the subjects were not exposed to other chemicals in there lifetime. Without this claim a smoker could claim that it was the peanut butter they ate that gave them lung cancer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.143.153.65 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:39:20 21 Aug 2007 UTC

Reference 11, specifically concludes that "definite conclusions cannot be drawn for separate chemicals, such as MCPA and glyphosate, from the multivariate analysis", and is largely a risk analysis of other pesticides. meanwhile, reference 12 is frmo the 'organic consumers' website, and seems to be completely unscientific tripe. however, reference 11 does cite other studies which found that glyphosphate did increase mutation rates in mice see references 44 - 50 of that article. The wikipedia article on glyphosphate cites a comprehensive review of the health issues from 2000 which says that "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans". AS such, i am deleting the bit about glyphosphate and cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorguinness (talk • contribs) 11:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

man Monsanto is so bloody awsome if nothing else just for the fact that they piss off "activists"
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2008

I disagree with the comments above. Nuetrallity is only needed when there are actually two valid sides. You don't need nuetrallity when talking about the holocaust for example. I have yet to hear any good arguements defending Monsanto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecojhb (talk • contribs) 06:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

guardian ref and democracynow ref we wikileaks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops

The above article states: It also emerges that Spain and the US have worked closely together to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws.

The words "persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws" have a link to this site: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/05/09MADRID482.html. That site is down. The cited cable is 09MADRID482, which is already linked to in the wikipedia article -- it is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20110721080152/http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/05/09MADRID482.html

The issue was not about "stronger" or "weaker" biotechnology laws. It was about banning GMOs or allowing them to be grown. A law banning GMOs can be weak or strong; a law allowing them to be grown can be weak or strong. If you are anti-GMO person, you want strong laws banning GMOs. If you are pro-GMO person, you want strong laws allowing GMOs to be planted.

That cable does not say that the US govt and Monsanto were working to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws. The situation in the EU at that time was as follows. The EFSA and the EU had declared that MON810 was OK to be grown in the EU. Under EU law, various countries have certain rights to ban growing of GMOs on their territory, but they must have valid reasons. If they don't have valid reasons, they cannot ban. The EU created this system to meet two different goals; 1) to preserve national sovereignty; 2) to preserve compliance with international trade treaties. At various times in the 2000s, France had declared that MON810 could not be grown in France, and the central EU found France's stated reasons not to be valid. On the other hand Hungary and Austria have each used its ban and the EU found those bans valid. As the cable describes, specifically in Spain, anti-GMO forces had been pressuring the Spanish govt to roll back its ban. Monsanto requested the US gov't to support the Spanish govt's position, and the ambassador relayed that request to Washington.

With respect to democracynow reference, that is entirely POV, featuring an interview with anti-GMO activist Jeffrey Smith.

the Guardian source is perfectly usable, it's valid, we simply state that it is the papers opinion, with don't delete it because we disagree. We are not here to interpret primary material, instead, in accordance with the guidelines on reliable sourcing, we refer to the available secondary sources whenever possible. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. added quotation marks.Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This is really sticking in my craw. This Guardian article is POV and the quote that semitransgenic wants to have in the article is editorializing by the author of the article. And inaccurate editorializing at that. Here is the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops Here is the quote that semitransgenic used: "In addition, the cables show US diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto." Now the whole paragraph from which that quote is drawn, reads like this: "In addition, the cables show US diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto. "In response to recent urgent requests by [Spanish rural affairs ministry] state secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain's science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention."" (NOTE, as a stopgap measure I have added the whole quote to the article) Recap: Vidal says the diplomats are working for Monsanto. Then right away shows that the diplomat is responding to a request from the government of spain and monsanto. Not just monsanto. And not, "Monsanto ordered me to do X." "To work directly for" means, in any common sense of the words, take a paycheck from... be an employee of. Which is not true. So. What to do. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations says: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." So. I say that this article is a POV, unreliable source that is analyzing the wikilink cables and drawing very POV and inaccurate conclusions from them. This does not not meet wikipedia's standards. I propose that we use this source instead, which is NPOV http://www.euractiv.com/global-europe/us-lobbied-eu-back-gm-crops-wiki-news-500960. I am serious about this. Please, let's use the NPOV source instead. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As per comment above, I am taking out Vidal article and replacing it with a NPOV source.Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

the belief that the Guardian article does not conform with WP:RS is erroneous. There is no consensus for the erasure of this valid source. Semitransgenic _talk. 11:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I made specific arguments as to why it is POV. Please respond to them. Let me add one more. I was just looking at the noticeboard for POV sources and it says right at the top, " Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"." The quotes you have chosen to pull out of the article are exactly the POV, inflammatory statements that as I mention above, are also not true. I would have been OK keeping it as a source for the factual matter. It is not OK to use it for those quotes nor to is it OK to include those quotes. If you will not remove the quotes voluntarily we will need to take this to dispute resolution. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

it's your POV versus the POV of a reporter published in a recognised national news source that conforms to WP:RS. I would rather accept the interpretation offered in notable published source. If consensus exists for the blanket removal of Vidal's opinion from Wikipedia, fair enough. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian article meets WP:RS, as Semitransgenic says, and shouldn't be removed from the article. If that source is being overused (given undue weight) relative to other reliable sources covering the same issue, that might be cause for discussion. If there is disagreement about this, check with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Anyone is free to add reliable sources which provide a different perspective. The wikileaks document should have precedence for what it itself says, however. Dialectric (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree here , also the NPOV versus POV argument given in version history does not apply to sources but the (overall) content of the WP article. WP articles must adhere to WP:NPOV but not sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Look the reliable source guidance is clear "" Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"." As I mentioned we can keep the source in but the quote that semitransgenic has used " US diplomats in Europe were "working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto." is POV and additionally misleading at best and false at worst. The US ambassador at no point worked for Monsanto, and the request was on behalf of Monsanto and the Spanish government. The point of Wikipedia is to give NPOV information, not broadcast Vidal's negative opinions. Please comment. Additionally the quote that the goal was to "persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws." is POV and useless. There can be strong laws allowing GMOs to be released and strong laws forbidding them. If you oppose GMOs then I would imagine "stengthen" means "ban" (this is clearly Vidal's POV) and if you are pro-GMO then "strengthen" means prevent banning and allowing widespread, free planting and selling. See what I mean? It is just not helpful language and is POV. Please let me know what you think about that, too. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

your assertion that the view of a sub-editor of a widely respected national newspaper is "useless," and solely because you disagree with his writings, is not a valid reason to remove a reliable source from the article. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please respond to the objection. I said that the source can stay. But the two quotes you have selected must go because they are POV. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

disagree quotes are perfectly valid, I have also added an additional reliable source. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The new source does not support the quote "US diplomats in Europe were "working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto." (which is unsupportable) nor does it deal with the un-helpfulness of the quote about working to "persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws."Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Jytdog, I do not agree with your statement, ""To work directly for" means, in any common sense of the words, take a paycheck from... be an employee of." I can accept that you take that as the meaning but it never occurred to me that the statement implied to "take a paycheck from". I understood the statement perfectly well, as I think that most people would. I see the quotes used by Semi acceptable per WP guidelines. Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the cable says that the ambassador working "directly for" Monsanto anymore than the he was working "directly for" the spanish government. In fact some of the sources that semitransgenic introduced ONLY mention that the US government was working for the spanish govt.18:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@Jytdog, not sure why you are stating a falsehood above concerning the additional source, among other matters relating to US diplomats working to forward the interests of the American biotech industry in Europe, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation very explicitly states: "Other cables show U.S. diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto joined forces with Spain to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws." Semitransgenic _talk. 21:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The cable is explicit that the request to washington is in response to requests from spanish government and Monsanto. As I already pointed out the guardian article itself has the quote from the cable directly after the POV sentence which says: "In response to recent urgent requests by [Spanish rural affairs ministry] state secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain's science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention."" Emphasis added. You have made the wikipedia article MORE POV than the guardian article. And bizarrely, when I tried to quote the whole paragraph the from guardian article to include that quote from the cable, you deleted it. You are clearly trying to make a POV statement that the ambassador was helping ONLY monsanto. I think it might be time to refer this to dispute resolution.Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I requested dispute resolution. that quote needs to go. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WTO dispute

two primary sources were offered to cite the following statement: "This activity transpired after the US had brought an action against Europe via the World Trade Organization with respect to the EU's banning of GMOs; the WTO had ruled in the US's favor in 2007." Neither of the sources state that the diplomatic retaliation statement issues in the cables transpired after "the US had brought an action against Europe via the World Trade Organization." We need to cite a secondary source that discusses the matter in these terms, otherwise this is an editorial opinion. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You are misreading me. What I wrote is "These events transpired after..." I did NOT write: "These events are a continuation of the trade dispute (blah blah blah). Why are you being so sloppy?Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

can you please read WP:SYN you have presented no secondary source that make this observation. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW you clearly stated: "added context to trade dispute between US and EU on GMOs with references." This is editorialising. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. In articles, one sentence follows another. Generally there is some logical connection. Historical context is one form of logical connection. It does not require justification. And I did indeed comment about what I was doing - I have said the same thing every time -- "providing historical context" - you do not need to quote me, I own that. There was a trade dispute between the US and EU over GMOs. That is the context for these cables. What is the big deal? As I wrote above, historical context is different than saying one thing caused another. I have no idea what kind of argument you think I am making. You are being very aggressive by the way. I think you take your "ogre" thing a bit far.Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

it's very clear, the statement "This activity transpired after the US had brought an action against Europe via the World Trade Organization with respect to the EU's banning of GMOs; the WTO had ruled in the US's favor in 2007" is not supported by the cites added. I see no secondary source presented that has arrived at this conclusion. Can we know who, other than the editor who wrote this, is offering this view? Semitransgenic _talk. 20:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are asking me for. Really, this seems like a crazy question to me. The cable was sent in 2009. The WTO ruled in 2007 - the text and source say that. 2007 is before 2009. What is your point??? Please stop repeating yourself and explain your objection!Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Also can somebody please jump in here??? Semitransgenic and I seem to inhabit entirely diffrent logical worlds and it would be useful if someone can tranlate. Thanks!Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something? or are we supposed to source whatever we write?

We have a properly sourced statement: Wikileaks documents revealed that in response to ongoing opposition to genetic modification in Europe a recommendation was made by the US ambassador to France to 'calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU'.

To "add context" @Jytdog followed this with an improperly sourced statement: "This activity transpired after the US had brought an action against Europe via the World Trade Organization with respect to the EU's banning of GMOs; the WTO had ruled in the US's favour in 2007"

The latter statement leads readers to believe that the retaliatory position taken by the US - discussed in the former statement - was in direct response to European resistance to the 2007 WTO ruling.

You cannot simply add primary sources to what is editorial commentary and assume it's OK. Semitransgenic _talk. 00:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

For both of you - please don't get frustrated, and let's follow WP:BRD instead of reverting.

Anyways, for this case: yes, I would say that the concern about WP:SYN is valid, unless there is a source which connects the two events. However, the same concern applies to the statement about Wikileaks and the preceding context - it implies that the ambassador's recommendation came as a result of Monsanto's lobbying. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Arc. But I am still completely confused. There is a 10 year old feud going on between the US and the EU over GMO importation. How in the world is providing context - explaining things -- which is the very purpose of an encyclopedia - "editorializing"? I am sorry but I really, really don't understand. The statement itself is sourced and is not made up "Editorializing". Now if I had written something like "The US had previously trounced the EU at a WTO arbitration and decided that it needed to pursue other means to open the EU to GMOs." - THAT would be editorializing. This is nothing like that. It is a NPOV statement of fact, and is sourced. Really this is bizarre. Arc, please explain why you think putting this sentence here is "editorializing." I would really appreciate it. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is not editorializing - however, WP:SYN is not the same thing. The issue is about the juxtaposition of two sourced statements to produce an implication that might not be in the source. In this case, the objection is that it implies a relationship between two specific events without sourcing the existence of that relationship. It's the same idea for the other concern that I raised (implied relationship between Monsanto's lobbying and ambassador's statement). Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, so the concern is that it advances a position. What position would that be? Thanks. semitransgenic feel free to answer too! Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

the statement "this activity transpired after" is an editorial remark that connects, synthetically, two separate sentences. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

you are missing the point, you are engaging in WP:OR more generally, the form of original research is synthesis, you are implying a conclusion "not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Semitransgenic _talk. 13:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the position you think I am advancing? I am really trying to understand your concern but you will not say it. I disagree that I am violating WP:OR but I am very interested to understand what is other bothering you. Please stop repeating yourself and answer -- what position do you think I am advancing? I really have no idea.Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

@Jytdog two editors advised you that there was a synthesis issue, but you chose to WP:IDHT and instead ignore that the wording "this activity transpired after" leads the reader to conclude that US retaliation was in response to the trade dispute (a position). You did not offer a source that states this. You have now, finally, presented a source that appears to be useful in this context. Well done. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I found a source that also does the freaking obvious thing of putting these cables in the context of the ongoing dispute between EU and US over GMOs. This issue should be done.01:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC) (signing this sorry)Jytdog (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael Taylor

Hi. As was noted in an edit summary, the Michael Taylor section under lobbying is a duplication. It's also given too much WP:WEIGHT - it doesn't need to include details of his life that are not relevant to lobbying. They're relevant to Monsanto, but can be included in the other section. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree but I have found that semitransgenic really really wants this here. As long as it is NPOV and fits wiki's biography of living people rules, I can live with the duplication - for me it is not worth edit warring over.Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is an NPOV concern. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the duplication is really needed, but i don't see posing a serious problem regarding WP:Weight either, meaning in doubt i can live with either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the current version is fine. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Nov 2

Semitransgenic, with this edit, you undid four separate edits and only gave a rationale for one of them.

Also, for the one you provided the rationale for: yes, they're important people, but discussing specific names given in the planning stages of an operation that AFAIK hasn't happened is overkill, especially with specific details on each person's importance. This is an article on a company, not on the operation itself - the point of an encyclopedia is that we summarize. I would call it excessive detail even if they had all been approached and subsequently agreed. As I said in the edit summary, if you think it's that important, just add "such as Kofi Annan" (insert one of whoever you think is most important), and then some detail has been given with four words instead of ~50. Arc de Ciel (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a question of world view, Monsanto is a multi-national corporation operating in multiple territories. As such we cannot simply implement a regime that approaches this article as one that discusses an American corporation whose activities are restricted solely to the Unites States. We are mentioning public figures that are notable to UK and European readers, this can't be dismissed. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your answer seems to me to be a non sequitur. I would make the same statement if they were all North Americans. You also did not address my first statement. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am with Arc on this one. It is great to discuss their lobbying activities in the UK and this is done. But you go into too much detail on the marketing plan and additionally naming this people was not happy for them in the first place and there is no reason to perpetuate that -- so it is too much detail and well, just plain unkind to these people.Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

we are writing an encyclopaedia for a global audience, the material is notable and I disagree with the idea that it is somehow irrelevant to the concerns of the article. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, notability is only one of the criteria that must be met for something to be added to an article. Another criterion is appropriate weight, which is what I am addressing - see my original statement.

Also, since you have not given a rationale for reverting the other three edits, I have reinstated them. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

can you suggest here wording you would be happy with please? Semitransgenic _talk. 21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was pretty clear. I would remove the extra detail (which I did, and which you reverted), or use only a "such as" phrase containing one or two examples (e.g. "such as Kofi Annan"); the logical place to put that phrase would be right after "high profile ambassadors." Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WTO dispute

two primary sources were offered to cite the following statement: "This activity transpired after the US had brought an action against Europe via the World Trade Organization with respect to the EU's banning of GMOs; the WTO had ruled in the US's favor in 2007." Neither of the sources state that the diplomatic retaliation statement issues in the cables transpired after "the US had brought an action against Europe via the World Trade Organization." We need to cite a secondary source that discusses the matter in these terms, otherwise this is an editorial opinion. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You are misreading me. What I wrote is "These events transpired after..." I did NOT write: "These events are a continuation of the trade dispute (blah blah blah). Why are you being so sloppy?Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

can you please read WP:SYN you have presented no secondary source that make this observation. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW you clearly stated: "added context to trade dispute between US and EU on GMOs with references." This is editorialising. Semitransgenic_talk. 18:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. In articles, one sentence follows another. Generally there is some logical connection. Historical context is one form of logical connection. It does not require justification. And I did indeed comment about what I was doing - I have said the same thing every time -- "providing historical context" - you do not need to quote me, I own that. There was a trade dispute between the US and EU over GMOs. That is the context for these cables. What is the big deal? As I wrote above, historical context is different than saying one thing caused another. I have no idea what kind of argument you think I am making. You are being very aggressive by the way. I think you take your "ogre" thing a bit far.Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

it's very clear, the statement "This activity transpired after the US had brought an action against Europe via the World Trade Organization with respect to the EU's banning of GMOs; the WTO had ruled in the US's favor in 2007" is not supported by the cites added. I see no secondary source presented that has arrived at this conclusion. Can we know who, other than the editor who wrote this, is offering this view? Semitransgenic _talk. 20:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are asking me for. Really, this seems like a crazy question to me. The cable was sent in 2009. The WTO ruled in 2007 - the text and source say that. 2007 is before 2009. What is your point??? Please stop repeating yourself and explain your objection!Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Also can somebody please jump in here??? Semitransgenic and I seem to inhabit entirely diffrent logical worlds and it would be useful if someone can tranlate. Thanks!Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something? or are we supposed to source whatever we write?

We have a properly sourced statement: Wikileaks documents revealed that in response to ongoing opposition to genetic modification in Europe a recommendation was made by the US ambassador to France to 'calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU'.

To "add context" @Jytdog followed this with an improperly sourced statement: "This activity transpired after the US had brought an action against Europe via the World Trade Organization with respect to the EU's banning of GMOs; the WTO had ruled in the US's favour in 2007"

The latter statement leads readers to believe that the retaliatory position taken by the US - discussed in the former statement - was in direct response to European resistance to the 2007 WTO ruling.

You cannot simply add primary sources to what is editorial commentary and assume it's OK. Semitransgenic _talk. 00:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

For both of you - please don't get frustrated, and let's follow WP:BRD instead of reverting.

Anyways, for this case: yes, I would say that the concern about WP:SYN is valid, unless there is a source which connects the two events. However, the same concern applies to the statement about Wikileaks and the preceding context - it implies that the ambassador's recommendation came as a result of Monsanto's lobbying. Arc de Ciel(talk) 02:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Arc. But I am still completely confused. There is a 10 year old feud going on between the US and the EU over GMO importation. How in the world is providing context- explaining things -- which is the very purpose of an encyclopedia - "editorializing"? I am sorry but I really, really don't understand. The statement itself is sourced and is not made up "Editorializing". Now if I had written something like "The US had previously trounced the EU at a WTO arbitration and decided that it needed to pursue other means to open the EU to GMOs." - THAT would be editorializing. This is nothing like that. It is a NPOV statement of fact, and is sourced. Really this is bizarre. Arc, please explain why you think putting this sentence here is "editorializing." I would really appreciate it. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is not editorializing - however, WP:SYN is not the same thing. The issue is about the juxtaposition of two sourced statements to produce an implication that might not be in the source. In this case, the objection is that it implies a relationship between two specific events without sourcing the existence of that relationship. It's the same idea for the other concern that I raised (implied relationship between Monsanto's lobbying and ambassador's statement). Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, so the concern is that it advances a position. What position would that be? Thanks. semitransgenic feel free to answer too! Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

the statement "this activity transpired after" is an editorial remark that connects, synthetically, two separate sentences. Semitransgenic _talk. 13:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

you are missing the point, you are engaging in WP:OR more generally, the form of original research is synthesis, you are implying a conclusion "not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Semitransgenic _talk. 13:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the position you think I am advancing? I am really trying to understand your concern but you will not say it. I disagree that I am violating WP:OR but I am very interested to understand what is other bothering you. Please stop repeating yourself and answer -- what position do you think I am advancing? I really have no idea.Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

@Jytdog two editors advised you that there was a synthesis issue, but you chose to WP:IDHT and instead ignore that the wording "this activity transpired after" leads the reader to conclude that US retaliation was in response to the trade dispute (a position). You did not offer a source that states this. You have now, finally, presented a source that appears to be useful in this context. Well done. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I found a source that also does the freaking obvious thing of putting these cables in the context of the ongoing dispute between EU and US over GMOs. This issue should be done.01:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC) (signing this sorry)Jytdog (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael Taylor

Hi. As was noted in an edit summary, the Michael Taylor section under lobbying is a duplication. It's also given too much WP:WEIGHT - it doesn't need to include details of his life that are not relevant to lobbying. They're relevant to Monsanto, but can be included in the other section. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree but I have found that semitransgenic really really wants this here. As long as it is NPOV and fits wiki's biography of living people rules, I can live with the duplication - for me it is not worth edit warring over.Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is an NPOV concern. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the duplication is really needed, but i don't see posing a serious problem regarding WP:Weight either, meaning in doubt i can live with either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the current version is fine. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

guardian ref and democracynow ref we wikileaks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops

The above article states: It also emerges that Spain and the US have worked closely together to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws.

The words "persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws" have a link to this site: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/05/09MADRID482.html. That site is down. The cited cable is 09MADRID482, which is already linked to in the wikipedia article -- it is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20110721080152/http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/05/09MADRID482.html

The issue was not about "stronger" or "weaker" biotechnology laws. It was about banning GMOs or allowing them to be grown. A law banning GMOs can be weak or strong; a law allowing them to be grown can be weak or strong. If you are anti-GMO person, you want strong laws banning GMOs. If you are pro-GMO person, you want strong laws allowing GMOs to be planted.

That cable does not say that the US govt and Monsanto were working to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws. The situation in the EU at that time was as follows. The EFSA and the EU had declared that MON810 was OK to be grown in the EU. Under EU law, various countries have certain rights to ban growing of GMOs on their territory, but they must have valid reasons. If they don't have valid reasons, they cannot ban. The EU created this system to meet two different goals; 1) to preserve national sovereignty; 2) to preserve compliance with international trade treaties. At various times in the 2000s, France had declared that MON810 could not be grown in France, and the central EU found France's stated reasons not to be valid. On the other hand Hungary and Austria have each used its ban and the EU found those bans valid. As the cable describes, specifically in Spain, anti-GMO forces had been pressuring the Spanish govt to roll back its ban. Monsanto requested the US gov't to support the Spanish govt's position, and the ambassador relayed that request to Washington.

With respect to democracynow reference, that is entirely POV, featuring an interview with anti-GMO activist Jeffrey Smith.

the Guardian source is perfectly usable, it's valid, we simply state that it is the papers opinion, with don't delete it because we disagree. We are not here to interpret primary material, instead, in accordance with the guidelines on reliable sourcing, we refer to the available secondary sources whenever possible. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. added quotation marks.Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This is really sticking in my craw. This Guardian article is POV and the quote that semitransgenic wants to have in the article is editorializing by the author of the article. And inaccurate editorializing at that. Here is the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops Here is the quote that semitransgenic used: "In addition, the cables show US diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto." Now the whole paragraph from which that quote is drawn, reads like this: "In addition, the cables show US diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto. "In response to recent urgent requests by [Spanish rural affairs ministry] state secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain's science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention."" (NOTE, as a stopgap measure I have added the whole quote to the article) Recap: Vidal says the diplomats are working for Monsanto. Then right away shows that the diplomat is responding to a request from the government of spain and monsanto. Not just monsanto. And not, "Monsanto ordered me to do X." "To work directly for" means, in any common sense of the words, take a paycheck from... be an employee of. Which is not true. So. What to do. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations says: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." So. I say that this article is a POV, unreliable source that is analyzing the wikilink cables and drawing very POV and inaccurate conclusions from them. This does not not meet wikipedia's standards. I propose that we use this source instead, which is NPOVhttp://www.euractiv.com/global-europe/us-lobbied-eu-back-gm-crops-wiki-news-500960. I am serious about this. Please, let's use the NPOV source instead. Jytdog(talk) 02:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As per comment above, I am taking out Vidal article and replacing it with a NPOV source.Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

the belief that the Guardian article does not conform with WP:RS is erroneous. There is no consensus for the erasure of this valid source. Semitransgenic _talk. 11:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I made specific arguments as to why it is POV. Please respond to them. Let me add one more. I was just looking at the noticeboard for POV sources and it says right at the top, " Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"." The quotes you have chosen to pull out of the article are exactly the POV, inflammatory statements that as I mention above, are also not true. I would have been OK keeping it as a source for the factual matter. It is not OK to use it for those quotes nor to is it OK to include those quotes. If you will not remove the quotes voluntarily we will need to take this to dispute resolution. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

it's your POV versus the POV of a reporter published in a recognised national news source that conforms to WP:RS. I would rather accept the interpretation offered in notable published source. If consensus exists for the blanket removal of Vidal's opinion from Wikipedia, fair enough. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian article meets WP:RS, as Semitransgenic says, and shouldn't be removed from the article. If that source is being overused (given undue weight) relative to other reliable sources covering the same issue, that might be cause for discussion. If there is disagreement about this, check with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Anyone is free to add reliable sources which provide a different perspective. The wikileaks document should have precedence for what it itself says, however. Dialectric(talk) 14:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree here , also the NPOV versus POV argument given in version history does not apply to sources but the (overall) content of the WP article. WP articles must adhere to WP:NPOV but not sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Look the reliable source guidance is clear "" Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"." As I mentioned we can keep the source in but the quote that semitransgenic has used " US diplomats in Europe were "working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto." is POV and additionally misleading at best and false at worst. The US ambassador at no point worked for Monsanto, and the request was on behalf of Monsanto and the Spanish government. The point of Wikipedia is to give NPOV information, not broadcast Vidal's negative opinions. Please comment. Additionally the quote that the goal was to "persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws." is POV and useless. There can be strong laws allowing GMOs to be released and strong laws forbidding them. If you oppose GMOs then I would imagine "stengthen" means "ban" (this is clearly Vidal's POV) and if you are pro-GMO then "strengthen" means prevent banning and allowing widespread, free planting and selling. See what I mean? It is just not helpful language and is POV. Please let me know what you think about that, too. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

your assertion that the view of a sub-editor of a widely respected national newspaper is "useless," and solely because you disagree with his writings, is not a valid reason to remove a reliable source from the article. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please respond to the objection. I said that the source can stay. But the two quotes you have selected must go because they are POV. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

disagree quotes are perfectly valid, I have also added an additional reliable source. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The new source does not support the quote "US diplomats in Europe were "working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto." (which is unsupportable) nor does it deal with the un-helpfulness of the quote about working to "persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws."Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Jytdog, I do not agree with your statement, ""To work directly for" means, in any common sense of the words, take a paycheck from... be an employee of." I can accept that you take that as the meaning but it never occurred to me that the statement implied to "take a paycheck from". I understood the statement perfectly well, as I think that most people would. I see the quotes used by Semi acceptable per WP guidelines. Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the cable says that the ambassador working "directly for" Monsanto anymore than the he was working "directly for" the spanish government. In fact some of the sources that semitransgenic introduced ONLY mention that the US government was working for the spanish govt.18:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@Jytdog, not sure why you are stating a falsehood above concerning the additional source, among other matters relating to US diplomats working to forward the interests of the American biotech industry in Europe, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation very explicitly states: "Other cables show U.S. diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto joined forces with Spain to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws." Semitransgenic _talk. 21:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The cable is explicit that the request to washington is in response to requests from spanish government and Monsanto. As I already pointed out the guardian article itself has the quote from the cable directly after the POV sentence which says: "In response to recent urgent requests by [Spanish rural affairs ministry] state secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain's science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention."" Emphasis added. You have made the wikipedia article MORE POV than the guardian article. And bizarrely, when I tried to quote the whole paragraph the from guardian article to include that quote from the cable, you deleted it. You are clearly trying to make a POV statement that the ambassador was helping ONLY monsanto. I think it might be time to refer this to dispute resolution.Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I requested dispute resolution. that quote needs to go. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Nov 2

Semitransgenic, with this edit, you undid four separate edits and only gave a rationale for one of them.

Also, for the one you provided the rationale for: yes, they're important people, but discussing specific names given in the planning stages of an operation that AFAIK hasn't happened is overkill, especially with specific details on each person's importance. This is an article on a company, not on the operation itself - the point of an encyclopedia is that we summarize. I would call it excessive detail even if they had all been approached and subsequently agreed. As I said in the edit summary, if you think it's that important, just add "such as Kofi Annan" (insert one of whoever you think is most important), and then some detail has been given with four words instead of ~50. Arc de Ciel (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a question of world view, Monsanto is a multi-national corporation operating in multiple territories. As such we cannot simply implement a regime that approaches this article as one that discusses an American corporation whose activities are restricted solely to the Unites States. We are mentioning public figures that are notable to UK and European readers, this can't be dismissed. Semitransgenic_talk. 15:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your answer seems to me to be a non sequitur. I would make the same statement if they were all North Americans. You also did not address my first statement. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am with Arc on this one. It is great to discuss their lobbying activities in the UK and this is done. But you go into too much detail on the marketing plan and additionally naming this people was not happy for them in the first place and there is no reason to perpetuate that -- so it is too much detail and well, just plain unkind to these people.Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

we are writing an encyclopaedia for a global audience, the material is notable and I disagree with the idea that it is somehow irrelevant to the concerns of the article. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, notability is only one of the criteria that must be met for something to be added to an article. Another criterion is appropriateweight, which is what I am addressing - see my original statement.

Also, since you have not given a rationale for reverting the other three edits, I have reinstated them. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

can you suggest here wording you would be happy with please? Semitransgenic _talk. 21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was pretty clear. I would remove the extra detail (which I did, and which you reverted), or use only a "such as" phrase containing one or two examples (e.g. "such as Kofi Annan"); the logical place to put that phrase would be right after "high profile ambassadors." Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)