"Note that the suit is about glyphosate as well as Monsanto. It's about whether Monsanto's claim that glyphosate is not found in animals is fraudulent. Monsanto was the developer of glyphosate as an herbicide, and this lawsuit relates directly to this herbicide called glyphosate on which the pages is supposed to focus, and there is a section ""Legal Cases"" with a subsection ""Advertising controversy"", and so it seemed obvious to me that it would be relevant to this topic. There is a simple question of ""Do we want to include it in the article? Why or why not?"" But couldn't we talk about THAT instead of the whole laundry list of allegation of technical violations that we've been through now? I'm still contending that this lawsuit is of interest to readers of an article on glyphosate, and that it fits in the weighting of the article, and would NOT stick out like a sore thumb as it would fit right into this subsection that exists, and add a little more content to it, and is relevant to anyone who desires to learn about glyphosate, and goes to the section on legal issues expecting to get a reasonable overview based on what others have thought is relevant and fits in the article. Instead, i see a resistance to doing so that has come out through attempts to keep this out of the article through various technicalities like sourcing issues, and it bothers me. It bothers me because it really feels like strongarming. Those who object could have simply voiced the concern from an editorial point of view and not on technicalities. It's not a good relationship among editors here. It's very contentious. It's like we're opposing advocates in a court of law. I suppose this happens sometimes, but you know who wins in court? The lawyers do.    
 : "