Bowman v. Monsanto Co. has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 6, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Bowman v. Monsanto Co. appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 March 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
copied from Jytdog talk page today by PraeceptorIP with my blessing Jytdog ( talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Jytdog, what I was trying to do, first, was replace the pejorative term "loophole" with a more neutral way of putting it that did not suggest wrongdoing or bad intent by Bowman, as the prior writer did. Second, I think it is necessary to tell readers that crop soybeans are the same as seed, so that you can use the crop beans as seed to grow new crops. Otherwise it is unclear what is going on.
Instead of just reverting, why don't you come up with a way to do these things that you would find OK?
I think that is an improper revert. Maybe my way of saying this (what's in the first para. above) is not best, but what would you suggest? I would welcome a helpful edit.
PraeceptorIP ( talk) 01:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, you edited out the subheads. You therefore have the three court decisions as part of the "Background." Court decisions do not belong in the Background section.
You are not editing carefully. Some of your edits are improvements. But some make the article worse (like what I mention above in the first three sentences). You shouldn't revert just for the sake of reverting. That appears to be what you did here. For example, why did you delete the sentence following the statement that he had a contract--that the infringing seed plantings were not the ones under the3 contract, so it wasn't a breach of contract that he did it. Otherwise, the preceding sentence is misleading. It suggests that Bowman "replanted" in violation of his contract with Monsanto--untrue!
Maybe we could discuss in detail what you want to revert and why. Then we could come up with an improved article, with fewer of the mistakes now in it.
PraeceptorIP ( talk) 01:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
what exactly is the content dispute at this time? [Not much! PIP] Jytdog ( talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Praceptor you are giving a ton of WEIGHT to the Stern source. Stern is critical of the decisions of three courts in this case, and a whole history of case law around biotech in the US and abroad. It is fine to use him but please do not give UNDUE weight to his POV. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 18:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
According to a Canadian Govt agency C-18 provides:
"The holder's rights do not extend to production, reproduction, conditioning, and storing/stocking of harvested material of the protected plant variety grown by a farmer on the farmer's holdings and used by the farmer on their own holdings for the purpose of propagation of the variety (e.g. farm-saved seed). Canadian farmers will be able to continue saving, cleaning, treating, storing and replanting seed of protected varieties on their own land." [But they must not sell the seed to other farmers.]
This law appears to be a modification of what was formerly called the Farmer's Privilege, crossed with some dicta in the oncomouse case about no patent protections on natural processes. But the Schmeiser case says (5-4) that the patent protection is not on the canola plant but on the modified cells or genetic material contained inside the plant. By the way, for whatever it is worth, the Schmeiser case was about use, not making, as was Bowman.
I have not been able to find the case law I was looking for and I am beginning to suspect that it was somebody's (or somebodies') speculation based on extrapolating the language of the oncomouse case to crop plants. (Also, not taking into account the ploy about it's not protection on the plant, it's on the genes or cells inside it.)
Now, as to another point made above: "not aware of any major market jurisdiction where seeds are not patentable or where exhaustion applies to the sale of seeds....
It isn't whether exhaustion applies to seeds (saved and used for new crops as done from the Neolithic Revolution). It doesn't! That is what Bowman clearly and correctly held. It's whether the challenged conduct (plant saved seeds to grow a crop) is making or something else within 35 USC 271(a) or its equivalent. It may be akin to exhaustion but it is not exhaustion. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 22:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
This is beginning to look pretty reasonable. But on further reading, I think it is incorrect to say "rather than merely using a purchased article on which the patent rights had become exhausted" in characterizing the last commentator's remarks. That article doesn't take the position that Bowman used purchased seeds on which patent rights had become exhausted. The article does not argue with the Court's treatment of the exhaustion doctrine at all, and seems to agree that the doctrine just does not apply in this context. I therefore think the above quoted clause should be deleted.
What the article is saying is that Congress never addressed whether planting seeds to grow crops is a making. It also says Dr Johnson's 1755 dictionary says that making refers to artificial processes, not natural ones. The conclusion drawn (at the very end) is that the Court should not have rushed in where Congress was silent. Instead (see the article's fn. quote from the Benson case), the Court should have declined to hold that a 12,000 year old practice was patent infringement unless and until Congress specifically said it was. It was for Congress to act here, not the Court. Something like that, if anything, should go where the clause now is that I suggest should be deleted.
PraeceptorIP ( talk) 22:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Based on the most recent comment of jytdog elsewhere, I propose adding a further reference/citation at the very end after the reference to U of Wisc Law School Professor Shubha Ghosh's comments. What is shown below in bold is how it reads now, and what I propose to add is in regular Roman.
A co-author of an amicus brief on behalf of Bowman filed by the American Antitrust Institute expressed relief that the loss was on a narrow basis rather than providing a broad affirmation of the lack of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies.[18] [1] Another academic commentator did not take issue with the Court's refusal to shelter Bowman's conduct under the exhaustion doctrine, but criticized the Court's classification of the act of planting seeds and growing crops from them as an act of "making" a new patented article [2] for purposes of the US patent statute. [3]
PraeceptorIP ( talk) 00:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The cited material by Stern should stay in. For further support of his position, the articles Greg referenced above should be added to the article. It is pretty commonplace in SCOTUS articles to include negative and positive commentary about the decision. Minor 4th 03:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't need to lay out a case for changing anything, I have consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 02:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
J-dog, Please allow Greg to improve the article, without reverts and talkpage bickering. Greg had started a good faith re-write, and it's silly to argue about the weight of different sources when the article is in the middle of a significant re-write. Minor 4th 20:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Someone inserted the sentence "However, the Court's use of "making" is consistent with past US cases, UK case law, and Canadian case law,[25]:171-175." The citation is to John Marshall Asst. Prof. Darryl Lim's 2015 article. I checked Lim's article at pp. 171-175, and was unable to find any citation to a US, UK, or Canadian case that addressed "making" in patent law. The only cited Canadian case addressed "using," not making; the Lim article pointed that out at the top of p. 175. There may be US or UK cases that address making and hold that planting and growing patented crop seeds is making the patented crop (or its seed), but I don't know of them. I do know that Bowman is the first US Sup Ct case to hold that planting and growing crop seeds is making the crop (or its seed).
This sentence is unsupported by the citation given, and I believe factually incorrect as well. It may be the product of the feverish imagination of an overenthusiastic advocate of GMO, or a person without legal education who is not familiar with legal support sourcing; I wouldn't know. But in any case, as an unsupported opinion statement (as well as one with an incorrect citation to a source that does not say what it is cited for), it would appear to have no place in a WP legal article. I therefore propose to delete it in a reasonable time unless the WP consensus (preferably of informed persons) says otherwise. (I very diffidently and tentatively offer that it might be better if persons without any legal background recognized their limitations and refrained from making substantive legal pronouncements in WP law articles. That may be particularly relevant in difficult specialties like patents and copyright.)
PraeceptorIP ( talk) 19:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Jdog, please stop reverting in material that is not supported by the cite you've provided. You do not have consensus to continue to reinsert this faulty info. Minor 4th 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
May I add to the comments by GregJackP and Minor4th. This is regarding the Lim article/citation and its erroneous use here. (Apology: I seem to have taken so long in writing this out that several generations more of comment by others occurred.)
Jyt said:
The Adams case, as all patent lawyers know and those who bothered to read the WP article on it will recall that it explains, concerns a patented coffin lid that was bought in Boston and moved elsewhere. The patentee sought to keep the buyer from using itin his undertaker business and the SCt said "nothing doing." That case does not shed the remotest light on whether planting a patented seed and growing a patented crop from it constitutes a making. So the discussion of Adams is beside the point.
Lim's citation of a 1954 Webster's dictionary is ill informed. As Justice Scalia has pointed out many times, you must use a dictionary from the time when the statute was enacted to understand what Congress meant by the words it used in the statute. Anything else leads to error. This statute was passed in 1791 and remained substantially unchanged to the present. In the 18th century "making" referred to an artificial rather than natural process. There is a discussion of this point with citations at Monsanto v Bowman], p. 258, referring to Dr Johnson's 1755 dictionary.
Dissecting Rodkey's analysis is not support for the proposition that US law recognized planting a seed and growing a crop as a making within the meaning of sec. 271(a).
As for the UK, which really is not as important here as US law, since we are critiquing a US case, the Schutz case does not say anything directly about growing xrops from patented seeds. Its relevance is therefore unclear. It does say, "In weighing this interest [monopoly vs competition], customary expectations are relevant." Since farmers have been saving seed since the Neolithic Revolution 12,000 years ago, the quoted statement would seem to cut the opposite way from the aspirations of GMO enthusiasts. As for Canadian law, I believe most readers would consider it a distortion of what Schmeiser holds to say that it is legal support for "using" being "making" in the seed saving context.
In sum, the authority for the stated proposition--that (lower court) prior US law supported holding "replanting" saved seeds is a "making"--is totally unsupported by what has been cited so far. One would think that if there had been any such authority the US Supreme Court would have cited it in the Bowman opinion instead of citing cases that said seed patents are valid (J.E.M.) and patents on unicellular organisms are valid (Chakrabarty). As you may know, validity does not imply infringement. And one kind of infringement (selling in the J.E.M. case) does not imply another (making in the Bowman case).
PraeceptorIP ( talk) 21:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I recently removed the image of Kagan is it's pretty tangential to this topic and generally unencyclopedic to have uninformative pictures taking up space. If someone was extremely interested in what a particular justice looks like, there's already a wikilink to her page. What purpose is the image serving otherwise? It doesn't seem to be adding information to the article. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
To facilitate determining what the consensus is, count me as favoring the existing policy of putting a picture of the justice who is author of the opinion on the case page. People rightly expect to see that. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 00:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The Lead mentions that there was concern about "the involvement of Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously served as a lawyer for Monsanto". If there was concern over a conflict of interest, this should probably be covered in the body of the article. What sources claimed that Thomas could still have loyalty to the company? Dimadick ( talk) 16:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Delldot ( talk · contribs) 23:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd be interested in doing this review. @ GregJackP:, I see your userpage says you're retired. Is there anyone willing to implement suggested changes? If not I'm afraid I'll have to take this down in a week (unless it turns out to be promotable as is). delldot ∇. 23:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is my first round of comments. As with Glik, I'm recommending a fair amount of expansion, so take your time addressing these. I know you're also working on Glik at the same time so no pressure.
That's it for now! I'm excited to see what you add. delldot ∇. 07:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Reread, made another series of minor copy edits. I just have two very minor questions, and one odd finding that I think might be a false positive:
This is super close, as soon as we figure out the cv question it's ready to pass regardless of the other two. Thanks again for all your amazing work so far! delldot ∇. 04:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The period "." in the article's title/link is problematic for services such as Facebook, where users have no control over what is linked. For example, Facebook takes the URL of " /info/en/?search=Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co." and makes it instead " /info/en/?search=Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co" which is not the correct link.
The article should be renamed without the trailing period "." to properly format the URL.
UPDATE: Even mediawiki has a problem with the period, as the auto-links created in my first paragraph illustrate: the first link should include the punctuation but it doesn't and instead creates a broken link.
-- Michael.C.Wright ( talk) 05:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Bowman v. Monsanto Co. has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: February 6, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bowman v. Monsanto Co. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Bowman v. Monsanto Co. appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 1 March 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
copied from Jytdog talk page today by PraeceptorIP with my blessing Jytdog ( talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Jytdog, what I was trying to do, first, was replace the pejorative term "loophole" with a more neutral way of putting it that did not suggest wrongdoing or bad intent by Bowman, as the prior writer did. Second, I think it is necessary to tell readers that crop soybeans are the same as seed, so that you can use the crop beans as seed to grow new crops. Otherwise it is unclear what is going on.
Instead of just reverting, why don't you come up with a way to do these things that you would find OK?
I think that is an improper revert. Maybe my way of saying this (what's in the first para. above) is not best, but what would you suggest? I would welcome a helpful edit.
PraeceptorIP ( talk) 01:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, you edited out the subheads. You therefore have the three court decisions as part of the "Background." Court decisions do not belong in the Background section.
You are not editing carefully. Some of your edits are improvements. But some make the article worse (like what I mention above in the first three sentences). You shouldn't revert just for the sake of reverting. That appears to be what you did here. For example, why did you delete the sentence following the statement that he had a contract--that the infringing seed plantings were not the ones under the3 contract, so it wasn't a breach of contract that he did it. Otherwise, the preceding sentence is misleading. It suggests that Bowman "replanted" in violation of his contract with Monsanto--untrue!
Maybe we could discuss in detail what you want to revert and why. Then we could come up with an improved article, with fewer of the mistakes now in it.
PraeceptorIP ( talk) 01:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
what exactly is the content dispute at this time? [Not much! PIP] Jytdog ( talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Praceptor you are giving a ton of WEIGHT to the Stern source. Stern is critical of the decisions of three courts in this case, and a whole history of case law around biotech in the US and abroad. It is fine to use him but please do not give UNDUE weight to his POV. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 18:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
According to a Canadian Govt agency C-18 provides:
"The holder's rights do not extend to production, reproduction, conditioning, and storing/stocking of harvested material of the protected plant variety grown by a farmer on the farmer's holdings and used by the farmer on their own holdings for the purpose of propagation of the variety (e.g. farm-saved seed). Canadian farmers will be able to continue saving, cleaning, treating, storing and replanting seed of protected varieties on their own land." [But they must not sell the seed to other farmers.]
This law appears to be a modification of what was formerly called the Farmer's Privilege, crossed with some dicta in the oncomouse case about no patent protections on natural processes. But the Schmeiser case says (5-4) that the patent protection is not on the canola plant but on the modified cells or genetic material contained inside the plant. By the way, for whatever it is worth, the Schmeiser case was about use, not making, as was Bowman.
I have not been able to find the case law I was looking for and I am beginning to suspect that it was somebody's (or somebodies') speculation based on extrapolating the language of the oncomouse case to crop plants. (Also, not taking into account the ploy about it's not protection on the plant, it's on the genes or cells inside it.)
Now, as to another point made above: "not aware of any major market jurisdiction where seeds are not patentable or where exhaustion applies to the sale of seeds....
It isn't whether exhaustion applies to seeds (saved and used for new crops as done from the Neolithic Revolution). It doesn't! That is what Bowman clearly and correctly held. It's whether the challenged conduct (plant saved seeds to grow a crop) is making or something else within 35 USC 271(a) or its equivalent. It may be akin to exhaustion but it is not exhaustion. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 22:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
This is beginning to look pretty reasonable. But on further reading, I think it is incorrect to say "rather than merely using a purchased article on which the patent rights had become exhausted" in characterizing the last commentator's remarks. That article doesn't take the position that Bowman used purchased seeds on which patent rights had become exhausted. The article does not argue with the Court's treatment of the exhaustion doctrine at all, and seems to agree that the doctrine just does not apply in this context. I therefore think the above quoted clause should be deleted.
What the article is saying is that Congress never addressed whether planting seeds to grow crops is a making. It also says Dr Johnson's 1755 dictionary says that making refers to artificial processes, not natural ones. The conclusion drawn (at the very end) is that the Court should not have rushed in where Congress was silent. Instead (see the article's fn. quote from the Benson case), the Court should have declined to hold that a 12,000 year old practice was patent infringement unless and until Congress specifically said it was. It was for Congress to act here, not the Court. Something like that, if anything, should go where the clause now is that I suggest should be deleted.
PraeceptorIP ( talk) 22:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Based on the most recent comment of jytdog elsewhere, I propose adding a further reference/citation at the very end after the reference to U of Wisc Law School Professor Shubha Ghosh's comments. What is shown below in bold is how it reads now, and what I propose to add is in regular Roman.
A co-author of an amicus brief on behalf of Bowman filed by the American Antitrust Institute expressed relief that the loss was on a narrow basis rather than providing a broad affirmation of the lack of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies.[18] [1] Another academic commentator did not take issue with the Court's refusal to shelter Bowman's conduct under the exhaustion doctrine, but criticized the Court's classification of the act of planting seeds and growing crops from them as an act of "making" a new patented article [2] for purposes of the US patent statute. [3]
PraeceptorIP ( talk) 00:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The cited material by Stern should stay in. For further support of his position, the articles Greg referenced above should be added to the article. It is pretty commonplace in SCOTUS articles to include negative and positive commentary about the decision. Minor 4th 03:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't need to lay out a case for changing anything, I have consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 02:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
J-dog, Please allow Greg to improve the article, without reverts and talkpage bickering. Greg had started a good faith re-write, and it's silly to argue about the weight of different sources when the article is in the middle of a significant re-write. Minor 4th 20:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Someone inserted the sentence "However, the Court's use of "making" is consistent with past US cases, UK case law, and Canadian case law,[25]:171-175." The citation is to John Marshall Asst. Prof. Darryl Lim's 2015 article. I checked Lim's article at pp. 171-175, and was unable to find any citation to a US, UK, or Canadian case that addressed "making" in patent law. The only cited Canadian case addressed "using," not making; the Lim article pointed that out at the top of p. 175. There may be US or UK cases that address making and hold that planting and growing patented crop seeds is making the patented crop (or its seed), but I don't know of them. I do know that Bowman is the first US Sup Ct case to hold that planting and growing crop seeds is making the crop (or its seed).
This sentence is unsupported by the citation given, and I believe factually incorrect as well. It may be the product of the feverish imagination of an overenthusiastic advocate of GMO, or a person without legal education who is not familiar with legal support sourcing; I wouldn't know. But in any case, as an unsupported opinion statement (as well as one with an incorrect citation to a source that does not say what it is cited for), it would appear to have no place in a WP legal article. I therefore propose to delete it in a reasonable time unless the WP consensus (preferably of informed persons) says otherwise. (I very diffidently and tentatively offer that it might be better if persons without any legal background recognized their limitations and refrained from making substantive legal pronouncements in WP law articles. That may be particularly relevant in difficult specialties like patents and copyright.)
PraeceptorIP ( talk) 19:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Jdog, please stop reverting in material that is not supported by the cite you've provided. You do not have consensus to continue to reinsert this faulty info. Minor 4th 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
May I add to the comments by GregJackP and Minor4th. This is regarding the Lim article/citation and its erroneous use here. (Apology: I seem to have taken so long in writing this out that several generations more of comment by others occurred.)
Jyt said:
The Adams case, as all patent lawyers know and those who bothered to read the WP article on it will recall that it explains, concerns a patented coffin lid that was bought in Boston and moved elsewhere. The patentee sought to keep the buyer from using itin his undertaker business and the SCt said "nothing doing." That case does not shed the remotest light on whether planting a patented seed and growing a patented crop from it constitutes a making. So the discussion of Adams is beside the point.
Lim's citation of a 1954 Webster's dictionary is ill informed. As Justice Scalia has pointed out many times, you must use a dictionary from the time when the statute was enacted to understand what Congress meant by the words it used in the statute. Anything else leads to error. This statute was passed in 1791 and remained substantially unchanged to the present. In the 18th century "making" referred to an artificial rather than natural process. There is a discussion of this point with citations at Monsanto v Bowman], p. 258, referring to Dr Johnson's 1755 dictionary.
Dissecting Rodkey's analysis is not support for the proposition that US law recognized planting a seed and growing a crop as a making within the meaning of sec. 271(a).
As for the UK, which really is not as important here as US law, since we are critiquing a US case, the Schutz case does not say anything directly about growing xrops from patented seeds. Its relevance is therefore unclear. It does say, "In weighing this interest [monopoly vs competition], customary expectations are relevant." Since farmers have been saving seed since the Neolithic Revolution 12,000 years ago, the quoted statement would seem to cut the opposite way from the aspirations of GMO enthusiasts. As for Canadian law, I believe most readers would consider it a distortion of what Schmeiser holds to say that it is legal support for "using" being "making" in the seed saving context.
In sum, the authority for the stated proposition--that (lower court) prior US law supported holding "replanting" saved seeds is a "making"--is totally unsupported by what has been cited so far. One would think that if there had been any such authority the US Supreme Court would have cited it in the Bowman opinion instead of citing cases that said seed patents are valid (J.E.M.) and patents on unicellular organisms are valid (Chakrabarty). As you may know, validity does not imply infringement. And one kind of infringement (selling in the J.E.M. case) does not imply another (making in the Bowman case).
PraeceptorIP ( talk) 21:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I recently removed the image of Kagan is it's pretty tangential to this topic and generally unencyclopedic to have uninformative pictures taking up space. If someone was extremely interested in what a particular justice looks like, there's already a wikilink to her page. What purpose is the image serving otherwise? It doesn't seem to be adding information to the article. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 04:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
To facilitate determining what the consensus is, count me as favoring the existing policy of putting a picture of the justice who is author of the opinion on the case page. People rightly expect to see that. PraeceptorIP ( talk) 00:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The Lead mentions that there was concern about "the involvement of Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously served as a lawyer for Monsanto". If there was concern over a conflict of interest, this should probably be covered in the body of the article. What sources claimed that Thomas could still have loyalty to the company? Dimadick ( talk) 16:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Delldot ( talk · contribs) 23:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd be interested in doing this review. @ GregJackP:, I see your userpage says you're retired. Is there anyone willing to implement suggested changes? If not I'm afraid I'll have to take this down in a week (unless it turns out to be promotable as is). delldot ∇. 23:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is my first round of comments. As with Glik, I'm recommending a fair amount of expansion, so take your time addressing these. I know you're also working on Glik at the same time so no pressure.
That's it for now! I'm excited to see what you add. delldot ∇. 07:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Reread, made another series of minor copy edits. I just have two very minor questions, and one odd finding that I think might be a false positive:
This is super close, as soon as we figure out the cv question it's ready to pass regardless of the other two. Thanks again for all your amazing work so far! delldot ∇. 04:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The period "." in the article's title/link is problematic for services such as Facebook, where users have no control over what is linked. For example, Facebook takes the URL of " /info/en/?search=Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co." and makes it instead " /info/en/?search=Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co" which is not the correct link.
The article should be renamed without the trailing period "." to properly format the URL.
UPDATE: Even mediawiki has a problem with the period, as the auto-links created in my first paragraph illustrate: the first link should include the punctuation but it doesn't and instead creates a broken link.
-- Michael.C.Wright ( talk) 05:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)