Talk:Monsanto legal cases/Archive 4

198:, thanks for closing the RfC. Are you an uninvolved editor, and did you come here from the page on which i just added a request for closure of the RfC? Also, what do you mean by "molehill mountaineering" in your closure comment? And does your conclusion mean that you find clear consensus as to "yes, include the cases asked about by the RfC"? That is the question of the RfC and i think you say there is clear consensus to include them. Just checking. I found your conclusion to sound somewhat inconclusive as the RfC question was "Should this page include a single sentence about recently filed lawsuits by several U.S. cities regarding PCBs contamination, in which Monsanto is a sued party, which are described in the following news articles?" And is there a guideline or policy that speaks to the onus that you speak of being on the person who wants to include a statement rather than those who want to prevent it from being included to achieve consensus? I thought we're all here together, and there is no such burden or distinction, and the work of consensus is to achieve consensus according to what is right for the article, whatever outcome that may be. What makes the burden be more on one side than the other? 508:

this is a POV-pushing desire instead of a desire to have good encyclopedia that reflects the world's reality, (2) accuse me of attempting to edit war to achieve that purported desire, and (3) blamed me for the fact of the RfC and that it took a long time. All three i wholeheartedly deny. Look, there are some people here who consistently make edits and block other edits in ways that are in line with the interests of the industry. There are others here who make edits and block other edits in ways that are critical or skeptical of the industry. Those are both ok with me. There is a level of focus that different people have, because we are different, that is healthy, and from the diversity of views, there could arise a balanced viewpoint, by respecting the spirit of the guidelines. However, in this drawn-out, bullshit saga, there has been misrepresentation of positions and guidelines, and so much ingenuine dialogue that it makes me sick to my stomache, and your defending of that seems to show your substance in regard to this matter. And then you have the gall to blame these things on me. As if i am causing this fiasco.

3430:

theorists you're speaking of. I have a healthy skepticism of the chemical industry in general, and that informs my point of view, but i'm not pushing an agenda into articles. I'm working with the sources we have to report the reality as best we can do, as Knowledge (XXG) editors. We're not experts ourselves, but we do the work of finding good sources and editing accordingly. Usually that is fairly straightforward and smooth, but in cases like this it feels like it takes a week and 10,000 words to make one good edit, a rate that is not sustainable for a project based on volunteer labor of love. I don't like the insinuations in your comment. I agree with the guidelines about sourcing, of course, and appreciate the diversity of viewpoints among editors when the dialogue is in good faith and sourcing is respected. In this case, we have good sourcing to edit the article fruitfully about these lawsuits, so readers will be as well informed as possible. It's not about an agenda. It's about reflecting the world as it is, through reliable sourcing.

3066:

knows him, name's been on the ballot paper like forever, always on the news commenting about this and that. People say he should maybe run for President, that story makes the rounds every four years about fundraising time. But nobody knows your name, and you mortgage the house, spend up on a little advertising, get the ball rolling. But wait. Some evil-minded bastard has filed a lawsuit on you. That night you volunteered to drive a Girl Scout home, the car broke down, you spent a cold and uncomfortable night as the floodwaters rose over the bridges… Now, eighteen years later, out of nowhere, a young man is suing you for his college money, claiming you are his natural father and have ignored his needs. It's complete nonsense of course, and anybody who knows you would dismiss it utterly - you're always careful. But the suit has been filed, the story's on the front page, every week more details emerge, each juicier than the last. Everyone's talking about you, your name is on everyone's lips, the political cartoonists are having a field day.

711:(see molehills above). Monsanto is a major multinational, it is not too much to expect that any genuinely significant story will be covered by national news sources, and we should not really start to talk about inclusion of anything until it has been published in a source with a national reputation and reach. Investigative journalism in the Mudhole Flats Courant is all well and good but it will be picked up by the Washington Post if it is significant. This enables us to save time poring through the past history of obscure journalists and journals to find out if they have an identified agenda. Once it's in WaPo we can certainly cite the original, it's all about trying to come up with an objective standard by which significance can be measured. It's clumsy, I readily admit, and I am open to better ideas. 3463:

toward that outcome, to the point where you're belaboring points that seem fairly simple to me and to other editors here. We've made progress in this section, and corrected some things about the cases not being a legal class action suit, for instance, but it feels like a steep uphill climb. We're still debating whether we can mention the current lawsuit and put these legal cases in a bit more context. You've already stated a particular synthesis in a previous section of this talk page and tried to insert it into the article. That took the protests of many editors to convince you otherwise. In this section, i see your dialogue with Tsavage seeming to go on at great length and not seem to be saying much new, but yet not to cede a point. That reminds me of filibustering.

441:

Maybe you can assemble a gang of fellow crusaders – there seems to be no shortage of people who hate Monsanto with passionate intensity – but this isn't about Monsanto, it's about wikiprocess. Over the years we have developed ways of handling all sorts of diverse editors with all sorts of agendas. Our ways may seem strange and nerdly, but they work, and the proof is before you in the great project constructed by volunteers. Why not go with the flow? Understand the system and work with it. There was a point where you could have gotten half your cake, but no, you wanted the whole hog. Perhaps instead of accusing other editors of wrongdoing, perhaps you could slow down, think about what others are saying and understand the true message? --

672:

his or any other biography. While a few excitable anti-GMO editors throw around accusations of corporate COI, that was not a significant factor in this rfc, and it does not characterize the prevailing arguments from either side, which have remained grounded in policy throughout the discussion. Even the minority of editors involved that are stridently anti-GMO are rational enough to avoid the use of your 'Monsatan' terminology. No one is accusing you of ties to Monsanto - the concern was that you have already chosen a side in the larger Monsanto/GMO debate, had said as much in the Arbcom filing, and that that position makes you involved enough in the issue to put your close in question.

1330:

zinc), butyl tin species, PCBs, PCTs, PAHs, and TPH".) The city allocated $ 7.5 million to the cleanup. There's more to the story, and I direct editors to the sources provided previously. I'll look into this some more, but it is quite clear that San Diego was found responsible for the pollution and not Monsanto. For San Diego to claim that Monsanto committed a "public nuisance" for acts actually committed or approved by the City is an interesting development, which will be investigated by the courts when these cases are heard. Monsanto has filed for dismissal, and a result on this will be known before the city's lawsuit can proceed (if it does). --

3415:, for example. Just because someone stands up for wikipolicy doesn't make them a shlll for Monsanto or a CIA stooge or whatever. Knowledge (XXG)'s policies are worth defending because they work. We ask for reliable sources so that people don't just simply insert their own personal views, or quote some biased crackpot blogger. We insist on NPOV so that we give due weight to all points of view. We don't give much weight to fringe theorists, but we'll lean heavily on scientific consensus. You appreciate Knowledge (XXG)'s position on this, I trust, or do you think that there should be some exemption for your strongly-held views? -- 3308:). Adding to my puzzlement, in that RfC, 14 editors (and no dissenting editors, other than you, Jytdog and Kingofaces43), including some who are editing Monsanto articles, and others not editing Monsanto articles, all unreservedly agreed that relevant, reliably sourced pending cases merit inclusion, this consensus including a 26,000 word discussion, led largely by you, yet, in the next instance of a well-sourced pending case that arises (this one), you've nonetheless returned to the same argument. Apparently, well-executed editorial dispute resolution methods are not working in this instance. -- 633:. I have no dog in this fight, all I care about is accuracy. The British, as a rule, are much less polarised on corporatism than Americans are, but those (like me) whose philosophical base is in the centre left are disposed to accept evidence of corporate malfeasance with relatively weak evidence. You might want to consider the possibility that you are misperceiving everything other than total agreement, as outright membership of "the Monsatan cabal". That could be a major error in the current circumstances. 3688:

articles. For example, in Bowman, the narrow scope of the decision reported there is a noteworthy aspect that is not indicated here (and I noticed the...fighting that went on in that article). Hopefully, expertise will indicate a source-based way to determine relative importance of, and some larger context for, what now seems like an arbitrary list of cases with uneven amounts of description and not much larger context. It seems like a big job, and worthwhile. --

2095:

reason these cities selected this particular law firm. Second, Monsanto is the defendant in these lawsuits; they are therefore "involved" by definition. Third, to this point, we do not have reliable sources connecting whatever you're concluding about previous liabilities and the actual issues in the current lawsuits, so that information should not even come in - at least not until there is reliable secondary source coverage making that link. Thanks.

31: 1753:

law firm that is common to two if not all three of them, and if we connect the law firm, we can look into the law firm's statements (web site?) for additional straightforward information. As to equal significance, from the information available, the cases seem roughly similar as far scope of problem (pollution of waterways, cleanup costs), and nothing so far has indicated that one is more outsntanding than the other for any other reason.

2825:-motivated attack on Monsanto, appears as an argument against the guidance and spirit of our neutrality and verifiability policies (insofar as an advocacy argument is used as a means to exclude content). This is, after all, what this particular article is entirely about: legally-formed complaints by and against Monsanto that we have gathered from reliably sourced reports. It shouldn't be made to be more complicated than that. -- 2725:"It is the latest in what is expected to be a series of trials, with the company facing several similar lawsuits in local courts, along with some in California. This particular case is part of a lawsuit that was filed in 2010. After the lawsuit bounced into and out of federal court, the dozen or so plaintiffs were broken into four separate trials as a way of dealing with the large number of plaintiffs. 2574:

top of that, this article currently covers at least 30 cases, so for the article to be overrun by these trivial cases, there would have to be quite a number of them - and I've still to see example one. So I'm not sure what this argument, about reliably-sourced-yet-too-trivial-to-cover Monsanto cases, is in fact about. How can we argue about the possibility of something that cannot actually happen? --

459: 1713:

the 2015 lawsuits first because they involve three cities, and then go into further detail about how San Diego's lawsuit is part of a long series of lawsuits involving PCBs in San Diego. Maybe we can say something like: "In 2015, three cities sued . . . . San Diego's suit comes three years after the city was found liable, and some commentators now speculate San Diego sees suing Monsanto

997:. I hope we can simply let this be. It's been quite a saga for the inclusion of a single sentence about three lawsuits with a lot of good sourcing. Editing Knowledge (XXG) should not be this way. It should not be a battleground that sucks up everyone's time in order to make an honest edit. It's kind of like the saying about lawsuits -- the only ones who win are the lawyers. 481: 393:"We really need this gaming behavior to stop." I thoroughly agree. We've spent far too long on this RfC which commenced because SageRad couldn't edit war his way to his preferred outcome. FFS, SR, all you have to do is wait for these just-filed cases to be heard and make a mark. If they gain national coverage you'll have no opposition. So what's your hurry? -- 1632:"While Spokane is seeking unspecified compensatory damages, the lawsuit says the company is responsible for contaminating its wastewater and stormwater with PCBs that the city is legally required to remove before the water flows into the Spokane River. It estimates such treatment amounts to an expected estimated cost of more than $ 100 million." 727:. There are many polemical sources that may provide some worthwhile information but cannot be used to establish significance of a particular fact. Example: if Daily Kos says a fact about Donald Trump is important, would we accept that? If Fox state that a fact about Bernie is of surpassing importance, would we accept their judgment? I think not. 629:

with at least some of the issues involved. I am scientifically literate so can understand the arguments. I have done OTRS work, so I understand the issues around negative content and how it is perceived by both subjects and readers. I also freely admit that I have personal biases (as everyone does), so I positively invited independent review at

3478:

negative aspect to be given as much space as possible, and you want anybody who stands in your crusading way to be removed. You see Knowledge (XXG) as a vehicle for your own opinion. That's how I see it, and I'm by no means alone. You even admit it when you get emotional: that you're an activist, and you want people to see things your way. --

967:

strangeness to the closing and wanted a truly uninvolved editor who does not seem to have preconceptions about the topic area to do the closing. That' what RfC's are for, and so i wanted to respect the time and effort that everyone put into the RfC with a cleaner closing assessment. That is because i want to see integrity in process here.

1281:"I suggest you drop the stick, SR, or be prepared to accept the consequences indicated above." -- Pete, why do you think it's okay to write to another editor in this way? I asked a question regarding your edit, that's all. Please be civil and please stop being so confrontational. You seem to have it out for me. I'm tired of it. 1642:"In 2012, the city of San Diego was found liable for polluting San Diego Bay by approving the dumping of hazardous chemicals (including PCBs) into the harbour. The city later paid a fine of nearly $ 1 million for its role in the pollution, and set aside $ 6.5 million for removing the pollutants from sediments." 3026:"I have a suggestion: how about you stop obsessing over the addition of as much critical material as possible into articles relating to glyphosate and Maonsanto? I object to adding this, because there's just the one small story and if and when it turns into a real thing, it will be more widely covered." 3494:

The evidence simply doesn’t support the assertion that the historic use of PCB products was the cause of the plaintiffs’ harms. We are confident that the jury will conclude, as two other juries have found in similar cases, that the former Monsanto Company is not responsible for the alleged injuries,”

3406:

Well, I'm glad you've jumped in, SR, speaking of agendas. I've explained my position previously. As for Monsanto, I think they have some atrocious business practices. I am no shill for Monsanto. What I'm against is turning Knowledge (XXG) over to fringe theorists and single-minded cranks. Go check my

3322:

No, that's not my position at all. You still haven't got it. I didn't mention this NPOV aspect until a few days ago, on 9 October. My point is that reporting an allegation without a balancing view is necessarily unbalanced. Take a look at our sources - they don't just report on the lawsuit, they also

2739:

Unless there was another Monsanto PCB lawsuit wrapped up in the summer in St. Louis County, then the trials are connected, making this additional information exactly the sort of bigger picture encyclopedic coverage we are here to provide. I'm puzzled by the strong objections to this content, combined

2692:

Why not wait until there's something encyclopaedic to record? Knowledge (XXG) doesn't have to be the grand "Let's hate Monsanto" site of the world, tilted as far as possible towards what looks to be an obsession with you. You know my position on legal cases. Reporting allegations in Wikivoice without

2079:

Monsanto is in the position of R J Reynolds. Suing them for littering because Camel cigarette butts are found in roadside litter makes about as much sense. Monsanto sold a legal product. and it was the users who dumped the residue, along with many other pollutants from a wide variety of sources, into

2011:

We'll get to the bottom of this mess one way or the other. My preliminary digging has turned up many leads and I'm confident that as I "walk back the cat" I can get a pretty good picture of what's gone on, well sourced and meaty. There's probably a solid article in this, and Monsanto will very likely

1853:

1752:

Common sense indicates grouping similar cases, of multiple US cities suing Monsanto in 2015 for water-related PCB pollution, as one item at this time. Several of the sources connect the cases by mentioning other of the three city cases in coverage of one of them. And I believe the sources connect the

1682:

As to the "hazardous chemicals (including PCBs)" mentioned in our article, the news source only mentions "discharge of untreated water" and later "Over the course of several decades, the area located in the center of the eastern shoreline, has become layered with marine waste such as hazardous metals

1622:

is imbalanced for this article, detailing background on the San Diego suit first, and only later mentioning Spokane and San Diego without more detailed explanation, when the three cases are at this point of equal weight. The paragraph should lead with the three cases (which is the form of other items

860:

The RfC was closed by JzG/Guy, was it not? And it was closed, though with some strange language, with a positive assessment regarding the question itself, if i understand the closing language correctly. Do you claim that the RfC has not been closed, or do you claim that it was closed differently than

628:

I have no dog in this fight. I have never been on a March Against Monsanto, but I have never earned a penny from any industry even tangentially related to Monsanto either. I have over ten years of Knowledge (XXG) experience, most of it as an admin, a metric fuckton of edits, and a passing familiarity

599:

reads to me as the closer suggesting that a group of editors has somehow ganged up to vote through something that is at least questionable, if not downright against policy, which is the opposite of the situation here: a multiply reliably sourced item, directly on point for the subject of the article.

440:

who want Knowledge (XXG) to reflect their views without question, and when someone questions their behaviour, that someone must be an agent of the Great Evil. You have created disruption in this whole sorry affair, not just here but on other noticeboards, and wasted a great amount of time and energy.

274:

an uninvolved editor, in that he has a track record of editing on the topic of GMOs and Monsanto and the whole controversy cluster here, and seems to have a position that is rather pro-industry if one must categorize people into "sides". Therefore, i think we need to request another review by a truly

3250:

You are of the opinion that legal cases that do not have some degree of coverage of the proceedings that indicates the defendant's response, and preferably a final verdict, are imbalanced because all that exists are the plaintiff, defendant, and complaint, and publishing the complaint alone (or even

3173:

This presents a more complete picture than noting only a single isolated case without the larger context. Where is your imbalance - your evil-minded fellow filing malicious and unfounded lawsuits - in this specific editorial situation? I an quite familiar with the NPOV policy, and don't see where it

3120:

What is "something encyclopaedic" that you're looking for, and how does whatever you find missing supersede basic policy that says material that is reliably sourced and within the scope of an article (i.e. noteworthy) should be included in that article, e.g. a reliably sourced Monsanto legal case in

3043:

Are we expected to evaluate the quality of edits and sources by taking into account beliefs about editor motivation - if an editor is seen to be "hating Monsanto," does that affect the quality of sources (I don't see how, therefore, why is editor motivation being repeatedly commented on in a content

2573:

I've asked for an example of a reliably sourced and reasonably trivial suit involving Monsanto, and despite repeated editor concerns to the contrary, that we are in danger of filling up the article with legal trivialities, no-one has presented even one example. I've looked myself, and found none. On

2339:

series of deaths and injuries cause by PCBs. It's not an establishment of a precedent, and the Post-Dispatch article makes that clear when it later says "It’s unclear what impact, if any, this ruling will have on other pending litigation involving Monsanto and its PCB history." That's the difference

2234:

We don't need to be too coy about what constitutes a class action. Here's a quote from one of the articles: "The jury found in favor of the agriculture giant after a full day of deliberations Monday, according to a St. Louis County Circuit Court clerk. The trial, involving plaintiffs from around the

1555:

in 2015. The details you are wishing to include relate to one of those three lawsuits. By your logic, we could also begin with the earlier uses of PCBs in the three cities, and therefore put this item on the timeline back into the 1930s. That does not make sense. The thread here is the 2015 lawsuits.

1523:

I think that it's best to tell the whole story, in sequence. I think you're losing track of the aim of Knowledge (XXG). We're here to inform, not to push any particular line. I can see this Shipyards Sediment Site becoming a separate article. You know that San Diego tried that public nuisance gambit

1369:

I don't think you're seeing the whole picture, SR. I suggest you follow the advice above and hunt up more information. Monsanto's involvement in this is tenuous, and the real story lies with the law firm's actions. But with what we've got, the story begins in 2009, and these just-filed cases are the

1345:

Those are interesting documents. I note that there is no connection made in any source between the finding that the city of San Diego as well as several private companies were found responsible for allowing the contaminants to enter the Bay, and the current lawsuits involving Monsanto. You claim "it

1194:

The Seattle Times is a reasonably large paper, to be sure, but it included this story as "Seattle news", indicated in the URL, as opposed to an item seen as having greater significance. But that's okay. I just wanted to test the feelings of editors on including local news sources, especially if they

1150:

and should not be removed. We already have our 'national sources' for this content, so the question of inclusion is behind us for these cases. The new issue is whether sources which are not national in scope but still of high quality should be used for additional information. Certainly they should -

893:

Yes, the result was in favor of including the content? Why would i request a closure review? Because i am not here on a battelground for a "side" -- i am battling solely for integrity of process and dialogue here, and the closing was too vague and weird, and the editor appears to have a prejudice on

701:

In this case I am referring to attempts to inflate the importance of things. For example, if a local paper were to cover a minor zoning infraction that would be a molehill. From that, activists might attempt to erect a mountain of "Monsanto flouts planning laws". This is a hypothetical example only.

671:

JzG, a lot of this seems aimed at a very small subset of the editors here, while the language implicates everyone who supported inclusion of the cases. Very few of the editors from this rfc are or are likely to be involved in the Kevin Folta article, and even fewer, I'm sure, have a plan to 'nobble'

648:

serious about abuse of our articles to attack individuals in furtherance of a personal agenda. The case is listed at ArbCom, you have a lot of eyes on you right now. The absolute best way to ensure that any COI editing goes unnoticed is to start trying to nobble biographies. That will get you banned

514:

My desire is NOT to twist the guidelines, and is NOT to push things into Knowledge (XXG) against policy. I want a tight encyclopedia, where all the relevant information is present. These lawsuits are relevant information. People who Google Monsanto and end up here DESERVE to get the best information

3272:

I maintain two connected points: 1) that a lawsuit is a distinct entity, it has its own existence, and is most basically defined by a plaintiff, a defendant, and a complaint - description of a defense is not required to cover its existence in Knowledge (XXG); 2) Knowledge (XXG) core policy requires

2488:

In regard to this question, i think we had already established that there is no guideline that prohibits inclusion of relevant well-sourced lawsuits in progress if they seem to be of import. I found this one to be of import, and the sourcing is equivalent to the sourcing you used to insert the case

2453:

And yes, i did also add that there is another similar lawsuit begun, sourced to the same newspaper as the other two sources, St Louis Post-Dispatch, which are what Pete/Skyring used to add the content on the first lawsuit. I hope that it's not only suitable to use this source for a lawsuit when the

1939:

www.waterboards.ca.gov is a primary source, and redundant to secondary sources. The San Diego Reader is a minor source, we have stronger ones, we should not eb including minor local sources in this article. The way to prevent the endless battles is to keep to high quality sources that give context,

1712:

explains above. However, it does appear that the 2012 and 2015 San Diego lawsuits are part of a larger narrative involving PCB pollution in the area. I think the sources make this clear enough, but the language of the article should spell this out in more detail. I think it might be helpful to list

1554:

Pete, I don't think you're understanding my point here. The article has a topic, and the topic is lawsuits involving Monsanto, and from that identity of the article, everything in the article branches from that conceptually. The connection in this strand is that there are these three lawsuits filed

1175:

remove it and nothing would change; but on the other hand, I don't understand what Skyring objects to about it. The RFC only requires that we have some national coverage, not that we can never use local papers at all. Even then, I'm a bit dubious to call a paper with a circulation as large as the

620:

case regardless of how significant the coverage. Long experience indicates that a straight "include" in cases like this is apt to be ministerpreted as a mandate to include (and revert removal of) every single passing mention of a thing, so I noted the policies that support inclusion and those which

1784:

Let's leave out "common sense", which in this discussion seems to be another word for "personal opinion". It's synthesis, in any case. The sources don't seem to show any links between the cases apart from the law firm handling them. At the moment we have significant additional material for the San

1674:

Assuming that sourcing is found to connect the cited 2012 Abatement Order and the 2014 news source, also of note is that the relevant order involves six parties in addition to the City of San Diego, and a portion of San Diego's responsibility concerning the Shipyard Sediment Site appears to be for

1670:

The article should specify that the San Diego Regional Water Control Board was the regulatory authority; "found liable" without explanation is unclear: who found SD liable? Also, the source seems to indicate an unfinalized settlement agreement: whether the deal was finalized, and the fine paid, is

1504:

Thanks, but, you see, the problem is that this article is about legal cases involving Monsanto, and the cases in question are the 2015 cases by the three cities. The content about San Diego is context for one of these three cases. Please self-revert, because this doesn't make logical sense in this

1329:

above, the additional details illuminate the strory. The city of San Diego routinely (from 1900 on) approved or actively engaged in dumping hazardous chemicals such as heavy metals and PCBs (quoting from the judgement: "metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and

710:

A good point and the one I thought hardest about. The problem is not restricted tot his article. Unpopular companies, people and so on tend to attract a type of editing where absolutely every negative event ever published, gets included. A lot of these are minor issues around local sites or events

526:

There is a place for caution and care in sourcing, and going slowly, and tempering the zeal of new editors who wish to include every primary study under the sun, but there is also a point where editors are going too far, and have become the lapdogs of the industry, effectively, and have frozen the

522:

There is a principle involved now, and this particular question has become emblematic of the systematic obstructionism that has been going on at Knowledge (XXG) for far too long now. It's high time to get the cards out in the open. It's high time for the simmering conflict to come to a head and be

408:

Nice way to take my words and try to use them against me. Your behavior is also gaming behavior, right there in that comment itself. This is not about "edit warring" (which i didn't do here) nor is it about me trying to force anything into this article. This is about unreasonable POV protectionism

3477:

I couldn't give a rat's arse about Monsanto. It's up to the courts to determine liability. It's up to Knowledge (XXG) to provide accurate, reliable information about what's going on, and in that respect you don't seem to want to do this. You don't want a balanced coverage, you want every possible

3462:

What i meant is simply that from the past month's history of this article, knowing in detail what has gone on, i think that you have a particular outcome that you want to see on this page, including some ideas about Monsanto not being liable at all for PCBs contamination, and that you are working

3429:

I ask only for good sourcing and civil cooperation among editors. In this case, we have clear sourcing to mention the current lawsuit in this group of lawsuits. We are trying to follow the lead of the source and to describe the reality using the sources as our guide, here. I don't see what fringe

3065:

Well, okay. Say you're running for election. You want to be in Congress, get your hands on some of that sweet, sweet power. The perks, the pension, the interns. Yeah! But you've got to get your name out there, get people talking about you. The incumbent has all the momentum here, because everyone

1881:

in the time being, and working from there in dialog. I think Pete's version is pushing a line (though oddly he accuses me of pushing a line) and gives a wrong impression to readers, one not based on the sources accurately. I suggest pulling back and then discussing. I ask Pete to self-revert that

1798:

What I'm seeing in San Diego is that the city approved the dumping of various forms of pollution by various organisations by various means over a period of many decades. These pollutants of at least a dozen different types - listed above - only one of which can be linked to Monsanto. The city was

1733:

One immediate problem with the analysis above - for which many thanks - is the question of how and why we might regard the three cases of equal significance. Are you aware of any connections between them, or are you going on instinct, perhaps feeling that all drink-driving arrests or divorces are

898:

national sources, by the way even though this should not be a requirement, but i wanted to respect the process and all the work that so many people put into the RfC dialogue, and therefore requested a more clean close, from an uninvolved editor. That is why, plain and simple. Your inference to my

507:

Your words: "We've spent far too long on this RfC which commenced because SageRad couldn't edit war his way to his preferred outcome." Those are your words. That is an attribution of my actions that i deny completely. You accuse me of (1) having a desired outcome, with the implication being that

3687:

Cool, I hope they come, that would be interesting. After reading this, I looked again at the article, and besides the generally poor organization and writing, there seems to be a notable difference in overall impression between a couple of the cases as covered here, and in the leads of their own

3052:

A case is a case, regardless of what stage it is at. Arguing to exclude reliably sourced cases in an article about cases introduces bias, and neutrality is broken. Speculating about what editors are thinking should not be part of the discussion. Unless you can explain the nature of the imbalance

2946:

We do not have policies or guidelines suggesting that legal cases cannot be mentioned until there is a final disposition. In fact, pending cases are routinely reported in news media, and elsewhere in Knowledge (XXG). At the moment of coming into existence, a court case has significant real world

1839:

I think that the reader coming to this article with a genuine desire for information is entitled to get as much of the story as we can present, subject to sourcing and avoiding synthesis. I also think that there are some here who wish to present all three cases as a righteous city administration

1040:

Investigate Midwest, Environmental Leader and AllGov are not bodies of substantial reputation (and indeed in at least one case appear to be little more than activist blogs). These sources are more polemical than analytical in tone and are redundant to much better sources anyway (e.g. Reuters and

2903:

Essentially, it means using Knowledge (XXG) to argue a legal case by presenting or excluding well-sourced information on the basis of whether you, or any other editors, decide that a fair balance of claims and refutations exist - you wish to ensure a he said/she said situation, where both sides

2807:

This is broader, more informative, though still incomplete, coverage than simply noting a single isolated case without the larger context. In fact, deliberately leaving out available information like this creates a biased impression, by minimizing the apparent scope of a particular case through

2387:

then please note, that only fixed one thing, the calling of it a "class action" lawsuit. That doesn't address the point i made in the above comment about misstating the results of the lawsuit. It also doesn't address the inclusion of the next lawsuit of the same sort in this paragraph. Will you

2094:

A couple of things. First, the law firm that filed these suits has a very long, very successful history in the area of toxic torts. They pick and choose the high dollar cases and they do not file lawsuits on specious grounds. Research them and you will see what I'm talking about. There is a

2064:

As i understand it, Monsanto made the chemicals in question, and then sold them to other companies without informing them of blatant health risks about which Monsanto knew but kept silent, explicitly to gain more profit by selling more product, as revealed by their internal memos. That is how i

1991:

That guideline does in fact read: "Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary

1413:

I believe i've stated my concerns clearly. (1) The ordering of the content should be reversed so that it begins with the legal cases against Monsanto by the three cities, and then provides any additional context. (2) You're performing synthesis. You believe that the case against Monsanto is not

1384:

You're performing synthesis. I ask you to provide sourcing for your claims, especially if you're including them in the article itself. You know that editors are not supposed to do synthesis in writing articles, right? We are not the experts. Reliable sources provide the expert knowledge, and we

1127:

Look, we've just been through this. The cases haven't even been heard, and JzG closed the RfC requiring significant sources. I'll accept that Reuters and the Washington Times (barely) fit the criteria of national or international media sources, but the other two are both local and not needed as

1660:

found at hundreds of public and private developments throughout the city in 2010. Violations included the discharge of untreated water into the ocean and bay as well as a failure by the city to fix violations on its own capital improvement projects. ... As for the most recent settlement offer,

2977:

You miss the point. Of course these things are reported in reliable sources. That is not an issue, and we don't need anyone to pretend that it is. Again. But look at those sources. They don't present the unbalanced view that you want here. Why are you so insistent that we violate NPOV in this

2629:

I have a suggestion: how about you stop obsessing over the addition of as much critical material as possible into articles relating to glyphosate and Maonsanto? I object to adding this, because there's just the one small story and if and when it turns into a real thing, it will be more widely

966:

As i wrote above, your assumption about my motivations is plain wrong. I read the closing as favoring inclusion of the content, as there is indeed adequate sourcing, and still i requested a closure review simply to get a clearer and simpler closing, as i saw that there seemed to be a bias and

435:

Not sure how my comment above is any attempt at gamining wikiprocess. Certainly not intended that way. Just my irony detector going off. Look, this isn't about "POV-protectionism". Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm some sort of shill for Monsanto. As I've said earlier, I think Monsanto's

1015:

There is consensus to include the content and high quality sources. There is no consensus to include low quality sources. The issue, as far as I see it, is that your edit includes both good and bad sources. Stick to what is supported in high quality sources of a standing proportional to the

2551:

The above two comments by JzG/Guy and Pete/Skyring strike me as out of line. In terms of balancing the story by quoting Monsanto as suggested by Guy, note that we also don't quote the plaintiffs. We simply reported what the sources said. And no, "slinging as much mud as possible" is not my

1584:"pushing a line" so stop this. In this particular debate, you seem to be doing exactly what you're accusing me of here. You're pushing this material which is not directly related, to overshadow the cases that are the actual connection to the article, and you're performing synthesis that is 2493:

but when i came across this, i had the time and added it as a relevant piece of information in the article that i do think adds to the content of this paragraph in a good way for readers. They will see that there are a series of similar lawsuits and be able to follow up more if they want.

2065:

understand it. I don't see how that is "not involved". Pete is free to to any research he chooses on his own time, and write any synthesis he wishes, and get it published if he can, and then it will be one source out in the world that we could draw upon if it seems like a reliable source.

3639:

I have not looked over the article in a while, and coming here today, I see that this article is in horrible shape. The lede is one sentence that is so vague as to be meaningless. The organization is completely shot, and it is poorly written. I am going to post a request at

3390:

Indeed, this strongly appears to me to be filibustering obstructionism. I don't see valid and reasoned opposition, but really a whole lot of strained arguments against inclusion or proper description of these cases regarding PCBs, and it really looks to me like agenda pushing.

2279:

A quick point of clarification: a "class action suit" is a term of art in the law. If a case is not certified as a "class action" by the court (even if it involves many plaintiffs from around the country), then it is not a class action in the technical sense of the term. --

1350:

found responsible for allowing pollution of the Bay. Because this is an article about legal cases involving Monsanto, i suggest that the paragraph should begin with the sentence that describes the lawsuits by the three cities involved: San Jose, Spokane, and San Diego, and

2947:

impact, it is not a triviality until some point further along. If a court case exists, it does not exist less because it is ongoing, or exist more because it has been completed, it just exists, and we can and should report on any relevant case when it is well-sourced. --

1101:. They can remain, can they not? Is there any reason not to retain those sources? Pete's edit reason was "local sources" but i don't know of any guideline that prohibits using a reputed city newspaper or affiliate of NBC for instance as a source for something like this. 213:

I echo SageRad's questions and concerns. Rightly or wrongly, the close appears to me to enable the kind of contentious foot-dragging that has marked this simple question from the beginning, and the closer is described as involved in GMO editing in a current statement in

555:

Not a "rant". You accuse me of something, then i explain why it's off base, and then you post pictures to mock me and accuse me of a "rant" as well as soapboxing. That's about the gist of what happened. I submit that neutral readers will see what is happening here.

2821:, and every case where Monsanto is a defendant by definition involves complaints against Monsanto, therefore, claiming that a straightforward description of the complaint in a reliably sourced case where Monsanto is the defendant, is in any way, at any time, an 1679:(from the Abatement Order); the San Diego Unified Port District is another of the parties in the abatement order. That the order covers several parties, and includes pre-1963 activity, seems relevant, if we are looking into the background on the Monsanto case. 518:

People like you and several others here are being obstructionist to a very reasonable progress of this article. You are making it nearly impossible to make any edits, in good faith, with good justification. This is inexcusable. You are doing a disservice to

3111:, do not further clarify your position. I gather you have a feeling that the reliable source is missing some more nefarious aspect of this upcoming case, so we should hold off on acknowledging the case's existence to give a chance for this stuff to surface? 351:"Teaching the Controversy" does not necessarily make for a good close, and the closer appears to be making many recent edits in this very controversy cluster (such as those i linked to above, and many more), which doesn't seem like "generally uninvolved". 3230:

Skyring/Pete: You're not adding to your point in this discussion, only repeating it, and I am also only repeating my view. I've summarized, as I understand them, our respective positions concerning the inclusion of well-sourced, directly relevant pending

2732:"The first trial, which lasted nearly a month, took place this summer, with a St. Louis County jury ruling in Monsanto’s favor. The attorneys for plaintiffs say they have no plans to appeal that verdict. The latest trial could wrap up as early as Friday." 2847:

If we only report filings of lawsuits against Monsanto, then that is a breach of NPOV, because it is an unbalanced view. If you see lack of balance as a good, thing, perhaps you should go into political activism, rather than writing an encyclopaedia

2080:

the harbour, as approved by the city. We'll see how well this case stands up in court, but Monsanto has filed for dismissal and it may not get that far. Looks like all of these cases are being run by the same law firm on the same specious grounds. --

3327:

parties. This is basic journalism ethics, and despite Knowledge (XXG) having a similar NPOV policy, you don't think we should include the respondent's views on what they see as a misguided and wrong legal case. You just want to present one side.

2255:

until 1977" and yet the source (same as above) states, "A St. Louis County jury has found that Monsanto is not liable in a series of deaths and illnesses suffered by people who were exposed to the PCBs manufactured by the company until the late

2235:

country, took nearly a month. The lawsuit, filed against Monsanto, Solutia, Pharmacia and Pfizer, sought relief for plaintiffs who developed lymphohematopoietic cancer after being exposed to PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, made by Monsanto."

2711:

By core policy, a proposed addition that is both reliably sourced and directly relevant to an article's topic should be included, to maintain balanced and neutral coverage. A well-sourced Monsanto legal case, for inclusion in an article titled

1671:

not supported in the source (as the source was written before that played out). And the news source does not connect the proposed settlement agreement with the cited water board "Cleanup and Abatement Order" (which does not specify penalties).

2133:

About the law firm? I'm not suggesting that should be part of the article - just giving Pete some info in response to his comment that the law firm filed suits on spurious grounds. If you meant something else, please let me know. Thanks.

3300:), namely by you, JzG/Guy, Kingofaces43, and Jytdog, all veteran editors. So I have done my best to understand how the policy interpretation of these editors could essentially trump core inclusion policy of reliable sourcing and relevance ( 3071:

Is it okay for you to accept that this is a legitimate news story, the allegations are out there, everyone's talking about you, but it doesn't matter. You'll clear your name in court, if it ever gets that far. Or would you like to present

436:

corporate behaviour and ethical standards set a poor example. You must have missed that. Fair enough. I have no history of taking positions for or against Monsanto. You can't have spotted that either. What I object to is the behaviour of

1812:

The city is now suing Monsanto in the hope of finding they committed a public nuisance and will fund the entire clean-up of the Shipyards Sedimentation Site. My crystal ball says this is a crap-shoot, but hey, get the right jury and who

95:

Summoned here by Legobot. I skimmed through the comments and read the article. RfC are confusing when taken out out of contest. 2015 law suit regarding PCB is reported in the news. Monsanto is part of it and mentioning it in the section

3204:. You want to report on the allegation alone without presenting any balance. The respondent's side, in this case. As mentioned in the reliable sources you say you have read. Do you really not understand the problem you are creating? -- 293:. We really need this gaming behavior to stop. It's disrupting the good working of Knowledge (XXG) severely. This is yet another incident of gaming POV pushing behavior that could be discussed in the current ongoing arbitration case. 1346:

is quite clear that San Diego was found responsible for the pollution and not Monsanto", but the source document states that the City of San Diego, and the U.S. Navy, four private companies, and San Diego Unified Port District were

1897:

Sorry to have to do this, but three hours had gone by and there was no self-revert, and the article stood in a state that promoted an unsupported synthesis tending toward the theory outlined by Pete in the above comment. I revrted

2667:

You know what? Do what you want. You'll end up topic banned, you know it and I know it. And the articles will look like grudge-fests and will undermine your actual agenda by simply putting readers off, and that's fine by me too.

132:

It would be more objective to list two reasons Monsanto is involved in many legal cases (patent disputes and chemical pollution) in the first sentence and mention health issues caused by products and class actions in the second.

2469:

The key word there is "outcome". I don't care which way it goes, but I do object to filling up our article with reports on cases where there is little to record apart from the well-sourced fact of filing. What's your big hurry?

2014:

Pete is certainly free to do this but he must not carry out his investigation in this article. Once he finds RS that agrees with his theory he can add it. In the meantime it's all synth and I am removing it from the article.

758:

in the rfc, and pointed out the importance of having significant RS coverage for any cases included in the article. I don't see anyone in the rfc arguing that we should use low quality sources in order to get this content

621:

mitigate against, in order to provide guidance with a much broader acceptance than the small group participating here, in order, hopefully, to provide long-term resolution of a question that's clearly not going to go away.

1689:

Finally, if we're agreeing that the overall weight of this item merits inclusion of details of case background, then we should have more information on the Monsanto cases themselves, which is available from the sources.

624:

You got what you wanted: the cases go in, as long as there are high quality sources (to match the high profile of the company and its article). You did not get a blanket pass, and if you expected one then you are rather

247:

of information sourced to Food Babe that may be critical of Kevin Folta, who is recently involved in controversy over ties to Monsanto because the statement is sourced to Food Babe herself (among several edits on the

3036:

What is the actionable meaning of "something encyclopaedic" or "a real thing" - what are we looking for in this instance, over and above the cited, reliably sourced information, to satisfy these proposed criteria or

1142:

We have not 'been through this'. The relevant cases are already sourced to national publications, so we don't strictly need additional sources. The issue is not inclusion at this point, which is what we have already

3047:

Why is there a suggestion that inclusion of reliably sourced material that fits squarely within this article's scope should be delayed, in order to avoid it being perceived as editorial criticism or bias against

2652:

Not "obsessing" and i find your comment onerous. Please stop telling me what to do, please stop trying to strong-arm. Your "argument" is not an argument, but rather you saying "go away kid". It's not Wikipedian.

3134:

You say you have no complaint with the source, which presumably means you accept the source as unbiased and accurate. To repeat from above, according to this source, the following information is made available:

1418:, even though that's not the story, the whole story, and nothing but the story according to your sources, and you're editing the article to portray that story although the sourcing doesn't seem to support it. 3702:

It would be a huge task. i would propose for starters dividing the article into logical sections, like: Toxic chemicals, Patent litigation and enforcement, Fraud and deceptive advertising, GMO labelling ...

1799:

found liable, along with others, and had to pony up $ 7.5 million in fines and cleanup costs. It apparently tried to use "public nuisance" of the other polluters to shift responsibility and costs, and failed.

1155:

sources. There is no evidence that either has an activist agenda. 'local sources' is not sufficient reason for removing quality sources, particularly for a regional affiliate of a national news organization.

266:

to source about Kevin Folta from Folta's own blog (though just removed the comment by Food Babe as i just noted above because it was sourced to her blog and that's not okay in that case for some reason)....

2879:, we report cases filed by Monsanto and cases filed against Monsanto, with noteworthiness (basis for inclusion) determined primarily by reliable, independent secondary source reports. That is the baseline 1916:

Perhaps you might consider that the light of the sun shines around the planet, bringing night and day to various locations at various times as the globe revolves. It doesn't shine out of your bum, cobber.

3273:

reliable sourcing and relevance within the article's scope as the basic conditions for inclusion (met here by reliable, independent secondary sourcing, and being a Monsanto legal case in an article about

1826:

The interesting part is that the law firm is guaranteed to clean up, whatever happens. If there's a settlement in favour of the city, they take a percentage. If they lose, they claim for their expenses.

615:

The close does not come down in favour of either pole. I find solid consensus to include the cases, which I note most of your opponents do not want, but well-argued policy-based objections to including

337:

An editor generally uninvolved in a particular topic commenting on something at ArbCom doesn't make them involved. Seems like a good close as it shows there are legitimate concerns from both groups.

1762:

We do have to watch getting outside of the general scope and style of coverage of these cases compared to other cases in this article, at a certain point we enter into separate article territory. --

2508:

Given your stated views on Monsanto, perhaps you prefer to air accusations before they are heard? Sling as much mud as possible before the facts and the outcome are established. I guess we could

511:

The tension that exists should play out fairly smoothly. It should not take 100,000 words to get a ONE SENTENCE MENTION OF A WELL SOURCED LAWSUIT into an article on lawsuits relating to Monsanto.

2591:, to complete this discussion, i would like to add back the mention of the other, ongoing lawsuit that i had added and that Pete/Skyring deleted, as per the discussion above. That content is: 2331:

deaths and illnesses suffered by people who were exposed to the PCBs manufactured by the company until the late 1970s." The first statement implies that the parties were found not liable for

2340:

there and why i had changed the language to "not liable for specific harms in a series of deaths and illnesses suffered by people who had been exposed to PCBs" in my edit. Thanks for asking.

1637:

Additionally, the summary of the background source for the San Diego case is questionable as to accuracy and clarity regarding of the nature of the findings and penalties. The article reads:

3008:

Skyring/Pete: I've replied as best I can to your objection, as far as I am able to understand that objection. You have not provided a clear argument against inclusion - you have referred to

2908:. To avoid OR, you then argue that we must wait until sources deliver more information, but in doing so, we are violating NPOV by suppressing the existence of reliably sourced court cases. 2532:

Clearly we must include every instance where someone wrote so much as a snotty letter to Monsanto. Anything else would mean that we are tools of the corporate shill machine. Or something.

2489:

that you favored (same paper, exactly). There is no "big hurry" but there's also no need to wait X number of days or until the lawsuit is completed, either. I know that Knowledge (XXG) is

1572:

Secondly, your quote "I think you're losing track of the aim of Knowledge (XXG). We're here to inform, not to push any particular line." is again one more of your dozens to hundreds of

875:

The RfC was closed with no approval for insertion of the material you wanted. The closure statement was discussed immediately above, same result, and you lodged a request for review at

1717:." Of course, I think we should tread carefully and note that any connection between the 2012 litigation and the 2015 litigation is merely speculation on the part of commentators. -- 3012:

and provided your opinion that mentioning this case would be unbalanced, and a violation of NPOV. You have not explained what that balance is: what are we seeking that is lacking?

3342:

You may not have mentioned NPOV in the specific context of the St Louis case until recently, but your arguments around NPOV here are substantially similar to those that you made

158:

Gpeja, your comment does not appear to be addressing the closure of the rfc specifically, which is the subject of this section. Would you mind moving it to a different section?

1683:

and other pollutants from large shipping companies located in San Diego." A list of pollutants is found in the Abatement Order, which has yet to be connected to the news item.

2755:

Geez. It's like having an encyclopaedic record of weather forecasts instead of the weather, and we only mention forecasts of rain because a couple of editors prefer rain. --

365:

The statement is a clear indication of bias, and I have requested they be named as a Party in the ArbCom case. Agree with SageRad that "generally uninvolved" is inaccurate.

600:

The close also suggests an unclear inclusion standard of "national coverage" - how has the closer arrived at that finding, and where is that determined for these cases? --

3015:

You and JzG/Guy are the two editors arguing against inclusion in this thread, and the gist of your arguments, which seem to be the same, can be found in these comments:

2512:

by quoting from both sides, but you may not like what Monsanto has to say. Sourcing isn't the issue, as noted above at considerable length, so please drop that stick. --

1180:

in with some podunk one-town paper purely because it has a city name in it. The Seattle Times covers much of the northeastern United States, which is hardly 'local'. --

2734: 2598: 595:

Just read the close, which appears ambiguous and questionable: it finds "solid consensus," yet goes on to seemingly undermine that finding. In particular, the caution,

1627:, not San Diego legal cases. To maintian balance, additional background for the other cases should then be added as available, for example, from Reuters for Spokane: 846:

the request for review is accepted, then another editor will make another closure. That's the way things work. Trying to misrepresent the situation is not helpful. --

1446:

Good. Glad to hear it. The edits to the article do reflect that leaning, however, and i think it needs to be changed. I will volunteer to do that right now. Thanks.

597:"please do remember that policy and guidance trumps local agreement of groups of editors, so be sure to stick to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and all the other WP:TLAs" 3089:

policy. I can understand why you might like to present this as a sourcing strawman, but really, NPOV is pretty important and you should address this point. --

1355:

could provide contextualizing details about San Diego if shown to be relevant to the cases involving Monsanto by reliable sources. Would you agree with this?

3053:

you're seeing, and how that is policy-based, there should be no issue here with mentioning a reliably sourced legal case, in an article about legal cases. --

2428:

My mistake on this. Thanks for making that edit. Note that i did start my comment with "if", and i thank you for alerting me to the other change you'd made.

2929:

as "making sure both parties in a legal case get their say in our article," we are here to accurately reflect the substance and balance of reliable sources.

2319:: Thank you for requesting clarification. My point is that saying "X, Y, and Z were found not liable for deaths and injuries caused by PCBs manufactured by 2236: 773:

It's implicit in other points though, and it needs to be emphasised in the context of a subject which attracts polarised commentary from the fringes.

3032:

This position only raises puzzling questions that go against my understanding of "how Knowledge (XXG) works," or is by core policy intended to work:

3020:"Why not wait until there's something encyclopaedic to record? Knowledge (XXG) doesn't have to be the grand "Let's hate Monsanto" site of the world"' 2251:

SR, you complain about the wording, "Monsanto, Solutia, Pharmacia and Pfizer were not liable for deaths and injuries caused by PCBs manufactured by

2208:

until 1977". The articles used as sources are quite specific in these regards, and i had changed the article to more accurately follow the sources.

636:

I would also counsel against fixating on the biography of Kevin Folta. Once a case is listed at ArbCom, all edits are likely to be scrutinised. See

3040:

How can including reliably sourced information about cases be construed as being critical of, or hating, Monsanto (and why is that even an issue?)?

413:

reason why we need someone who is actually neutral and comes without an agenda. That's why i called an RfC and that's why i insist that we need an

3531:

That's a direct quote from the source. The phrase "the company said" indicates that the preceding words came from Monsanto. Is there a problem? --

2718:

the cases in question are directly related to the case already covered, in that they all originated with a single 2010 lawsuit that was split up

1677:"From the early 1900s through February 1963, when the relevant tideland areas were transferred from the City of San Diego to the Port District" 1509:, which holds that the best articles are those that reduce extraneous information, moving details into the places where they logically follow. 2030:

Thanks, GD. I'll start work on the article. That's the place to provide a full history. Monsanto doesn't seem to have been involved at all. --

3145:

1. there was a federal lawsuit in 2010 involving Monsanto, multiple plaintiffs from various locations in the US, and harmful effects of PCBs;

2784:

1. there was a federal lawsuit in 2010 involving Monsanto, multiple plaintiffs from various locations in the US, and harmful effects of PCBs;

2200:

stated to be "class action" in either of the sources although it was claimed in the content of the article, and the judgment in the case was

827:

set of eyes on this topic. Hopefully it will not be another person with an ideological bent coming in to "do some work" on this topic again.

2182: 81: 69: 64: 59: 3296:

I continue to discuss this with you, because your position is apparently supported by other editors as well, here and in a recent RfC (

2171: 879:. Why on earth would you do that if you thought the result was in your favour? Hard to AGF with you in the face of your behaviour. -- 707:"National level" coverage is an unclear inclusion standard. This wording does not appear in WP:N or several other relevant policies. 1902:

to the stable version that does not add any synthesis. Please discuss further here and address the concerns that i have brought up.

698:

What do you mean by "molehill mountaineering" in your closure comment? What do you see as being the mountain/molehill in this case?

2808:

failing to connect it to the larger case it is part of. Please make your argument clear in light of the facts and sources at hand.

2410:

your comment above. Likewise see the discussion below, in which you responded to my comment made two hours and sixteen minutes

527:

progress that Knowledge (XXG) could make in assisting the people of the world to know more about the world in which they live.

2904:

appear to have an equal say, and call that balance, when in the absence of adequate supporting sources, that would instead be

1414:

significant because you believe that the City of San Diego and not Monsanto is responsible for the contamination, as you said

290: 3360:

No. That's just bizarre. Perhaps you could list the points of similarity you see and we can sort out the misunderstanding? --

1840:

seeking clean-up costs from a major polluter, and in the San Diego case at least, this would be inaccurate. To be diplomatic.

1686:

Overall, this entry appears to be hastily written, without full consideration of sourcing and what the sources actually say.

376: 323: 229: 1062:

Good. These sources should not have been used. Sagerad, if a source appears borderline, discuss it on talk before adding it.

2335:

deaths and injuries caused by PCBs, whereas the actual finding of the court was that the parties were found not liable to

1714: 3200:. That question was settled a long time back and was never really an issue once we'd found some. It's about presenting a 1959:

If you are so concerned with a primary source, why not just improve the article, and stop wasting time of other editors?

637: 270:

I could go one probably, but i'm short on time, and i think this is enough to establish that the closer in this case was

1525: 1370:

latest installment. I'm pretty sure you're not going to like where this ends up, but we'll have fun along the way. --

3174:

supports your position; if there is a section that you feel suggests we exclude these facts, please point to it. --

38: 2320: 2285: 2252: 2205: 2115:

Feel free to cite a reliable independent source making that statement in the context of this particular subject.

1982: 1722: 948:

As per the statement of the closing admin. If you thought otherwise, then why request a review of the closure at

113: 47: 17: 3003: 2261:

What is the specific nature of your complaint, please? Our wording looks like a good summary of the source. --

1490:

Thanks. I've corrected the timeline to list the 2012 action before the 2015 case(s). That makes more sense. --

3196:

I'm sorry if you don't understand. I really am. It just makes life more difficult for us all. Forget about

2414:

your comment above. Please read what other editors contribute rather than complaining that they haven't! --

275:

third-party, truly uninvolved person. I'm so damn tired of gang-style editing shenanigans and Wiki-gaming.

144: 342: 842:

Your request does not amount to "a reasonable consensus" for insertion. Not by you nor any other editor.

3615:

You see any objection here? No. This isn't a war zone, SR. We're all supposed to be on the same side. --

3408: 2204:

stated to be that the companies "were not liable for deaths and injuries caused by PCBs manufactured by

2020: 1964: 1128:

sources. I suggest you drop the stick, SR, or be prepared to accept the consequences indicated above. --

809: 2822: 1576:

accusations against me, and once more i insist that you cease with your insinuations to this end. I am

3561:

What other interpretation did you see in the phrase "the company said"? Those are the words I used in

1171:

I don't think it makes sense to argue over this, anyway. Given the large number of other sources, we

3412: 3351: 3274: 3122: 2876: 2818: 2713: 2281: 1978: 1877:, which has the problems outlined above: illogical structure and synthesis. I recommend reverting to 1718: 1624: 1160: 1067: 764: 677: 177: 163: 125: 97: 2490: 1185: 1734:

more or less the same and we can treat legal cases in a lump, rather than on individual merits? --

986: 949: 876: 820: 3711: 3675: 3652: 2142: 2103: 2052: 1248: 409:

regarding this page by people who are gaming and wikilawyering to get their way, and that is the

371: 318: 224: 2926: 1506: 720: 985:, with more sources, including national ones, as per the RfC closing review discussion over at 3693: 3620: 3606: 3588: 3570: 3536: 3522: 3502: 3483: 3468: 3453: 3435: 3420: 3396: 3365: 3333: 3313: 3209: 3179: 3094: 3058: 2983: 2952: 2853: 2830: 2760: 2745: 2698: 2658: 2619: 2579: 2561: 2517: 2499: 2475: 2459: 2433: 2419: 2393: 2359: 2345: 2299: 2266: 2224: 2178: 2085: 2070: 2035: 1997: 1922: 1907: 1887: 1859: 1767: 1739: 1695: 1597: 1533: 1514: 1495: 1480: 1451: 1437: 1423: 1404: 1390: 1375: 1360: 1335: 1300: 1286: 1200: 1133: 1106: 1002: 972: 957: 938: 904: 884: 866: 851: 832: 754:

I still don't understand your 3rd point. I appear to be the only one who explicitly mentioned

605: 575: 561: 546: 532: 493: 471: 446: 422: 398: 356: 338: 298: 280: 203: 172:

I've now broken this comment into a new section as it appears to cover the article in general.

3444:

There's more to wikipolicy than reliable sourcing, SR. Now, what, exactly, did you mean when

3305: 3201: 3108: 3086: 3009: 2880: 2778: 2773:

Skyring/Pete: (I do not see the relevance of discussing weather.) In light of the new source

2509: 3718: 3697: 3682: 3659: 3624: 3610: 3592: 3574: 3540: 3526: 3506: 3487: 3472: 3457: 3439: 3424: 3400: 3369: 3355: 3337: 3317: 3213: 3183: 3098: 2987: 2956: 2857: 2834: 2764: 2749: 2702: 2681: 2662: 2643: 2623: 2583: 2565: 2545: 2521: 2503: 2479: 2463: 2437: 2423: 2397: 2363: 2349: 2303: 2289: 2270: 2228: 2149: 2128: 2110: 2089: 2074: 2059: 2039: 2024: 2016: 2001: 1986: 1968: 1960: 1953: 1926: 1911: 1891: 1863: 1771: 1743: 1726: 1699: 1601: 1537: 1518: 1499: 1484: 1455: 1441: 1427: 1408: 1394: 1379: 1364: 1339: 1304: 1290: 1252: 1204: 1189: 1164: 1137: 1110: 1071: 1054: 1029: 1006: 976: 961: 942: 908: 888: 870: 855: 836: 813: 805: 801: 786: 768: 746: 702:

So, issues must not be blown out of proportion, as a small handful of editors are apt to do.

681: 662: 609: 579: 565: 550: 536: 497: 475: 450: 426: 402: 381: 360: 346: 328: 309: 302: 284: 234: 215: 207: 181: 167: 148: 3641: 3107:

Skyring/Pete: A made-up story about an "evil-minded bastard," and a suggestion that I read

641: 3347: 1240: 1156: 1063: 760: 673: 173: 159: 138: 3197: 3148:

2. that case was split into four cases, as a way to accommodate the number of plaintiffs;

2905: 2787:

2. that case was split into four cases, as a way to accommodate the number of plaintiffs;

1152: 1147: 755: 724: 630: 437: 1325:

I've added a local source and a primary document to the San Diego case. As indicated by

1016:

significance of the company itself, as I said above and discussed in more detail below.

719:

That's the underlying principle of the policy-based objections to inclusion - primarily

2196:. I had modified the content to more accurately reflect the sources. The lawsuits were 1181: 1177: 3666: 3301: 1663:

the water board is expected to conduct a public hearing to finalize the deal in August

541:

Has it really been 100 000 words? That's a fair-sized novel. Good rant, by the way. --

3706: 3670: 3647: 2676: 2670: 2638: 2632: 2540: 2534: 2137: 2123: 2117: 2098: 2047: 1948: 1942: 1244: 1049: 1043: 1024: 1018: 781: 775: 741: 735: 657: 651: 366: 313: 262:

talk page in which he chastises another person about sourcing, saying that it's just

219: 2777:, a proposal to exclude that information would seem to be a direct violation of our 1592:

even recognizing or admitting that you're performing synthesis. This is outlandish.

3689: 3616: 3602: 3584: 3566: 3532: 3518: 3498: 3479: 3464: 3449: 3431: 3416: 3392: 3361: 3329: 3309: 3205: 3175: 3090: 3054: 2979: 2948: 2849: 2826: 2756: 2741: 2694: 2654: 2615: 2575: 2557: 2513: 2495: 2471: 2455: 2429: 2415: 2389: 2380: 2355: 2341: 2295: 2262: 2243: 2220: 2212: 2174: 2081: 2066: 2031: 1993: 1918: 1903: 1883: 1855: 1763: 1735: 1709: 1691: 1593: 1529: 1510: 1491: 1476: 1447: 1433: 1419: 1400: 1386: 1371: 1356: 1331: 1296: 1282: 1196: 1176:

Seattle Times 'local'; it is technically true, but it feels a bit like lumping the

1129: 1102: 998: 968: 953: 934: 900: 880: 862: 847: 828: 601: 571: 557: 542: 528: 489: 467: 442: 418: 394: 352: 294: 276: 199: 3298:

RfC: Should this article mention current lawsuits by U.S. cities against Monsanto?

716:

I don't see any issues with failing to adhere closely to WP:V, WP:RS in the rfc.

1326: 458: 259: 249: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3297: 819:

Note that i have requested a review of the closure of the RfC just now, at the

1399:

Not sure what you're getting at. Perhaps you could spell out your concerns? --

134: 2740:

with the apparent failure to actually read the source before opposing it. --

1940:

rather than a blow-by-blow based on primary sources and minor local papers.

2709:

Suggestion: Regarding "further similar trials" objections, read the source.

894:

this topic. It does indeed appear to rule in favor of inclusion, and there

480: 195: 121: 117: 109: 3251:

the existence of a case alone) airs the allegation but not the defense.

1974: 1097:

Pete just removed NBC San Diego affiliate and Seattle Times as sources

3154:<< this is all that we report at present, without larger context 2793:<< this is all that we report at present, without larger context 2211:

Please provide very specific and detailed reasoning if you disagree,

3151:

3. one of those cases recently ended, finding in favor of Monsanto;

2901:

What you are suggesting is not balance, it is a "fairness" argument.

1432:

No. That's not my position at all. Glad to clear that up. Cheers. --

3497:

Is there a problem with us reporting this or similar statements? --

2790:

3. one of those cases recently ended, finding in favor of Monsanto

3644:

for some legal editors to come in and help improve this article.

2978:

instance? I can't see any good reason to do so. Please explain. --

479: 457: 252:

page that seem to be somewhat pro-GMO if one must categorize them)

104:. An easy fix is to use less harsh words (for example, do not use 929:

What are you saying? You are alleging that the RfC for insertion

308:

Add this statement at the current request for an ArbCom GMO case

1652:"On May 13, the San Diego Regional Water Control Board released 3579:

Yes, you're right, and i'm sorry, for here i missed the words "

2242:

One lawsuit, many plaintiffs from around the country. That's a

218:. My first impression is that the closer is hardly uninvolved. 515:

that volunteer editors are able to provide on their free time.

25: 649:

very fast, and then you will lose any chance of being heard.

2327:

broader statement than saying "X were found not liable for

312:

This RfC close is in fact deeply flawed, without question.

120:

article doesn't mention name Monsanto Chemical Company in

2165: 694:

In response to three specific questions from Dialectric:

100:

makes sense. The way it is presented indicates some bias

2716:, meets these criteria. Additionally, in this instance, 3598: 3562: 3445: 3343: 2403: 2384: 2193: 1899: 1878: 1874: 1619: 1473: 1415: 1098: 994: 990: 982: 926: 255: 244: 108:). I also don't understand what is difference between 570:

Not mocking, but applauding. Perhaps we should FOC. --

2781:. To clarify, according to the sources we have now: 2215:

or anyone else. Thanks. We need to get the articles

98:

Monsanto legal cases#Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs)

3448:, "…it really looks to me like agenda pushing."? -- 1708:I agree that the section needs further details, as 130:

usually over health issues related to its products.

3516:say that. The source says that Monsanto says that. 2166:Nobody's winning any PCB lawsuits against Monsanto 1854:turn out to be the smallest player in the game. -- 3162:5. two additional cases are pending in some form. 2802:5. two additional cases are pending in some form. 1195:add additional pertinent information. Cheers. -- 1146:NBC San Diego and the Seattle Times are clearly 991:the clarifications of the RfC closing by Guy/JzG 2599:"Monsanto faces another PCB trial in St. Louis" 2044:Exactly what was Monsanto not involved at all? 2012:turn out to be the smallest player in the game. 1977:, primary sources are perfectly acceptable. -- 102:deaths and injuries caused by PCBs manufactured 3085:understand balance? You maybe should read our 823:. Hopefully we will recieve the blessing of a 995:contributing interpretations by other editors 8: 289:I have requested another closure of the RfC 3159:4. another of those cases is now underway; 2817:Please also remember that this article is 2799:4. another of those cases is now underway; 1295:No offence intended, and PKB, brother. -- 1084:Ok. This is what dialogue is for. Thanks. 116:? It is the same article (redirect). Why 2693:a counter view is POV and unbalanced. -- 1785:Diego case, and I expect to dig up more. 1505:article. We're talking about staying on 1715:'as a viable means of recovering costs' 3704: 3668: 3645: 2135: 2096: 2045: 1588:supported by the sources, and you are 802:Guy or JzG is not an uninvolved editor 216:the current request for an ArbCom case 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2192:Pete/Skyring reverted my recent edit 2188:Here we go again... St Louis lawsuits 1614:Factual, sourcing and weight problems 1041:AP/Seattle Times) so I removed them. 7: 1658:for multiple storm-water violations 1656:requires the city to pay $ 949,634 1647:The source reads (emphasis added): 2454:outcome is favorable to Monsanto. 1992:source should be given priority." 24: 2354:That was easily fixed. Cheers. -- 3492:Looking at the source, we read, 2595:Further similar trials continue. 128:is also a bit biased mentioning 29: 3076:side of the story. For balance. 2597:Barker, Tim (October 1, 2015). 1873:The article currently reflects 90:General Comments on the Article 2150:21:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC) 2129:20:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC) 2111:22:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 2090:19:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 2075:14:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 2060:13:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 2040:05:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 2025:16:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 2002:15:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1987:15:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1969:13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1954:13:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1927:05:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC) 1912:15:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1892:12:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1864:12:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1772:12:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1744:06:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1727:06:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1700:05:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1602:12:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1538:02:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1519:02:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1500:02:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1485:02:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1456:01:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1442:01:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1428:01:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1409:01:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1395:01:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1380:01:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1365:00:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1340:22:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 1305:22:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 1291:22:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 1253:03:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC) 1205:21:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 1190:21:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 1165:20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 1138:20:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 1111:20:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 1072:15:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 1055:14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 1030:14:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 1007:14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 977:13:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 962:12:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 943:12:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 909:12:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 889:12:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 871:12:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 856:11:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 837:18:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 814:12:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC) 787:09:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC) 769:12:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC) 747:15:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 682:14:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 663:23:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 610:21:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 580:21:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 566:19:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 551:19:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 537:18:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 523:truly exposed and eviscerated. 498:11:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 476:11:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) 451:18:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 427:20:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 403:19:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 382:18:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 361:17:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 347:17:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 329:17:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 303:17:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 285:17:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 235:16:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 208:13:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 182:14:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 168:09:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 149:06:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 122:Monsanto#Spin-offs and mergers 1: 3346:in the rfc on this talk page. 2925:We are NOT here to interpret 2388:address these points please? 2383:, if you're speaking of your 1385:ferret them out, as editors. 3719:16:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 3698:07:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 3683:21:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 3660:21:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 3625:22:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 3611:11:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 3593:19:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3575:19:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3541:18:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3527:18:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3507:18:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3488:18:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3473:17:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3458:17:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3440:17:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3425:17:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3401:12:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3370:17:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3356:17:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3338:17:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3318:11:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3214:06:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC) 3184:06:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC) 3099:04:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC) 2988:21:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 2957:16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 2858:09:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 2835:23:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 2779:neutral point of view policy 2765:12:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 2750:01:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC) 2183:22:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 2170:Looks like a mistrial here: 1623:in the article), as this is 899:motivations is not correct. 240:Recent edits by the closer: 124:? The start of the page for 2703:18:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 2682:17:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 2663:14:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 2644:14:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 2624:13:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 2584:22:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2566:01:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 2546:22:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2522:21:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2504:20:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2480:19:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2464:19:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2438:01:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 2424:22:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2398:22:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2364:21:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2350:20:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2304:20:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2290:19:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2271:19:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 2229:19:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 987:Administrator's Noticeboard 821:Administrator's Noticeboard 310:which indicates clear bias. 3739: 2883:balance for this article. 2321:Monsanto Chemical Company 2253:Monsanto Chemical Company 2206:Monsanto Chemical Company 114:Monsanto Chemical Company 18:Talk:Monsanto legal cases 3635:Observation and Proposal 3599:much improved by Tsavage 2614:Agreement / objections? 2601:. St Louis Post-Dispatch 417:editor to close it out. 190:Closure of RfC questions 1321:Shipyards Sediment Site 690:Requested clarification 3512:Pete, the source does 2294:Point taken. Fixed. -- 1935:More sourcing problems 1654:a settlement agreement 1620:paragraph as it stands 485: 463: 3409:Kennedy assassination 3202:neutral point of view 3087:neutral point of view 2881:neutral point of view 644:. Knowledge (XXG) is 483: 461: 42:of past discussions. 3413:Port Arthur massacre 3323:get statements from 3275:Monsanto legal cases 3123:Monsanto legal cases 2877:Monsanto legal cases 2819:Monsanto legal cases 2714:Monsanto legal cases 1625:Monsanto legal cases 1239:Agree on every point 126:Monsanto legal cases 3583:" in your comment. 2927:"balanced coverage" 2720:. From the source: 933:? By what measure? 638:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS 1875:Pete's latest edit 1151:these are quality 981:Added the content 486: 484:A stirring speech! 464: 3563:my comment above. 3495:the company said. 2906:original research 2875:Skyring/Pete: In 2680: 2642: 2544: 2510:balance the story 2323:until 1977" is a 2127: 1952: 1053: 1028: 785: 745: 733:Hope that helps. 661: 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3730: 3716: 3680: 3657: 3581:the company said 3344:over a month ago 3198:reliable sources 3007: 2674: 2636: 2610: 2608: 2606: 2538: 2406:made 55 minutes 2147: 2121: 2108: 2057: 1946: 1879:my previous edit 1580:-- emphatically 1047: 1022: 779: 739: 655: 379: 374: 369: 326: 321: 316: 232: 227: 222: 151: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3738: 3737: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3705: 3669: 3646: 3637: 3407:involvement in 3001: 2604: 2602: 2596: 2282:Notecardforfree 2190: 2168: 2136: 2097: 2046: 1979:Notecardforfree 1937: 1719:Notecardforfree 1616: 1524:previously and 1323: 1038: 923: 692: 377: 372: 367: 324: 319: 314: 230: 225: 220: 192: 142: 92: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3736: 3734: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3636: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3595: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3387: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3160: 3157: 3149: 3146: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3102: 3101: 3078: 3077: 3068: 3067: 3050: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3038: 3030: 3029: 3023: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2800: 2797: 2788: 2785: 2775:(quoted above) 2768: 2767: 2737: 2736: 2728: 2727: 2706: 2705: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2647: 2646: 2612: 2611: 2554:modus operandi 2549: 2548: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2483: 2482: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2274: 2273: 2258: 2257: 2248: 2247: 2239: 2238: 2189: 2186: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2077: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1971: 1936: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1747: 1746: 1730: 1729: 1668: 1667: 1645: 1644: 1635: 1634: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1322: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1178:New York Times 1144: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1037: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 925:Pete/Skyring, 922: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 817: 816: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 731: 730: 729: 728: 714: 713: 712: 705: 704: 703: 691: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 666: 665: 634: 626: 622: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 524: 520: 516: 512: 509: 456: 455: 454: 453: 430: 429: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 332: 331: 268: 267: 253: 238: 237: 191: 188: 187: 186: 185: 184: 170: 153: 152: 147:comment added 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3735: 3720: 3717: 3715: 3714: 3710: 3709: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3681: 3679: 3678: 3674: 3673: 3667: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3658: 3656: 3655: 3651: 3650: 3643: 3634: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3559: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3517: 3515: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3388: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3326: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3276: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3161: 3158: 3156: 3155: 3150: 3147: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3124: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3110: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3079: 3075: 3070: 3069: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3060: 3056: 3046: 3044:discussion?)? 3042: 3039: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3027: 3024: 3022:-Skyring/Pete 3021: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3013: 3011: 3005: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2928: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2907: 2902: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2806: 2801: 2798: 2795: 2794: 2789: 2786: 2783: 2782: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2735: 2733: 2730: 2729: 2726: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2719: 2715: 2710: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2691: 2690: 2683: 2678: 2673: 2672: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2645: 2640: 2635: 2634: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2600: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2590: 2586: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2547: 2542: 2537: 2536: 2531: 2530: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2492: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2386: 2382: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2338: 2337:this specific 2334: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2317:Clarification 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2259: 2254: 2250: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2240: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2209: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2187: 2185: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2151: 2148: 2146: 2145: 2141: 2140: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2125: 2120: 2119: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2109: 2107: 2106: 2102: 2101: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2078: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2058: 2056: 2055: 2051: 2050: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2013: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1950: 1945: 1944: 1934: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1882:latest edit. 1880: 1876: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1732: 1731: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1711: 1707: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1687: 1684: 1680: 1678: 1672: 1666: 1664: 1659: 1655: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1643: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1633: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1626: 1621: 1613: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1475: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1349: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1328: 1320: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1051: 1046: 1045: 1035: 1031: 1026: 1021: 1020: 1014: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 980: 979: 978: 974: 970: 965: 964: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 946: 945: 944: 940: 936: 932: 928: 920: 910: 906: 902: 897: 892: 891: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 873: 872: 868: 864: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 840: 839: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 796: 795: 788: 783: 778: 777: 772: 771: 770: 766: 762: 757: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 743: 738: 737: 726: 722: 718: 717: 715: 709: 708: 706: 700: 699: 697: 696: 695: 689: 683: 679: 675: 670: 669: 668: 667: 664: 659: 654: 653: 647: 643: 639: 635: 632: 627: 623: 619: 614: 613: 612: 611: 607: 603: 598: 581: 577: 573: 569: 568: 567: 563: 559: 554: 553: 552: 548: 544: 540: 539: 538: 534: 530: 525: 521: 517: 513: 510: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 495: 491: 482: 478: 477: 473: 469: 460: 452: 448: 444: 439: 434: 433: 432: 431: 428: 424: 420: 416: 412: 407: 406: 405: 404: 400: 396: 383: 380: 375: 370: 364: 363: 362: 358: 354: 350: 349: 348: 344: 340: 336: 335: 334: 333: 330: 327: 322: 317: 311: 307: 306: 305: 304: 300: 296: 292: 287: 286: 282: 278: 273: 265: 261: 257: 254: 251: 246: 243: 242: 241: 236: 233: 228: 223: 217: 212: 211: 210: 209: 205: 201: 197: 189: 183: 179: 175: 171: 169: 165: 161: 157: 156: 155: 154: 150: 146: 140: 136: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 107: 103: 99: 94: 93: 89: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3712: 3707: 3676: 3671: 3653: 3648: 3638: 3580: 3513: 3511: 3493: 3389: 3386: 3324: 3153: 3152: 3082: 3073: 3051: 3031: 3025: 3019: 3014: 3000: 2900: 2792: 2791: 2774: 2738: 2731: 2724: 2717: 2708: 2707: 2669: 2631: 2613: 2603:. Retrieved 2588: 2587: 2570: 2569: 2553: 2550: 2533: 2452: 2411: 2407: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2316: 2244:class action 2216: 2210: 2201: 2197: 2191: 2169: 2143: 2138: 2116: 2104: 2099: 2053: 2048: 2010: 2008: 1941: 1938: 1872: 1705: 1688: 1685: 1681: 1676: 1673: 1669: 1662: 1657: 1653: 1651: 1646: 1641: 1636: 1631: 1617: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1472: 1352: 1347: 1324: 1172: 1042: 1039: 1017: 930: 924: 895: 843: 824: 818: 797: 774: 734: 732: 693: 650: 645: 618:every single 617: 596: 594: 487: 465: 414: 410: 392: 339:Kingofaces43 288: 271: 269: 263: 239: 193: 129: 105: 101: 75: 43: 37: 2329:a series of 2017:Gandydancer 2009:Pete said: 1961:prokaryotes 861:i read it? 806:prokaryotes 800:Apparently 260:Kevin Folta 250:Kevin Folta 143:—Preceding 36:This is an 3348:Dialectric 3037:standards? 2491:WP:NOTNEWS 1675:the period 1241:Dialectric 1157:Dialectric 1064:Dialectric 761:Dialectric 674:Dialectric 462:Well said! 415:uninvolved 174:Dialectric 160:Dialectric 3231:lawsuits: 3048:Monsanto? 2630:covered. 2605:8 October 2404:this edit 2385:edit here 1182:Aquillion 952:?????? -- 723:but also 519:humanity. 438:crusaders 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3446:you said 3028:-JzG/Guy 2823:ADVOCACY 2571:Comment: 1706:Comment: 1507:WP:TOPIC 1245:Wuerzele 721:WP:UNDUE 118:Monsanto 110:Monsanto 3690:Tsavage 3603:SageRad 3585:SageRad 3519:SageRad 3465:SageRad 3432:SageRad 3393:SageRad 3310:Tsavage 3306:WP:NPOV 3176:Tsavage 3109:WP:NPOV 3055:Tsavage 3010:WP:NPOV 2949:Tsavage 2827:Tsavage 2742:Tsavage 2655:SageRad 2616:SageRad 2576:Tsavage 2558:SageRad 2496:SageRad 2456:SageRad 2430:SageRad 2390:SageRad 2381:Skyring 2342:SageRad 2256:1970s." 2221:SageRad 2213:Skyring 2067:SageRad 1994:SageRad 1975:MOS:LAW 1904:SageRad 1884:SageRad 1764:Tsavage 1710:Tsavage 1692:Tsavage 1594:SageRad 1574:noxious 1526:failed? 1511:SageRad 1477:SageRad 1448:SageRad 1420:SageRad 1387:SageRad 1357:SageRad 1283:SageRad 1103:SageRad 1036:Sources 999:SageRad 969:SageRad 935:SageRad 901:SageRad 863:SageRad 829:SageRad 825:neutral 798:Comment 640:, also 602:Tsavage 558:SageRad 529:SageRad 419:SageRad 353:SageRad 295:SageRad 277:SageRad 256:Comment 245:Removal 200:SageRad 145:undated 39:archive 3665:Done: 3642:WP:LAW 2412:before 2408:before 1813:knows? 1327:Jytdog 993:, and 931:failed 646:really 642:WP:BLP 625:naive. 3708:Minor 3672:Minor 3649:Minor 3597:Copy 2677:Help! 2639:Help! 2541:Help! 2217:right 2139:Minor 2124:Help! 2100:Minor 2049:Minor 1949:Help! 1474:Done. 1416:above 1173:could 1153:WP:RS 1148:WP:RS 1050:Help! 1025:Help! 950:WP:AN 927:what? 921:What? 877:WP:AN 782:Help! 756:WP:RS 742:Help! 725:WP:RS 658:Help! 631:WP:AN 411:exact 194:User 135:Gpeja 106:death 16:< 3694:talk 3621:talk 3617:Pete 3607:talk 3589:talk 3571:talk 3567:Pete 3537:talk 3533:Pete 3523:talk 3503:talk 3499:Pete 3484:talk 3480:Pete 3469:talk 3454:talk 3450:Pete 3436:talk 3421:talk 3417:Pete 3411:and 3397:talk 3366:talk 3362:Pete 3352:talk 3334:talk 3330:Pete 3325:both 3314:talk 3302:WP:V 3210:talk 3206:Pete 3180:talk 3095:talk 3091:Pete 3081:You 3074:your 3059:talk 2984:talk 2980:Pete 2953:talk 2854:talk 2850:Pete 2831:talk 2761:talk 2757:Pete 2746:talk 2699:talk 2695:Pete 2659:talk 2620:talk 2607:2015 2580:talk 2562:talk 2518:talk 2514:Pete 2500:talk 2476:talk 2472:Pete 2460:talk 2434:talk 2420:talk 2416:Pete 2402:See 2394:talk 2360:talk 2356:Pete 2346:talk 2325:much 2300:talk 2296:Pete 2286:talk 2267:talk 2263:Pete 2225:talk 2194:here 2179:talk 2175:Pete 2086:talk 2082:Pete 2071:talk 2036:talk 2032:Pete 2021:talk 1998:talk 1983:talk 1973:Per 1965:talk 1923:talk 1919:Pete 1908:talk 1900:here 1888:talk 1860:talk 1856:Pete 1768:talk 1740:talk 1736:Pete 1723:talk 1696:talk 1618:The 1598:talk 1534:talk 1530:Pete 1515:talk 1496:talk 1492:Pete 1481:talk 1452:talk 1438:talk 1434:Pete 1424:talk 1405:talk 1401:Pete 1391:talk 1376:talk 1372:Pete 1361:talk 1353:then 1336:talk 1332:Pete 1301:talk 1297:Pete 1287:talk 1249:talk 1201:talk 1197:Pete 1186:talk 1161:talk 1134:talk 1130:Pete 1107:talk 1099:here 1068:talk 1003:talk 989:and 983:back 973:talk 958:talk 954:Pete 939:talk 905:talk 885:talk 881:Pete 867:talk 852:talk 848:Pete 833:talk 810:talk 765:talk 678:talk 606:talk 576:talk 572:Pete 562:talk 547:talk 543:Pete 533:talk 494:talk 490:Pete 472:talk 468:Pete 447:talk 443:Pete 423:talk 399:talk 395:Pete 357:talk 343:talk 299:talk 291:here 281:talk 264:fine 204:talk 178:talk 164:talk 139:talk 112:and 3713:4th 3677:4th 3654:4th 3514:not 2671:Guy 2633:Guy 2535:Guy 2333:all 2202:not 2198:not 2144:4th 2118:Guy 2105:4th 2054:4th 1943:Guy 1590:not 1586:not 1582:not 1578:not 1348:all 1243:.-- 1044:Guy 1019:Guy 896:are 776:Guy 759:in. 736:Guy 652:Guy 378:fax 368:Jus 325:fax 315:Jus 272:not 258:on 231:fax 221:Jus 196:JzG 141:) 3696:) 3623:) 3609:) 3601:. 3591:) 3573:) 3565:-- 3539:) 3525:) 3505:) 3486:) 3471:) 3456:) 3438:) 3423:) 3399:) 3368:) 3354:) 3336:) 3328:-- 3316:) 3304:, 3277:). 3212:) 3182:) 3097:) 3083:do 3061:) 3006:) 2986:) 2955:) 2856:) 2848:-- 2833:) 2763:) 2748:) 2701:) 2661:) 2622:) 2589:So 2582:) 2564:) 2556:. 2520:) 2502:) 2478:) 2470:-- 2462:) 2436:) 2422:) 2396:) 2362:) 2348:) 2302:) 2288:) 2269:) 2227:) 2219:. 2181:) 2173:-- 2088:) 2073:) 2038:) 2023:) 2000:) 1985:) 1967:) 1925:) 1917:-- 1910:) 1890:) 1862:) 1770:) 1742:) 1725:) 1698:) 1690:-- 1665:." 1600:) 1536:) 1528:-- 1517:) 1498:) 1483:) 1454:) 1440:) 1426:) 1407:) 1393:) 1378:) 1363:) 1338:) 1303:) 1289:) 1251:) 1203:) 1188:) 1163:) 1136:) 1109:) 1070:) 1005:) 975:) 960:) 941:) 907:) 887:) 869:) 854:) 844:If 835:) 812:) 804:. 767:) 680:) 608:) 578:) 564:) 549:) 535:) 496:) 488:-- 474:) 466:-- 449:) 425:) 401:) 373:da 359:) 345:) 320:da 301:) 283:) 226:da 206:) 180:) 166:) 3692:( 3619:( 3605:( 3587:( 3569:( 3535:( 3521:( 3501:( 3482:( 3467:( 3452:( 3434:( 3419:( 3395:( 3364:( 3350:( 3332:( 3312:( 3208:( 3178:( 3125:? 3093:( 3057:( 3004:← 3002:( 2982:( 2951:( 2860:. 2852:( 2829:( 2796:; 2759:( 2744:( 2697:( 2679:) 2675:( 2657:( 2641:) 2637:( 2618:( 2609:. 2578:( 2560:( 2543:) 2539:( 2516:( 2498:( 2474:( 2458:( 2432:( 2418:( 2392:( 2358:( 2344:( 2298:( 2284:( 2265:( 2246:. 2223:( 2177:( 2126:) 2122:( 2084:( 2069:( 2034:( 2019:( 1996:( 1981:( 1963:( 1951:) 1947:( 1921:( 1906:( 1886:( 1858:( 1766:( 1738:( 1721:( 1694:( 1596:( 1532:( 1513:( 1494:( 1479:( 1450:( 1436:( 1422:( 1403:( 1389:( 1374:( 1359:( 1334:( 1299:( 1285:( 1247:( 1199:( 1184:( 1159:( 1143:. 1132:( 1105:( 1066:( 1052:) 1048:( 1027:) 1023:( 1001:( 971:( 956:( 937:( 903:( 883:( 865:( 850:( 831:( 808:( 784:) 780:( 763:( 744:) 740:( 676:( 660:) 656:( 604:( 574:( 560:( 545:( 531:( 492:( 470:( 445:( 421:( 397:( 355:( 341:( 297:( 279:( 202:( 176:( 162:( 137:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index