Talk:Monsanto legal cases/Archive 5

1968:"stirring speeches" and such things. In the above comment, i took "Glad to see you are learning in your editing experience" in this context as condescending and not admitting any part in the difficulties here. I am indeed learning in my editing process, as i hope everyone is, but in this context that struck me as snark. I would like to be bulletproof and always able to ignore snark, but it does not help the environment, which has already been toxic with abusive language. I have been making an effort to keep to the content and i would appreciate the same. The least judgment about each other and the least instigating language, the better. Please, let's work together to drop the stick at the same time. Neither of us are without fault here and we need to transcend the polarization and sensitivity we have toward each other. I could have been more gracious and i will continue to work toward that end. 1003:"In 1976, the U.S. Congress charged EPA with regulating the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs. Currently regulated pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA ), the first set of effluent standards for PCBs was issued by EPA in 1977; manufacturing and importing limitations regarding PCBs were issued in 1979. After subsequent amendments, the regulations stipulate that the production of PCBs in the United States is generally banned, the use of PCB-containing materials still in service is restricted, the discharge of PCB-containing effluents is prohibited, the disposal of materials contaminated by PCBs is regulated, and the import or export of PCBs is only permitte d through an exemption granted from EPA (EPA 1977b, 1979a, 1979f, 1979g, 1988c, 1988e, 1998a)." 1118:"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." 941:

otherwise, it does appear to fully support the content, which is all non-controverted basic facts about PCBs. Forking is not relevant here as this is a short lede to a section about cases regarding PCBs. All in all, i and Tsavage are being extremely generous in our dialogue with you here, and have gone to great lengths to achieve clarity, all of which you reply to non-responsively with derailment and ignoring of many critical clearly asked questions. Altogether, you're showing signs of being badly obstructionist here, like a mule who just won't move off the trail. Your claims to following wikipolicy sound very hollow to me.

1345:

aren't going as hoped for, and presenting ill-formed questions on noticeboards and RfCs (as you have just done on RSN) that are all but guaranteed to turn into new endless arguments largely because they are not clear-cut queries. The question here isn't about sourcing (it's been made plain that alternative sources exist for the well-documented info you're challenging), and it's not about advocacy (is the paragraph...advocacy? in what way? for what cause?), and RSN doesn't speak to article content and structure, yet you have loaded all of that into a four-part RSN submission - unpicked, all I see is you pushing your POV.

1078:"If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the template by writing or . There are other templates here for tagging sections or entire articles. You can also leave a note on the talk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with . Material that fails verification may be tagged with or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page." 2203:

argue your point, but you can't go around deleting text across articles as a first-resort remedy for non-critical editorial problems. And your shifting arguments over easily fixed items should they prove to be a problem, in the context of your interminable arguing, is also disruptive: you started off having a issue with the number of cases. Now you are arguing about the terms "fines and damages." The issue is your unwarranted reversions, here and elsewhere in the this article within the same day, not your impression of what I want. I am simply objecting to your undue actions. --

1456:

suggests "never-ending"). I don't have a clue as to why - to illustrate or prove some point, maybe. It's impossible to tell whether any anonymous account represents a "real person," a person playing a role they have devised for themselves, or a completely constructed character, as would be maintained by writers for a TV show, so I don't bother speculating on any deeper motivation. I'm not playing detective, I'm just pursuing the discussion-based, policy-driven Talk page dispute resolution that our policies and guidelines recommend. In this case, to the bitter end. --

791:- this has been addressed, as far as I could tell what you were referring to. The only source I cited is not a primary source for any of the information it refers to, as far as I can tell. According to the source description, it is a peer-reviewed review of literature directly relating to toxicological aspects of PCBs and to other aspects. I noted this above. And other sources are available for that content, so I'm not sure what it is you are referring to, but if it's sourcing, there shouldn't be a problem, these are not arcane facts. Please be more precise. 570:- The idea that long-standing versions represent some sort of implicit consensus or stability may have some merit as a consideration in some cases (and it doesn't have a policy standing, quite the contrary, improvement is encouraged by policy), however in this case, it is all but meaningless, since this is a cut-and-paste spin-off article created a few months ago, with a hasty lead attached - all of the context of the parent article is gone, and there is much room for improvement, as I outlined above. 363:). Trying to restrict the content of this article by limiting its scope to the point where providing basic context can be argued as irrelevant, off-topic, or a topic fork impedes fundamental editorial improvement and sets up a situation where practically every entry can be challenged on a sentence by sentence basis as not directly relating to the subject, as can the inclusion of entire items ("strictly speaking, that's not a legal case") - in short, this is a terrible idea. 733:- linking to a 7,000 word article (that happens to be studded with neutrality and unsourced section tags) is not nearly equivalent to a single-paragraph section introduction that provides context for the cases following. The intro doesn't explain what PCBs are, it describes the background for these cases. Every item in the intro I added speaks directly and neutrally to aspects of the Monsanto cases subsequently covered, there is no extraneous detail about PCBs alone. -- 347:, where the context for these cases was already present, and requires ongoing improvement to bring it up to standalone quality. Throwing together dozens of cases with nothing but subheads for context does not produce a high quality article that is sufficiently self-contained that it can be read without frequent interruption. Providing brief contextual summaries where appropriate is in principle the same as writing in plain English rather than using technical language. 1666:) are several points from BRD that have not been observed in your claimed use here. Bottom line: if BRD is not participated in by both parties, it does not exist, and a revert is no more than one editor choosing to revert. (Meanwhile, by courtesy, I continue to discuss without restoring the content, as did another editor who you also reverted after their bold restoring of the content - this is naturally occurring BRD.) BRD as "wikiprocess" does not apply here. 2174:"many," it can mean "several," or "more than one," both satisfied by four cases, and that language is easily adjusted. Meanwhile, the point has always been, there is no justification for removing verifiable, noteworthy content only because it is in the lead and not in the body, which is what you did. It's about just deleting stuff because you feel like it. Again, this has already been said. And your overall deletion has been restored with a rewrite. -- 174:"PCBs were discovered to be highly toxic to the ecosystem and, by the 1960s scientists were reporting that PCBs were a global threat (Risebrough et al, 1968). There was considerable political activism surrounding environmental hazards such as PCBs and environmental organizations pushed hard for their ban (Colborn et al, 1997) Eventually, the United States Congress banned PCB production (but not their use) in 1979 (Schwarzman and Wilson, 2009)" 31: 149:"The ATSDR toxicological profile succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for the hazardous substance described here. Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a hazardous substance's toxicologic properties. Other pertinent literature is also presented, but is described in less detail than the key studies." 2533:

reading through some of the legal articles, it is clear that legal minds have been at work, sometimes to the extent that a layperson such as myself might have little notion of what the outcome was or the reasoning behind it! I think a joint effort might pay dividends in producing well-researched and cited material that is comprehensible to the general readership. --

2128:: no, I don't want anything put back, I was noting for the record my later discovery, that, counter to your objection, the item was in fact consistent with the rest of the article, the only problem that could have led to confusion was with absence of a detail in the article proper, which further supports the objections made to your poorly-conceived edit. -- 111:(PCBs) were manufactured from 1929 to 1977, for use in electrical and other industrial applications, and in a range of products including inks, adhesives, and sealants. Approximately 99% of PCBs used by industry in the US were produced by Monsanto. In 1977, the company discontinued production, and in 1979, the US Congress banned PCB manufacture, 2055:"You can count, can't you? If we say that "(Monsanto) has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars…", and we count up the cases and that number turns out to be one, then we're misleading the reader into imagining that there might be multiple such cases" 192:"The House of Representatives voted 339-45 to ban within three years the manufacture of PCBs, a class of chemicals that has been linked to cancer and birth defects, water pollution and wildlife contamination ... some House members said during today's debate that they felt that banning PCBs was a moral responsibility to the people..." 1600:) as a US federal agency-released peer-review review of literature - not a primary source. And the "dubious interpretation," given your latest and clearest description of the source, is referring to the home/contents page of that source, which contains no information (you apparently mistook that page as the entire source document; 2705:, found PCBs in their middle school. So that city filed suit, too, because, it claimed, Monsanto officials kept making PCB-contaminated products after knowing the health risks. Monsanto won that case because the town, not the company, was in control of the PCB-contaminated products after they were bought, the court ruled." 2260:

suits is in the hundreds of millions, which is correct. In any case, that variation of your vaguely stated objection is also easily remedied by rewording, and does not support content removal without first bringing it to other editors via tag and/or Talk page. It all comes back to the same unfounded content deletion.

964:

fork? As for fully supporting content, which you insist is the case, please indicate the wording in the source which supports the content, "…in 1979, the US Congress banned PCB manufacture". Here's a hint. Search for the string "1979" and see how many hits you get. Cheers. --19:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

2532:

Thanks. I'm wondering if there are any more articles on Monsanto legal case floating around that could usefully be included here. The new case added has an article that has existed for some time, apparently unsullied by activist involvement, so there appears to be ample scope for improvement here. On

2259:

Skyring/Pete: Or, if you are arguing with oblique statements that the number of class actions with payouts in the hundreds of millions is only one, because the soft wheat settlement was not in the hundreds of millions, one could as easily read the content to mean that the total payout of class action

2146:

suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars…" the number turns out to be "one". Which is either misleading if we are intending to convey the impression that there have been many such cases, or outright false if we accept that "a number" is intended to mean "many".

1967:

Hey, all i asked was to lose the tone of condescension. I am indeed happy that we arrived at a fairly good edit compromise. Nobody is perfect -- neither you nor i. We're attempting to work together, even after a rather contentious history with each other, in which you have posted up photos to mock my

1344:

In fact, you seem to be editing in the same aggressive style as only one other editor I've encountered on Knowledge (XXG): arguing endlessly with shifting positions, selectively ignoring replies, continually charging policy and guideline violations without direct evidence, changing venues when things

963:

Don't blow your frustration off on me, brother. Go take it up with the wider community who made the rules about sourcing. I'm sure the cite is a very sound and accurate document, but it is a primary source, which begs the question, why not use a secondary document? And why use it to support a content

2455:

It has taken you considerable time and space to put forward various notions, mostly not focussed on content, to come to an incorrect conclusion. I simply removed an incorrect and misleading claim. Perhaps in future we can spend less time on your speculations about other editors, and more time on the

1689:

What you describe as walls of text are detailed, courteous, patient, evidence-based, policy-based replies to your never-ending and largely unfounded objections, per discussion policy. What less could a conscientious, policy-observant editor do in the face of your continued objections to inclusion of

1406:

How many editor hours have you wasted in the last few weeks on this page, with this sort of obstructive arguing, and to accomplish what, exactly? The issue here, I'm afraid, is behavioral on your part - if other editors support your views, they should speak up to show how the situation is otherwise.

655:

Knowledge (XXG) is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is. Please boldly add information to Knowledge (XXG), either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles,

2547:

I think there are some others - I'll look around. Yeah, these patent cases are really technical and difficult to understand even for lawyers who don't practice patent law. I know the article I added and wikilinked here was written by a patent law expert. I agree that the articles could be improved

2074:

So in the end, instead of investigating the content, or at least notifying other editors of a perceived verifiability problem via tag or Talk, as policy clearly indicates as steps before deletion - useful checks and balances - you went ahead and unilaterally deleted factually accurate material, and

2008:

However, the thing works, and judging by the regard in which Knowledge (XXG) is held, works well. The reason it does so is because the community has found ways to get people from diverse backgrounds, skillsets, experiences, nationalities, and cultural bases to work out the differences and produce a

1455:

By "pushing your POV" I mean exactly that, advancing your point of view, your way, your position, whatever you feel like doing. You unilaterally deleted some content, and reply to objections with what appears to me as never-ending obstructive pseudo-discussion (similar behavior at the last RfC here

1281:

Monsanto has been involved in several high-profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It has been defendant in a number of lawsuits over health and environmental issues related to its products. Monsanto has also made frequent use of the courts to defend its patents, particularly in the area

855:

and it is summarised in the lede. Why not simply point our readers there? Instead you generate new content and a new primary source. You say above that linking to a 7 000 word article is confusing and difficult, but we have the lede to give a simple summary - in fact the content should be distilled

579:

is, as SageRad pointed out, a misapplication of an essay-based suggestion. You are using BRD to support removal of a chunk of content, which is by neither policy nor guideline, and is directly against BRD itself; you've failed to elaborate on your somewhat cryptic "Dubious interpretation of primary

383:

I'm getting a little sick of seeing edit-warring by those who cannot understand policy, but want to impose their personal opinions on all. I'm reverting SageRad while we're discussing this. There's no hurry and I'm not opposed to finding a reasonable path forwards. My main concern is the sourcing,

2511:

I have thought about taking a stab at overall improvement - I would really love for this article to flow better but its a huge undertaking that I havent had time for yet. I was hoping some editors from project law would show up - but I only got one comment aboit it on my talk page, and i have now

2202:

That's your assertion. Deleting content without consulting other editors, or making any attempt to fix them, followed by failure to make your objections clear during discussion, and serial reversion during discussion, are against policy recommendation and disruptive. That's the issue here. You can

1679:

If you continue to claim objections, it would seem additional editor support is required for you position, as you have not made a policy-based argument, and wikiprocedures indicate we have a local consensus as described in the previous point. Don't forget that any discussion can be formally closed

811:

What are you referring to here. Guessing, you think that the source I used is different from a source used elsewhere for same or similar information, and you think the sources should be the same? But treally, I'm not sure what you're talking about. And what is forked referring to, the content, the

421:

It is indeed quite verifiable and quite basic fact that PCBs have been shown to have negative effects on health and ecology. Is this a claim you're objecting to, or doubting sourcing for? What particular claim do you take issue with, and/or what source, and why? Please be very specific, and please

1990:

Hey, I wasn't mocking but applauding. It is so very rare to get a good example of political oratory here. That's one of the drawbacks of Knowledge (XXG); the way we write the thing is so tepid and cautious, so utterly devoid of charm and sparkle, that reading through it is like eating rocks. And,

1521:

I didn't say I knew what your underlying motivation is, I said you appear to be pushing your POV, which is synonymous with pushing your position, what you want, your view as to how things should be edited, as indicated by your actions (this was already explained). Your opinion that the content is

1138:

You did not do as policy instructs, you instead deleted soon after posting a cited, non-controversial paragraph of content and proceeded to argue at length against this policy. And how do you find that this is a primary source - it is a US government-issued peer-reviewed review of toxicologic and

726:

Content removal is a last resort, not a first move, and there are numerous other references to this in policies and guidelines. Policy says we don't go around removing sourced content just because we don't like it, or without a pressing reason, or without attempting other approaches to fixing it.

367:

You haven't made clear your claim of dubious interpretation of a primary source. Which statement, and which source? If it is what was discussed above, I will add a second source to the description of the factors leading to the Congressional ban on PCBS - until then, I've already quoted additional

339:

Skyring/Pete: This is not a List of... article, which is how it reads now. A little context can go a long way in improving readability and usefulness - appropriate introductions to sections is a standard way of achieving this. Providing a brief summary of a company's historical involvement with a

2173:

We list at least four class action involvements, with Agent Orange as one, and the "at least three" of the soft wheat settlement. That soft wheat fails to note the class action aspect doesn't make that less factually accurate, and that detail is easily added. And "a number of" is not necessarily

888:

What i see here is a stubborn editor who appears to have an agenda, not working well with other editors, and making editing of this page virtually impossible. I don't see good dialogue above, and i am calling that out. Pete's part in this whole issue looks like obstructionism. There are open and

1870:

I could really do without your condescension, and your behavior on this article says otherwise about your general agenda here. Glad when something works out well, but lose the condescension and please step up with more integrity in dialogue, such as the above section where you ignore Tsavage's

1672:

In this discussion, besides you and I, two other editors have weighed in, in some detail, concluding, "a simple and wise copyedit that should be allowed," and, "User:Skyring, re 'ive put forward objections to the material': your objections have been dealt with. ... of course people restore the

940:

The source you complained about looks completely adequate to me, being the "Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)" from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service. Contrary to your objection

1263:

see it as a "fork" but rather as a simple and wise copyedit that should be allowed. Let's talk as editors in terms of editing the article to make it useful for readers. I support the inclusion of the brief sub-lede to the section on PCBs, as well as a similar sub-lede to any other section with

1530:. If you are insisting on these editorial positions, against opposition, you need to establish some sort of consensus, and until that is established, there's no basis for excluding sourced content, particularly when in fact the content was supported with detailed reasoning by three editors. -- 406:

going on here now. I'm looking for integrity in dialogue, and clearly explained objections or agreement. There's not hurry, but there's no time for obstructionism either. We need process with integrity. Pete, you can see above that Tsavage has directly asked you to make clear your reasons for

1208:

The article is not a list of lawsuits, it is an article focusing on Monsanto's involvement in litigation and related issues, such as investigation, false advertising, and so forth. A spin-off article is an article, and can be improved by providing context for its content. Your position is an

2339:

No. How bizarre. In the false statement, "(Monsanto) has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, usually over health issues…" I took the "hundreds of millions" to mean a total of "fines and damages" for

1486:

Okay. Fair enough. You don't know what my point of view is, but you accuse me of pushing it. I removed the material for the reasons given repeatedly above. It is poorly sourced and represents an unnecessary content fork. The existing first para in the section is quite adequate.

2432:

Finally, we seem to be on the same page. You deleted content rather than tag or Talk about it, because you believe "fines and damages" are not the same as "settlements" (a point I'm not arguing). After making that determination, you chose not to simply substitute in the term

2496:

SageRad and I found acceptable wording some days ago. I think we're done for the moment, though if a cheerful crew of expert legal editors turn up and set the whole thing to rights without having to grind pro or anti-GMO/Monsanto/fringe/whatever axes that would be fabulous.

3096:

with that in mind is why there's a delay, but I'm working on summarizing some sources right now. There's likely to be upcoming commentary on it in the coming week since it's still the weekend for a lot of scientists, so it doesn't hurt to wait a little bit in terms of

2009:

result that gets the information to the reader. Wikipolicy isn't a set of arbitrary rules that have been imposed on the community. It is an example of evolution in action. What works, stays and is built upon. What leads to disruption and imbalance is scrapped.

1841:

I think that the original text was not accurate, and it's good that it was flagged, but that a total deletion of that text was going too far, and that it needed to be made more accurate and yet to remain to fulfill its function as introduction to the article.

2022:

I'm a long way from perfect in my knowledge, wisdom (or lack of), and behaviour. I'm all too often wrong. But having an attachment to error or ego is not a recipe for success here. Best to accept the facts and move on. That's the way to happiness. IMHO.

1608:), with a note as to how any problem arising from the interpretation of that can easily be resolved with a new or additional source for these widely-documented facts. Forking has been addressed (and is further and decisively handled in the next point). 2086:

The current rewrite of that sentence seems fine for now - with or without mention of class action suits, the whole lead needs much development - however, the class action information seems noteworthy and on that basis should be added to the article.

407:

opposing the source. You then commented with some aspersions but did not address that question as far as i can see. In light of this discussion, in which Tsavage has explained the sourcing very well, what is your specific objection to this lead text?

2078:

Any suggestion that we remove content from leads on sight, solely on the basis of not being reflected in the article proper, is not consistent with article improvement - from what I've seen, noteworthy items do regularly get added to leads only; see

1684:), the further delay of starting this discussion over with RfC tags isn't necessary, but you are free to try one to overturn the local consensus we already have here. Meanwhile, I'm fine with waiting a while for further participation in this thread. 641:

I think these point make it clear that, in this case at least, you are in no way following the letter or spirit of BRD, only citing it. In fact, you're just deleting content you don't like. Which brings us to what policy says about your deletion...

1937:

Good idea. More eyes on an issue are always welcome. SR's response above surprised me, to be honest. I thought we'd eliminated an error and found acceptable wording. I must confess I took SageRad's bait about my "agenda". I'd like to know what it

1544:

I disagree. I've given my reasons several times, quoting wikipolicy. BRD is the wikiprocess, I'm not seeing any consensus for inclusion of the new material you propose. Of course, we may always seek more eyes, and I've done that with a request on

1031:

If you're having trouble with associating Congress and the EPA, and the year of the ban (the EPA amendments are listed) from this source, it is easy to look for a second source, or to ask for one, without removing content entirely. In this case,

1673:

status quo prior to the deletion of a neutrally phrased and reliably sourced paragraph." This would appear to be local consensus, as I and others have responded in detail to all of your assertions, and you have countered none of those responses.

168:

I will give you a chance to reply and clarify if necessary, if that's not what you're referring to. Meanwhile, it was essentially, public outcry - political pressure - and emerging and ignored science that led to the ban. From another source:

1522:

poorly sourced and a content fork, and that the existing paragraph is adequate, is not reason for removal of verifiable content. And even if you choose to boldly remove it, it is certainly not reason for a second reversion a few hours later:

1354:

Most disturbing so far in this discussion, reading the RSN posting, it appears you've been treating the online title/contents page for the source document as the entire document, which is ridiculous, as it contains no info, only links.

1057:

clearly and directly addresses exactly this situation, where you feel that content is unsourced (it surprising that as a veteran editor who is instructing other editors on editorial procedure, you don't know, or choose not to adhere to

1370:

when all that page contains is a link to the full document and, alternatively, individual links for each chapter in the document, and no content, and you are challenging verifiability by saying you can't find support on that contents

3257:

content. It really just punted the problem here when I was trying to clean up the even lengthier parent article. This page hasn't really changed much since I tried to do some initial cleanup, so ideas on condensing would be welcome.

1395:"Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a hazardous substance's toxicologic properties. Other pertinent literature is also presented, but is described in less detail than the key studies." 889:

clearly asked questions by Tsavage in this dialogue that Pete has continually not responded to, but rather responded by changing the subject and casting aspersions. This isn't working. We have attitude and behavioral problems here.

200:

Based on that, I don't find the summary, that Congress banned PCBs due to environmental and health issues, is at all dubious. If you have problem with the source for that item, indicate that, don't delete entire chunks of content.

3252:

Back when I split this, the fork was meant to give focus both at the parent article and here due to indiscriminate listing of content (i.e., not balancing whether something was more a news of the day type thing vs. encyclopedic

1770:- and our article indicates the Agent Orange class action suit was settled for $ 180 million. If your comment is meant claim that Monsanto has been involved in only one class action suit, well, there are in fact at least three. 280:

Don't give me opinions. Give me policy. This is an article about lawsuits, not chemicals. All we need is a wikilink to the main article instead of a fork. Nor do we need a dubious interpretation of a primary source. Cheers.

340:

product, in a section about litigation involving that company and that product, is a good idea (especially when, as in this case, some of the litigation is current, while the product has not been manufactured for 40 years).

658:- Upgrading a recent cut-and-paste spinoff article by providing introductory leads to sections is hardly controversial, and clearly in the category of routine improvement, and directly in the scope of this policy statement. 2413:

In normal practice, "fines and damages" are awarded by courts as a result of legal proceedings. "Settlements" are not. There is a clear distinction. You refer to them above as "payouts", not usually a legal term outside

1837:

to the lede to restore the flow, but not to make any claim about number or dollar amount for such lawsuits, and also removed the qualifier "class action" as there are lawsuits of both kinds -- class action and specific

1913:

in an arguably obvious attempt to disrupt the editing process. Given the sanctions, I would welcome fresh eyes and especially fresh admin eyes on this Article and Talk page. A case can be made for corrective measures.

2570:"The suit of the government against the Monsanto Chemical Co., which commenced last Monday, on the charge of violating the pure food law by the sale of saccharine, continues in the United States District Court here." 3119:

The outcome of the recent verdict against Monsanto needs to be added. It is one of the most significant Monsanto legal cases of late. It's been more than a month since the verdict. Time to update the article.

530:

article, which should satisfy anyone looking to find out what PCBs are. We don't need forked content here, especially not content using a different source – a primary source, as noted – to the main article.

2083:, for example. The constructive course would be to update the article. Then, if an item is seen as not sufficiently high level to belong in the lead, it can be removed, while being retained in the article. 1375:"The source does not support the content. Go to the link, search for "1979". No results. How is a reader supposed to find the cite for the content in Knowledge (XXG)? Download every PDF listed on the page?" 1330:

Skyring/Pete: I have tried at some considerable cost in time to keep this to an editorial discussion, but with your RSN post, this now, unfortunately and unpleasantly, seems to be a problem in the area of

1169:

No matter how many times you claim otherwise, the facts remain as noted: it is an unnecessary fork only partially supported by a primary source. All we need for this list of lawsuits. is a wikilink to the

2695:"The town and district are suing the St. Louis-based Monsanto over the presence of the contaminant PCBs in the school building, which the town has spent millions on monitoring and remediating since 2011." 2659:

Looks like one suit by one school – albeit with the chance of more – but including this case would be unbalanced. The NPR article limits Monsanto's balancing comments to just two words, "Without merit".

627:

BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas. No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion.

2188:

None of those listed resulted in the "fines and damages" claimed in the original text. I removed the claim because it was false or misleading. I don't understand why you want to mislead our readers. --

489:

BRD is not a required method and not recommended in cases of controversial articles. My feelings are not the issue here. Please state your content issues. You have once again failed to do so. Content.

563:

Skyring/Pete: Your approach here is so out of bounds, I believe it is reasonable to point out here how you are operating without regard to policy and even the guidance you say you are following:

311:

a "dubious interpretation of a primary source" -- that is the phrase you originally used in your deletion and Tsavage has addressed that at length right here. Dialogue is broken. Done with this.

1714:

It does not support the statements claimed. Maybe it does if the reader goes elsewhere and downloads the fifteen PDFs listed. That's like handing someone a menu and saying, "here is your meal."

1856:

I'm a big believer in content being tweaked back and forth. Eventually we get to a version that resolves all outstanding issues. Glad to see you are learning in your editing experience. --

506:, re "ive put forward objections to the material": your objections have been dealt with. So what reference would you like, could you find one? Or is it the entire paragraph you dont like? 1662:

and failed. Comments there show that BRD is, in fact, controversial in the Knowledge (XXG) community, and is recognized for being commonly misused as a tool for disruption. Documented (

727:

There is nothing in the edit you deleted to justify immediate that removal, and you are not even adhering to BRD, so again, what is your justification for deletion of sourced content?

2807:

Can someone who knows how, please place a template or whatever so a TOC is generated? Also check the archiving rules for this page. It seems threads are being prematurely archived.

1634:

Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork."

459:

and it is an effective way of preventing edit-warring. Why not participate in the discussion, go though the process and we'll arrive at a result that satisfies all participants. Your

851:

in the material you added, and that appears to be a government agency registry. The content looks to be unsupported by that source. The forking is that we already have an article on

2042:

Skyring/Pete: For the record, on further examination of this article, your thin reason for removal is even less supported than it at first appeared. You explain more clearly on the

144:

The source is produced by an agency of the US Dept. of Health, in their Toxilogical Profile series, which is peer-reviewed 900-page review of key literature, described as follows:

766:

Skyring/Pete: First, I suggest you self-revert. You already reverted twice, and if anyone is instigating edit-warring, it would appear to be you. You should remedy the situation.

2698: 2961: 2935: 1644:

Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

3238:

Note to any editors who come new to this page: please familiarize yourselves with the ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions that are linked at the top of this talk page. Thanks! --

2344:

cases. The soft wheat settlement does not include either. My objection is as stated above. Perhaps you could read what I wrote instead of your own ideas about the matter? --

3051:

This should be added to the section on Roundup. The judgement against Monsanto amounted to 298 million dollars with much of it puntiative damages. The source is here.

2993: 2989: 2975: 1815:

We only list one such case in this article. I don't think we should mislead the reader into thinking that there are multiple cases. Glad to be of assistance. Cheers. --

1773:

If you have a problem with sourcing or wording, per policy and guidelines, tag, discuss in talk, fix it, do anything but simply delete content you find questionable.

1284:

So the focus is on the lawsuits, not any other aspect of Monsanto or its business or its products. A reader may want to know what PCBs are, and if so, a link to the

903:

Skyring/Pete: Nothing you have said justifies content deletion. Everything you have just put forward has already been answered in this thread. Please self-revert. --

463:

have no place here, and edit-warring without good reason will attract sanctions. I've put forward my objections to the material; why not address them, if you can. --

3088:

There's a bit of work going into this right now actually. We do have to be careful because it is generally considered in the independent scientific community to be

2885: 512:

since you havent, of course people restore the status quo prior to the deletion of a neutrally phrased and reliably sourced paragraph (=disruption, per Arbcom). --

2394:? As all these cases - soft wheat and Agent Orange - were settlements before trial, are you saying you deleted content, with a cryptic and ultimately meaningless 1767: 1766:

I'm not sure how many class action lawsuits Monsanto has been involved in, but quick search finds, on the company's own site, documentation of two such suits -

612:

Using BRD in volatile situations is discouraged. Some editors may invoke this process by name in the edit summary; however, BRD is never a reason for reverting.

2576:- Volume 96 - Page 28. I believe it started in 1917, went on for several years, there was some sort of political ideological motivation, and Monsanto won. -- 154:

As most of it is dates, uses, and a production percentage, I assume the part you are specifically referring to as "dubious interpretation" is (underlined):

2756: 2638: 3052: 1909:

I find it interesting that even during a high-profile ArbCom case regarding this topic which is under sanctions, that Pete/Skyring continues to offer

2895: 1309: 856:

into the first sentence there - and if there is a problem with that article, then it should be fixed there, not start an entirely different one here.

2781: 2632: 2951: 2785: 2437:, which is present both in the Agent Orange body copy, and the soft wheat source, but to remove the entire content item, with the edit summary, 2962:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140903061851/http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/environment/9839-changes-to-the-contaminated-land-regime

2936:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131006060813/http://legalnewsline.com/news/236012-ala.-sc-makes-ruling-in-cases-over-300m-monsanto-settlement

2875: 184: 2293:

I think all the permutations of your "the content is wrong so I have to immediately remove it" argument have been covered, what's next? --

1264:

multiple cases listed in a single topical area. It just makes sense. Let's speak with integrity here, and get to the heart of the matter.

72: 67: 59: 2939: 1618:, where you claim that the brief section introduction in question is a content fork from one or more unspecified articles (presumably, 2626: 1761:

suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, usually over health issues related to its products."

809:

We don't need forked content here, especially not content using a different source – a primary source, as noted – to the main article.

1292:

is not a peer-reviewed journal. It is a primary document. Not even that, really, just a contents page containing nothing relevant. --

356:"'a terrible idea' is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible." 197:

The Act was passed by Congress that October. It's administered by the EPA, and subsequent amendments are the source of the 1979 ban.

2971:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2965: 2614: 2915: 2905: 2633:

City of Hartford and Hartford Board of Education, Represented by Baron & Budd, File Suit Against Monsanto For PCB Contamination

1871:

genuine questions repeatedly and cast aspersions. No need for snark or condescension or any other incivility. Keep to the content.

1549:. We can do an RfC if you wish. I'm always happy to resolve disputes using wikiprocedures. That's the best way forward. Cheers. -- 633:

BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.

2886:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121109090402/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib-agricultural-information-bulletin/aib786.aspx

2685:

theridgefieldpress.com, Ridgefield, CT, October 19, 2015: "PCBs have been found in more than 100 Connecticut schools since 2009."

384:

and if the main article has good secondary sourcing, why use something less for this one. It looks like some forking going on. --

2719:(Estabrook) alleging harm to the schools from PCBs is scheduled for trial in January (2016). A similar suit, filed on behalf of 526:

The status quo is the longstanding version which doesn't include the paragraph added a few hours back. I've added a link to the

2925: 2398:

edit summary, because you chose not to change "fines and damages" to "settlements," or ask other editors about those terms? --

1925: 1034:

the content you removed also contained several other verified facts that you deleted at the same time but are not challenging

254:

I see Pete's deletion as unjustified. Sourcing is not a problem here. The lead serves a good function as stated by Tsavage

2889: 594:

If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted.

3213:

This article is such a mess and could be made much better and shorter with good, efficient writing. I am going to alert

2608: 683: 3036: 2833: 2102:

I'm sorry. I thought it was obvious. Removing untrue material should be a no-brainer. You want to put it back in????? --

1752:

the following sentence from the article lead, with the somewhat cryptic edit note, 'Only true if the number is "one".':

1429:

You make an interesting comment above. "… all I see is you pushing your POV." What is my POV, exactly? As you see it. --

1615: 2217:

At great length. Each time I repeat my reasons I get a fresh wall of text from you. And I get blamed for it! Geez. --

1708:

You assert your opinions repeatedly and with vehement force. That does not make them correct. Nor does badgering me.

140:- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (US Dept. of Health and Human Services), pages=467-469}} Nov-2000. 3053:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/lawsuit-brings-289-million-verdict-against-maker-of-roundup-weed-killer/

1397:

It is not a primary source, as you keep stating, it is a review source. All of this has already been detailed above.

38: 2896:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130313033656/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1068.pdf

2620: 1592:

Every objection you have made has been responded to. You've elaborated vaguely around your original edit summary,

3069: 2832:

An IP editor recently added some unencylcopedic coverage of a 2015-2016 case, MIRZAIE vs. MONSANTO. According to

1718: 1285: 47: 17: 3178:

After rechecking, I found it - it was sort of hidden. I rearranged the paragraphs and cleaned up the wording.

2992:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1614:

The only direct reference to guidance (please correct me if I've missed others) is to a guideline not a policy,

2952:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131016004552/https://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/0228000/228390/monsanto.pdf

2716: 2712: 695: 108: 2723:, was settled in 2010.In New England, there have been upwards of 120 where this chemical has been discovered." 2377: 1626:). In fact WP:FORK clearly supports this sort of material, so your application of this guideline is incorrect: 1578: 1288:

will satisfy that need. I'm just puzzled why we need extra content for this, and why it is so poorly sourced.

558: 334: 1279:

It's not a matter of what's "allowed" or not. It's a question of integrity. The lede for this article reads:

3027: 2867: 2702: 2692: 2788:

published articles on the recent filing of a lawsuit for liability for pollution of the San Francisco Bay.

2676: 1726:

I feel we should get more opinions than those of myself and a couple of anti-Monsanto activists. Cheers. --

161:

due to apparent links between PCBs and environmental problems, and the discovery of negative health effects

113:

due to apparent links between PCBs and environmental problems, and the discovery of negative health effects

3263: 3149: 3106: 2945: 2899: 2863: 2418:. Perhaps as suggested below, we could use help from those more knowledgeable in the law than you or I? -- 621:

If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing.

3098: 1282:

of agricultural biotechnology, as have other companies in the field, such as Dupont Pioneer and Syngenta.

775:

Then, if you could make clear the points you have raised. What are they, they are not clear. Do you mean:

608:- so far, with your failure to calrify your objection, this seems to be the only result of your reversion 3078: 3059: 3011:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2999: 2876:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130302160548/http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/print.php?article=120

711: 2866:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 568:"The status quo is the longstanding version which doesn't include the paragraph added a few hours back" 3074: 3055: 2955: 1366:

you have been treating as the source what is obviously a title/contents page for the source document,

1011:- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (US Dept. of Health and Human Services), p. 467-469 580:

source" edit summary, one which I and now other editors find vague: what are you referring to exactly?

3243: 3141: 2859: 2841: 2836:

the suit was dismissed in January 2016. Should some mention of this case be included in the article?

2063:, however, in one instance, it fails to note that the cases in question were class actions. The item, 702: 623:- you have reverted again, disrespecting another editor's BRD in boldly restoring the deleted content 606:

Bold editing is not, however, a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.

584:

Your claimed use of BRD directly opposes many of its instructions, including (emphasis from source):

216:

Who's the plaintiff in this case? I'm not sure why you want to insert this at all. Please explain. --

2940:

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/236012-ala.-sc-makes-ruling-in-cases-over-300m-monsanto-settlement

1332: 869:

How come it took so long to provide a response to my concerns? Are you playing some sort of game? --

731:

I've added a link to the PCB article, which should satisfy anyone looking to find out what PCBs are.

360: 2142:

No. That turns out not to be the truth. Not unless in "(Monsanto) has been involved in a number of

1312:

as just arguing back and forth here doesn't seem to be doing anything but provide entertainment. --

3089: 1637: 422:

err on the side of over-explaining, because so far you haven't provided enough explanation, Pete.

3225: 3186: 3166: 3128: 2966:

http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/environment/9839-changes-to-the-contaminated-land-regime

2815: 2764: 2746: 2720: 2556: 2520: 2483: 1920: 1386: 1289: 1005: 848: 517: 137: 2996:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2916:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100217134621/http://www.brookspierce.com/news-publications-10.html

2906:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120905011001/http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html

2879: 2682: 919: 3012: 1949:

to moderate his behaviour. He's not listening to me; maybe you coukd give him another nudge? --

509:

it would be constructive, if you'd suggest an alternative paragraph with a sentence and source.

3259: 3145: 3102: 2793: 2731: 2665: 2649: 2581: 2538: 2502: 2461: 2446: 2423: 2403: 2349: 2298: 2222: 2208: 2193: 2179: 2152: 2133: 2107: 2092: 2028: 1973: 1954: 1890: 1876: 1861: 1847: 1820: 1804: 1781: 1731: 1695: 1554: 1535: 1492: 1461: 1434: 1412: 1317: 1297: 1269: 1239: 1234:

I'm in no hurry. I'll allow some time for this to be considered and for you to self-revert. --

1179: 1144: 946: 927: 922:, thanks. Not to mention our sourcing policy, which prefers secondary sources over primary. -- 908: 894: 874: 830: 753: 738: 536: 494: 468: 427: 412: 389: 373: 316: 286: 263: 239: 221: 206: 123: 1910: 1681: 645: 600:

Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement.

3267: 3247: 3232: 3193: 3173: 3153: 3135: 3110: 3082: 3063: 3041: 2845: 2822: 2797: 2768: 2750: 2735: 2688: 2669: 2653: 2585: 2563: 2542: 2527: 2506: 2490: 2465: 2450: 2427: 2407: 2353: 2302: 2226: 2212: 2197: 2183: 2156: 2137: 2111: 2096: 2032: 1977: 1958: 1930: 1894: 1880: 1865: 1851: 1824: 1808: 1785: 1735: 1699: 1558: 1539: 1496: 1465: 1438: 1416: 1393:

the title at the top of the page, impossible to miss, followed by the document description:

1321: 1301: 1273: 1243: 1183: 1148: 950: 931: 912: 898: 878: 834: 757: 742: 540: 521: 498: 472: 431: 416: 393: 377: 320: 290: 267: 243: 225: 210: 127: 3254: 3214: 3093: 3019: 2926:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150108132339/http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/melon.html

1655: 1596:

and later introduced "content forking." The source has been identified with documentation (

1546: 602:- is your issue with sourcing? can a new source not be simply applied, or can't you tag it? 576: 460: 445: 3239: 2837: 2708: 1677:"We can do an RfC if you wish. I'm always happy to resolve disputes using wikiprocedures." 1209:

editorial opinion, to be sure, but not justification for removal of well-sourced material.

1098:

This complements the VERIFIABILITY framing instruction, which also covers this situation:

2919: 2909: 2978:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3018:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2985: 2890:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib-agricultural-information-bulletin/aib786.aspx

2386:- hahahaha, nice! I guess we're not there yet. Your specific issue was with the terms 1054: 677:

Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources

3220: 3181: 3161: 3123: 2810: 2760: 2742: 2615:

Why So Many Schools in Connecticut Probably Have Toxic PCBs – But Aren’t Being Tested

2551: 2515: 2478: 2069:"At least three class action lawsuits will be dismissed as part of the settlement..." 2047: 1915: 513: 2929: 2789: 2727: 2661: 2645: 2577: 2534: 2498: 2457: 2442: 2419: 2399: 2345: 2294: 2218: 2204: 2189: 2175: 2148: 2143: 2129: 2103: 2088: 2024: 1969: 1950: 1886: 1872: 1857: 1843: 1816: 1800: 1777: 1758: 1727: 1691: 1550: 1531: 1488: 1457: 1430: 1408: 1313: 1293: 1265: 1235: 1175: 1140: 942: 923: 904: 890: 870: 826: 749: 748:

Thanks. If you could address the points I raised, that would be helpful. Cheers. --

734: 532: 503: 490: 464: 423: 408: 385: 369: 312: 282: 259: 235: 217: 202: 119: 2741:

added publisher, dates, quotes, locations to show its not just Hartford CT..... --

1385:

Hahaha, amazing. Here is the link I provided that has apparently so confused you

2067:

concerns at least three class action lawsuits, as noted in that entry's source (

368:

sources, above, so there should be no question that it is in fact verifiable. --

46:

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

1690:

sourced, contextually relevant, non-controversial, neutrally worded content? --

3070:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer-trial.html

2984:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1604:). Alternatively, the related paragraph from the source has also been quoted ( 2050:), where you made the identical deletion and referred back to this article: 1670:

I'm not seeing any consensus for inclusion of the new material you propose"

983:, as cited in the content you removed, regarding the material in question: 2627:

City of Hartford, School Board File Suit Against Monsanto For PCB Cleanup

2080: 2071:) and in other sources (including the monsanto.com link I posted above). 2043: 1992: 1792: 1623: 344: 2946:

https://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/09/60132?currentPage=all

2900:

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1068.pdf

2641:

Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, The Connecticut Law Tribune, October 27, 2015

656:

and exercise particular caution when considering removing information.

2415: 629:- inconsistent with your vague contention of long standing status quo 2147:

We only list one such case. The wording now is fine and accurate. --

592:

If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle:

2956:

http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/0228000/228390/monsanto.pdf

2065:"In 2014, Monsanto reached a settlement with soft wheat farmers..." 1364:

To make this perfectly clear, from what I now understand from RSN:

2701:

annistonstar.com, October 22, 2015, "In 2014, school officials in

343:

Remember, this is a daughter article, spun off only recently from

3158:

Well it's nowhere to be found in the article. So let's add it.

1885:

PKB, mate. You're the one who keeps talking about my "agenda". --

3217:

to see if I can get some interest in making this article better.

2621:

Connecticut Schools and Toxic PCBs: What Are the Health Impacts?

2604:

Several of these Connecticut school issues have been coming up.

2061:

In fact, this article does report on multiple class action suits

1619: 92: 1796: 1171: 852: 527: 25: 2880:

http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/print.php?article=120

2568:

There's an interesting early case that we haven't mentioned:

2456:

accuracy of our article and following wikiprocess. Thanks. --

1768:

Monsanto Company and Wheat Farmers Reach Settlement Agreement

2600:

Schools —- Another PCBs lawsuit issue area to keep an eye on

1368:

Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),

1006:

Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)"

183:

from 24-Aug-1976, regarding a special PCB amendment to the

88:

Challenging deletion of PCB litigation intro as unsupported

2870:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2609:

Hartford City, School Board, Sue Monsanto Over School PCBs

1387:

Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

1335:, as you don't seem to be at all responding to discussion. 1139:

other pertinent literature related to the topic (PCBs)? --

138:

Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

2126:"The current rewrite of that sentence seems fine for now" 1660:

recent RfC which sought to elevate it to guideline status

635:- if others don't want to observe it, you have to drop it 619:

BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once.

1583:

Skyring/Pete: To address your last round of assertions:

234:

If you have a problem with the sourcing, let me know. --

2711:

Elaine Thompson, Telegram & Gazette, Jul. 2, 2015,

1947: 1944: 1834: 1749: 1717:

In any case, the paragraph is unnecessary. The link to

1711:

Your source is primary. It is a US government registry.

1659: 1527: 1523: 1373:

Now you've opened an RSN query based on that, stating,

614:- is thia a volatile situation - some seem to think so? 403: 255: 96: 918:

Looks like we differ in our opinions. I'll stick with

668:

Instead of removing content from an article, consider:

2920:

http://www.brookspierce.com/news-publications-10.html

2910:

http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html

1658:

decisively remains an essay only, as indicated by a

2988:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2689:

Transfer of Westport Middle School building on hold

2639:Hartford School PCB Lawsuit Part of National Trend 825:If other than that, what are you talking about? -- 159:"In 1979, the US Congress banned PCB manufacture, 1791:Note that the same editor made a similar edit at 2930:http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/melon.html 1995:, the reader rarely feels grateful for the meal. 1744:Unsupported removal of content from article lead 2691:Jeffrey D. Wagner, heraldnews.com, 2015-10-07, 596:- you've reverted a reversion of your reversion 115:in relation to environmental and health issues. 2974:This message was posted before February 2018. 686:, while keeping the rest of the content intact 3140:A number of editors had already been editing 8: 2709:Princeton sues manufacturer over school PCBs 2757:Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District 1795:and i have added dialogue to the talk page 1594:"Dubious interpretation of primary source," 1590:"I've given my reasons several times, ... " 3101:to really dig into more in-depth content. 3092:that glyphosate causes cancer as alleged. 2858:I have just modified 10 external links on 2075:then ignored editor opposition at length. 1680:exactly like a formally declared RfC (see 789:Dubious interpretation of a primary source 101:"Dubious interpretation of primary source" 2699:Others are learning Anniston's PCB lesson 1721:in the existing text is all that we need. 2548:by more understandable, plain language. 1389:- the full PDF document link is located 1259:As another editor looking at this, i do 2851:External links modified (February 2018) 3218: 3179: 3159: 3121: 2808: 2549: 2513: 2476: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2677:Lawsuit filed in Clark School cleanup 2048:Talk:Monsanto#Questioning_of_deletion 1757:"It has been involved in a number of 7: 2679:Hartford, CT. wfsb.com, Oct 23, 2015 691:Requesting a citation by adding the 185:Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 2396:"Only true if the number is 'one'" 103:which I fail to see as justified: 24: 2862:. Please take a moment to review 2122:"You want to put it back in?????" 2439:Only true if the number is "one" 812:sources? Please be more precise. 29: 2944:Corrected formatting/usage for 1290:This government registry portal 444:SageRad, the process is called 350:If you want policy, how about: 3194:22:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC) 3174:22:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC) 3154:05:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC) 3136:21:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC) 1943:Jusdafax, you and I have both 720:...and six more possibilities. 714:and adding a citation yourself 118:updated to later refinement -- 1: 2823:17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC) 2798:11:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC) 2512:included that in the article 2124:To clarify what I just said, 1612:"... quoting wikipolicy. ..." 402:Indeed, we seem to have some 3268:00:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC) 3248:00:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC) 3233:22:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 3144:for that in the last month. 3142:Monsanto_legal_cases#RoundUp 3068:Also there is more here: 3042:20:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC) 2769:05:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 2751:05:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 2736:20:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC) 2670:20:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC) 2654:18:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC) 2586:20:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC) 2574:Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter 2564:17:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC) 2543:16:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC) 2528:12:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC) 2507:02:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC) 2491:00:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC) 2466:17:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) 2451:17:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC) 2428:16:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC) 2408:16:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC) 2354:15:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC) 2303:12:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC) 2227:09:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 2213:09:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 2198:07:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 2184:07:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 2157:06:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 2138:06:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 2112:01:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 2097:00:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 2033:00:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 1978:23:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 1959:20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 1931:15:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 1895:14:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 1881:14:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 1866:13:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 1852:13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 1825:13:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 1809:12:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 1786:12:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 1736:16:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC) 1700:14:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC) 1559:09:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 1540:07:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 1497:06:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 1466:06:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 1439:01:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 1417:20:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 1322:18:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 1308:I've opened a discussion at 1302:18:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 1274:12:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 1244:11:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 1184:10:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 1149:08:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 951:15:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 932:13:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 913:12:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 899:11:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 879:05:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 835:02:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 758:01:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 743:01:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) 541:22:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 522:21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 499:21:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 473:17:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 432:17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 417:17:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 394:17:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 378:11:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 321:11:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 291:10:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 268:10:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 244:06:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 226:03:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 211:00:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 128:12:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC) 3111:02:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC) 3083:02:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC) 3064:02:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC) 3284: 3005:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2855:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2475:Anything I can help with? 2846:22:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 701:tag, or adding any other 109:polychlorinated biphenyls 99:, with the edit summary, 18:Talk:Monsanto legal cases 2717:Lexington, Massachusetts 2713:Princeton, Massachusetts 1653:"BRD is the wikiprocess" 2777:Oakland PCBs case files 2759:-sued in March 2015. -- 2703:Westport, Massachusetts 2693:Westport, Massachusetts 2629:courant.com 10-24-2015 1776:Please self-revert. -- 97:deleted this paragraph 2786:San Jose Mercury News 2683:Do schools have PCBs? 1797:to question this edit 461:own personal feelings 42:of past discussions. 2986:regular verification 2860:Monsanto legal cases 2828:MIRZAIE vs. MONSANTO 2441:. I rest my case. -- 1055:verifiability policy 703:Template:Inline tags 93:Skyring|Skyring/Pete 2976:After February 2018 3047:section on Roundup 3030:InternetArchiveBot 2981:InternetArchiveBot 2721:Yorktown, New York 1748:Skyring/Pete: You 1616:WP:Content forking 712:search for sources 3006: 2834:a law 360 article 2803:Table of contents 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3275: 3230: 3191: 3171: 3133: 3040: 3031: 3004: 3003: 2982: 2820: 2561: 2525: 2488: 2381: 1928: 1923: 1918: 1582: 1528:second reversion 1333:conduct policies 700: 694: 562: 338: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3283: 3282: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3219: 3211: 3180: 3160: 3122: 3049: 3034: 3029: 2997: 2990:have permission 2980: 2868:this simple FaQ 2853: 2830: 2809: 2805: 2779: 2602: 2550: 2514: 2477: 2375: 1945:advised SageRad 1926: 1921: 1916: 1746: 1576: 981:From the source 698: 696:citation needed 692: 556: 332: 307:Clearly, it is 131: 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3281: 3279: 3271: 3270: 3250: 3210: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3114: 3113: 3048: 3045: 3024: 3023: 3016: 2969: 2968: 2960:Added archive 2958: 2950:Added archive 2948: 2942: 2934:Added archive 2932: 2924:Added archive 2922: 2914:Added archive 2912: 2904:Added archive 2902: 2894:Added archive 2892: 2884:Added archive 2882: 2874:Added archive 2852: 2849: 2829: 2826: 2804: 2801: 2778: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2725: 2724: 2706: 2696: 2686: 2680: 2673: 2672: 2643: 2642: 2636: 2630: 2624: 2618: 2612: 2601: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2382:Skyring/Pete: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2120:Skyring/Pete: 2115: 2114: 2058: 2057: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1962: 1961: 1940: 1939: 1934: 1933: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1839: 1828: 1827: 1812: 1811: 1764: 1763: 1745: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1715: 1712: 1703: 1702: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1674: 1667: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1641: 1628: 1627: 1609: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1391:directly below 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1325: 1324: 1305: 1304: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 979:Skyring/Pete: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 956: 955: 954: 953: 935: 934: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 847:Thanks. I see 840: 839: 838: 837: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 779: 778: 777: 776: 770: 769: 768: 767: 761: 760: 724: 723: 722: 721: 718: 717: 716: 710:Doing a quick 707: 705:as appropriate 688: 679: 671: 670: 662: 661: 660: 659: 646:Editing policy 639: 638: 637: 636: 630: 624: 615: 609: 603: 597: 582: 581: 572: 571: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 510: 507: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 437: 436: 435: 434: 419: 397: 396: 365: 364: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 273: 272: 271: 270: 249: 248: 247: 246: 229: 228: 195: 194: 181:New York Times 177: 176: 166: 165: 152: 151: 142: 141: 133: 132: 116: 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3280: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3256: 3251: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3231: 3229: 3228: 3224: 3223: 3216: 3208: 3195: 3192: 3190: 3189: 3185: 3184: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3172: 3170: 3169: 3165: 3164: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3134: 3132: 3131: 3127: 3126: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3071: 3066: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3054: 3046: 3044: 3043: 3038: 3033: 3032: 3021: 3017: 3014: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3001: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2977: 2972: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2947: 2943: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2856: 2850: 2848: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2827: 2825: 2824: 2821: 2819: 2818: 2814: 2813: 2802: 2800: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2776: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2707: 2704: 2700: 2697: 2694: 2690: 2687: 2684: 2681: 2678: 2675: 2674: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2640: 2637: 2634: 2631: 2628: 2625: 2622: 2619: 2616: 2613: 2610: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2599: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2562: 2560: 2559: 2555: 2554: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2526: 2524: 2523: 2519: 2518: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2489: 2487: 2486: 2482: 2481: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2384:"How bizarre" 2379: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2145: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2084: 2082: 2076: 2072: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2056: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2049: 2045: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1994: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1936: 1935: 1932: 1929: 1924: 1919: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1774: 1771: 1769: 1762: 1760: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1751: 1743: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1720: 1716: 1713: 1710: 1709: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1688: 1683: 1678: 1675: 1671: 1668: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1654: 1651: 1650: 1645: 1642: 1639: 1635: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1580: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1376: 1372: 1369: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1334: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1262: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1119: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1079: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1035: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1012: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 982: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 952: 948: 944: 939: 938: 937: 936: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 916: 915: 914: 910: 906: 901: 900: 896: 892: 880: 876: 872: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 854: 850: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 836: 832: 828: 824: 823: 822: 821: 810: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 790: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 774: 773: 772: 771: 765: 764: 763: 762: 759: 755: 751: 747: 746: 745: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 719: 715: 713: 708: 706: 704: 697: 689: 687: 685: 680: 678: 675: 674: 673: 672: 669: 666: 665: 664: 663: 657: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 647: 643: 634: 631: 628: 625: 622: 620: 616: 613: 610: 607: 604: 601: 598: 595: 593: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 578: 574: 573: 569: 566: 565: 564: 560: 542: 538: 534: 529: 525: 524: 523: 519: 515: 511: 508: 505: 502: 501: 500: 496: 492: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 474: 470: 466: 462: 458: 456: 452: 448: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 433: 429: 425: 420: 418: 414: 410: 405: 401: 400: 399: 398: 395: 391: 387: 382: 381: 380: 379: 375: 371: 362: 358: 357: 353: 352: 351: 348: 346: 341: 336: 322: 318: 314: 310: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 292: 288: 284: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 274: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 252: 251: 250: 245: 241: 237: 233: 232: 231: 230: 227: 223: 219: 215: 214: 213: 212: 208: 204: 198: 193: 190: 189: 188: 186: 182: 175: 172: 171: 170: 164: 162: 157: 156: 155: 150: 147: 146: 145: 139: 135: 134: 130: 129: 125: 121: 114: 110: 106: 105: 104: 102: 98: 94: 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3260:Kingofaces43 3226: 3221: 3212: 3187: 3182: 3167: 3162: 3146:Kingofaces43 3129: 3124: 3103:Kingofaces43 3099:WP:RECENTISM 3073: 3067: 3050: 3028: 3025: 3000:source check 2979: 2973: 2970: 2857: 2854: 2831: 2816: 2811: 2806: 2782:NBC Bay Area 2780: 2726: 2644: 2635:businesswire 2603: 2573: 2569: 2557: 2552: 2521: 2516: 2484: 2479: 2474: 2438: 2434: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2374: 2341: 2144:class action 2125: 2121: 2085: 2077: 2073: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2059: 2054: 2041: 1833:I've done a 1775: 1772: 1765: 1759:class action 1756: 1747: 1676: 1669: 1663: 1652: 1643: 1633: 1611: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1575: 1394: 1390: 1374: 1367: 1365: 1280: 1260: 1258: 1117: 1077: 1033: 1010: 1007: 1002: 980: 902: 887: 808: 788: 730: 729: 725: 709: 690: 684:inaccuracies 681: 676: 667: 654: 644: 640: 632: 626: 618: 617: 611: 605: 599: 591: 590: 583: 575:Your use of 567: 555: 504:User:Skyring 454: 450: 446: 404:edit warring 366: 355: 354: 349: 342: 331: 308: 256:in adding it 199: 196: 191: 180: 178: 173: 167: 160: 158: 153: 148: 143: 117: 112: 100: 91: 78: 43: 37: 3215:Project:Law 3075:Claustro123 3056:Claustro123 2715:"A case in 2046:Talk page ( 1174:article. -- 682:Correcting 648:instructs: 107:In the US, 36:This is an 3240:Tryptofish 3209:Needs work 3037:Report bug 2838:Dialectric 2755:note also 2435:settlement 920:wikipolicy 849:one source 361:WP:BADIDEA 3090:WP:FRINGE 3020:this tool 3013:this tool 1638:WP:RELART 1602:see above 1524:reversion 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 3026:Cheers.— 2761:Wuerzele 2743:Wuerzele 2081:Monsanto 2044:Monsanto 1993:Plotinus 1838:damages. 1835:copyedit 1793:Monsanto 1640:section) 1624:Monsanto 514:Wuerzele 345:Monsanto 179:And the 136:Source: 2864:my edit 2790:SageRad 2728:SageRad 2646:SageRad 2578:Tsavage 2443:Tsavage 2400:Tsavage 2392:damages 2295:Tsavage 2205:Tsavage 2176:Tsavage 2130:Tsavage 2089:Tsavage 1991:unlike 1970:SageRad 1911:WP:BAIT 1873:SageRad 1844:SageRad 1801:SageRad 1778:Tsavage 1750:removed 1692:Tsavage 1682:WP:TALK 1622:and/or 1532:Tsavage 1458:Tsavage 1409:Tsavage 1266:SageRad 1236:Tsavage 1141:Tsavage 943:SageRad 905:Tsavage 891:SageRad 827:Tsavage 735:Tsavage 491:SageRad 424:SageRad 409:SageRad 370:Tsavage 313:SageRad 260:SageRad 236:Tsavage 203:Tsavage 120:Tsavage 39:archive 3255:WP:DUE 3094:WP:DUE 2416:Nevada 1656:WP:BRD 1547:WP:RSN 1310:WP:RSN 1058:this): 577:WP:BRD 457:iscuss 453:evert 3222:Minor 3183:Minor 3163:Minor 3125:Minor 2812:Minor 2553:Minor 2517:Minor 2480:Minor 2388:fines 1664:above 1606:above 1598:above 1371:page. 16:< 3264:talk 3244:talk 3150:talk 3107:talk 3079:talk 3060:talk 2842:talk 2794:talk 2784:and 2765:talk 2747:talk 2732:talk 2666:talk 2662:Pete 2650:talk 2582:talk 2539:talk 2535:Pete 2503:talk 2499:Pete 2462:talk 2458:Pete 2447:talk 2424:talk 2420:Pete 2404:talk 2390:and 2350:talk 2346:Pete 2299:talk 2223:talk 2219:Pete 2209:talk 2194:talk 2190:Pete 2180:talk 2153:talk 2149:Pete 2134:talk 2108:talk 2104:Pete 2093:talk 2029:talk 2025:Pete 1974:talk 1955:talk 1951:Pete 1891:talk 1887:Pete 1877:talk 1862:talk 1858:Pete 1848:talk 1821:talk 1817:Pete 1805:talk 1782:talk 1732:talk 1728:Pete 1719:PCBs 1696:talk 1620:PCBs 1555:talk 1551:Pete 1536:talk 1493:talk 1489:Pete 1462:talk 1435:talk 1431:Pete 1413:talk 1355:Wow. 1318:talk 1314:Pete 1298:talk 1294:Pete 1286:PCBs 1270:talk 1240:talk 1180:talk 1176:Pete 1145:talk 1053:Our 947:talk 928:talk 924:Pete 909:talk 895:talk 875:talk 871:Pete 853:PCBs 831:talk 754:talk 750:Pete 739:talk 537:talk 533:Pete 518:talk 495:talk 469:talk 465:Pete 449:old 428:talk 413:talk 390:talk 386:Pete 374:talk 317:talk 287:talk 283:Pete 264:talk 240:talk 222:talk 218:Pete 207:talk 124:talk 95:You 3227:4th 3188:4th 3168:4th 3130:4th 2994:RfC 2964:to 2954:to 2938:to 2928:to 2918:to 2908:to 2898:to 2888:to 2878:to 2817:4th 2623:NPR 2617:NPR 2611:NPR 2558:4th 2522:4th 2485:4th 2342:all 1938:is! 1927:fax 1917:Jus 1261:not 1172:PCB 528:PCB 309:not 3266:) 3246:) 3196:++ 3152:) 3109:) 3081:) 3062:) 3007:. 3002:}} 2998:{{ 2844:) 2796:) 2767:) 2749:) 2734:) 2668:) 2660:-- 2652:) 2584:) 2572:- 2541:) 2505:) 2497:-- 2464:) 2449:) 2426:) 2406:) 2380:) 2352:) 2301:) 2225:) 2211:) 2196:) 2182:) 2155:) 2136:) 2110:) 2095:) 2087:-- 2031:) 2023:-- 1976:) 1957:) 1922:da 1893:) 1879:) 1864:) 1850:) 1823:) 1807:) 1799:. 1784:) 1734:) 1698:) 1581:) 1557:) 1538:) 1526:, 1495:) 1487:-- 1464:) 1437:) 1415:) 1407:-- 1320:) 1300:) 1272:) 1242:) 1182:) 1147:) 949:) 930:) 911:) 897:) 877:) 833:) 756:) 741:) 699:}} 693:{{ 561:) 539:) 531:-- 520:) 497:) 471:) 430:) 415:) 392:) 376:) 337:) 319:) 289:) 281:-- 266:) 258:. 242:) 224:) 209:) 201:-- 187:: 163:." 126:) 64:← 3262:( 3242:( 3148:( 3105:( 3077:( 3058:( 3039:) 3035:( 3022:. 3015:. 2840:( 2792:( 2763:( 2745:( 2730:( 2664:( 2648:( 2580:( 2537:( 2501:( 2460:( 2445:( 2422:( 2402:( 2378:← 2376:( 2348:( 2297:( 2221:( 2207:( 2192:( 2178:( 2151:( 2132:( 2106:( 2091:( 2027:( 1972:( 1953:( 1889:( 1875:( 1860:( 1846:( 1819:( 1803:( 1780:( 1730:( 1694:( 1636:( 1579:← 1577:( 1553:( 1534:( 1491:( 1460:( 1433:( 1411:( 1316:( 1296:( 1268:( 1238:( 1178:( 1143:( 1036:. 945:( 926:( 907:( 893:( 873:( 829:( 752:( 737:( 559:← 557:( 535:( 516:( 493:( 467:( 455:D 451:R 447:B 426:( 411:( 388:( 372:( 359:( 335:← 333:( 315:( 285:( 262:( 238:( 220:( 205:( 122:( 50:.

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

Index