2471:
charged to do. That's even something that I was not aware of and I'm sure a longways past high school age. You removed my sourcing and added the NYT ref to establish that there was a company split. I did not feel that I needed to source that fact because I do not feel it would be doubted since I wikilinked the split article. But the fact that
Monsanto is still responsible for cleanups, as stated in the primary source I supplied, is now unsourced and any editor can come along in a few days or weeks and remove it. IMO you are being disruptive when you continue to ignore the arguments that have been offered re the primary source and continue to insist that I need to find sources that meet your approval. I'm going to return the primary source and the blog source that I supplied. According to our guidelines, blogs are acceptable in some instances. In this case I am using a source that has been
808:
obstructionist to me. Your comment right here is a prime example of not working well with others, and it's affecting quality of articles. I do appreciate your focus on good sourcing, but right here we have an example with reasonably good sourcing and you're still holding this line. Yes, thousands of lawsuits are filed every day, but not all of them are reported in multiple media sources, like these particular lawsuits regarding PCB contamination. Sometimes the filing matters as well as the outcome. If you don't acknolwedge these points, but just repeat a general rule as if it's
Knowledge (XXG) policy, then i think you're misrepresenting Knowledge (XXG) policy.
2227:, your argument above that primary sources are "discouraged" is specious. The policy you quoted above simply cautions editors to not engage in independent analysis or interpretation of primary sources. In fact, the policy does not use the word "discouraged" and the policy does not say primary sources should not be used. Here, the SEC filing is a reliable source and there is no analysis or interpretation of the source material. All we have is a direct quotation from the original. What is so controversial about this? The source violates no policy and it should be included. --
1569:
responding to some people's direct questioning of your assertions that lawsuits in progress are never included in
Knowledge (XXG), and i was using dialogue as a way to resolve disputes and i don't need a lecture on this, thank you. If you'd respond with more integrity in your part of the dialogue, we'd have this dispute already resolved. And yes, i know about NOTNEWS and UNDUE for the 10th time, and i think with all my heart and mind that this inclusion still qualifies, and i think you're being unduly oppositional about it.
31:
2617:(edit conflict -- had not yet read Pete's comment) Yes, and I'd also like to say this: If one is going to bother to make edits and comment on the talk pages, they need to be willing to spend the time needed to learn what they are commenting about rather than say things like "the SEC document is about as clear as a harbour full of toxic mud" when it is quite clear. By Pete's responses, it seems to me that he has not been willing to do this.
357:
had been arrived at. I don't care about spinning this to follow any particular agenda, so if anyone wants to add more to the case about PCBs and their health risks, that's fine. On the con side, there's not a great number of good sources. It's basically one St Louis media outlet and a few bloggy/fringey/ratbag sites. Some of the latter, I notice with amusement, make much of the case being launched but not so much said about the outcome. --
1228:. What is the significance -- why does it matter to anybody or anything in the real world? I get it that it pleases advocates, but we are not here to please advocates. I look forward to some reasonable discussion about why mention of the filings is not UNDUE other than their mention in reliable sources (this is a question about WEIGHT, not the reliability of sources). I really am open to reasoned arguments about encyclopedic value.
1025:. We almost always require each entry in such a list to have its own article. Monsanto Legal Cases, however, is not a list article. In its current non-list format, it covers cases and details that don't have their own articles, and as such, addition of well-referenced in-progress cases is warranted. I agree with TSavage that filings of lawsuits cannot be dismissed as categorically non-noteworthy- as long as there is significant
2775:
listed have stirred up one of the better shitstorms I've seen, and we're about as far from consensus as ever. My impression is that some (but by no means all) participants have dogmatic views when the topic is
Monsanto, and earthly things such as wikipolicy are merely obstacles to be overcome. I can be persuaded by facts and reason, and I'll readily acknowledge when I'm in the wrong. But circular arguments, obfuscation, and
292:
PCB-related death or injury, and the defendants won. Nothing special there, PCB cases happened decades ago. The article already notes that "Monsanto faced several lawsuits over harm caused by PCBs" in the 1990s, and treats them colletively, without detail. I'm curious as to why this one case gets specifically covered, but doesn't get more detailed coverage per the sources. I am asking of you what you've asked of others.
1190:
business liabilities. So this would seem to be a new development in an ongoing
Monsanto corporate and legal story, about how it has reinvented itself over the last couple of decades, retaining the name and the ag business, and ditching the chem and pharmaceutical parts of original Monsanto, while becoming an all-new corporate entity, and how the new Monsanto is dealing with ongoing problems from its past. --
893:
received significant mainstream media coverage for whatever reason (probably as a novelty news item, and our content would note it as such). On the other hand, a case hitting to the heart of a company's business is by definition noteworthy - an argument for exclusion could be based on not giving it undue weight, but that is a tough sell in a daughter article dedicated to...cases concerning that company.
1282:
involvement and relations to the world at large. Your resistance to its inclusion is what puzzles me. Completeness is a desired goal for an encyclopedia. Readers can draw their own conclusions better if there is a balanced and complete view in the articles they use. If there is a filtered blocking of some aspects, that creates a bias.
1616:
regardless of their chances or legitimacy, they are part of a long and extensively covered issue, the legal and environmental fallout from pcb contamination, going back at least to the GE Hudson River contamination. The existence of such cases shows that this issue has not gone away for large corporations including
Monsanto.
522:
point of filing onward, is quite common. On what are you basing that our standard practice is to exclude lawsuits that have not been decided (ignoring the fact that this article already contains detailed coverage of one such pending case, for no outstanding reason other than that it is within the scope of the article)?
720:
to simply close the conversation. Please either take the meta-discussion to the current RfC discussion if relevant to a certain point, or open a new section (on a user talk page if you are primarily interested in Pete's views as you indicate) to keep this section streamlined to show the content itself is resolved.
2647:
the use of this WP policy and that WP policy and to be told that his/her suggestions were just WP:FART ideas (a new one to me, indeed) should be given special honors. Most of us would have quit our efforts long ago, I know I would have, and it is good to see that at least one editor just kept plugging along.
1905:"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Knowledge (XXG) ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
2924:
The better option, which would have been more appropriate as I just did, is just hat the comment. Anyone can see it if they uncollapse this, but it's not relevant to the talk page conversation, so this is also an indication not to post in this collapsed section. All threaded comments should have been
2740:
I looked over the SEC document and found it reasonably opaque. A pointer to the exact part of the reference would have helped. I didn't see it amongst the legalese. In fact, my understanding was that the SEC document was a reference for the
Monsanto split-up alone. However, that doesn't eliminate the
2470:
Pete, as you know one of our goals here is to make our articles easy enough to understand for even kids in high school. Since
Monsanto is now more ag-related I thought that it would help the reader to understand that they used to make chemicals and are still responsible for any cleanup that they are
1709:
Skyring, unless you want me to file an edit warring case, I suggest you restore this material until this discussion concludes. Removal of reliable sources without prior discussion is not acceptable, and the SEC is certainly a reliable source. Per BRD, you've made a change and it has been reverted. It
1248:
in the litigation under discussion except that these particular entities are suing
Monsanto over this specific PCB pollution. Same kinds of arguments, same kinds of responses, have been made before. You are literally just making up things to say now. It is not the "heart" of their business and no new
719:
The focus isn't related to content improvements suggested in this section. It makes encyclopedia building difficult when a discussion is opened on specific content, the content is resolved, but tangential conversation continues unrelated to any ongoing issue with the content. That is usually the time
654:
If you're commenting here solely in support of including/keeping the St. Louis County item, you are the one on a tangent - this section is discussing
Skyring/Pete's criteria for inclusion. No-one is trying to remove the content. I assumed your joining in, and that fact that you take the same position
291:
You've unilaterally included content, I am asking what are your grounds for noteworthiness? There have been many lawsuits against Monsanto, including class action suits, what makes this one stand out? From your entry, there is nothing outstanding, except that there was a case looking for damages from
234:
Skyring/Pete: The point is, per your extensive comments here about item quality and selection, what criteria did you use to select this item from all other less noteworthy Monsanto cases, as the information you included dies not indicate anything but the fact that it's Monsanto and there are sources?
2543:
OK. I stand corrected there. Thanks. I see the blog references the SEC document. However, the SEC document is about as clear as a harbour full of toxic mud. I can't see where Monsanto is assuming the liability for cleanups. I'm guessing that, unless you are a legal whiz, you are just taking the blog
2194:
I'm not sure why you are so convinced the SEC filing is an inappropriate source to substantiate the quotation about the 2008 settlement. There is nothing unreliable about the source, and it is much more authoritative than an article by a reporter, who will inevitably put their own spin on the events
1615:
is 2, News reports. The only specified target of this section is "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Coverage of multiple large metropolitan areas suing a large corporation is not by any reasonable standard routine news reporting. These cases matter because
1469:
Do i read this right as you wishing that i would go away and do other things? Or are you referring to yourself here? If one gives in to filibustering and other bad tactics, then one allows this pattern to continue and bias the encyclopedia as a whole, so when one encounters a problem of this nature,
1362:
I think i gave you an answer to the question you asked, and you chose not to hear it in typical fashion. You also ignored my very explicit question and call-out about the incompleteness of the dialogue in which you seem unable to acknowledge your mistake in asserting that lawsuits cannot be included
1285:
Note, i find it rather odd that you participate in this discussion without referring to the open question about your promotion of the notion that lawsuits are not included in Knowledge (XXG) as a matter of policy and practice, which i and others have here questioned. I wonder if you'd answer to that
356:
As indicated above, I looked at the sources, checked that they were reliable, noted that the trial had had a month of proceedings (given the American legal system, that's some serious money being spent by both sides, so it's more than just the buck fifty it costs to file a case), and that an outcome
2501:
article. Feel free to add the SEC link to the NYT if you really think it needs it. The second sentence about Monsanto-ag bearing responsibility for Monsanto-chem's actions is more problematic, as Monsanto's media release on these cases we're talking about above specifically denies responsibility on
2298:
This is a moot point, now that the SEC source has been restored, but no one was arguing that the NYT source should be removed. We were simply stating that the SEC source should be included as a reliable primary source. Also, you really need to stop using crude (and again, arguably sexist) language.
1642:
coverage from multiple major mainstream news outlets (that is, articles about it specifically), I think that that's a sign that it's worth a mention. Remember that this is the "Monsanto legal cases" page, so the standard to put a lawsuit here is lower than it would be on the Monsanto page itself.
1398:
lists of everything there is to say about something The "completeness" argument is not a valid argument in WP. Please actually describe what is of encyclopedic value about these lawsuits, at this time. (HINT - It should be something that is New and Important in the kinds of arguments being made, or
951:
Fine, but that does not answer my question (to Jytdog), concerning filings of lawsuits being categorically non-noteworthy. If we're discussing content, we should try not to muddy the waters with claims about what editors can and can't do based on personal opinion. I've encountered this way too much
521:
In a nutshell, that is what Jytdog, Skyring/Pete, and you are arguing here, yet the view of several editors in the current cities/PCB RfC does not seem to support that position. Also, as I illustrated earlier, both in Knowledge (XXG) and in reputable media, reporting on pending litigation, from the
2774:
Sagerad's contributions haven't earnt any glowing praise here. He tried to get a private lawsuit included when it had no adequate sourcing and had already been the subject of a COI discussion, when it emerged that the lawyer filing the case was editing here. His attempts to get these two PCB cases
2646:
I hesitated to take this talk page on because I am well aware that it can take many hours of research to make intelligent responses on the talk page and make reasonable edits to the article. It is my impression that editor Sage Red did his/her research and was not willing to be frightened away by
1377:
I say it again, you seem to be obstinately obstructionist and willfully thick in your dialogue behavior, and i hold that you are disruptive to the smoother functioning of this editorial process. I ask you to have integrity here. This simple edit should not be taking hours of debate, but it is, and
1373:
As for encyclopedic value, it's part of the real world that Knowledge (XXG) reflects, and when someone comes to this page, this is what they'd expect to find here. A fairly complete list of notable legal cases involving Monsanto. So... for completeness, for representation of the world, it's a good
466:
I made no comment on Tsavage's points, just that it the case would meet the bar for inclusion here, nothing more. That being said, I changed the content to include county as anyone would have been able to do. I have a preference for keeping things short, so I like the concise statement (though the
1020:
To a large extent, coverage establishes notability. Lawsuits are not inherently notable. If the filing and/or early stages of a lawsuit are covered by multiple reliable sources, I see that as substantial enough for a mention in a larger article. The bar here is lower than having an entire article
1933:
Knowledge (XXG) articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and
1647:
is not automatically considered a negative; covering things rapidly as they happen is part of what makes Knowledge (XXG) valuable, too. In this case, it will be easy to remove the sentence or so mentioning these lawsuits later down the line if they turn out to have little overall significance.
543:
In addition, in this St. Louis County example, how did the decision affect assessment of due weight? In the article, it seems wins, losses, dismissals and settlements, with Monsanto as plaintiff and as defendant, are all covered similarly, reliable sourcing seems to be the only evident inclusion
2528:
No that is not their argument. Monsanto is arguing that the companies that bought their products are responsible. As for the blog, yes I agree that my source would not be adequate to stand alone, however I have provided the primary source which is in this case appropriate, which several other
1568:
In my opinion, same difference. Whether the fact of the lawsuit is of enough significance in the world to warrant inclusion in this article. You can't dance around the issue with semantic wordplay. Yes, it's common for editors to disagree on application of policy to content, but i don't see you
1413:
For the 10th time, i know that Knowledge (XXG) does not include everything, and that is why i have referred repeatedly to significant coverage in reliable news sources that show that this is something of note in the world at large and is due here in this article. However, "completeness" is most
1189:
article, we explain that the recently created ag/life sciences Monsanto indemnified all those (Pharmacia, Solutia) who could be held responsible for its old chemical business. Now, per an excerpt of their statement in one of the news sources, they are claiming no responsibility for old chemical
892:
Deciding whether a filing is noteworthy would seem to be mainly a based on relevance to the subject of the article. For example, a case of a single homeowner suing over claims of excessive disturbance from one of a company's many facilities would probably not be considered noteworthy, unless it
696:
The discussion here is squarely focused on content improvement, concerning how one piece of content's selection criteria relates to a current RfC. Editors have engaged civilly. If you choose not to participate, fine, no need to chide others or try to impose your view of how discussion should be
848:
That's your reckoning. There's clear obstructionism here. Let's take the present question as its own question. You can drop the stick. I ain't kicking up the drama. The drama's here already. I'm standing up for principle and working out what it means through dialogue, and using Knowledge (XXG)
593:
Trying to assume you aren't talking about editor POV issues, I'm not sure what you mean by "unwanted" related to content. In this case, we have a completed case with a noteworthy finding according to sources that meets weight requirements as opposed to a broad rejection of the suit without any
1344:? If this becomes some huge dragged out battle, it could become noteworthy. If there is a settlement or verdict where Monsanto agrees to, or is required to pay, a ton of money, that would be noteworthy. It may be that the lawsuit goes absolutely no where and never amounts to any thing. We
426:
Doesn't seem to be any problem with the content. The lawsuit was completed and the decision was described by secondary sources. That appears to meet the criteria we've been discussing all along for what meets due weight in this article. It's a minimal case that just meets expectations from my
924:
As noted above, these cases do not go to the heart of a company's business. Monsanto produces agricultural products. They are minor cases filed in local courts and will very likely be dismissed before proceeding much further. If these were important cases, then there would be wider coverage.
2279:
article and I am puzzled that anybody thinks that this is somehow inadequate. Of course, such folk may, if they feel the need, append the original SEC source as well as the NYT. That seems to be rather pointless, but I can understand if some editor feels the need to piss higher than others.
1281:
The lawsuits fall under the topic of this article, are happening, and are of enough note to be reported in reliable sources that establish notability. What more do you want, Jytdog? It's significance here is that it's part of the story of Monsanto, part of the picture of the company and its
807:
You repeat the same things over and over, as if they are Knowledge (XXG) policy and as if they're self-evident. Well, they're not evident to all editors. Good people with good minds disagree with you. Other people have different opinions on these matters, and your insistence seems to be
2025:
is simply that you can't write meaningful articles only by quoting and directly paraphrasing or describing sources (i.e. by properly using primary sources alone), evaluation and analysis must come from secondary sources. Both types of source are equally legitimate; each has its place.
578:
That sounds like one of those made-up rules that are used to keep unwanted information out of an article. To file a class action lawsuit against a major corporation is certainly notable and deserves mention, and most certainly in this article which is particularly for legal actions.
451:
given the ongoing rfc on similar lawsuits, I don't see anyone suggesting that this lawsuit be removed entirely. I support the inclusion as it is covered by multiple reliable sources, just as I support the inclusion of the recently filed cases which are covered by multiple reliable
753:
on most other pages, but this page is focused on legal cases concerning Monsanto specifically, so I don't think any lawsuit that has been covered by a reputable mainstream outlet can reasonably be omitted.) In particular, going over the recent revert, I don't understand why
2896:(no edit summary). The result was that other editors no longer could read the related content, which i posted in response to Dialectric above, where he mentioned, an edit warring case in regards to edits by Pete/Skyring. I notice that Pete really tries hard to get reported.
313:
And yes, I am seriously asking (unless all of your argument about cities lawsuits was...just a joke). You've spent a lot of editors' time trying to establish criteria for lawsuit selection, I am probing it in light of your own content choices. "Buddy" is pretty weak.
1369:
As for the encyclopedic value of the filing itself, that is determined by the outside world by its being reported in media sources that establish a notability factor. You're the one who has lectured me on this time and again in every forum, and now you're not seeing
94:
I added the reference to the recent St Louis case because it was verified by reliable sources, as a nation-wide class action appealled to multiple courts it seemed significant, and it looks to be setting some sort of precedent. Most importantly, it had a result.
1838:
There is no need to "ferret" through anything. The SEC disclosure includes the quoted material in the second paragraph. Nor is there any need to find a secondary source when we have perfectly reliable primary source (in case you are unaware, the SEC's form 8-K
674:
at hand. If you wish to have more of a meta-discussion not related to specific content with someone, please take that elsewhere such as a user talk page so this specific section can be wrapped up. If you do have content you want to change, than please say so.
2562:
relating to property damage, personal injury, products liability or premises liability or other damages related to asbestos, PCB, dioxin, benzene, vinyl chloride and other chemicals manufactured before the Solutia Spin-off." (Emphasis added). --
1418:
on the topic of indiscriminate lists of information. Despite repeatedly ignoring my direct questions, you ask "What is of encyclopedic value about these lawsuits at this time?" I ask you what is of "encyclopedic value" about the article on
2274:
There are two sentences, and only one of them (the second) is tagged. I replaced the primary source for the first sentence (SEC) with an excellent secondary source (NYT). This is the same one we use to source the Monsanto breakup in the
2741:
need for good secondary sourcing, and a blog, no matter how well-regarded, isn't really top notch. A primary source and a blog kinda sorta fill the need for sourcing, but I'm not happy with it. Maybe I'll go read that NYT article again.
655:
as S/R (confirmed by your recent quote), that a lawsuit requires an outcome to be noteworthy, meant that you were open to discussing the same, so I directed questions at you. If you don't wish to reply, that's obviously up to you! --
446:
Tsavage pointed out one clear, if minor problem with the content - the St. Louis vs. St Louis county issue. Are you suggesting Tsavage is incorrect about the distinction? While the addition of this case to the article was somewhat
1550:(which is also policy). Please address the policy issues that I've been raising. Thanks. By the way, it is very common for editors to disagree on the application of policy to content, and for this reason there are many ways to
110:
Skyring/Pete: Your two-sentence St. Louis entry calls into question much of what you have been arguing here about the substantial information available only from a completed trial. You include barely any detail. For example:
2125:
As Notecardforfree suggests, while the NYTimes source is a good addition, the removal of the SEC source is still unjustified. As above, RS primary sources are acceptable and sometimes the best sources available for specific
207:
Sorry, I spotted the case early this morning, put in a brief mention with a couple of sources. Looked good as a starter for more detail when I had time. I've been doing other stuff today. Life intrudes, y'know? Feel free to
1992:
Knowledge (XXG) articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary
1779:
is an essay that suggests a particular editing approach; I don't think it gives you a free revert as far as 3RR (correct me if I'm wrong; as with most of these distasteful-to-me wikilaw details, I'm just learning).
2209:
I think you have misunderstood what I've been saying about the SEC. You are quite wrong, and I reject your view. Perhaps if you calm down and read what I've written above, you may get a clearer picture? Thanks.
172:
All this poorly executed addition seems to support is that you think trials should be mentioned only when they are completed, and that you're trying to make a quick point with regard to the current discussion.
383:
Tsavage has made some excellent points, Pete. It increasingly appears to me that your methodology in editing this article is questionable. As Tsavage notes, you seem to want it both ways. I strongly object.
748:
important thing is the level and quality of coverage. If a lawsuit was just filed yesterday, but is being covered by reputable, mainstream sources, then it belongs here, at least as a mention (it might be
2255:
Not exactly -- the sentence in question still has a "citation needed" tag. I apologize for escalating the tone of this conversation with my earlier rhetoric, but let's please try to keep things civil (per
2317:
The SEC source is only needed because the blog secondary source isn't what I'd call an excellent source. I'm sorry you didn't get the Murphy Brown reference. One of the show's better moments, I thought.
499:"For pending litigation, due weight cannot really be assessed. It's pretty standard with that in mind to wait for the result of the litigation to determine where it stands in the grand scheme of things."
618:. Reliable sourcing is only the first criteria for inclusion in an article. In this specific piece of content, the findings of the court and the reporting of them together are what satisfy both
1286:
open question, for completeness of dialogue. You see several people here strongly questioning that assertion that you made several times here. For integrity and completion of dialogue, please.
1934:
interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Knowledge (XXG) editors.
1423:
mentioning all five species of domesticated chili peppers? It's because it reflects the reality of the world. How much simpler can it be? Why do i have the feeling of being spun in circles?
1968:
Skyring/Pete: You are selectively quoting the policy to give the impression of support for your incorrect claim. The actual policy statement in that section reads (emphasis per source):
793:
The filing of lawsuits is not noteworthy. Literally thousands of lawsuits are filed every day. What matters - what is of encyclopedic value - is the outcome. We are not a newspaper.
982:
It is quite clear; the mere filing of a lawsuit is not notable in itself. As noted, there are many filed every day and we cannot list them on that basis, just as (say) our article
467:
length of the trial isn't absolutely needed). Either way, I think we're ok as is, but that means anyone else welcome to suggest improvements according to the source if they want.
1414:
certainly a useful argument, or rather ideal for articles. We want them to be as complete as possible, balancing the weight of various aspects of a topic. I'd ask you to read
1043:
The existence of this article is weird, I agree. It was split out of the Monsanto article, mostly driven by Tsavage's objections that the Monsanto article was too long. See
2195:
that transpired. I'm not saying that we should delete the NYT article. Indeed, I think it is a useful source. But what can be more authoritative than a government filing?--
409:
I'm sorry? Your perception is incorrect. In the St Louis case we have some facts to report. In the just-filed cases, all we can do is quote or paraphrase the PR puffery. --
1134:"On the other hand, a case hitting to the heart of a company's business is by definition noteworthy". Monsanto (and everyone else) stopped making PCBs in 1979 (that is
2394:
In contrast to your misleading 'Policies mentioned in RfC' heading from a few days ago, I am glad to see you are now making a distinction between policies and guidelines.
986:
is incomplete. We only list those shown to be notable, and we identify those by examining the sources, rather than relying on the personal opinions of random editors. --
822:
SageRad, you haven't got consensus for what you want to do through all the talk page posts you've made on this page, related pages, or RSN. That's the time to drop the
1168:
Jytdog, my question here is about your claim that legal filings are never noteworthy, I wasn't referring to specific cases, I only mentioned hypothetical examples.
1820:
Monsanto's restructuring isn't the sort of obscure legal fact that needs us to ferret around in primary sources. I'm sure it has been covered in depth elsewhere.
1672:, Gandydancer started off a restructuring. The content doesn't look controversial, but I'm wondering about the sources. We have the SEC (a primary source) and
1899:, they are perfectly acceptable when used appropriately, and at times seem the best choice for easy verifiability. Knowledge (XXG)'s primary source policy (
1091:"Creating daughter article of Monsanto per talk there from topics where the scope is primarily about details of legal cases and not overall controversies."
1399:
the size of the damages sought, or Monsanto's response... something intrinsic to these filings in relation to others, that is stated in reliable sources)
1089:
Jytdog, I don't know what relevance how this article came to be has to this discussion, but in fact it was created by Kingofaces43, with the edit note:
1348:. As it is, it is just news, as far as I can see, and we are not a newspaper. I really do look forward to hearing an answer to the question I asked.
1494:
If there is any doubt about the sources used to establish notability about these current lawsuits by U.S. cities about PCBs, here is a list of a few:
2475:
per our Knowledge (XXG) article. It is not being used to establish fact but to help our readers understand the circumstances of the company split.
778:
has to be examined individually, since our basic requirement for this article is to cover things based on their coverage in mainstream sources. --
1676:(a blog). Primary sources are discouraged, and blogs likewise. Do we not have anything better? I've added a "citation needed" template here. --
124:
the only other description of the proceedings is the duration of the trial and deliberation - why is the timing the only other critical detail?
2502:
the grounds that they are a separate company. I feel we need a better source than a blog. Even an award-winning, literate and popular blog. --
2497:
The sentence about the split-up is well-sourced. I felt we could do better than a primary source and replaced it with the NYT source from our
1378:
the behavior seems designed to distract, unfocus, filibuster, and obstruct the actual process of editing that is ideal on Knowledge (XXG).
1542:
to whether an article exists or not, not to specific content. The issues at play have to do with article scope, and with whether this is
1513:
755:
1340:
I am not disputing that the lawsuits were filed. That happened. Lots of things happen. The question is, what is the encyclopedic value
1224:
More generally, nobody here has said anything about what encyclopedic value content about the lawsuit filings would have - how it is not
119:"The lawsuit ... sought relief for plaintiffs who developed lymphohematopoietic cancer after being exposed to PCBs ... made by Monsanto,"
81:
76:
71:
59:
1366:
That said, there was not question of dispute on whether the lawsuits are filed. That sentence of yours is an apparent red herring here.
150:
while the sources refer exclusively to St. Louis County, are they the same? (In fact, St. Louis, the city, is not in St. Louis County.)
952:
recently (including the very same claim about lawsuits elsewhere, before I became better-informed), and it is distinctly unhelpful. --
879:, other than your personal opinion? In this case, the article is about legal cases, and includes sections on "Investigations" (a step
1854:
The comment above is mine. As you can see, I neglected to add a signature. I think I left the comment at approximately 20:50 UTC. --
1502:
2912:
1794:
3RR and BRD are two different things. You should read up on both and see how they work. I'm happy with my following of both here. --
983:
2160:
justified. The SEC alone, no. But hey, if you see this is a penis-measuring exercise, feel free to restore it alongside the NYT. --
1587:
We appear to be way overdue for some third-party oversight here. We have contentious and obnoxious disruptive behavior happening.
759:
883:
formal legal action), and "Not a party, but involved" (which establishes the scope of the article as quite broad and inclusive).
2853:
2700:
1497:
902:
Meanwhile, a blanket exclusion based on the precise type or stage of a legal case does not seem to be supported by policy. --
395:
168:"Itās unclear what impact, if any, this ruling will have on other pending litigation involving Monsanto and its PCB history."
1022:
2956:
2056:
I'm failing to follow your thoughts here. I used the New York Times - the same source as is uncontroversially used in our
2060:
article - to source the division into ag and chem. That looks like an excellent source to me. But you think different? --
1507:
1142:. Yes it is still involved in cleanups from its prior involvement but your description is just wrong - wildly wrong.
2958:
have been filed that may affect this article. All editors wishing to make a comment should visit the pages linked to.
1185:
Commenting (for the first time) on the relevance of these clean-up cases, one key legal aspect is that, from the main
1395:
762:
aren't sufficient for inclusion. "Wait until the case is concluded" is absolutely not a standard we can use. On an
2241:
Did you see what I said about penis-measuring above? The sentence is perfectly well sourced as it stands. Cheers. --
1638:
noteworthy. However, some lawsuits are clearly noteworthy even before they're finished; when an article is getting
1415:
610:
Sounds like you're going off on a tangent here Tsavage. Discussing the content at hand, please remember the policy
38:
1944:
article. That should be fine for everyone. Now about the other content. Do we have anything better than a blog? --
2568:
2308:
2265:
2232:
2200:
2104:
1859:
1700:
47:
17:
1848:
703:"Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor."
2260:) and avoid using crude (and potentially sexist) references to certain parts of the male anatomy. Thanks, --
2900:
2826:
I fully support a request at noticeboard about the disruptive editor Pete, please keep me updated. Thanks.
1841:
is the form "companies must file with the SEC to announce major events that shareholders should know about"
1535:
427:
perspective, but it's noteworthiness is much more established than previous cases recently discussed here.
2930:
2876:
1470:
it may be best to persevere and insist that the dialogue and process do reach integrity and completeness.
1021:
about the lawsuit. This is where Pete's example differs from our issue here - lists of people fall under
839:
725:
680:
627:
599:
472:
432:
1925:
Primary sources are indeed discouraged. Please don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. We can both read
1644:
767:
2908:
2831:
2652:
2534:
2480:
1455:"This simple edit should not be taking hours of debate." I agree. Time to move on and do useful work. --
584:
192:
2257:
1996:
134:
were sued, when it was Monsanto that made the PCBs, and the title of the post-trial source article is
117:
is the entirety of the trial detail included (omitting much information from the cited sources, like,
2564:
2399:
2304:
2261:
2228:
2196:
2131:
2100:
1855:
1715:
1696:
1621:
1309:
1034:
457:
1926:
1900:
1612:
1608:
1547:
1534:
I have been careful to say "noteworthy", you keep talking about "notability." Please actually read
1225:
209:
1653:
783:
827:
615:
2848:
2695:
390:
2871:
on what to do here. If you want to to bring up an editor behavior issue, this is not the place.
2558:
The second paragraph of the filing states: "Monsanto has agreed, as between Solutia and itself,
2473:
in a list of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010" and one of the "Top Five Blogs TIME Writers Read Daily"
1940:
I've replaced the primary source with the secondary source ā the New York Times ā we use in the
1543:
823:
750:
448:
2959:
2926:
2872:
2784:
2582:
2549:
2507:
2458:
2433:
2369:
2323:
2289:
2246:
2215:
2165:
2065:
2031:
1949:
1912:
1881:
1829:
1799:
1785:
1741:
1681:
1592:
1574:
1525:
1475:
1460:
1428:
1383:
1325:
1291:
1195:
1098:
991:
957:
930:
907:
854:
835:
813:
721:
710:
676:
660:
649:
623:
595:
549:
468:
428:
414:
362:
327:
319:
266:
240:
217:
178:
100:
611:
2964:
2953:
2934:
2904:
2880:
2858:
2835:
2827:
2788:
2705:
2656:
2648:
2586:
2572:
2553:
2538:
2530:
2511:
2484:
2476:
2462:
2437:
2403:
2373:
2327:
2312:
2293:
2269:
2250:
2236:
2219:
2204:
2169:
2135:
2108:
2069:
2035:
1953:
1916:
1885:
1863:
1833:
1803:
1789:
1745:
1719:
1704:
1685:
1673:
1657:
1625:
1596:
1578:
1563:
1559:
1529:
1479:
1464:
1432:
1408:
1404:
1387:
1357:
1353:
1329:
1295:
1258:
1254:
1237:
1233:
1199:
1151:
1147:
1102:
1056:
1052:
1038:
995:
961:
934:
911:
858:
843:
817:
802:
798:
787:
729:
714:
684:
664:
631:
603:
588:
580:
553:
476:
461:
436:
418:
400:
366:
331:
270:
244:
221:
196:
188:
182:
104:
2868:
2453:
We still have an unsourced sentence in the section. Does anybody have a reliable source? --
2300:
1776:
1763:
1313:
831:
698:
671:
2395:
2127:
1711:
1617:
1030:
453:
2864:
1551:
1026:
775:
619:
694:"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monsanto legal cases article."
1649:
779:
771:
2843:
2690:
1736:
iscussing that. You began an edit war, and your next reversion will be your third. --
1420:
1305:
1044:
744:
Wait, wait, back up a step. The important thing isn't the progress of the suit; the
385:
2780:
2578:
2545:
2503:
2454:
2429:
2365:
2319:
2299:
Just because we are volunteers does not mean we should not act professionally (see
2285:
2242:
2224:
2211:
2161:
2088:
2061:
2027:
1945:
1908:
1877:
1825:
1795:
1781:
1737:
1677:
1588:
1570:
1521:
1471:
1456:
1424:
1379:
1321:
1287:
1191:
1127:
1094:
987:
953:
926:
903:
850:
849:
policy, not what someone asserts is policy unjustifiably. I am listening. Are you?
809:
706:
656:
545:
410:
358:
323:
315:
262:
236:
213:
174:
96:
2779:
attacks have no impact, except to help convince me that I'm on the right track. --
1555:
1400:
1349:
1250:
1229:
1143:
1048:
794:
166:
while the one post-trial source (the other source is a pre-trial article) says,
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2097:"Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both."
2364:
That's a guideline. I think the NYT is a sufficiently authoritative source. --
622:
and WEIGHT. Beyond that, it's not apparent you have a specific content issue.
2281:
153:
You say that Monsanto manufactured PCBs until 1977; the sources say 1977 is
1695:, primary sources are perfectly acceptable (and indeed, more accurate). --
1611:
in this section and the rfc below, the only potentially applicable part of
1304:"Completeness is a desired goal for an encyclopedia." Let's just finish up
261:
I read the sources, buddy. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise? Geez. --
2156:
Unjustified? That's rubbish. The NYT (or any other good secondary source)
2498:
2276:
2057:
1941:
1907:
Quoting from a primary source, as is the case here, seems to be ideal. --
1840:
1821:
1186:
2863:
This is inappropriate discussion for an article talk page. Please read
2092:
1692:
2955:
case and a AE request to apply pseudoscience discretionary sanctions
127:
Why did the jury find for the defendant? (It's there in the sources.)
766:
basis, we can argue over whether a particular case might fall under
2689:
I completely agree, Gandydancer. SageRad has my deep appreciation.
2428:
I think you are nit-picking here, but I take your point. Thanks. --
2925:
moved either way and not just leave mine as if it wasn't a reply.
2577:
Thanks. I just needed a few more swings of the machete, I find. --
705:
The focus is cn content, please don't try to spin it elsewhere. --
1845:"repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors"
25:
1249:
kinds of arguments have been made in this litigation so far.
770:, but each case that has attracted enough attention to pass
157:
which isn't the best source for that unattributed statement.
2842:
What noticeboard is that? In all candor, I've lost track.
2019:"should be based on reliable, published secondary sources"
121:
citing negligence in the production and marketing of PCBs
1843:). Furthermore, Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines state that
594:
specific findings that wouldn't lead to inclusion here.
2893:
1773:
1770:
1767:
1710:
is now on you to discuss why that change is justified.
1669:
1634:
Belatedly: I agree that the filing of lawsuits is not
1131:
740:
Recent reverts / Spokane and San Jose cleanup lawsuits.
212:, it's not as if I have any ownership of the thing. --
90:
Monsanto found not liable for PCB injuries in St Louis
2560:
to assume financial responsibility for all litigation
497:
Kingofaces43: In a recent discussion here, you said,
1138:) and became a business 100% focused on ag in 2000,
1554:. I encourage you to engage with those processes.
115:"not liable for deaths and injuries caused by PCBs"
1929:, and I'm not as big a fool as you seem to think:
1047:. I don't care where this content resides in WP.
1029:coverage, the general notability guideline is met.
164:"it looks to be setting some sort of precedent,"
143:There are also factual and verification errors:
670:I'm following policy for article talk pages by
1762:Skyring/Pete: Seems you've already broken the
1876:It sure does look like an edit war going on.
1308:, first. Only four poems from Nobel laureate
8:
1363:in Knowledge (XXG) articles until completed.
1312:in this poor excuse for a "list". No. We do
1766:rule, crossed the bright line, as it were:
873:Jytdog, on what basis are you saying that,
187:I concur with the observation from Tsavage.
2811:
876:"The filing of lawsuits is not noteworthy"
132:"Monsanto, Solutia, Pharmacia and Pfizer "
2096:
1844:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2890:Pete/Skyring is messing with comments
7:
138:(that explanation is in the sources)
1607:In response to repeated links to
136:"Monsanto prevails in PCB lawsuit"
24:
2892:, he recently moved mine in this
2529:editors have agreed to as well.
1895:"primary sources are discouraged"
1732:everted a part of it. We are now
1023:Knowledge (XXG):Stand-alone lists
984:List of people from San Francisco
29:
322:) 18:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)--
1724:Excuse me? Gandydancer made a
1:
2965:17:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
2935:20:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
2881:23:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2859:22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2836:04:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2789:23:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2706:23:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2657:22:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2587:22:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2573:22:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2554:21:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2539:21:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2512:19:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2485:12:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2463:04:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2438:22:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
2404:22:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
2374:21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
2328:23:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2313:22:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2294:19:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2270:15:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2251:04:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2237:00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2220:22:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
2205:22:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
2170:21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
2136:21:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
2109:21:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
2070:22:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
2036:21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1954:21:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1917:21:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1886:20:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1864:06:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
1834:20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1804:04:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
1790:21:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1746:20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1720:20:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1705:20:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1686:20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1658:01:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
730:01:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
715:01:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
685:23:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
665:23:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
632:22:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
604:22:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
589:12:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
554:05:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
477:03:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
462:02:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
1847:is disruptive editing (see
1626:20:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
1597:19:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1579:19:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1564:18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1530:17:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1480:16:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1465:16:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1433:19:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1409:18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1388:16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1358:15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1330:15:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1296:15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1259:18:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1238:15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1200:17:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1152:15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1103:17:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1057:15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
1039:07:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
996:06:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
962:04:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
935:03:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
912:03:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
859:14:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
844:14:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
818:12:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
803:23:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
788:21:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
437:18:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
419:21:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
401:18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
367:18:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
332:18:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
271:18:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
245:09:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
222:05:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
197:02:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
183:02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
155:"according to the lawsuit,"
105:21:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
2980:
2948:Arbcom, requests for cases
162:And here you comment that
18:Talk:Monsanto legal cases
2952:A request for an Arbcom
2258:Knowledge (XXG):Civility
130:You fail to clarify why
1516:(San Diego NBC channel)
672:focusing on the content
2816:Non-content discussion
1320:in Knowledge (XXG). --
1246:absolutely nothing new
42:of past discussions.
1508:The Spokesman-Review
1394:WP articles are not
1310:William Butler Yeats
697:conducted. You cite
2544:author on trust? --
1643:Also remember that
1546:, specifically per
1903:) is quite clear:
834:kicking up drama.
148:"St. Louis court,"
2944:
2943:
2917:
2903:comment added by
2023:"usually rely on"
1824:, for example. --
1664:Blogs and sources
1396:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2971:
2962:
2916:
2897:
2856:
2851:
2846:
2812:
2703:
2698:
2693:
1728:old edit, and I
1674:Climate Progress
1552:resolve disputes
1503:Washington Times
653:
398:
393:
388:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2979:
2978:
2974:
2973:
2972:
2970:
2969:
2968:
2960:
2950:
2945:
2898:
2854:
2849:
2844:
2817:
2701:
2696:
2691:
2565:Notecardforfree
2305:Notecardforfree
2262:Notecardforfree
2229:Notecardforfree
2197:Notecardforfree
2101:Notecardforfree
2017:The reason for
1856:Notecardforfree
1849:WP:DISRUPTSIGNS
1697:Notecardforfree
1666:
742:
647:
396:
391:
386:
210:add more detail
92:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2977:
2975:
2949:
2946:
2942:
2941:
2940:
2939:
2938:
2937:
2919:
2918:
2886:
2885:
2884:
2883:
2861:
2819:
2818:
2815:
2810:
2808:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2792:
2791:
2757:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2718:
2717:
2716:
2715:
2714:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2672:
2671:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2597:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2091:, please read
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1920:
1919:
1892:Skyring/Pete:
1889:
1888:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1665:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1600:
1599:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1511:
1505:
1500:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1346:don't know yet
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1299:
1298:
1283:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
917:
916:
915:
914:
897:
896:
895:
894:
887:
886:
885:
884:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
830:, and move on
741:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
701:, which says,
688:
687:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
608:
607:
606:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
424:
423:
422:
421:
404:
403:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
227:
226:
225:
224:
202:
201:
200:
199:
170:
160:
159:
158:
151:
146:You call it a
141:
140:
139:
128:
125:
122:
91:
88:
85:
84:
79:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2976:
2967:
2966:
2963:
2957:
2954:
2947:
2936:
2932:
2928:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2914:
2910:
2906:
2902:
2895:
2891:
2888:
2887:
2882:
2878:
2874:
2870:
2866:
2862:
2860:
2857:
2852:
2847:
2841:
2840:
2839:
2838:
2837:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2821:
2820:
2814:
2813:
2809:
2790:
2786:
2782:
2778:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2707:
2704:
2699:
2694:
2688:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2658:
2654:
2650:
2645:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2588:
2584:
2580:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2570:
2566:
2561:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2551:
2547:
2542:
2541:
2540:
2536:
2532:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2500:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2486:
2482:
2478:
2474:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2460:
2456:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2310:
2306:
2302:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2278:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2234:
2230:
2226:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2159:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
1998:
1994:
1991:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1930:
1928:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1896:
1891:
1890:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1874:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1852:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1778:
1774:
1771:
1768:
1765:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1646:
1641:
1637:
1636:automatically
1633:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1538:- it applies
1537:
1536:WP:NOTABILITY
1533:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1520:
1515:
1512:
1509:
1506:
1504:
1501:
1499:
1496:
1495:
1493:
1492:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1421:chili peppers
1417:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1397:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1365:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:of the filing
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1306:List of poems
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
997:
993:
989:
985:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
963:
959:
955:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
936:
932:
928:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
913:
909:
905:
901:
900:
899:
898:
891:
890:
889:
888:
882:
878:
877:
872:
871:
870:
869:
860:
856:
852:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
826:, especially
825:
821:
820:
819:
815:
811:
806:
805:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
752:
747:
739:
731:
727:
723:
718:
717:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
695:
692:
691:
690:
689:
686:
682:
678:
673:
669:
668:
667:
666:
662:
658:
651:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
555:
551:
547:
544:criterion. --
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
500:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
478:
474:
470:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
450:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
434:
430:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:
406:
405:
402:
399:
394:
389:
382:
381:
368:
364:
360:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
246:
242:
238:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
223:
219:
215:
211:
206:
205:
204:
203:
198:
194:
190:
186:
185:
184:
180:
176:
171:
169:
165:
161:
156:
152:
149:
145:
144:
142:
137:
133:
129:
126:
123:
120:
116:
113:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
102:
98:
89:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2961:AlbinoFerret
2951:
2927:Kingofaces43
2899:āĀ Preceding
2889:
2873:Kingofaces43
2823:
2807:
2776:
2559:
2472:
2452:
2157:
2022:
2018:
1989:
1987:
1932:
1904:
1894:
1893:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1667:
1645:WP:RECENTISM
1639:
1635:
1539:
1345:
1341:
1317:
1245:
1140:15 years ago
1139:
1136:35 years ago
1135:
1090:
880:
875:
874:
836:Kingofaces43
768:WP:RECENTISM
763:
745:
743:
722:Kingofaces43
702:
693:
677:Kingofaces43
650:Kingofaces43
646:
624:Kingofaces43
596:Kingofaces43
498:
469:Kingofaces43
429:Kingofaces43
425:
167:
163:
154:
147:
135:
131:
118:
114:
93:
65:
43:
37:
2905:Prokaryotes
2828:prokaryotes
2649:Gandydancer
2531:Gandydancer
2477:Gandydancer
2282:See page 36
1997:WP:ANALYSIS
581:Gandydancer
189:prokaryotes
36:This is an
2777:ad-hominem
2396:Dialectric
2128:Dialectric
1927:WP:PRIMARY
1901:WP:PRIMARY
1897:- Not true
1712:Dialectric
1618:Dialectric
1613:WP:NOTNEWS
1609:WP:NOTNEWS
1548:WP:NOTNEWS
1318:everything
1226:WP:NOTNEWS
1031:Dialectric
832:instead of
764:individual
454:Dialectric
2867:, namely
1670:this edit
1650:Aquillion
1510:(Spokane)
1244:There is
1132:you wrote
828:WP:LISTEN
780:Aquillion
616:WP:WEIGHT
614:, namely
449:WP:POINTy
82:ArchiveĀ 5
77:ArchiveĀ 4
72:ArchiveĀ 3
66:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
2913:contribs
2901:unsigned
2499:Monsanto
2277:Monsanto
2126:content.
2058:Monsanto
1993:source."
1990:Policy:'
1942:Monsanto
1822:Monsanto
1544:WP:UNDUE
1514:NBC News
1187:Monsanto
824:WP:STICK
751:WP:UNDUE
452:sources.
2824:Comment
2225:Skyring
2093:MOS:LAW
2089:Skyring
2028:Tsavage
1909:Tsavage
1878:SageRad
1782:Tsavage
1693:MOS:LAW
1589:SageRad
1571:SageRad
1522:SageRad
1498:Reuters
1472:SageRad
1425:SageRad
1380:SageRad
1288:SageRad
1192:Tsavage
1128:Tsavage
1095:Tsavage
954:Tsavage
904:Tsavage
851:SageRad
810:SageRad
707:Tsavage
657:Tsavage
612:WP:NPOV
546:Tsavage
324:Tsavage
316:Tsavage
237:Tsavage
175:Tsavage
39:archive
2869:WP:FOC
2303:). --
2301:WP:IUC
1851:). --
1777:WP:BRD
1640:direct
1556:Jytdog
1401:Jytdog
1350:Jytdog
1251:Jytdog
1230:Jytdog
1144:Jytdog
1130:above
1049:Jytdog
881:before
795:Jytdog
699:WP:FOC
2865:WP:DR
1668:With
1370:that?
1316:list
1027:WP:RS
776:WP:RS
620:WP:RS
16:<
2931:talk
2909:talk
2894:edit
2877:talk
2832:talk
2785:talk
2781:Pete
2653:talk
2583:talk
2579:Pete
2569:talk
2550:talk
2546:Pete
2535:talk
2508:talk
2504:Pete
2481:talk
2459:talk
2455:Pete
2434:talk
2430:Pete
2400:talk
2370:talk
2366:Pete
2324:talk
2320:Pete
2309:talk
2290:talk
2286:Pete
2284:) --
2266:talk
2247:talk
2243:Pete
2233:talk
2216:talk
2212:Pete
2201:talk
2166:talk
2162:Pete
2132:talk
2105:talk
2066:talk
2062:Pete
2032:talk
2021:and
1950:talk
1946:Pete
1913:talk
1882:talk
1860:talk
1830:talk
1826:Pete
1800:talk
1796:Pete
1786:talk
1742:talk
1738:Pete
1716:talk
1701:talk
1691:Per
1682:talk
1678:Pete
1654:talk
1622:talk
1593:talk
1575:talk
1560:talk
1540:only
1526:talk
1476:talk
1461:talk
1457:Pete
1429:talk
1416:this
1405:talk
1384:talk
1374:add.
1354:talk
1326:talk
1322:Pete
1292:talk
1255:talk
1234:talk
1196:talk
1148:talk
1099:talk
1053:talk
1045:here
1035:talk
992:talk
988:Pete
958:talk
931:talk
927:Pete
908:talk
855:talk
840:talk
814:talk
799:talk
784:talk
774:and
772:WP:V
760:this
758:and
756:this
746:only
726:talk
711:talk
681:talk
661:talk
628:talk
600:talk
585:talk
550:talk
473:talk
458:talk
433:talk
415:talk
411:Pete
363:talk
359:Pete
328:talk
320:talk
267:talk
263:Pete
241:talk
218:talk
214:Pete
193:talk
179:talk
101:talk
97:Pete
2855:fax
2845:Jus
2702:fax
2692:Jus
2099:--
1764:3RR
1314:not
397:fax
387:Jus
2933:)
2915:)
2911:ā¢
2879:)
2850:da
2834:)
2787:)
2697:da
2655:)
2585:)
2571:)
2552:)
2537:)
2510:)
2483:)
2461:)
2436:)
2402:)
2372:)
2326:)
2318:--
2311:)
2292:)
2268:)
2249:)
2235:)
2218:)
2210:--
2203:)
2168:)
2158:is
2134:)
2107:)
2095::
2068:)
2034:)
2026:--
1995:-
1952:)
1915:)
1884:)
1862:)
1832:)
1802:)
1788:)
1780:--
1775:.
1772:,
1769:,
1744:)
1718:)
1703:)
1684:)
1656:)
1648:--
1624:)
1595:)
1577:)
1562:)
1528:)
1478:)
1463:)
1431:)
1407:)
1386:)
1356:)
1328:)
1294:)
1257:)
1236:)
1198:)
1150:)
1101:)
1093:--
1055:)
1037:)
994:)
960:)
933:)
925:--
910:)
857:)
842:)
816:)
801:)
786:)
728:)
713:)
683:)
663:)
630:)
602:)
587:)
552:)
475:)
460:)
435:)
417:)
392:da
365:)
330:)
314:--
269:)
243:)
235:--
220:)
195:)
181:)
173:--
103:)
95:--
2929:(
2907:(
2875:(
2830:(
2822:*
2783:(
2651:(
2581:(
2567:(
2548:(
2533:(
2506:(
2479:(
2457:(
2432:(
2398:(
2368:(
2322:(
2307:(
2288:(
2280:(
2264:(
2245:(
2231:(
2214:(
2199:(
2164:(
2130:(
2103:(
2064:(
2030:(
1988:"
1948:(
1911:(
1880:(
1858:(
1828:(
1798:(
1784:(
1740:(
1734:d
1730:r
1726:b
1714:(
1699:(
1680:(
1652:(
1620:(
1591:(
1573:(
1558:(
1524:(
1474:(
1459:(
1427:(
1403:(
1382:(
1352:(
1324:(
1290:(
1253:(
1232:(
1194:(
1146:(
1097:(
1051:(
1033:(
990:(
956:(
929:(
906:(
853:(
838:(
812:(
797:(
782:(
724:(
709:(
679:(
659:(
652::
648:@
626:(
598:(
583:(
548:(
471:(
456:(
431:(
413:(
361:(
326:(
318:(
265:(
239:(
216:(
191:(
177:(
99:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.