Talk:Percy Schmeiser
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
The page on Percy Schmeiser as it exists today contains extensive discussion regarding the legal case of Monsanto Canada vs. Schmeiser. All of that material should be moved to the existing article Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser.
Also, the Percy Schmeiser article appears shallow and biased. For example:
Mr. Schmeiser is identified as someone who "became an international symbol and spokesperson for independent farmers' rights...." Yet nothing is said about these obviously important activities. There are no references to such organizations in the article, whether or not they exist yet in Wikipedia.
There is no "David vs. Goliath" quote and examples, which virtually every news article feels compelled to make, because this lone Canadian farmer and politician has taken on one of the biggest chemical companies in the world, severely burdening his family in the process. After all, Monsanto only obtained a $20,000 judgment in the lower court, yet Mr. Schmeiser has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees. Monsanto's own lawyer expenses must be much larger. This is obviously a dispute about principles, rather than collecting seed money.
There is a seemingly irrelevant discussion at the bottom of Percy Schmeiser about a dispute with the Bruno council, of which Mr. Schmeiser was a member. If this is significant, some context and references should be offered.
Re the court decisions discussed in Percy Schmeiser:
The lower court decision (which should be discussed in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser) was overturned in part, yet it is quoted extensively.
Although the lower court found factually against Mr. Schmeiser, the Canada Supreme Court (which could not easily overturn factual findings of a lower court) eliminated the monetary judgment in favor of Monsanto.
We could use some cogent analysis as to how the courts treated the parties and as to the significance of the decisions for independent farmers and for intellectual property rights.
- There are only 3 facts relevant in this case. 1. Schmeiser claimed RR Canola arrived on his farm by accident 2. 95-98% of Schmeiser's 1998 Canola crop was RR. 3. Such a level of purity cannot arrive by accident. Conclusion: Schmeiser is a liar and a thief. I believe the article does mention that you are not going to be in trouble from Monsanto if your crop becomes accidently contaminated with patented GM seeds. However, you will be in trouble if you deliberately select for the GM seeds and then plant them. This is the same as pirateing a DVD and is illegal. I don't see bias in the article. You see bias because Schmeiser is not portrayed as a hero but rather the facts in the case are discussed. Ttguy 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dispute
2 out of 3 links dead. INCORRECT ONLY ONE IS DEAD The one that is working is linked to an article that says he is a member of parliament and then clarifies that as provincial parliament. There is no mention of the federal parliament as this paragraph suggests. THIS SITE WAS CHANGED AFTER THE STORY BROKE There was no false presentation as the article states that he was a MPP (member of provincial parliament). PLEASE SEE http://celticlad.wordpress.com/files/2006/08/pschmeiser.pdf FOR THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE WHERE THE FALSE PRESENTATION WAS MADE
I don't know who put those statements in but the veracity of them is quite wrong.
Shane Morris, a discredited scientist and paid advocate of the bio-tech industry, has used this page to promote his own pro-biotech agenda. He has repeatedly posted links to his blog questioning Percy Schmeiser's elected status. Whether Schmeiser was elected to the provincial parliament back in 1967 (as his bio correctly states) or the federal parliament (which a group in Ireland mistakenly introduced as a member of Canada's parliament) is irrelevant. Morris feels that using this form to attack Schmeiser and repeatedly post his links to his blog adds value this site, but in fact it is irrelevant and who cares. Morris is a discredited "scientist" as he had his contract terminated by the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency because he acted more as a lobbyist for the biotech industry instead of an impartial scientist. His repeated posting to this site proves that the CFIA was taking the right action in dismissing him. It is very sad and pathetic that the bio-tech lobby uses measures such as Shane Morris, but I guess it speaks to their desperation.
The references are to a blog that is pro GMO biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.108.203 (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Proposed Merge
Base on the previous comments, I have added a suggested merge tag to the Monsanto v. Schmeiser section, and a matching tag in the suggested merge destination article. Regarding whether this article should be eliminated entirely, I would say no. Based on Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, Schmeiser would satisfy "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" as well as many of the alternative tests. Kenj0418 01:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
