Talk:Percy Schmeiser/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucewphillips (talk • contribs) 02:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Dispute

On July 2, 2006 it was exposed that Percy Schmeiser had been falsely presented to the Irish public as a “former member of the Canadian Parliament”. See http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/2006/08/scandal-rocks-schmeiser-gm-free.html

2 out of 3 links 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. There was no false presentation as the article states that he was a MPP (member of provincial parliament).

On November 16, 2006 it was exposed that Percy Schmeiser falsely presented himself as previously being "a Canadian Member of Parliament at one time" while speaking in Berkeley, CA, USA. see http://gmoireland.blogspot.com/2006/11/new-percy-schmeiser-scandal-hits-us.html

Linked to a page where an MP3 with what I assume is Percy Schmeiser's voice stating that he was a member of parliament. Again no falsehood was made since neither provincial nor federal levels were implied.

I don't know who put those statements in but the veracity of them is quite wrong.

The references are to a blog that is pro GMO biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.108.203 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE IN BOLD

INCORRECT ONLY ONE IS DEAD

THIS SITE WAS CHANGED AFTER THE STORY BROKE

PLEASE SEE http://celticlad.wordpress.com/files/2006/08/pschmeiser.pdf FOR THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE WHERE THE FALSE PRESENTATION WAS MADE

THE TERM "MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT" (MP) IS A CLEAR LEGAL TERM RESERVED FOR THE USE OF A FEDERAL MPs IN CANADA WHICH PERCY SCHMEISER NEVER WAS....TO USE THE TERM DIRECTLY IN REFERENCE TO PERCY SCHMEISER IS INCORRECT AND MISLEADING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.69.84 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richards77 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Percy Schmeiser/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The background of the article is disappointing as it appears there has been an attempt by the bio-tech industry to hi-jack the site with useless statements and innuendo. The links outlining the time line are more valuable that what has been written. At least they are provided in an unbiased manner and do not take things out of context.

Substituted at 21:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

comment

Was he growing canola to sell to a canola processing plant or is he a seed grower - ie grows plants in order to sell seeds to other farmers. If one, he is totally getting screwed, if the other, he may be trying to sell seeds that go a touch beyond his own invention. Keeping your own seeds must/should/? be okay, but trying to sell to others may be a no-no. I have never heard what type of grower he is - regular farmer or seed producer, any info. 159.105.81.31 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I heard about this on NPR/FreeSpeech but there were vague spots in the story - this was one of them. Percy was a bit smooth to be a staight farmer it seemed to me - but of course NPR wasn't going to ruin a good story by saying Percy was a competeing businessman to Monsanto ( I agree a real bunch of lowlifes, but they may have company) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.81.31 (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: removal of Quotes section

I reverted this removal of the Quotes section, with the edit note "excessive coverage." The Quotes section has been there for at least 10 years, so removing it entirely without discussion seems drastic. How are those particular quotes, concerning Schmeiser's extended legal dispute with Monsanto, "excessive coverage," in an article about a person who is notable in Wikipedia entirely for his involvement in that dispute? --Tsavage (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

thank you for tracking down the whole citation for the Acres interview. I didn't realize how much Schmeiser obscured his own actions when he told the story. My goodness no one wonder so many people misunderstand the story. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Percy Schmeiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061028103649/http://www.saskarchives.com/web/seld/2-13.pdf to http://www.saskarchives.com/web/seld/2-13.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

this is when it started

Yes, it's horrific how companies are allowed to enforce patents according to law.92.149.47.109 (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)