Talk:Percy Schmeiser

message: He deliberately collected seeds from previous crop and used them? Or was that another case. which is a clear breach of copyright! Im fairly sure it was this case!--139.216.248.236 (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  He deliberately collected seeds from previous crop and use them? 

message: Doing research on GMOs, I found this article to be overly-sympathetic to Schmeiser. I've listed below specific passages and why I believe them in need of alteration of potential violations of WP:NPOV. These issues are with the sections #Monsanto v. Schmeiser, and #Other accomplishments.
#  – the word 'surprisingly' is being used here to lead the reader to the idea that Schmeiser is not liable for the glyphosate-resistant seeds in his farm, and begins the whole problem.
#  – is his intention important to note here? The legal case wasn't concerned of what use the seeds were used for, and makes no difference either way.
#  – this is phrased as a fact, as if to make a justification of his actions.
#  – WHAT? This is the part that really set off alarms. The sentence makes a sudden shift towards being unbashfully sympathetic. It's just hearsay and opinion stated as a fact.
#  – for those unfamiliar, for millennia, farmers have been reusing seeds from previous harvests, saving them for future use, giving them to friends and family, and selectively breeding variants for various purposes (different or better taste, more resistant to the local climate, resistance to pests or droughts, better yield, greater density of planting, genetic diversity, among many other reasons). However, this is not a 'right' given to anyone, but a long-running practice. With the introduction of GM seeds, farmers are coerced to repay for each years' seeds, discarding of the previous years' ones. The change is the result of the application of patent law to plant seed. And indeed, the primary issue is on the ownership of seeds from patented plants, but that argument isn't made here.
#  – seems sus. It is backed by an inline citation, though the title of the article is "How Monsanto harasses farmers/GM-free zones for Oz", and it very much is an opinionated text, using words like "wrath," "sunk," "hard-earned," "groundless." Their logo is also comical—a bioweapon warning label with dollar dollar bills, yo. The 'source' sources itself back to Schmeiser's own (now-defunct) website. Hardly seems to back up this claim.
#  – This makes him out to be some speaker-of-truth, spreading information around the globe! In reality, speaking engagements don't mean much. Climate deniers get speaking engagements around the world, too!
#  – sourced to the article above and to a new site, which seems even less reputable.
#  – the issue with this is not with the content (it all reads unbiased), but the order of the sentences. He lost this case. The thing he did win was to not pay court fees or the patent fees, but that isn't the primary issue in the court case.
#  – this and the section title "other accomplishments" are aggrandizing to his character.
#  and  are unsourced. "Working for the good of society"? What?
#  – lol. lmao. Not applicable whatsoever.
The purpose of these sections is not to inform, but to present Percy Schmeiser as David fighting Goliath. The main article, Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, is neutral in tone and content, but the sections on this page are not. These are concerns on how Schmeiser is presented will lead to a biased POV. Content in #Other accomplishments need to be verifiable, its section renamed, and #Monsanto v. Schmeiser needs to be rewritten based on the content in the main court case article. SWinxy (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issues