Talk:Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser

Untitled
Based on the discussions on the Percy Schmeiser page, I added a suggested merge tag there and a machine one here. Kenj0418 01:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the small page should just be deleted. It does not appear to have any extra info that the large page (Percy Schmeiser ) has Ttguy 22:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think merging the case article into the bio would be that good an idea. There are many famous litigants, such as Morgentaler and Marshall, none of which have the cases within their article. To do otherwise would set a precedent that would be awkward when applied to many other similar case articles. The fact of the matter is the Percy Schmeiser article is more about the case than the person himself, and so the case title would be more appropriate for most of the text. --PullUpYourSocks 03:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Monsanto vs... section from the Schmeiser bio page should be merged here, and the bio itself should remain. The case is certainly sufficiently complex, well-known, and generally important as a current affairs-related issue (among others) to warrant its own article. The bio also should also, naturally, remain. In this instance, beyond the fact that Schmeiser is a notable figure by virtue of the case itself, his prominent and active international role as a spokesperson for the anti-GMO movement (a result of the case), and his quite interesting separate battle with his hometown of Bruno (possibly relevant background to his Monsanto battle), clearly require a separate bio. --Tsavage 21:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, the Percy Schmseiser article should stay. Looks good as is. --PullUpYourSocks 02:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ganarfelnaf.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

reverting the cleanup
I have noticed that my attempt to cleanup this article has been reverted, which is unfortunate because it has made it a much poorer article. In my defence against having "decimated" the pre-cleanup version I would say that I did anything but. The version that I had cleaned up focused on just the basic facts that are needed to understand what the supreme court said and was easy to understand. As the article is now it is very difficult to read and is generally very messy. It contains far too much insignificant information from the trial, it is not organized into any coherent fashion, contains some confused statements of the law, and mixes fact and opinion without citing anything. I would recommend reverting it back to the version from 15:16, 10 March 2006 --PullUpYourSocks 05:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article needs to be edited down quite a bit, but I find your major edit wiped out much of the important and interesting detail. Since this a complicated case, and it also received a lot of publicity over several years, stripping it down to a barebones outline IMO doesn't properly serve the subject. I'll try to clear up the main dense block... --Tsavage 07:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes on major revision started March 2006
I've started to clean up the article. Here is the pre-clean-up version for quick reference; it can be used to check the diffs between any subsequent version.

I'm using the following outline, taken from an Australina case article. I'm not sure if there are other conventions for Canadian case coverage, however, this is practical for organizing and editing down. If there is another format, it can perhaps be updated after the article is in better shape. These are the four main text sections I've installed:


 * Background includes setting up the case and the previous trials.
 * Arguments includes the substance of the Supreme Court trial, including reference to the final ruling.
 * Judgement summarizes the results (which have been discussed in part in the previous section)
 * Consequences summarizes all post-trial occurrences, discussion of the impact of the ruling, related "trivia", and so forth.

I don't know how long it might take me if I do it alone, so contributions are encouraged. I think much of it is simply reducing the redundancies in the text and writing in a more summary style. At least, that's what I'm planning to do. --Tsavage 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job on the edit Ttguy 05:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's looking much better. I doubt I will have time to re-read the judgment any time too soon, but I hope to help out when I can. --PullUpYourSocks 14:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Assessment
I gave today's version of the article a rating of Start class. While it has a lot of content, it needs verifiable external references - especially in the "Consequences" section, which appears to be entirely unreferenced.  PK T  13:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

publicity section
I removed the publicity section on Nov 4, and the section at that was unsourced and had been tagged as such by a different editor. I am very unhappy with the edit note left by in this diff which says "restored long-standing Publicity section, fully sourced; deleted as unsourced 4 Nov 2014" which makes it appear that I was lying when I reverted it on the grounds that it was unsourced. I understand that edit notes require terseness but it would have been quite easy to write "with sources added". TSavage, I know we cannot edit, edit notes, but please acknowledge that you added sources when you restored the content, and please acknowledge that per the policy, WP:VERIFY, my deletion had grounds in policy because the content was indeed unsourced at that time. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The section is decently sourced now. In these diffs I added clarification about cases and jurisdiction and  revised the last part, which was flat-out wrong and contradicted by the source. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The section is decently sourced because it was deleted as unsourced so I sourced it and restored it. This is what the edit note I left says (semicolon emphasis added):
 * restored long-standing Publicity section, fully sourced;SEMICOLON deleted as unsourced 4 Nov 2014
 * If anything is unclear, it's easy to compare the revisions, as I left the date of the deletion and they're only a few revisions apart. I mention long-standing simply to clarify that this wasn't a whole new section dropped in - sometimes people care about such things. It's great that you edited it. It's unfortunate that you are very unhappy? --Tsavage (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying! Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You would not believe the kind of crap accusations that get thrown at me for my work on GMO/Monsanto stuff and dealing with FRINGE stuff. I appreciate you taking the time to do that. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed a lot of this section because there is simply no RS for the statements. Statements that it was a "David and Goliath battle" and that Schmeiser is "articulate etc" are revealed to have come from a spokesman for an ant-GM lobby group and Schmeiser's own website. These are not reliable sources for statements of fact. While they might merit inclusion under WP:RSOPINION, they need to be clearly labelled as being the opinion of biased sources, not presented as facts. If we do decide to include such opinions from pro-Schmeiser sources, we also need to devote equal space to the opinions of anti-Schmeiser sources to maintain NPOV.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the later references, I note that some of these statements are reliably sourced... just not in the references that were given as sources. However these reliable sources are not nearly so one-sided as the material in this article indicated. Right from the beginning, this was being portrayed in two ways, just as it is now. It was never just portrayed as a David and Goliath battle, it was just as often portrayed as simple theft by Schmeiser and his innocence was always strongly called into question. Statements that the parties were "well suited" to their roles or that Schmeiser was articulate etc. still lack reliable sources. If we are going to include material from pro-Schemeiser sources describing him, then we are necessarily going to have to include material from pro-Monsanto sources, presumably describing them as an industrious, law-abiding business struggling to feed the world in the face of theft and dishonesty by unscrupulous businessmen like Schmeiser.Mark Marathon (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Mark Marathon: The section as it was before your edits is not one-sided or unduly weighted, it is about the predominant coverage, and points out that Schmeiser was not a "simple farmer" but in fact an articulate and practiced politician, who was well-supported by environmental and anti-GMO activists. Your edits misrepresent the media coverage around the case, giving undue weight to the visibility of anti-Schmeiser coverage. "Mainstream media" at the least portrayed it as a case of farmer vs Monsanto, an anti-Schmeiser side was never widely presented, while your edits give the impression that the coverage was balanced between pro and anti. About as neutral, comprehensive and accurate a mainstream article as I could find (you should read it if you haven't) comes from the New York Times, summing up the entire case, where the lead sentence is:


 * TORONTO, May 21, 2004 In a case central to the international debate over the right to patent gene-engineered organisms, Canada's Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a Saskatchewan farmer infringed Monsanto's patent on genetically modified canola, even though he said the seeds landed in his fields by accident. New York Times: Monsanto Wins Patent Case On Plant Genes


 * Other media, like the CBC (Canada's national radio and TV network) in the news article cited here, which also reviews the entire case and decision from all sides, leads off with : "It was billed by some as a classic David-and-Goliath confrontation between a Saskatchewan family farmer and biotech giant Monsanto Canada." CBC: Percy Schmeiser's Battle The general media characterization seems to be independent farmer vs big biotech corporation. What is here is reliably sourced and there are many more sources available.


 * Unfortunately, your sources are all less than reliable for the way they are used here. You cite three news media sources, but all three articles are opinion pieces, not news articles, and represent the sole views of their respective authors. As you said, there are lots of partisan pieces out there both pro and anti-Schmeiser, but the Publicity section before your edits was not based on them but on what was predominant in the news media, what the public would read as the objective truth of the matter, the news, not opinion.


 * Kevin Hursh is an agricultural communicator and farmer from Saskatchewan. His piece "Don't pity poor Percy" is a commentary from the The Leader-Post
 * Robert Wager is a biologist. His "Convicted Farmer Makes Unlikely Hero for Rural Lifestyle" (April 15, 2005) is an opinion piece in the StarPhoenix, which was rebutted in the same paper in a follow-up article: "Viewpoint author's use of facts selective" (April 21, 2005) which presents Schmeiser's responses to Wager comments.
 * Joe Schwarcz is director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society. His "When excuses won’t fly: No seed of doubt in canola trial. Farmer claim’s he’s victim of corporate cruelty but explanations don’t stand up to scrutiny" in the Montreal Gazette, is an opinion piece (it begins: "Way back in Grade 6, a couple of friends and I did something that I'm not proud of. We shot a bird.")


 * Two of your citations, for Schwarcz and Wager, don't lead to online versions however there is more available online:
 * Reference to the Wager article and the entire rebuttal are at StarPhoenix: Schmeiser exposes Wager's industry spin.
 * Schwarcz (and Hursh) can be read here: MONSANTO vs. SHMEISER: Case Study (Iowa State University) (where they are presented as source material for arguing a pro-Monsanto case).


 * Hopefully you can take this into account in your edits. --Tsavage (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all clear on what pints you are trying t make, so I will address the issues as I see them:
 * 1) ""Mainstream media" at the least portrayed it as a case of farmer vs Monsanto, an anti-Schmeiser side was never widely presented". That is your recollection. Mine is different. I am an agricultural scientist, my wife is a PhD in biotech, so we were well aware of the case, but we do not remember any imbalance of the type you describe. That is probably because we were getting news from different sources. We were getting news from agricultural and scientific journals. You were presumably getting it from other sources. Regardless of the reasons, you need to present evidence of this claim for it to have any legs. A meta-analysis of the reporting from a reliable source ideally. Until then, we need to provide balance, not just accept your memory of how the coverage was biased at the time.
 * 2)The CBC article that you yourself added as a RS is not in any way as one-sided as you claim. the phrasing "The contest was portrayed by some as a classic David-and-Goliath confrontation between small farmer and Monsanto, while others portrayed it as as a case of the blatant theft of years of research and development" is a close paraphrasing of your own CBC reference, which makes your claims that mainstream media portrayed it as a case of farmer vs Monsanto implausible. Dmeonstrab;e, CBC did not portray it that way. they portrayed both sides, just as the article now says.
 * 3)The NY Times article that you link to is also not obviously biased. It reports the facts of the case. It quotes reactions from anti-GM lobbyists, Schmeiser, Monsanto, patent lawyers and a spokesman for the Center for Food Safety. I have no idea how you conclude that this article is pro-Schmeiser. It seems largely neutral. If this is representative if the material of the time, as you claim, then we clearly need to remove your claims that it was portrayed as "David and Goliath" since there is no inkling of such a position in this article.
 * 4)Even the Mother Jones article doesn't portray this is a David and Goliath battle, noting that "While Schmeiser is often cast as David to Monsanto's Goliath, his innocence is anything but obvious" and having an entire section devoted "Monsanto's Side". When an unabahsedly left-leaning, pro-envionmentalist journal is presnting both sides, is critical of Schmeiser and explicitely states that this isn;t "David and Goliath", your claims appear untenable.
 * 5)Of course some of those sources are opinion pieces, that is the whole point. You opened the door to this by insisting that rallies and fundraisers by people who supported Schmeiser be included. That's fine, they are notable, but balance requires that we then give the reaction to those rallies of people who opposed Schmeiser. You can't just write an article on Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War without at least including the polarisation section to touch on alternative views. You seem to want to only mention positive reactions to Schmeiser in this section, but that would be a content fork and not allowable. until you can provide some reliable information concerning the relative coverage and reliability of both sides, we need to strive for balance: if we mention that there were fundraising drives for Schmeiser, we need to mention that there was opposition to those drives. The authors of these articles are authorities in their own right and published in reputable journals. WP:BIASED makes it quite clear that it's fine to include opinion pieces of this sort: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint... editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking". Those journals do meet those standards, the writers are authorities, so the material is acceptable in its own right. I believe I have gone further than I have to by stating that "Agricultural scientists and farmers" make these comments, rather than simply presenting them as fact.


 * 6) If the fact that some of these sources "are presented as source material for arguing a pro-Monsanto case" by some law school has any relevance, then we should note that several of your own sources are included as part of the anti-Monsanto case by the exact same law school. Of course this has no bearing on whether these are reliable sources, it seems to be just a backhand way of poisoning the well.Mark Marathon (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but David and Goliath in popular usage does not equate with right and wrong, pro-Schmeiser and anti-Schmeiser, it characterizes a situation where there is an imbalance between two competing parties, establishes an underdog, somebody expected to lose because they are matched out of their league. Sympathy may go with the underdog, but that doesn't make the underdog's cause more right or just. And the Goliath may be seen as a bully, but that doesn't make him wrong or unjust. The courts and the factual coverage of the decisions clearly reported that Schmeiser lost, Schmeiser was guilty, Monsanto won, and it also presented the two parties as farmer vs Monsanto, not pro- and anti-GMO forces, but "farmer vs Monsanto," that was a media choice, Schmeiser wan't investigated and muckraked, he was left to be a farmer against Monsanto. This Publicity section is describing that one aspect, how the media covered the event, it's not about partisan individuals and groups trying to promote guilt or innocence on either side.


 * 1) "we do not remember any imbalance of the type you describe. That is probably because we were getting news from different sources. We were getting news from agricultural and scientific journals." Those sound like "reliable sources," if their portrayal was not of a farmer vs big corporation, but something else, why not use them rather than op-ed pieces. But also keep in mind we are talking about the popular media, if those journals reach tens of thousands of scientists and other special interest groups versus hundreds of millions or billions of general news media consumers, then they would seem to have less weight in this case.


 * 2) "The CBC article that you yourself added as a RS is not in any way as one-sided as you claim." It's not expected to be one-sided, that's the point, it's supposed to be "news." Again, I'm not understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong. David and Goliath means one side is smaller and weaker. Schmeiser may have had donations, a defense fund, a high media profile, etc, but clearly, the court case was a big corporation versus a private individual, a single farmer of no great financial means. The "mainstream media" did not make an effort to offset Schmeiser's underdog appearance by constantly reporting on his decades in politics, checking into the opinions of the Roundup Ready farmers all around him, checking into his past for contentious behavior, anything like that, which they well could have done. None of that is evident in CBC or NYT or any of the other balanced coverage sources here.


 * 3) "The NY Times article that you link to is also not obviously biased." Exactly as for 2). They're not meant to be examples of bias, but of objective news reporting. The NYT article covers it well, but it does not try to offset the farmer vs Monsanto image, it furthers it right in the lead sentence: "a Saskatchewan farmer infringed Monsanto's patent". Schmeiser was a canola grower, that's as accurate if not more so than "farmer," he was mechanized farming on a thousand or more acres, but they didn't say "a Saskatchewan canola grower infringed Monsanto's patent" and those are choices that are made.


 * 4) "Even the Mother Jones article doesn't portray this is a David and Goliath battle" again, David and Goliath is not right and wrong. when Mother Jones says "While Schmeiser is often cast as David to Monsanto's Goliath, his innocence is anything but obvious" that makes the point - in spite of his underdog status, Schmeiser is guilty. The statement also supports the original paragraphy, which is why it was cited, it was often portrayed as a David and Goliath fight.


 * 5) "Of course some of those sources are opinion pieces, that is the whole point. You opened the door to this by insisting that rallies and fundraisers by people who supported Schmeiser be included. ...You seem to want to only mention positive reactions to Schmeiser in this section All of your sources are opinion pieces, not "some." And, again, no door was opened, the sources cited are all NEWS stories from major, reliable news sources. The rallies and fundraisers are part of the story. Because of the lawsuit, Schmeiser travelled around the world as a speaker. Those are just facts related to the case. If there are pro-Monsanto and anti-Schmeiser rallies and fundraisers relevant to the case that have been missed, please include them. There is no reporting of "positive reactions," only of farmer vs Monsanto. Nowhere does it say or imply that Schmeiser is innocent and Mosanto guilty. "'Agricultural scientists and farmers' make these comments" - are you referring to Hursh, Wager and Schwarcz? That's just three people, "two scientists and a farmer"? And how are Wager and Schwarcz scientific credentials relevant. Schwarcz piece you reference compares his view of Schmeiser's deeds to some childhood event of his own, he's at best offering a homespun legal opinion for which I don't see how his science qualifies him. Wager I didn't read (unavailable), but from the rebuttal I gather it was more comments about the case: "Wager’s comments that farmers "rarely save seeds anymore" and that "one might ask why a farmer would purposely spray a herbicide that should destroy three acres of his crop" don't seem to rely on scientific expertise.


 * 6) "If the fact that some of these sources "are presented as source material for arguing a pro-Monsanto case" by some law school has any relevance then we should note that several of your own sources are included as part of the anti-Monsanto case'" My pointing that out didn't have a lot of meaning beyond what it said, I type quickly off my thoughts and included that observation. It could have appeared or not, no big plan there. That case study exercise presents four groups to argue from: Schmeiser, Monsanto, Canadian organic consumers, and Mendel Biotechnology (a GE supporter), with media and press material to argue a case for each. Your sources came from the Monsanto section. As far as I could see, none of the other articles cited appear in that case study.


 * David and Goliath situations provide big spin, and as a backdrop to this case is noteworthy. We like underdogs, we hate bullies. The mainstream media at its most neutral did convey "farmer vs corporation" and did not try to offset that by investigating Schmeiser, which it well could have. That's what's being reported on, not the many pro and anti partisan camps. If you think a section of pro and anti Monsanto/Schmeiser opinion is noteworthy and beneficial, you should write it! --Tsavage (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

TSavage, you wrote: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but David and Goliath in popular usage does not equate with right and wrong, pro-Schmeiser and anti-Schmeiser, it characterizes a situation where there is an imbalance between two competing parties, establishes an underdog, somebody expected to lose because they are matched out of their league.". And that stopped me cold. From our Goliath article. David is the "good little guy" and Goliath is the big bad guy. That's the tradition. All that aside, there was a lot of media at the time that used the David/Goliath allusion and our CBC source, which I think does a pretty good job of being neutral, explicitly says so. Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Christian tradition gave him (David) a distinctively Christian perspective, seeing in David's battle with Goliath the victory of God's king over the enemies of God's helpless people as a prefiguring of Jesus' victory over sin ... and the Church's victory over Satan.


 * Stopped cold! Seriously? The Biblical origins and popular usage have drifted further apart than that. Some things are evident without a citation.
 * "used for describing a situation in which a small person or organization defeats a much larger one in a surprising way" from the "the story in the Bible in which David, a young boy, kills Goliath, a giant, with a stone." Macmillan Dictionary
 * "used to describe a situation in which a small or weak person or organization tries to defeat another much larger or stronger opponent" > "The game looks like it will be a David and Goliath contest." > "From the Bible story in which Goliath, a giant, is killed by the boy David with a stone." Oxford Advanced American Dictionary
 * From the intro to an interview with Malcolm Gladwell about his TED talk about his book David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants that reframes the whole thing: "For 3000 years, the story of David and Goliath has seeped into our cultural consciousness. This is generally how the tale is told: a young shepherd does battle with a giant warrior and, using nothing but a slingshot, comes out victorious. But is this really what the Bible describes?" --Tsavage (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And I should update the Goliath article: "In modern popular usage, the phrase "David and Goliath" has taken on a more secular meaning, denoting a contest where the apparently smaller, weaker opponent beats the bigger, stronger adversary, perhaps in a surprising way."Macmillan DictionaryOxford Advanced American Dictionary What do you think? --Tsavage (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was afraid you would bring up the Gladwell stuff. His blather (he is one of the pre-eminent bullshitters of our time) has muddied the waters. And in any case that all is a sidelight.  I agree that there was characterization of the conflict as a David and Goliath battle and the CBC source is clear support for that. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mentioning Gladwell was a...joke. Really, though, the common, everyday usage of David and Goliath doesn't put God on the little guy's side, it's Rocky, the everyman, the underdog, the long shot that we root for. Which is what makes Mark Marathon's argument seem so bizarre and wrong-headed to me. --Tsavage (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tsavage, let me start by saying that it is both rude and a violation of Wikipedia policy to keep inserting controversial edits while the subject is under discussion. Please wait for consensus to be reached before making further edits. You have even gone so far as to re-instate material twice while I was composing this reply. Sine you apparently can not abide by WP:BRD I am reverting the entire article to the consensus version with no publicity section until consensus can be reached on what the section should contain.
 * I am trying hard to assume good faith on your part, but your behaviour is not making this easy.
 * You started out with a blanket claim that this case was portrayed as a David and Goliath battle. When it became clear that your own references made it clear that it was also portrayed as a case of simple theft, you then tried to claim that the David and Goliath angle was the predominant coverage. I then asked you to provide your evidence for this, and rather than providing the requested evidence you changed the article to state that this was the general coverage. I will state again: if you want to make claims that > 51% of the coverage adopted of the David and Goliath angel, the burden of proof is with you. You need to provide the evidence for this claim. It doesn’t matter if you want to phrase it as “greater than 51% of coverage” or “the general coverage” or “most coverage” or “The predominant coverage”. Any claim that the majority of coverage was of a certain type must be supported by references.


 * As for what David and Goliath means, well of the two reliable references you provide one of the states that it means that the smaller opponent wins in a surprising way, which clearly can not be the usage applied by the sources you think are RS, since those sources note that Schmeiser lost and his attempt at winning was totally mundane and predictable.


 * But it seems clear to me that even you do not believe that “David and Goliath” means “big vs. small”. If that is what you mean, then can you explain why you initially wrote that the parties were “well suited” to being portrayed as David and Goliath because Monsanto was Monsatan and Schmeiser was articulate? Those were your words, so can you please explain what those traits have to do with size? And if they don’t have any bearing in size, then why do you believe those traits make the parties well suited to their roles in a David and Goliath portrayal. Once again Tsavage, I am trying hard to assume, but I am strugglingto reconcile your position here. On the one hand you tell us that you believe that David and Goliath simply means “big vs small” with no suggestion of right and wrng, but at the same time you tell us that Monsanto being called Monsatan makes it well-suited too being portrayed as Goliath. Can you please reconcile this apparent contradiction for me?


 * It is trivially easy to find usages of David and Goliath as a powerful confirmation that righteousness will triumph over evil, or [symbol (of) the victory of good over evil] or [a conflict based on values - David being good, and Goliath being evil] or [a classic story of good triumphing over evil] or a manifestation of the good/evil narrative.


 * Nobody disputes that this case was portrayed as a David and Goliath battle. Two separate points are under dispute.


 * The first is your claim that this was the portrayal of >51% of media material. There is no evidence to support such a contention and so it can not be stated in this article. Moreover your own references state that this was at times portrayed as David and Goliath and at times as a case of simple theft etc. That was the wording that I used, almost a direct quote from the article that you added as a RS. I do not know why you chose to alter that wording because you chose not to discuss it before making the changes.


 * The second is your claim that “David and Goliath” carries no connotations of right or wrong. I have already demonstrated that this is not the case with references. Your own references also support this. That is why they state that it was sometimes portrayed as David and Goliath and sometimes as simple theft. If the only factor in describing a case as David and Goliath, then the fact that it was simple theft would be irrelevant. It would be David and Goliath and simple theft, not alternatively simple theft as your own references states. It also seems quite clear to me that you also know that the term carries connotations of right and wrong. That is why you believe that Monsanto being called Monsatan made it well suited it being portrayed as Goliath. Being called Monsatan doesn’t make Monsanto any smaller, but it obviously does make it seem more evil.
 * There are other issues under discussion here, but let’s settle these first and then we can move onto the rest. Please do not make any further edits until we have consensus.


 * Thanks for the reply. First of all, as you can see, I reverted to the last version of Publicity before your edits. Unless there is some definition of status quo that I am unaware of, that version is it: it was there for years, it was removed as unsourced in November, only three months or so ago, I fully sourced it and restored it, and it was subsequently edited by others.


 * I tried to address David and Goliath earlier. I posted dictionary definitions. I appealed to common sense. Once again, it would not be unusual to refer to a grade 8 hockey team playing a grade 10 hockey team, or Rocky vs Apollo Creed in Rocky, as a David and Goliath matches. There's no connotation of inhereent good and evil in that usage, but clearly everything done by the bigger team to the littler one will be taken as bad. This is all that is intended, and I would have used that phrase even if none of the sources literally did.


 * I am fully aware that there is also a good vs evil interpretation of DvG, but it's a matter of context. I also take your point about Monsatan, which was intended to illustrate how easy it was to characterize Monsanto as a bully, compared to many other companies of similar size, but that could be misinterpreted as worded. Another editor removed it, and that was an improvement.


 * What I believe that part of the publicity section, which describes the lead-up to the Supreme Court trial, should convey is that the predominant image presented by the news media, based on the major media coverage (as in the citations), is that it was a lone farmer against a big corporation. I don't think this is POV or requires balancing as a single statement. The rest of the paragraph does give context and balance, but we're dealing with the David and Goliath part. As I mentioned, major media could have spun Schmeiser many ways, but they made the choice of generally referring to him as simply a "farmer," whether considering that he might be a common thief, or covering his anti-GMO activism.


 * Ultimately, hopefully we can solve this by simply removing "David and Goliath," it is only being used as a descriptive adjective. Perhaps something like this:


 * BEFORE: The contest was portrayed as a David and Goliath struggle, with Schmeiser cast as the small farmer underdog fighting the unscrupulous major corporation.


 * AFTER: Major news media generally presented the case as a Saskatchewan farmer being sued by Monsanto.


 * If you really do assume good faith, you'll try and see what I am getting at, which is certainly not to glorify Schmeiser or attack Monsanto, but simply to try and fairly cover the publicity at the time. --Tsavage (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Publicity section paragraph rewrite for local consensus
@User:Mark Marathon We have been exchanging edits, reversions and discussion (previous thread) about the first paragraph in the Publicity section. After subsequent incremental edits by me and two reversions by you, I have reverted back to the original version before your initial changes, per WP:BRD. That version is below, please make your proposed changes here so it can be discussed, and we can avoid disruptive editing in the article. Thanks. --Tsavage (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Current wording:

Beginning with the lead-up to the initial Federal Court trial, the case drew widespread public attention and media coverage. The contest was portrayed as a David and Goliath struggle, with Schmeiser cast as the small farmer underdog fighting the unscrupulous major corporation. Both parties were well-suited to their respective roles. Schmeiser is articulate, outspoken, and politically savvy, having in the past served as the mayor of his hometown and a member of the provincial legislature in Saskatchewan. Monsanto had been dogged by bad press related to various aspects of its former chemical and current biotechnological businesses. Environmental groups and anti-genetic engineering activists championed Schmeiser's cause, he spoke on the case around the world, and hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised from donations for his defense fund.


 * You have made it clear that you have no intention of respecting WP:BRD. I have initiated a discussion at length above, and you refuse to engage any of the points, instead trying to ram through your edits. That's fine, you will find that you have no chance at all of achieving consensus for your changes and they will rapidly be deleted as per the above discussion. Please note that I have not broken the three revert rule. I have reverted to the version of 4 November 2014‎ exactly once. I did this in the face of your refusal to discuss this issue here and your constant reverse my edits. This means that you have reverted the 3RR by reverting my edits "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" because "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. I have reported tou for edit warring accordingly. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not choose the WP:BRD cycle, Rather than revert your entire set of edits, I continued editing, building on your changes, which I thought was more inclusive, respectful and constructive. If had chosen the revert route, the version you are so vigorously trying to change would be sitting there in the article while Talk discussion likely stretched on...forever. The only actual deletion was one unsourced sentence, which you could have sourced and replaced. I also continued the disucsson in full on this page. --Tsavage (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tsavage, when you repeatedly revert with edit summaries complaining about others edit-warring, that just discredits you. bobrayner (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what side you are on if you are on one, have you actually followed that sequence of edits? What I should have done was revert the whole thing per WP:BRD and bring it to discussion, but I was trying to be inclusive and continue editing with the new material. Wikipedia has become so about wikilawyering of various sorts... Thankfully, my winter/Wikipedia season will soon come to a close. --Tsavage (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

bias
This article striked me as terribly biased. It is written more as a rebuttal for the beliefs of the pro-Schmeiser gang than as an objective, fact-based narrative. For example, in the Publicity section, the technique of contrasting an initial statement with a counter-argument is used twice in sequence:
 * "The contest was portrayed by some as a classic David-and-Goliath confrontation between small farmer and Monsanto, while others portrayed it as as a case of the blatant theft of years of research and development by a dishonest small businessman who sought an unfair advantage over his honest neighbours."
 * "Environmental groups and anti-genetic engineering activists championed Schmeiser's cause, he spoke on the case around the world, and hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised from donations for his defense fund.[8][9][11] Agricultural scientists and farmers noted that such massive fundraising and public relations excercises on Schmeiser's behalf rendered attempts to portray the case as a David and Goliath battle "a crock"".

An unbiased narrative would present the two sides of the story in a more segregated fashion, without counter-acting each argument from one side with an immediate counter-argument from the other.

I haven't analyzed the remainder of the content in detail, but this seems like a pretty biased and defensive article. I think I might be doing Monsanto a favor by alerting you kind editors to this. ;) Anyone else seeing this bias? Viridium (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * General comments are not helpful. Your specific comments are.  With regard to them, if you look at the section above, there was a ...difficult discussion about that very passage.   What is your proposal to fix it? Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the first sentence is a close paraphrasing of the wording used in one of the sources provided. To split it as you wish would run the risk of misrepresenting the source. There is an inherent difficulty in these situations when an editor insists that material on public reaction regarding a subject gets included in an article. Because the material it is inherently POV, we have a duty to include any opposing POVs. In this case we can't easily split the sections because the rebuttals are inherently intertwined with the pro-Schmeiser material. But I agree with Jytdog, if you have a proposal for alternative wording, that's great.Mark Marathon (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The section is not about public reaction, it is, as titled, about Publicity (i.e. the notice or attention given to someone or something by the media), also known as media coverage. The media aspect of a well-publicized case in the groundbreaking area of private ownership of living organisms is certainly part of the encyclopedic story; this is how legal precedent is disseminated to the population at large. Public reaction is another thing entirely. --Tsavage (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * While that may be the case, it's still hyperbole, and hyperbole that's missing form the other side. If you want to give a specific example, at least put in quotes. Others saw it that way? What others? One media piece? Why not include the whole thing, if you're going to wander over into depictions of the neighbors? Why not add that they're good church-going folk, bake pies for the school sale and were all virgins at the time of their marriages? Point being, their integrity or lack thereof is not relevant, and including an almost verbatim, near-slanderous character denigration is just bizarre. It also just jumped out at me.


 * As this seems to have been going on for a while (because it should have been removed ages ago), I noticed that there was some discussion about whether David vs Goliath was appropriate, and a very strange (hello, lawyer!) attempt to link the two. That's actually not biased, but whether it is or isn't is extraneous to the discussion of including this whole line with "blatant" "dishonest" "puppy-hating" vs "God-fearing, pie-baking, utterly wholesome in every way Monsanto loving"... you get the point.


 * It's pretty obvious that this page is being edited being paid to sell a certain point of view (and thus can do it full time). Kneelp (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I see it's been rephrased. Thanks! :) In hindsight, repeating references was not nearly as bad as the potential introduction of bias. Viridium (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Ref misrepresented
The reference at [12], www.cropchoice.com/leadstry148e.html?recid=2385, is said to represent the opinion of agricultural scientists and farmers, whereas the content of that link is a letter from a single person. We should complement that reference with something more substantial or adjust down the scope of the statements. Viridium (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The opinion of other persons is given in the other references.Mark Marathon (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a duplicate reference among the other references. Four sources were cited, (as currently numbered) [12], [13], [14], and [15]. Citations [12] and [14] are to the same item, an opinoin piece titled "Don't pity poor Percy": [12] is a reprint of the original, published at [14] (the identical text at 14 is not available directly online per the citation, but can be read here on pg. 11).


 * The two remaining sources, [13] and [15], are personal opinion pieces from single scientists, and neither claims to represent the views of any larger group than the respective authors themselves.


 * Additionally:
 * The statement "Agricultural scientists and farmers noted" is given undue weight (WP:UNDUE), when supported only by the personal opinions of one farmer and two scientists (in fact, as sourced, it should read, "Two scientists and a farmer noted," as one neither of the two scientists is clearly identified as "agricultural," one is a PhD chemist and director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society, the other is an MSc in the Biology faculty of Vancouver Island University, and "involved in GMO research with an emphasis on public education.")
 * Synthesizing the contents of personal opinion pieces into a summary statement about classes of people is original research (WP:OR) - a reliable secondary source stating that a noteworthy number of scientists and farmers held a particular opinion is required in this case (WP:RS).
 * Using a derisive quote - "'a crock'" - taken from a single opinion piece, to characterize the views of "agricultural scientists and farmers" is not impartial; by using loaded words, it demonstrates a subjective and not a neutral point of view. (WP:NPOV, particularly WP:SUBJECTIVE, WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:Words to watch).
 * The next sentence in the article, which states "Concerns were raised from multiple sources," is cited to [13][14][15] and represents the same personal views of one farmer and two scientists, therefore is also party to the same problems just described.
 * The sentences in question should be rewritten in neutral language, and properly sourced to indicate due weight, or removed. I would happily improve them myself, however, I have tried and I am unable to verify the claims made. --Tsavage (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparent Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) policy violation
In this edit in the Publicity section, the defendant in the court case covered in this article, Percy Schmeiser, is called "dishonest"; the statement is presented in loaded terms, and it is not verifiable from cited sources.

None of the three cited sources discuss Schmeiser's honesty, nor the honesty of his neighbors. The editor has apparently taken a news statement about opinions concerning this specific court case, and rewritten it as a general character indictment of the defendant:


 * ORIGINAL SOURCE: "Others saw it as theft - a blatant attempt to take advantage of years of research and development of a better product, without paying for it."


 * CURRENT TEXT: "Others portrayed it as as a case of the blatant theft of years of research and development by a dishonest small businessman who sought an unfair advantage over his honest neighbours."

Calling Schmeiser "dishonest" is derogatory, comparing "dishonest Schmeiser" to "his honest neighbors" is not neutral in tone, and none of it is verifiable in the cited sources or through an additional attempt to verify*, therefore, appears to be original research, and seems on that basis to be a violation of the WP:BLP policy, which states: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR."

*A Google search for keywords "Percy Schmeiser dishonest" finds this Wikpedia article as the first result (it excerpts the sentence here in question); the handful of other finds in the first few pages of search results that include the word "dishonest" are all opinion pieces, personal blogs, Facebook and Twitter entries. --Tsavage (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Violation of WP:CRYBLP. Please note that editors who cry "BLP!" in an inappropriate context should be warned that such stifles free discussion, and that they may be blocked for disruptive editing if invoking BLP as justification for an edit when BLP clearly did not apply. Consider yourself so warned!
 * This is clearly not relevant to BLP since it is not a statement about Schmeiser. You yourself added this section, under the pretext that it is about the media reaction to the case. You then added material about how Schmeiser was portrayed in the media at the time, and that is what remains: material about how Schmeiser was portrayed in the media. There is not a single statement in the quoted sections that refers to Schmeiser. All statements solely concern how the case was portrayed on the media  and are well referenced. I see nothing that would lead any reader to conclude that Wikipedia verifies or applies any truth value to those portrayals. It is simply a recounting of how the case was portrayed. Nobody is calling Schmeiser anyhting. The article simply notes that reliable sources have stated that the case was portrayed by yet other sources as simple theft and that reliable sources have noted that however those other sources may have portrayed the case, Schmeiser's honesty is questionable. That is two steps removed from Wikipedia calling Schmeiser anything and readily verifiable. Clearly not in any way applicable to BLP.
 * If you believe otherwise then this whole section will need to be deleted, since we can't have material that says that Schmeiser is "David to Monsanto's Goliath", for example. That would violate NPOV. So make your position clear. Do you believe this section is simply reporting media reaction, as you originally contended? If so then BLP clearly does not apply since no statements are being made about anybody. All statements apply strictly to media. If you believe the section makes statements concerning Schmeiser that Wikipedia accepts as factual, then it will need to be deleted in its entirety as blatant NPV violation. Your call, I'm happy either way. I have made it clear form the outset that I don't feel this section belongs in this article.
 * If you feel that the wording of this section is somehow unclear, and a reader may get the impression that this section contains statements of fact about Schmeiser rather than statements about what was published about Schmeiser, then by all means reword it to make that clear. But if you are arguing that it actually does contain statements of fact about Schmeiser, then that is clearly a NPOV violation and the section will need to be removed. And if you accept that the section does not contain statements of fact about Schmeiser, then it obviously can not be a BLP issue.
 * Tactics like this make it increasingly hard for me to assume good faith. You were the one who added material stating that Monsanto was portrayed Satan to this section, with the justification that you were only reporting how others portrayed the case. You now claim that you believe the section contains factual material about Monsanto and Schmeiser and not just reports of how others portrayed the case. That strains credibility to the breaking point. Take care how far you want to push this BLP claim. I htink you wil find it hard to convince others that you sincerely believe that this section contains factual claims about Shcmeiser when you created the section and you have previously stated outright that it contains only reports of how others portrayed the case.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We're not dealing with esoterica here, "a dishonest small businessman who sought an unfair advantage over his honest neighbours" obviously applies to Schmeiser, it is a pejorative portrayal of a patent infringement lawsuit, and that description is not verifiable from the sources cited. The sources do not discuss the context of the case with regard to Schmeiser being a dishonest person, or apply the words "honest" or "dishonest" to Schmeiser or his neighbors, or attribute any such views to other parties in anything like that language and framing. At best, it is an author interpretation, a personal conclusion drawn from the sources, therefore original research. Regardless of what it is supposed to represent, it ends up being Wikipedia saying that Schmeiser is or might be a "dishonest small businessman."


 * If this is all wrong, it should be a simple matter to show how the sources lead to the text in question. A quote, perhaps. And a clarification of who the "others" are. Which is why I posted this here, on the Talk page, so it can be addressed in a non-disruptive manner. --Tsavage (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing any BLP issue here. The content seems to reflect the sources just fine as Mark Marathon described above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a non-neutral, unsourced statement that questions Schmeiser's character:
 * 1. The cited sources do not use the word "dishonest" and do not mention "honest neighbors";
 * 2. Google serach results for schmeiser dishonest put this Wikipedia article at #1 and do not return any reliable sources for the "dishonest" and "honest neighbor" portrayal;
 * 3. The text in the article,
 * "a dishonest small businessman who sought an unfair advantage over his honest neighbours" is very close to this text,
 * "If a few farmers are able to use the technology free while others have to pay, the dishonest ones will gain a competitive advantage on their neighbors, he said"
 * is by Carl Casale, Monsanto exec VP, from a Washington Post article. --Tsavage (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * am fine with toning it down, but please note that first source right after the sentence is CBC which the first paragraph of which says: "It was billed by some as a classic David-and-Goliath confrontation between a Saskatchewan family farmer and biotech giant Monsanto Canada - a case of the rights of the small farmer to continue a traditional way of farming. Others saw it as theft - a blatant attempt to take advantage of years of research and development of a better product, without paying for it. " The language being objected to was pretty much straight out of that source.  I added back the "theft of R&D" thing in a more toned down way. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't have to be "toning it down," inserting words like "dishonest" as a paraphrase is not neutral. --Tsavage (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Look above - I wasn't involved in your discussion with Mark about that. I stayed out of that. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's ridiculously badly sourced, POV material that was documented above and has still remained in the article for four months. A number of editors were present at the time, so what are the don't get involved guidelines? Or is the opinion of "agricultural scientists and farmers," as the article states, really "a crock"? --Tsavage (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * CBC is about as mainstream as you get. they said "david and goliath" over there, and "thief of expensive R&D" over there.  that is the last i'll say on this,  you all work out whatever you see fit.  Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you're going to comment, please make it relevant to keep things on point: CBC as a reliable source is not the issue, it's the way source material is paraphrased. In THIS example, the source and the resulting content are indicated at the top of this section as ORIGINAL SOURCE and CURRENT TEXT. non-neutral SYNTHESIS is evident:
 * "blatant attempt" turned into "blatant theft" (from "Others saw it as theft - a blatant attempt to take advantage" to "Others portrayed it as as a case of the blatant theft of years of research and development")
 * "dishonest businessman" and "honest neighbors" - addition of terms and characterizations not in the sources
 * "saw it" turned into portrayed it" - use of more more editorially discriptive language to emphasize the point.
 * That's just one sentence. There are other, equally concerning problems in that one paragraph, as documented above and below. These are far from controversial observations, it's simple WP:V issues. --Tsavage (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced statements removed
The following two statements (parts of a single sentence) are not adequately supported by their sources:


 * 1. Agricultural scientists and farmers noted that such massive fundraising and public relations exercises on Schmeiser's behalf rendered attempts to portray the case as a David and Goliath battle "a crock"

The source is an opinion piece representing the views of a single author, and does not mention any group such as "agricultural scientists and farmers" in connection with "a crock." This is entirely OR.


 * 2. and that the case was in reality a contest between a large biotechnology company and an equally large and well funded anti-biotechnology industry.

The source is an opinion piece by Robert Wager, a Canadian biologist, it is not a news item or any sort of objective report on "agricultural scientists and farmers" or the case.

Writing statements in Wikipedia's voice, based on opinion pieces by non-prominent commentators, does not meet WP:V and WP:RS. --Tsavage (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) WP:RSOPINION says that opinion pieces by experts published in otherwise reliable news sources are RS for the options of the author. You started this section under the pretext that it was about media portrayal, not about facts. Being an opinion piece is completely irrelevant since this whole section is purely and entirely about how anti-GM activists, scientists etc. portrayed the case and that is how it is presented.
 * 2) The exact quote from the article: "a David taking on Goliath. What a crock."
 * 3) Kevin Hursh is a farmer from Saskatchewan.
 * Get your facts straight before making claims such as "does not mention... farmers... in connection with a crock". If you continue to carry on this way I will report you for vexatious editing and for your continued violation of WP:CRYBLP. I have tried hard to assume good faith on your part but I feel I will not be able to do so any longer if you continue in this manner.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The support in sources is simply not there:


 * Your sentence in the article describes "a crock" as the view of "agricultural scientists and farmers" when in fact, it is the view of a single author, Kevin Hurst.


 * Hurst has no apparent credentials as an expert in anything, and does not have the stature to have his personal opinion applied to a larger group, or to have his opinion quoted on its own as representative of farmers, scientists, or any other group.


 * The source uses the word "farmer(s)" six times, the only instance referring to opinions being "What a hero for farmers everywhere"; the word "scientist(s)" does not appear.


 * The reference to "massive fundraising and public relations exercises" is also unsupported, the closest I could get being, ''"No one seems to be saying how many dollars misguided environmental bleeding hearts have contributed to his campaign."'


 * WP:RSOPINION say: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. There is no inline attribution of "a crock" to Hurst, it is used to as representative of "agricultural scientists and farmers," and as noted above, Hurst does not have the demonstrated stature to be quoted alone.


 * I'm not sure what vexatious editing means, please stick to sourcing. --Tsavage (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * CBC is about as mainstream as you get. they said "david and goliath" over there, and "thief of expensive R&D" over there.  that is the last i'll say on this,  you all work out whatever you see fit.  Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC) (wrong section, moved above Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC))


 * If you're going to comment, please actually read the material. The "a David taking on Goliath. What a crock." Marathon is referring to is all from the Hursh CropChoice op-ed piece, not CBC. Marathon simply wants to say "a crock," it's like, angry editing; the source, as I've detailed, in no way comes near supporting the view of "scientists and farmers" as "a crock," just of that one guy, Hursh, a biotech supporter. --Tsavage (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

removal of closely paraphrased RS material
Jytdog, can you please explain why you removed the following material:

1) "a blatant attempt by a dishonest businessman to steal the results of years of research and development."

2)"While advocates of biotechnology hailed the case as a triumph over a dishonest small businessman who sought an unfair advantage over his honest neighbours"

Both statements are very close paraphrases of the RS material they reference. Neither uses any words that are not included in the original source material. So how did you conclude that is was not reasonable to include it?Mark Marathon (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I actually removed part of that, and it's because it's basically just regurgitating some advertorial. It's essentially vandalizing this page, because someone is saying, No, Wikpedia can't have a reasonably objective account of this; it has to be full of wild hypberole.


 * There is no corresponding hyperbole on the other side, which is why I reworded it. I could find some anti-Monsanto piece and then say, "Some viewed is a courageous small farmer desperately fighting against one the most vicious transnationals corporate polluters determined to increase it's own profit by poisoning the earth..." I'm sure I could find something like that and closely paraphrase it. But that would NOT add anything. It would be adding to the vandalism, like having a graffiti war.


 * I am not edit warring. I read this this page and that just jumped out at me. There's a bit in the introduction that's inappropriate as well, as it gets into detail that belongs in the body. Others have had the exacts same reaction, for very obvious reason. This page is being vandalized by someone who wants to present a pejorative view of the farmer in question (and seems very, very likely to be getting paid to do so, given the constant monitoring of the page, the years of conflict over it and the adamance that a clearly inappropriate minor sentence on a minor page remain untouched). Rewording it say that "Some viewed it as a David vs Goliath battle, while others saw it as a simple theft of intellectual property" accurately portrays the two main viewpoints on the case. There's no hyperbole about Monsanto there, though it would be easy to find. Finding some about the farmer doesn't make it appropriate. Even if that is some of the publicity, it represents a more extreme view, and to go into completely unfounded characterizations of the neighbors is just bizarre. As, frankly, is this entire argument. Kneelp (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * as i wrote the language now is reasonable in my view and each of you are pushing it too far one way or the other. this is something that happened ages ago. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hyperbolic. It's very obviously inappropriate here. Yes, someone has some strange emotional attachment to it, but it's actually not appropriate: it doesn't state how some people viewed it or characterize the publicity; it goes into a mini-rant against the character of Schmeiser and even imagines characteristics of his neighbors (the only evidence of whose honesty and hard work is that... they use Monsanto product; strange? just a little). The only reason I changed it is because I stumbled across it, and, like a lot of others, went, "Whoah, THAT's in appropriate." And it is. If someone wants to give that as an example, OK, but to say that's how the case was viewed is inappropriate and, more importantly for Wikipedia, it's inaccurate. So, what I was doing is trying to clean that up, and it is entirely appropriate for me to do so (and entirely inappropriate for Mark Marathon to hang on to what seems to be an emotional attachment to the mini-rant - can't figure out any other reason he/she would so determined to keep in place a decade-old inaccuracy). Kneelp (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, this isn't argument; it's genuinely wanting to understand: I don't understand how each of us is pushing it too far one way or the other: there's a hypberbolic, inappropriate mini-rant here, and I've reworded that to more accurately reflect the situation and viewpoints about it. As that's not given as an example, but as a genuine characterization as one of the viewpoints, it's just plain wrong. (Note: I was actually in Canada at the time, and remember this well. My rewording reflects not only the reality of the viewpoints at the time, but also a more accurate characterization of what the source material says. To include the mini-rant, and only from one said, is clearly, clearly inappropriate, so much so that I can't believe I'm still having to deal with what I thought would be a minor issue and done. Question: if I were to find an anti-Monsanto screed - easy enough to do - closely paraphrase that, about the evil, greedy, Earth-destroying, farmer and bee killing multinational, would THAT be appropriate? The answer is obvious.


 * Which is why I made that necessary change. And why Mark Marathon should drop it. Kneelp (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. These are straightforward problems with POV and lack of sourcing, and corrections are being aggressively blocked.


 * Mark Marathon's edits, and arguments on the Talk page, are not based in WP:PAG and are disruptive. The basic tactic is edit warring: multiple reversions combined wiht lots of Talk text framed as discussion, but actually just repetition of the Marathon view with passing regard to sources or other editor's statements, with shortcut links to usually improperly applied policies, guidelines and essays.


 * Here, this was left four months ago, to cool down and hopefully allow other editors to also identify the problem and sort it out, so it seems that Marathon is just being deliberately unreasonable and non-collaborative as an editing style. There is an option to go down a variety of dispute resolution and sanction avenues, but that is the stalling, wearing-down strategy that is central to what I see as aggressive skeptic/debunker editing style (apparently to support "science" and battle FRINGE), and would rather not indulge that approach if at all possible. Also, there is an "anti-FRINGE" group that loosely supports stuff like this. Overall, it is a intimidation approach that effectively drives off most lone editors. I would hope that Wikipedia would work as it fundamentally should, by greater numbers of editors who are observing, getting involved in article-level Talk page discussion, rather than spreading to noticeboards. --Tsavage (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Having had a bit of time to reflect on it, it now seems obvious what's actually going on here: one or more shills is maintaining a pro-Monsanto PR viewpoint in this article. By battling fiercely over what should be minor quibbles about clearly inappropriate material, the entire page is left intact. Frankly, it reads like an editorial, the whole thing. Most users who just stumble across don't have the time and other resources to battle and battle over a something relatively minor.


 * I believe, strongly, having friends who work in the PR industry, that one or more people are so employed, with the directive to do things like slant Wikipedia pages about such stories. The passage in question should, undoubtedly, read "[...] while others viewed it as a simple intellectual property case" (not the still quite hyperbolic "theft of the results the results of years of research and development" - come on).


 * It does seem to fall under vandalism, as there's a determination to ensure that there is not a reasonably objective perspective here, but one slanted heavily in favor of one side. I think this needs to go to some sort of higher review, as it starts to get into the integrity of Wikipedia as a reference - will it become, on any even mildly controversial subject, the domain of those with money to spend to influence the viewpoint? Or is there a value in maintaining viewpoint as accurate and neutral as possible?


 * TSavage, I tried to contact you via your page, but there's no email. Perhaps you'd contact me. Personally, I feel this should be resolved, as it seems to have been obvious to multiple casual visitors to the page, and, as I said, there's the matter of Wikipedia's immortal soul... Kneelp (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060316000103/http://www.biotechknowledge.com/biotech/bbasics.nsf/biotech01_canola.html?OpenPage to http://www.biotechknowledge.com/biotech/bbasics.nsf/biotech01_canola.html?OpenPage

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/temp-2010-12-09/IhhbywnicHkEsqDmfgAwmGguoGfsxytkhclpIvycurnCAqvmeldbmJruhFmF/mchughen_etal_popular_misconceptions_about_ag_biotech.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJFZAE65UYRT34AOQ&Expires=1350011984&Signature=f62TLCS7C25NX0RLi0LvWLaPSdE%3D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905011001/http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html to http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)