|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Green Revolution article.|
|Green Revolution has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Anti-Malthusian Bias?
- 2 Observation
- 3 Edit explanation
- 4 Soil
- 5 Graph
- 6 "violet"?
- 7 HYV versus hybrids
- 8 Cloned?
- 9 Graph removal
- 10 Section removal
- 11 ideological bias
- 12 removal of a chunk of the food security section?
- 13 what happened to the history section?
- 14 Environmental Impact
- 15 This article needs comparative pictures of the pre revolution and post revolution crops
- 16 Removal of 'medieval Green Revolution' disambig
- 17 What does "consensus" mean?
- 18 Identify and explain two arguments in praise of the changes brought about by the Green Revolution.
- 19 Introduction is biased - the example of Mexico is misleading!
- 20 Merge
- 21 New green revolution
- 22 Jfeldman's purge
- 23 Environmental Impact Section
- 24 Requested move
- 25 erosion
- 26 Article needs to talk about soil conservation
- 27 punjab + sikkim
- 28 Lock the page
The section on "Malthusian criticism" spends most of its time criticizing the theory, not presenting it in a neutral encyclopedic tone with no weasel words. Ehrlich himself has said that when he wrote The Population Bomb the fruits of the Green Revolution had not yet come to pass and he was talking about "present conditions". I don't feel this section is appropriate, since by grouping Ehrlich in with "Malthusians" it seems mostly concerned with defending GR against any criticism that food supplies are finite. This seems a bit silly considering our history, and the specific example used; how perilous a situation India was in at the time, and in several degrees more ominous, still remains to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
What about some pictures in this article? Seems like just some pictures of grain would liven it up a bit.
I removed this line from the intro:
"The Green Revolution is sometimes mis-interpreted to apply to present times; in fact, many regions of the world peaked in food prooduction in the period 1980 to 1995 and are presently in decline, since desertification and critical water supplies, in part or wholly caused by the Green Revolution, have become limiting factors in a number of world regions."
It lacks citation and as is specific enough to not belong in the introduction.
I also removed the section on sustainability because it was a bunch of questions raised by an anonymous third person rather than statements about the sustainability of the Green Revolution.
Just wondering why there are no mentions about the fact that soil using GR techniques seems to be degrading over time. Check out http://livingheritage.org/green-revolution.htm and ://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html. Are they wrong?
RESPONSE: yes, they're wrong. It's a difficult thing to investigate, but one great book on this is: http://www.google.com/search?q=peter+lindert+shifting+ground Wmasters 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Wmasters
This graph has no numbers! It is meaningless. Someone should fix it.
-- In fact, it is worse than meaningless. It could show a tenfold increase or a 10 per cent increase. And it is a sign of the times that such a graph will then get picked up by others and included in their own "scholarly" treatises. (As has already happened.) It should be removed. Rosecrans 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding edit 123843923 by Greenuprising, the quote in the second paragraph currently says, "It is not a violet Red Revolution...". It seems to me that this should say "It is not a violent Red Revolution...", but I could only find one such reference to that form on Google.
Ken g6 18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
HYV versus hybrids
Removed this section from Technologies "One criticism of HYVs is that they were developed as F1 hybrids, meaning they need to be purchased by a farmer every season rather than saved from previous seasons, thus increasing a farmer’s cost of production.". It's misleading. The green revolution "HYVs" were not hybrids (not in the sense that seed must be purchased each year). IR8 is an inbred line derived from the mentioned cross, but it breeds true season after season, so seed can be saved and used for subsequent plantings.
- No, that would not be true, no more than the non-selected crops would be. Of course, a farmer could make poor choices in selecting seed to keep, but that would not be a reflection on the quality of the crop originally planted. Kerani (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I edited this line for readability. The original version was quite confusing. Can someone with the right expertise please check that this is factually correct? The original version claims that the genes were "cloned and identified", so this is what I've put down, but now I'm wondering if they actually just meant "isolated and subsequently bred for".
"With advances in molecular genetics, the mutant genes responsible for reduced height(rht), gibberellin insensitive (gai1) and slender rice (slr1) in Arabidopsis and rice were identified as cellular signaling components gibberellic acid (a phytohormone involved in regulating stem growth via its effect on cell division) and subsequently cloned."
- 'Cloning' is the correct term for what you call 'isolation'. The genes were bred for BEFORE they were identified and cloned. Actually, the phenotype (physical trait) was bred for, the genes causing the phenotype were unknown. In the sense used here, cloning means isolating the gene - this is usually done by inserting the gene into a bacterial vector. Once in the vector it can be copied and characterised using various molecular techniques (eg, sequencing). This is the process of 'cloning' (copying) a gene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the graph of World Production (see above) from this page due to the fact that its lack of numbers renders it meaningless--and perhaps very misleading. The citation also does not take you to the source of the graph. This issue was brought up some time ago by a couple of us and, given the lack of discussion, I would assume the community assents to its removal. Rosecrans 14:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone undid the removal of the lengthy essay previously found at the bottom of this article. My reasons for removing it are many.
To start with, the section drew conclusions from non-existant data. For instance: It is being said that genetic erosion coupled with genetic pollution is destroying that needed unique genetic base thereby creating an unforeseen hidden crisis which will result in a severe threat to our food security for the future This statement cannot be demonstrated, any more than the claim "the sun will not rise next sunday". The wiki encodes our current knowledge, not what the author believes that will be at some future time.
Then it adds an entire section on GMO, but there is absolutely nothing in this article about GMOs. The cultivars being discussed here are not GMO, and including this section seriously clouds the issue, implying that the HYV's are GMO, which they simply are not. Nevertheless, it goes on to make several unsupported claims about GMO "pollution" in grasses, using weasle words no less.
Adding to my concern was that all of the references come from various eco-groups. There's nothing wrong with this, per-se, but it displays a complete lack of balance. Had this section included counterarguments, fine, but it didn't, and is NPOV by definition.
And then to add to it all, what the heck is with that section title?
Re-inclusion of a version not seriously modified to address these concerns will be RVed. If you wish to see this section in the article, you need to explain why it has to be separate -- there's already sections covering most of this -- and include a much more balanced view with more refs from mainstream sources.
Maury 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a great deal of ideological bias in this article. The green revloution was one of the greatest achievements of humankind, yet the bulk of this article is devoted to criticism of it, much of it misinformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I highly disagree with statement. I find that there is a strong ideological bias for the Green Revolution. The criticism that is offered is very valid, but is much too easily countered. Vandana Shiva wrote extensively about the Green Revolution in her book The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics. This article is severly lacking in that it lacks input from a writer who has dedicated so much effort into studying the Green Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article is too positive for the Green Revolution. (The GR helped to increase the crops yields per square acre, but it did NOT help countries to combat famine or to become self-sustaining). In the introduction is suggested that Mexico became a net exporter in 1964. This is only partially true. There was indeed a net export from 1965 until 1970, but it was so little that it can be neglected. From 1970 on, it turned again into a net importer (both for wheat AND maiz, mainly from the USA) and hasn't ceased to be an importer since then. See the FAO statistics! (few months ago I added that source, but it has been deleted again). The example of Mexico in the introduction should be deleted or explained better. A very good review of the GR, including both praise and criticism, appeared in Nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v402/n6761supp/full/402c55a0.html To the contrary, Vandana Shiva, although she has some interesting viewpoints, is not a neutral source I think. She is more activist than researcher. Ian.xerl (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
removal of a chunk of the food security section?
Why was the alternative interpretations of food security removed? it was imperfect and it's placement would probably have better in the criticisms section, but now the norman borloug quote doesn't make sense. anyway, i'm going to put it back in under the criticism section. it's amusing at the least.
anyway, i know this article is a mess overall, but it is better than it was last week. hopefully we can gradually make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
what happened to the history section?
why was the history section removed? if there are no objections, i'm going to put it back in.
I think that the environmental impact section needs to be expanded. Additions could include soil nutrient depletion and soil erosion as a result of monoculture. Maybe some more about water use and efficiency of irrigation? I'm no expert, but I really think a lot could be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This article needs comparative pictures of the pre revolution and post revolution crops
Removal of 'medieval Green Revolution' disambig
I have removed the disambig link for 'medieval Green Revolution'. This term is not widely used, and may be misleading. Though it appears in an early 1980s paper by A. M. Watson, it does not appear to have current use in valid or relevant sources.
Dialectric (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC) According the research that I have been doing on the Green Revolution, Pakistan was one of the main countries involved. It was around the same time as India's. However, in this entire article, Pakistan is not even mentioned one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
What does "consensus" mean?
Could please someone explain what is meant by the following sentence in the introductory paragraph:
- "The consensus of some agronomists is that the Green Revolution has allowed food production to keep pace with worldwide population growth."
As I use the term, either this really is a consensus opinion, in which case it should be shared by most agronomists (this is a necessary but not sufficient condition!), or it is the opinion of some agronomists. Therefore, I find that the sentence contradictory.
Another question: If we talk about scientists in general (as opposed to agronoms), the statements by the academies of sciences, coordinated through their InterAcademy Panel (IAP) could be considered as a kind of "official consensus". In the IAP statement on population growth from 1994, the academies claim the following:
- "In the last decade food production from both land and sea declined relative to world population growth."
(However, the development since then should be more relevant.) If there are any scientists, agronoms or others, who have criticised this IAP statement explicitly, I'd like to get a reference, in order to include it in the article on the statement. JoergenB (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Identify and explain two arguments in praise of the changes brought about by the Green Revolution.
Yeah I agree with all the ????????????? This talk section seems to be asking for 2 positive arguments "for" the green revolution, rather than looking for specific information missing from that article. Remove from talk page? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Introduction is biased - the example of Mexico is misleading!
The sentence in the introduction that states that Mexico became self-sustaining and net exporter after 1964 is misleading. It is true that yields increased and that from 1965-1969 Mexico was a net exporter. But those exports were very small and from 1970 on Mexico became again a major importer of both maize and wheat (mainly from the US). This is clear from FAO data. Maybe this graph (showing Mexico's import, export and consumption of wheat and maize, based on FAO data) should be included in the criticism section. Ian.xerl (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree. The topic is an interesting, albeit comparatively minor compared to other aspects of the GR, issue, and should be placed within the larger article. ~ Amory (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Great idea! I think that after reading through both articles that both are very, very similar, and that it would be a good idea to put the info in one place for easier access and less confusion. (Proud Gamer (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC))
- Oppose, in principle, I think... which I know is not very strong opposition! I mean that if the Green Revolution was the major aritcle it should be, then a section on all the possible dissadvantages, including health questions, would be a section of it. The GR should be a big page, where millions of tons of food, millions of peoples lives, many naitons prosperity etc. are discussed and a wide range of substantial examples are given. Then, on that scale, if there is enough information about specifically cancer, and the Green Revolution, then a seperate page on the subject would help ensure that the page size for Green Revolution does not get out of hand. I think that the Green Revolution page as it stands should not have a whole lot of information about just cancer issues merged in with it, as if that was half of what the GR is about. What is practicle in the here and now, though? I'm not so sure.
New green revolution
- Another set of agricultural improvements ARE underway. Read trough the entire article, not just page 1. I however do agree that the name wasnt completely OK, it should be 1945-1970 Agricultural improvement (or 1945-2015 Agricultural improvement?); not sure, this document indicates the first. NGM article stated something else I believe
Almost the whole talk page was deleted (without archiving) by User:Jfeldman (Justin) in March, 2010, with the following motivation:
- I cleared most of this discussion page as many of the comments were old and also because I feel that this article needs a major rewrite. I basically cleared this article and rewrote it a few years ago and it has deteriorated since. I will try to contribute little by little but don't currently have the time. Please help redo this article, but take care to avoid the issues that plague the current article:
- - While there is no shortage of literature lauding the Green Revolution as an unequivocal 'success' that prevented mass famine, this is not the only point of view that exists and these statements do not necessarily cite scientific data (except perhaps through national grain yield figures). An article that complies with NPOV must take this into account. The heading "Indian Successes" does not comply with NPOV.
- - Critiques of the Green Revolution should not be general critiques of industrial agriculture. This article is not the place for that. We should stick to literature that has specifically critiqued the Green Revolution and its effects.
- - Cite sources, and try to use decent sources, i.e. not a random PowerPoint presentation on someone's website.
- This is an important article and I think we can do good things with it!
- Justin (talk)
This is unacceptable. Justin has the full right to criticise criticism he considers badly sourced; but not to eliminate that criticism. To the extent that the discussion is old and no longer relevant, it may be archived, with a clear and visible reference to the archive. I therefore reverted his removal. JoergenB (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Environmental Impact Section
One part of that has no sources and has been tagged as such since 2008. That's really shameful, considering the section is one of import, and it would be a shame to have to delete it (per Wikipedia's policy of not being a publisher of original thought). It seems someone mentions Pfieffer as a quote, perhaps they can be properly referenced instead? Peter Deer (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone with knowledge about this add some information about erosion and loss of areable land. This would interest me and other readers a lot I think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanbruystelghem (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Article needs to talk about soil conservation
The article needs to say whether Soil conservation techniques, including Contour plowing were part of the Green Revolution. And if possible, why or why not. If not, when and where they were advocated before or after? Lentower (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it would be interesting to note the affects of crop dusting on individuals living in these areas. Things were green, er, maybe than they should have been? I spent my first 10 years in a farming community in the late 50's and all through the 60's. I used to watch the crop dusting planes, and I still remember the smell. I'm fine. Just that I have an allergy problem. I'm allergic to just about every pollen, tree, and grass there is. I always wondered if it was related to the dust cropping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChooChooXP (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
punjab + sikkim
sorry to the editors adding the information on punjab and sikkim. It seems interesting and well sourced, but this is simply not the right article for it. The level of detail given is not manageable in an overview article such as this. It could go in Agriculture in India or a sub-article, but the information as presented gives undue weight to the specifics of agricultural development in Sikkim and Punjab. If it could be distilled or made more universal it could be a valuable addition to the article. As it stands it threatens to overwhelm the article. Thanks for your help anyway, sorry to seem ungrateful. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have also found the article Green Revolution in India which would seem to be an ideal home for the info. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Lock the page
It's getting messed up, likely by anti-science people.