Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Borlaug
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Norman Borlaug
This man saved a billion lives. Thusly, a few of us have been adding considerable content to the article and getting it in shape to be Featured. (Other significant contributors include: Petaholmes, Hajor, and Ground). I'm not sure what else needs to be addressed, and am hoping for some better input here. Maybe next time they hold a Greatest American poll, Borlaug will make the list, and hopefully outrank Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil.... --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 04:05 (UTC)
I'll reserve comment till the "major edit" is done. Looks good though.Borisblue 30 June 2005 08:20 (UTC)Weaksupport How come I've never heard of this guy? Probably the single most informative, engaging article I've ever read. I'm concerned with the number of red links though, doesn't look like an FA. Some of those links will probably never get an article, so just delete them. Is there an anti-environmentalist POV? Hard for me to tell, personally, cause I hate the greens for the same reason Borlaug does :) However i think it does make the greens seem evil in a State of fear kind of way, maybe it would help to elaborate a little on their concerns in a way that doesn't make them sound like condescending morons Borisblue 30 June 2005 09:43 (UTC)- I've nixed some of the red links that are unlikely to ever get expanded on. I've added a little about more about concerns, but they are more than covered in the relevant articles (check out the Green Revolution the article is more than half criticism), since little of the criticism is addressed to him personally but at technology generally I'm not sure that it's relevant to expand significantly on criticisms.--nixie 30 June 2005 10:17 (UTC)
ObjectSupport. A lot of good stuff,but some pretty central unsourced claims. The most important being that a billion lives were saved. The only support for that in the article I found was "most experts believed global famines in which billions would die were imminent." For one, that statement ignores any later analysis of whether that believe was at all correct, and for another both statements need some pretty solid backing sources. 2) The article does seem to promote the POV that Borlaug's way was the right way to do it, and criticisms are given very short shrift in this article. This article needs to cover all important facets of the topic. If you're going to cover the benefits, ignoring the drawbacks is POV. Covering them in another article is not acceptible, especially since Green revolution has no references.- Taxman Talk June 30, 2005 13:00 (UTC)- I'm looking into the "billion lives" quote. It's often stated, but never sourced, apparently. I tried to keep the POV to simply stating what Borlaug's POV was, using his own words since he is so active in these areas, but understand that there needs to be some balance. Give me some time... --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 13:15 (UTC)
- I've added a note on the billion lives figure, hopefully we can get further clarification from the Borlaug Heritage Foundation--nixie 1 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)
- comment on taxmans suggestion: I don't think the debate as to whether a different way of doing things would have been more or less environmentally friendly belongs in this article, it belongs in Green Revolution. Also, Borlaug is not an anti-environmentalist, and he also calls himself pro-organic, see f. i. this interview [1].--Fenice 30 June 2005 17:48 (UTC)
- Agreed. Borlaug is very much an environmentalist; he just opposes those who label themselves environmentalists without having a clue about the environment. In the sections that talk about this, I tried to stick to providing his opinions on the matter, rather than going off on a tangent about the pros and cons of what he's talking about. --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 17:57 (UTC)
- Debate maybe not, but if you're going to go into detail about the benefits of his work, ignoring the drawbacks (or giving them minimum coverage) is POV. Only covering his own views of his work is the same thing. Having the balance in another article isn't good enough. Every article needs to be NPOV, not this one combined with another. - Taxman Talk June 30, 2005 18:28 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll see what I can do. --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 18:53 (UTC)
- The "billion lives saved" now has a better explanation and wording. Also, the Green Revolution section has been rearranged and reworded to look less like a list of positives and more like a summary of what happened. Any other parts that need attention? --brian0918™ 1 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)
- Well it still doesn't cite anyone as saying the comment except Borlaug, so I'm not sure it's much better supported than it was. The footnote is basically conjecture with "it seems". Also after reading the article again I'm even more convinced of a POV problem. The entire article is basically promoting that Borlaug's way was the right way to do things. The language used to describe his methods and results is invariably positive and often effusive with praise. The criticism of his work and methods is very minimal, and every time I could see it was mentioned, it is quickly refuted or dismissed with a quote or comment from Borlaug. That's not NPOV, in fact the article is far from it. We can discuss great benefits, and still acknowledge that there are negative consequences that come with it and not bury that within praise of the work. Again, appealing to the Green Revoltion article and saying it has criticisms is spurious and even moreso given that that article has no references, and that section is disputed. An unrelated style problem is the one and two sentence paragraphs that break up the flow of the prose. They highlight areas that are either not fully developed, or should just be merged with related material. Even the lead has a few examples, and it should be merged into two or perhaps three paragraphs that are cohesive and complete. - Taxman Talk July 5, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
- I think you're getting the wrong impression. That wasn't a citation, but a note. Borlaug has never claimed to have saved a billion lives. Countless others have claimed it numerous times for him. He'd probably vehemently deny his personal impact if confronted with the claim, as he doesn't seem to like personal pride/fame. Nonetheless, it is the most oft-cited thing about him, so it should be included. By using the note that we do, we are trying to supply the most legitimate reference available (Borlaug's own words) as to the probable source of the claim. If you want actual examples of the claim, you need only click on any of the references or external links at the bottom; they all state it.
- Ok, but point is we need more of a direct citation. If countless people have said it, we need to cite the most important/reliable source that did. We don't need the original source, just a good one. Conjecturing that it may have been from X, doesn't quite do it. Borlaug's quote is good, but not enough. - Taxman Talk July 6, 2005 00:12 (UTC)
- As for the POV, can you be specific about what sections need attention? I don't understand why nobody else here believes the article is POV to the extent you're claiming. The majority of the points of view that you claim need to be in the article seem more appropriate in the Green Revolution article-- an article for which I'm not responsible and of which we are not currently discussing the possible featured status. Are you suggesting that in order for the Borlaug article to become featured, the Green Revolution article must first also be of similar content and quality? I've seen criticisms of the Adolf Hitler article for being less about the person (Hitler) and more about WWII and the Nazi Party. I didn't want this article to turn out that way (being more about the Green Revolution and less about all things Borlaugian)... A more appropriate question to you might be: what do you suggest we remove from this article? I've been trying to keep the article about him, his work, his views, and not turn the article into what Green Revolution should be. In any case, please be specific. Thanks for your input. --brian0918™ 5 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)
- (Side note I typed this up once and lost it in a database failure. I think I've failed to express myself as well the second go round.) I'm not sure why no one else sees it, perhaps just no one else has commented on it. But being correct does not require any others to agree with me. As for your worry of losing focus, this article is already much more about the Green Revolution than Borlaug. Very little of the article is focused on his life. At least half the article is about the description of and the benefits of his methods. I don't know what to do for you to point them out, it's throughout the article. If you really want me to type up a list of the positive comments about his methods I can I suppose, but it seems pretty self evident to me. That and the fact that the article only mentions drawbacks or criticisms twice in drastically shorter form adds up to a POV article. Besides that being pretty fundamental I'm not sure what else to say about it. Maybe you think I'm saying it needs to have the criticisms expanded to half the article. I'm not, but they also can't be buried and refuted every time. Take for example the Green Revolution section. It has six paragraphs on the benefits and half a paragraph on the drawbacks, and another half of that paragraph refuting the drawbacks. That's POV. Again, what I've said is that you can't claim that because another article covers X material that it is not needed in this article. Criticisms of his work are central to unbiased coverage of his work. Saying they should be pushed off to another article is propagating the POV. - Taxman Talk July 6, 2005 00:12 (UTC)
- You specifically state that any criticisms are shot down with quotes from Borlaug. Are you suggesting that I leave those criticisms hanging, without Borlaug's responses, even if they truly are refutations? That would make the article less about him and more about the Green Revolution. --brian0918™ 5 July 2005 23:15 (UTC) +
- Well directly from the NPOV policy it says you can't do that and have it be NPOV. If you are going to refute every criticism, you would need to refute every positive. (which is poor form too) You and the page's other editors are not doing that presumably because most of you agree with Borlaug and disagree with the criticisms (I think at least one editor explicitly stated that). That leaning shows clearly in the article. On an unrelated style note, the article has a number of one and two sentence paragraphs that break up the prose and keep it from flowing well. That shows areas that should either be expanded or merged with related material. Specifically the lead has two, and it should be merged into two or perhaps three cohesive paragraphs, or expanded into four full ones. - Taxman Talk July 6, 2005 00:12 (UTC)
- I've worked on possible neutralizations to the text. Let me know if this is a change in the right direction and what else should be done (please also answer my reply above). --brian0918™ 5 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
- They may have, and I'm really sorry, but I didn't have time to check. You wrote that while I was writing out my comments. See what you can do with mine, and I'll check on yours in the morning. - Taxman Talk July 6, 2005 00:12 (UTC)
- Ok, many of the prose changes have improved the neutrality of the article. But the article still faces a POV by choice of what it covers. You guys keep hiding behind saying this article is about him, so those criticisms should go elsewhere, but that is spurious. Most of the article is about his work and the benefits of his work. This is from the NPOV policy: "The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." and "The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source." That is what this article suffers from. There are 233 facts supporting how beneficial his work and methods were, and 2 or 3 on the drawbacks. If you're going to cover so much on the benefits, you can't claim that you shouldn't cover the drawbacks. I know you guys agree with his methods and disagree with the criticisms, but sorry, that shows in the article and it is POV. What I do really like is the increased citation, but it needs to be balanced too. - Taxman Talk July 9, 2005 14:26 (UTC)
- Alright, although I think you're definitely inflating the POV more than it is. I am nowhere stating that his work was beneficial. The point of his work was to increase yields. It would be impossible for the article to be complete if I just decided to leave out how the yields actually changed. Saying the yields increased isn't saying that his work was beneficial, because, as the article states, the increased crops may not reach those who need it most. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
- I only count about 10 sentences that could be considered as citing the benefits of his work. I also count about 9 sentences devoted to criticism. I'll work on it though. I'm just hesitant to add in any old criticism, since there are so many which have been so thoroughly refuted. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
- Yes, I was exaggerating slightly for effect. There's more positive statements than 10, but not 233 either. Yes that is also an improvement. The only thing left would be to perhaps add a section subheading to the criticism paragraph just like some of the other topics there have, and to note quickly in the lead section the fact that he and his work have faced significant criticism. It is a fact that he has, so adding that would be important balance. I think it would even be fine to say that he is dismissive of the criticisms and why, just like you did lower in the article. There's nothing wrong with the lead repeating a bit, as it is meant to be a summary of the article. And finally I don't think I'm being unreasonable about the criticism. Avoiding mentioning it is POV as I have explained, and of course it's been refuted. Every argument is refuted by the other side all the time. That doesn't make the criticisms wrong or change the fact that they are made. With those two changes, consider my vote a support, as I may not have a chance to check again before this closes, and there is a lot of great work here. - Taxman Talk July 9, 2005 16:05 (UTC)
- "Every argument is refuted by the other side all the time. That doesn't make the criticisms wrong". Actually, I was using the first definition of refute: To prove to be false or erroneous. Borlaug's replies aren't just rebuttals, they show that most of the claims of critics are nonsense, and as for non-nonsense criticisms, he acknowledges them and has been working to correct them, although those corrections have faced criticism by the same people, people who "want it both ways", so-to-speak, leaving the only option of letting the hungry starve to death (an example being the critics who say GM foods are low on nutritional value, but then refuse to allow GM foods which have been specifically created for high nutritional value to be used) .... I've merged the bio-tech advocacy and criticisms sections together under one heading, "criticism", and added a bit about it to the lead section. Considering your vote a support. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)
- Well that's part of the POV problem, because that certainly is a POV that his critics have been fully refuted by that definition. But the criticism section itself is good and fine as far as that goes I think. The only last problem I have is the lead only mentions the biotech criticisms, which is of course only one facet. The rest such as the negative effects of input intensiveness (run off, over fertilization, pesticides, etc), monoculture, and distribution inequalities, are being ignored the way the lead is currently. And of course there is the POV problem with the way you've used refuted as mentioned. I'm really not trying to be a pain, I just saw a problem and wanted to make sure it got fixed. I have high standards for what should be a FA, and since this article had (has) a lot of great stuff, I found it worth the extra effort to get the last bits fixed. - Taxman Talk 17:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I've made those changes. Would it be POV to add in Borlaug's dismissals of at least some of these criticisms? Otherwise it seems like these are all left open-ended to the reader. --brian0918™ 19:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Small change to the lead, but I think it works much better. Saying he has dismissed them is fact, and I think reasonably NPOV. Detailing those dismissals in the lead would certainly not be proper. As to detailing them later, I don't see how you could and still stay NPOV. If you really think of writing neutrally, you've got to include benefits and drawbacks. I also think it would be a slight improvement in the lead to say something to the effect of "he has dismissed many of them and the others he acknowledges as nothing being perfect". Which is essentially paraphrasing what I get out of his quote. But even without that I'll change to support, but keep trying to make the article as neutral as possible and don't dismiss legitimate criticisms and drawbacks. Have you had enough of me yet? :) - 22:05, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm just imagining some kid writing a paper for school about him, and adding in that his work has all of these drawbacks, when many of these drawbacks cited by critics are either not real or based on suspect data. Imagine if this article was instead about the Big Bang Theory, and it was 50% "evidence for the Big Bang" and 50% "criticisms of the Big Bang", but 90% of those criticisms were simply the result of bad science (this scenario is more real than imagined...). The article would be neutral, but absolutely incomplete. (This is comparable to having a 3 on 3 debate on evolution vs. Young Earth Creationism; the evolution-side is vastly underrepresented, while the YEC side is... fully represented) --brian0918™ 22:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- As for Borlaug's quote about "Utopia", that was just a side-remark of his. I'm not sure the wording of the paragraph properly represents this. It's not that his reply to them is "nothing is perfect". He takes serious criticisms seriously, and incorporates them into future work. The reason that I call it "his view of critics" rather than "his reply to critics" is because it would seem like he's committing an Ad hominem fallacy, and not even bothering to address the claims, when in actuality he has addressed and refuted these claims countless times, to the point where he just gets pissed at the same invalid claims being cited over and over by those of the environmental movement whose hamster wheels have gone silent. --brian0918™ 22:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Small change to the lead, but I think it works much better. Saying he has dismissed them is fact, and I think reasonably NPOV. Detailing those dismissals in the lead would certainly not be proper. As to detailing them later, I don't see how you could and still stay NPOV. If you really think of writing neutrally, you've got to include benefits and drawbacks. I also think it would be a slight improvement in the lead to say something to the effect of "he has dismissed many of them and the others he acknowledges as nothing being perfect". Which is essentially paraphrasing what I get out of his quote. But even without that I'll change to support, but keep trying to make the article as neutral as possible and don't dismiss legitimate criticisms and drawbacks. Have you had enough of me yet? :) - 22:05, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I've made those changes. Would it be POV to add in Borlaug's dismissals of at least some of these criticisms? Otherwise it seems like these are all left open-ended to the reader. --brian0918™ 19:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well that's part of the POV problem, because that certainly is a POV that his critics have been fully refuted by that definition. But the criticism section itself is good and fine as far as that goes I think. The only last problem I have is the lead only mentions the biotech criticisms, which is of course only one facet. The rest such as the negative effects of input intensiveness (run off, over fertilization, pesticides, etc), monoculture, and distribution inequalities, are being ignored the way the lead is currently. And of course there is the POV problem with the way you've used refuted as mentioned. I'm really not trying to be a pain, I just saw a problem and wanted to make sure it got fixed. I have high standards for what should be a FA, and since this article had (has) a lot of great stuff, I found it worth the extra effort to get the last bits fixed. - Taxman Talk 17:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- "Every argument is refuted by the other side all the time. That doesn't make the criticisms wrong". Actually, I was using the first definition of refute: To prove to be false or erroneous. Borlaug's replies aren't just rebuttals, they show that most of the claims of critics are nonsense, and as for non-nonsense criticisms, he acknowledges them and has been working to correct them, although those corrections have faced criticism by the same people, people who "want it both ways", so-to-speak, leaving the only option of letting the hungry starve to death (an example being the critics who say GM foods are low on nutritional value, but then refuse to allow GM foods which have been specifically created for high nutritional value to be used) .... I've merged the bio-tech advocacy and criticisms sections together under one heading, "criticism", and added a bit about it to the lead section. Considering your vote a support. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)
- Yes, I was exaggerating slightly for effect. There's more positive statements than 10, but not 233 either. Yes that is also an improvement. The only thing left would be to perhaps add a section subheading to the criticism paragraph just like some of the other topics there have, and to note quickly in the lead section the fact that he and his work have faced significant criticism. It is a fact that he has, so adding that would be important balance. I think it would even be fine to say that he is dismissive of the criticisms and why, just like you did lower in the article. There's nothing wrong with the lead repeating a bit, as it is meant to be a summary of the article. And finally I don't think I'm being unreasonable about the criticism. Avoiding mentioning it is POV as I have explained, and of course it's been refuted. Every argument is refuted by the other side all the time. That doesn't make the criticisms wrong or change the fact that they are made. With those two changes, consider my vote a support, as I may not have a chance to check again before this closes, and there is a lot of great work here. - Taxman Talk July 9, 2005 16:05 (UTC)
- I've expanded the criticisms of his work, adding seven more oft-cited criticisms (although I believe most of them have been refuted). Let me know if you consider this a step in the neutral direction and how much more you believe should be added. --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)
- Ok, many of the prose changes have improved the neutrality of the article. But the article still faces a POV by choice of what it covers. You guys keep hiding behind saying this article is about him, so those criticisms should go elsewhere, but that is spurious. Most of the article is about his work and the benefits of his work. This is from the NPOV policy: "The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." and "The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source." That is what this article suffers from. There are 233 facts supporting how beneficial his work and methods were, and 2 or 3 on the drawbacks. If you're going to cover so much on the benefits, you can't claim that you shouldn't cover the drawbacks. I know you guys agree with his methods and disagree with the criticisms, but sorry, that shows in the article and it is POV. What I do really like is the increased citation, but it needs to be balanced too. - Taxman Talk July 9, 2005 14:26 (UTC)
- They may have, and I'm really sorry, but I didn't have time to check. You wrote that while I was writing out my comments. See what you can do with mine, and I'll check on yours in the morning. - Taxman Talk July 6, 2005 00:12 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you are only objecting on the POV of the Green Revolution section, I have taken an axe to it, there are now 4 paragraphs, 1. describes the background of the Green Revolution, 2. describes increased yeild and land conservation, 3. Crtiticism (with a refutation) 4. The nobel prize. I would strongly argue that the bulk of the article is not about the Green Revolution. The biotech advocacy section unsurprisingly reflects his POV since it is about his advocacy and I will not extend this to cover the anti-biotech argument in any more detail.--nixie 6 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
- Take a look at the newly revised version. It has been hacked down quite a bit. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)
- I think you're getting the wrong impression. That wasn't a citation, but a note. Borlaug has never claimed to have saved a billion lives. Countless others have claimed it numerous times for him. He'd probably vehemently deny his personal impact if confronted with the claim, as he doesn't seem to like personal pride/fame. Nonetheless, it is the most oft-cited thing about him, so it should be included. By using the note that we do, we are trying to supply the most legitimate reference available (Borlaug's own words) as to the probable source of the claim. If you want actual examples of the claim, you need only click on any of the references or external links at the bottom; they all state it.
- Well it still doesn't cite anyone as saying the comment except Borlaug, so I'm not sure it's much better supported than it was. The footnote is basically conjecture with "it seems". Also after reading the article again I'm even more convinced of a POV problem. The entire article is basically promoting that Borlaug's way was the right way to do things. The language used to describe his methods and results is invariably positive and often effusive with praise. The criticism of his work and methods is very minimal, and every time I could see it was mentioned, it is quickly refuted or dismissed with a quote or comment from Borlaug. That's not NPOV, in fact the article is far from it. We can discuss great benefits, and still acknowledge that there are negative consequences that come with it and not bury that within praise of the work. Again, appealing to the Green Revoltion article and saying it has criticisms is spurious and even moreso given that that article has no references, and that section is disputed. An unrelated style problem is the one and two sentence paragraphs that break up the flow of the prose. They highlight areas that are either not fully developed, or should just be merged with related material. Even the lead has a few examples, and it should be merged into two or perhaps three paragraphs that are cohesive and complete. - Taxman Talk July 5, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
- I'm looking into the "billion lives" quote. It's often stated, but never sourced, apparently. I tried to keep the POV to simply stating what Borlaug's POV was, using his own words since he is so active in these areas, but understand that there needs to be some balance. Give me some time... --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 13:15 (UTC)
Oppose. This article may seem interesting to Americans, but please note that wikipedia is NO AMERICAN WORLD. We Asians have NEVER heard about this guy.--Deryck C. 2005-06-30 15:07:57 (UTC)- That's not a reason to oppose! How can you assume that he is not notable just because you never heard of him? Besides, he's a Nobel prize winner! And A LOT of his work was done in India, Pakistan and China, did you even read the article? Borisblue 30 June 2005 15:56 (UTC)
- In keeping with the support/object policy at the top of this page, I'm fairly certain this objection can be ignored (unless the user would like to provide specific rationale that can be addressed). --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 16:10 (UTC)
Mildly oppose.To Borisblue: I read through that article, and that's the problem! The author of this article claims that he has done a lot in India and (other parts of) Asia but as a Chinese I've never heard of him! Deryck C.- Alright, check out WP:FA, and tell me how many of the people/topics you've heard of. Maybe then you'll realize what's wrong with your argument. Also, since your opposition is still not a problem that can be specifically addressed, I'm still fairly certain that your objection can be ignored. Please, I'm begging you to find a problem with this article! --brian0918™ 1 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
- Support. There's been an astounding improvement in this article in the last month or so; yeah, as it stands now, I think it deserves FA status (and pace User:Brian0918 above, I'm not a "significant" contributor to it). Oh, and w/r/t Deryck C.'s comments, no one has ever heard of him: read the article. –Hajor 30 June 2005 16:21 (UTC)
Minor object- The lead section needs to be somewhat longer. - SimonP June 30, 2005 17:02 (UTC)- Support. This is an excellent article, a very good read, good research. It meets all the featured article criteria. As I mentioned on peer-review, I would prefer the intro to be even longer, there should be a relative clause explaining the green revolution (because from a professional writing perspective, terms have to be briefly explained the first time they are used), and numbers should be given in the intro instead of "the resulting increase..." (because being specific is always better than weasel terms).--Fenice 30 June 2005 17:45 (UTC) More praise: this article flows very naturally, it does not have the typical-Wikipedia "And_now_to_something_completely_different"-breaches between sections or even paragraphs.--Fenice 30 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)
- I tried finding the words to add to the lead section to describe the Green Revolution, but realized that the rest of the lead section basically describes it in full. The Green Revolution started with him, and was the result of his research and techniques. There may be a way to add something, but I think it's fine as is. --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 21:50 (UTC)
- I was actually worried that there are flow problems and was surprised by your reply and Borisblue's reply that the article is "most engaging". --brian0918™ 30 June 2005 18:57 (UTC)
- Support. I've never heard of this guy, and I'm glad to have read this article. Well-written, and I have no objections. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 21:20 (UTC)
- Support. I am very familiar with Borlaug and this is an excellent article about him. Much improved over earlier versions. That said, I do agree that the article can use a little work to be more NPOV.--Alabamaboy 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
- Support, the article is a very good biography. On the POV issues, I don't see why a biography can't establish someomes POV, the article doesn't attempt to discredit critics of modern agriculture, it simply presents Borlaugs POV on the criticisms directed at his work and the work of others. The criticism are throughly discussed in other articles.--nixie 1 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)
Oppose. The article has rather an excess of images claimed under "copyrighted, fair use" -- all but the graphs and two of the pictures are so claimed. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is a free encyclopedia. Could we get some images under a freer license here?(Note: I will be out of town until Tuesday, and probably won't be able to access Wikipedia until then) --Carnildo 1 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)- Several of the images have been removed. I doubt we're going to find any free images. That's the problem with people who have lived since 1923...... --brian0918™ 1 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)
- I've adjusted the image tags on fair use images to copyrighted free use etc, since that is the licence they are available under. There are quite a few websites that allow the use of copyrighted Borlaug images with restrictions. --nixie 1 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)
- Several of the images have been removed. I doubt we're going to find any free images. That's the problem with people who have lived since 1923...... --brian0918™ 1 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)
- Support. Very detailed indeed. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 1 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
- Support: I'm the richer for having read it. The only problem, and it's actionable but not necessary, is that it is a little hagiographic. There are good, strong qualifiers that can be placed on his life and actions (e.g. that his strategies saved a billion lives, but these led him to a blindness to the dangers of those techniques today), but the article is well done and certainly Featured Article quality. Geogre 3 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)
- He's not blind to the dangers, I don't think, based on recent interviews I've read. Check out some of the external links and references in the article. Some of the content to support this was originally in the article but was removed at some point (not by myself, I don't think). --brian0918™ 3 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)
- Support as per Geogre --Malathion 5 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
- Support I first read about Borlaug in my Biology textbooks. But I must say that the article has given me alot more information regarding him. --IncMan July 5, 2005 14:00 (UTC)
- Strong support. Not having heard of someone - particularly a scientist - is a particularly stupid reason for opposing. Ambi 5 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
ObjectNeutral. This is a pretty good article, but there are a number of things I don't like, including an over-reliance on direct quotes from the article's subject himself. In many cases, omitting the quotes and summarizing the events would help tightening the article and improve the flow. Several assorted comments: (1)His great-grandma in all likely hood was not called "Solveig Thomasdaughter Rinde". That reads very strangely. Probably "Thomasdottir" or some such. Allright, "Thomasdaughter" would be the English translation, but still...(changed it myself) (2) language level/trivia: "His wrestling coach continually encouraged him to "give 105%."" So what. Better get rid of that. (3)"Periodically, Borlaug found it necessary to drop out of school and find a job..." all right, lots of students have to accept summer jobs. Could be tightened.(did it myself) (4)Who says that Cold Mountain is the Forest Service's most remote station? Can we back up that by some statement from the Forest Service. (Not UoM, please.)Is sourced, sort of, although a ref from the Forest Service itself would have been better (5)Some citations are too colloquial, just not the right tone for an encyclopedia article (examples: Stakman, Sasakawa). Better omit these quotes and briefly summarize the events.de-anecdotalized it myself (6)First paragraph of "Production in Africa" is an outright accusation of environmentalists. At the very least, this must be referenced to excellent and truly reliable, authoritative, and unbiased sources. Especially if ludicrous claims are made such as "confusion of technical terms ... between fertilizer and pesticide". That's denigrating.Good job! (7)The whole "High-yield biotechnology advocacy" can go, Wikipedia is not a platform for his advocacy. Can be summarized in one sentence such as "Throughout his life, Borlaug has been a fervent advocate of the use of biotechnological methods to produce high-yield crops", but since that should be obvious to the reader by the time he or she reaches that paragraph, I think even that can be dropped.Well done! (8)"only 17% of cultivable land produces 90% of the world's food crops" — source, please.(9)I also think, like Taxman, that the article is maybe overly sympathetic with the guy. That may be caused be either relying too much on sympathetic sources only, or Borlaug just might really be such a swell guy... probably points 6 and 7 I mentioned, together with the overall tone of the article and the many direct quotes creates this sensation of rather heavy bias that I perceive. Also, I see no references or external links to critical appraisals of Borlaug's work. Just firmly pro-Borlaug sources.It's much better already. Lupo July 6, 2005 12:03 (UTC)- Borlaug is a person. Critical appraisals of his work belong in the Green Revolution article (unless they specifically talk about him, which I haven't been able to find one that does). I'll work on your other problems. None of these are serious problems, though, so I don't understand the need to Object. As for the "confusing of terms" claim, that came straight from Borlaug, who said that the heads of the organizations were being "hopelessly confused" about terms (he specifically mentions the difference between fertilizers and pesticides). I took out the direct quote because you and Taxman seem to be against using his own words in the article about him. I'm not sure I understand that-- it seems like we're purposely censoring for no real reason-- but I'll do it anyway. As for the "Thomasdaughter", it was common practice to give your sons the middle name ___son, and your daughter the middle name ___daughter. Check out the genealogy of his family, and you'll see what I mean. I don't know about the spelling, I remember seeing it spelled "dottor", but I don't think that matters. My source says daughter, so that's all I need for now. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)
- It's common practice in Norway to name daughters "__dotter", not "__daugther". Take a look at her genealogy entry yourself! :-) Lupo July 6, 2005 13:03 (UTC)
- This is an extremely minor detail. I'm simply using my source. If you feel it should be changed, go for it, but this by no means should be considered even part of an overall reason why an article shouldn't be featured. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)
- That's your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. Anyway, I changed it myself, based on your genealogical source, which clearly states: "On 4 April 1854, Sheriff Johan - Heiberg Landmark signed an emigration certificate for Ole Olsen Dybevig with [h]is wife Solveig Thomasdotter." Lupo July 7, 2005 07:59 (UTC)
- This is an extremely minor detail. I'm simply using my source. If you feel it should be changed, go for it, but this by no means should be considered even part of an overall reason why an article shouldn't be featured. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)
- It's common practice in Norway to name daughters "__dotter", not "__daugther". Take a look at her genealogy entry yourself! :-) Lupo July 6, 2005 13:03 (UTC)
- Borlaug is a person. Critical appraisals of his work belong in the Green Revolution article (unless they specifically talk about him, which I haven't been able to find one that does). I'll work on your other problems. None of these are serious problems, though, so I don't understand the need to Object. As for the "confusing of terms" claim, that came straight from Borlaug, who said that the heads of the organizations were being "hopelessly confused" about terms (he specifically mentions the difference between fertilizers and pesticides). I took out the direct quote because you and Taxman seem to be against using his own words in the article about him. I'm not sure I understand that-- it seems like we're purposely censoring for no real reason-- but I'll do it anyway. As for the "Thomasdaughter", it was common practice to give your sons the middle name ___son, and your daughter the middle name ___daughter. Check out the genealogy of his family, and you'll see what I mean. I don't know about the spelling, I remember seeing it spelled "dottor", but I don't think that matters. My source says daughter, so that's all I need for now. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)
- Additional comment: sorry to bring this up, but the UoM images are "copyrighted, free for web use only". Is this compatible with Wikipedia's goals?? Lupo July 6, 2005 13:14 (UTC)
- I don't think suggestions 1,2,3 and 5 by Lupo make the article better, on the contrary. Quotes have to be accurate, even if they are colloquial. The 105% info I found very interesting, and also (3)is important to understand what motivates a person. These are actually the kinds of information I would look for in a biography. (These are all just minor changes however, I support anyway).--Fenice 6 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
- I do not advocate rephrasing these quotes. I propose omitting them altogether and summarizing the events to get a better article. Lupo July 6, 2005 14:42 (UTC)
- I think the quotes help bring the article to life and give you a personal look at the individual. Unlike in many biography articles on Wikipedia, this guy is still alive. His methods of communication are often very direct and blunt (in my opinion), but this isn't something you might realize if all his quotes are omitted. I think we're really destroying the article by removing his quotes (including many of the quotes that have already been removed). --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)
- I do not advocate rephrasing these quotes. I propose omitting them altogether and summarizing the events to get a better article. Lupo July 6, 2005 14:42 (UTC)
- I've sourced the Cold Mountain detail, and found the original source (The Atlantic Monthly magazine) for the first paragraph in the Production in Africa section. I've reworded it to something I think is more neutral (using exact quotes rather than my own paraphrasing, which may carry bias). Regardless of your opinion of the paragraph, some form of it must remain in the article. Otherwise, it makes Borlaug seem completely oblivious to the situation in Africa, when in fact the exact opposite is true. You may argue all you want about how exactly Borlaug was prevented from expanding into Africa (before Sasakawa came along), but it remains true that he was prevented, and had to wait for Sasakawa to finance his work. I highly doubt that Borlaug, the people at the Atlantic Monthly, and the people at the International Water Management Institute are all outright lying about this for whatever reason. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)
- I've also trimmed down the Bio-technology advocacy section, leaving the quote that I think most clearly shows Borlaug's personality. --brian0918™ 6 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
- I've also fixed your other points which have not been contested by Fenice. Are there any other specific problems that can be addressed? Thanks. --brian0918™ 7 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
- I've been adding more detailed information about his family, personal life, and career--trying to increase the focus on him. --brian0918™ 7 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
- Brian, quoting is fine. But I felt the article was too anecdotal. Biographical encyclopedia entries are difficult, and quoting is even more so, for one has to select the quotes carefully. Anecdotes may be fine for a biography, but in my opinion, they don't exactly help an encyclopedia article. Anyway, I think you did a fine job. Two more small points: Lupo July 7, 2005 07:59 (UTC)
- Watch out for only minimally rephrased text from external sources. Some text portions could use more rephrasing, even if it may be difficult. For instance, I find the "Glue for Guadalcanal" explanation rather close to the original text from the Dallas Observer. There may be other such tesxt passages. Lupo July 7, 2005 07:59 (UTC)
- Can you make the references to the Dallas Observer more precise? You could link to "feature_2.html", "feature_3.html", and so on as appropriate. Lupo July 7, 2005 07:59 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll work on that. --brian0918™ 7 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)
- Actually, I can't really do anything about that. Those superscript links go to the References section, not to the site itself. So, you'd need to create links in the Reference section to each page of the article. --brian0918™ 7 July 2005 14:11 (UTC)
- Brian, quoting is fine. But I felt the article was too anecdotal. Biographical encyclopedia entries are difficult, and quoting is even more so, for one has to select the quotes carefully. Anecdotes may be fine for a biography, but in my opinion, they don't exactly help an encyclopedia article. Anyway, I think you did a fine job. Two more small points: Lupo July 7, 2005 07:59 (UTC)
- I don't think suggestions 1,2,3 and 5 by Lupo make the article better, on the contrary. Quotes have to be accurate, even if they are colloquial. The 105% info I found very interesting, and also (3)is important to understand what motivates a person. These are actually the kinds of information I would look for in a biography. (These are all just minor changes however, I support anyway).--Fenice 6 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
Oppose. Strongly POV puff piece; says "saved a billion lives" in the intro but admits in the footnote that the source of this claim is unknown.Kaibabsquirrel 9 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)- It does not say "saved a billion lives". It says he's often credited with saving a billion lives, which is true. The note doesn't say the source of the claim is unknown, but rather speculates on the most likely source of the claim. The phrase "often credited" is used over 500 times in Wikipedia. Can you please point out what parts of the article you object to? --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)
- (1)You wrote above, "Borlaug is a person. Critical appraisals of his work belong in the Green Revolution article." Are you willing to apply this reasoning to Paul R. Ehrlich too? Otherwise, this article needs some critical appraisals of his work. (2) The specific wording in the article concerning the "one billion" is: "the exact source of this number is unknown. A likely origin is the population increase in South Asia over the period of the Green Revolution." Population increase from a high fertility rate is a reason to credit somebody with "saving a billion lives" or am I missing something here? (3) This article is missing any criticism of Borlaug's position that we only have two ways to feed the Earth's growing population, increasing food yields or cutting down the forests. There is an obvious, third answer and that is population control and getting the fertility rate below 2.1 on a worldwide scale. Has he, in fact, considered this? If so, it should be mentioned. Has he not and received criticism from anyone else for it? Then it should be mentioned too. (4) The section on Africa has a strong anti-environmental movement slant. It needs to state specifically which individuals campaigned against an expansion of Borlaug's efforts into Africa instead of saying "environmental lobbyists." Kaibabsquirrel 02:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- 1.) You're quoting me from some previous discussion before I added in a whole Criticisms section. It seems odd of you to take a random quote out of context like that. As for Ehrlich, we're not talking about that article. Leave your complaints about people preventing his predictions from happening at Talk:Paul R. Ehrlich. 2.) The article isn't endorsing the number, but giving a likely origin of the credit. There is a big difference between the two, and the wording makes it obvious which we're discussing. Whether you endorse the number or not doesn't matter, as the article doesn't endorse it either. 3.) Where in the article does it say that his position is such? Can you please cite critics who has specifically brought this up and suggested population control as an alternative. Otherwise, it is simply your original research and can't be added. (I'm not against adding it, but I can't add original research) 4.) The section doesn't have a slant. It states fact. It is a fact that he was initially prevented from expanding into Africa, because environmental groups that were against his usage of chemicals and GMOs prompted his financers and their governments to stop funding him. I do not know the specific groups involved, and have reworded the paragraph to seem less sweeping. It now reads:
- In the early 1980s, environmental groups that were opposed to Borlaug's methods compaigned against his planned expansion of efforts into Africa. They prompted the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and the World Bank to stop funding most of his African agriculture projects. Western European governments were persuaded to stop supplying fertilizer to Africa. According to David Seckler, former Director General of the International Water Management Institute, "the environmental community in the 1980s went crazy pressuring the donor countries and the big foundations not to support ideas like inorganic fertilizers for Africa."
- If you can suggest a better wording or if you know the specific groups involved, please make the appropriate changes. Again, this minor detail is not just cause for opposing an entire article. --brian0918™ 15:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- The rewrite looks better but if I can find anything specifying exactly which groups I'll let you know, because ideally the article should be specific. Regarding #3 I did some checking and found this: [2] "In general, the Green Revolution is unsustainable because it is based on expensive technology, energy intensive agricultural practices, and bountiful water. Ideally, increasing food efficiency means to increase the ability of plants to photosynthesize sunlight without the addition of chemicals or fossil water —to more rapidly convert sunlight energy into food energy. Although a wonderfully impressive sight, the 12-foot Iowa corn would be three-foot tall, require proportionately less energy and other farmer inputs, but with equally large corn ears...Recapitulating Malthus, “Green Revolution” founder and former University of Minnesota Professor, Dr. Norman Borlaug said the benefits it conferred on the malnourished were predicated on arresting growth." I also found this in the Atlantic Monthly article ("Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity"): The 10 Billion Mouths part that begins "His opponents may not know it, but Borlaug has long warned of the dangers of population growth." If some mention of Borlaug's views on population growth were added to the article, along with mention of the predictions of Lester Brown and others for China and Africa (noted in that same section of the Atlantic Monthly article) and Borlaug's response, that would be good. My only other concern is the citation to an interview with Ron Bailey in Reason Magazine, although this is not really grounds for objection to the article itself and is relevant since it is an interview with Borlaug. My main concern is that there is no attempt to use this article and Norman Borlaug's work as a grounds (whether overtly or subtly) to attack the environmental movement, Paul Ehrlich, and others. I note with approval that Ehrlich's work is cited in the article without criticism. Otherwise I have no further objections to the article. Kaibabsquirrel 02:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've added a paragraph under "The future of global farming" which basically just gives the reader a sense of Borlaug's take on the "Population Monster". I don't think other people's predictions belong in the article, but in their own articles. As for the Reason article, I couldn't find any other source that so easily listed the environmentalists' concerns. As I said to Taxman, Borlaug takes serious concerns seriously. The problem is that many of these concerns are nonsense or based on highly suspect data. I think the current version of the article is skewed toward the environmentalists, since it doesn't even talk about Borlaug's replies to the claims in the Criticisms section, making it seem like all of the claims are true. --brian0918™ 04:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- The addition looks good. Objection withdrawn - with the caveat that I do not agree that the current version is "skewed toward the environmentalists," do not agree that "many of those concerns are nonsense or based on highly suspect data," and don't much care for references to "the" environmentalists worded in such a way that environmentalists are spoken of as an "other" instead of as the mainstream consensus. (The media does this all the time...) Kaibabsquirrel 05:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- You should check out a show called Bullshit!. They had a fairly critical look at environmentalism. --brian0918™ 13:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- The addition looks good. Objection withdrawn - with the caveat that I do not agree that the current version is "skewed toward the environmentalists," do not agree that "many of those concerns are nonsense or based on highly suspect data," and don't much care for references to "the" environmentalists worded in such a way that environmentalists are spoken of as an "other" instead of as the mainstream consensus. (The media does this all the time...) Kaibabsquirrel 05:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've added a paragraph under "The future of global farming" which basically just gives the reader a sense of Borlaug's take on the "Population Monster". I don't think other people's predictions belong in the article, but in their own articles. As for the Reason article, I couldn't find any other source that so easily listed the environmentalists' concerns. As I said to Taxman, Borlaug takes serious concerns seriously. The problem is that many of these concerns are nonsense or based on highly suspect data. I think the current version of the article is skewed toward the environmentalists, since it doesn't even talk about Borlaug's replies to the claims in the Criticisms section, making it seem like all of the claims are true. --brian0918™ 04:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- The rewrite looks better but if I can find anything specifying exactly which groups I'll let you know, because ideally the article should be specific. Regarding #3 I did some checking and found this: [2] "In general, the Green Revolution is unsustainable because it is based on expensive technology, energy intensive agricultural practices, and bountiful water. Ideally, increasing food efficiency means to increase the ability of plants to photosynthesize sunlight without the addition of chemicals or fossil water —to more rapidly convert sunlight energy into food energy. Although a wonderfully impressive sight, the 12-foot Iowa corn would be three-foot tall, require proportionately less energy and other farmer inputs, but with equally large corn ears...Recapitulating Malthus, “Green Revolution” founder and former University of Minnesota Professor, Dr. Norman Borlaug said the benefits it conferred on the malnourished were predicated on arresting growth." I also found this in the Atlantic Monthly article ("Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity"): The 10 Billion Mouths part that begins "His opponents may not know it, but Borlaug has long warned of the dangers of population growth." If some mention of Borlaug's views on population growth were added to the article, along with mention of the predictions of Lester Brown and others for China and Africa (noted in that same section of the Atlantic Monthly article) and Borlaug's response, that would be good. My only other concern is the citation to an interview with Ron Bailey in Reason Magazine, although this is not really grounds for objection to the article itself and is relevant since it is an interview with Borlaug. My main concern is that there is no attempt to use this article and Norman Borlaug's work as a grounds (whether overtly or subtly) to attack the environmental movement, Paul Ehrlich, and others. I note with approval that Ehrlich's work is cited in the article without criticism. Otherwise I have no further objections to the article. Kaibabsquirrel 02:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- 1.) You're quoting me from some previous discussion before I added in a whole Criticisms section. It seems odd of you to take a random quote out of context like that. As for Ehrlich, we're not talking about that article. Leave your complaints about people preventing his predictions from happening at Talk:Paul R. Ehrlich. 2.) The article isn't endorsing the number, but giving a likely origin of the credit. There is a big difference between the two, and the wording makes it obvious which we're discussing. Whether you endorse the number or not doesn't matter, as the article doesn't endorse it either. 3.) Where in the article does it say that his position is such? Can you please cite critics who has specifically brought this up and suggested population control as an alternative. Otherwise, it is simply your original research and can't be added. (I'm not against adding it, but I can't add original research) 4.) The section doesn't have a slant. It states fact. It is a fact that he was initially prevented from expanding into Africa, because environmental groups that were against his usage of chemicals and GMOs prompted his financers and their governments to stop funding him. I do not know the specific groups involved, and have reworded the paragraph to seem less sweeping. It now reads:
- (1)You wrote above, "Borlaug is a person. Critical appraisals of his work belong in the Green Revolution article." Are you willing to apply this reasoning to Paul R. Ehrlich too? Otherwise, this article needs some critical appraisals of his work. (2) The specific wording in the article concerning the "one billion" is: "the exact source of this number is unknown. A likely origin is the population increase in South Asia over the period of the Green Revolution." Population increase from a high fertility rate is a reason to credit somebody with "saving a billion lives" or am I missing something here? (3) This article is missing any criticism of Borlaug's position that we only have two ways to feed the Earth's growing population, increasing food yields or cutting down the forests. There is an obvious, third answer and that is population control and getting the fertility rate below 2.1 on a worldwide scale. Has he, in fact, considered this? If so, it should be mentioned. Has he not and received criticism from anyone else for it? Then it should be mentioned too. (4) The section on Africa has a strong anti-environmental movement slant. It needs to state specifically which individuals campaigned against an expansion of Borlaug's efforts into Africa instead of saying "environmental lobbyists." Kaibabsquirrel 02:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- It does not say "saved a billion lives". It says he's often credited with saving a billion lives, which is true. The note doesn't say the source of the claim is unknown, but rather speculates on the most likely source of the claim. The phrase "often credited" is used over 500 times in Wikipedia. Can you please point out what parts of the article you object to? --brian0918™ 9 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)
- Strong Support - An extremely good article on an extraordinary man. --Nyr14 01:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Strongest possible support. Despite his achievements I'd never heard of this remarkable man until I was browsing Wikipedia and found this article. Hopefully this can be featured on the main page, and raise awareness of his work. By the way it looked like this when I first saw it, and that was only back in May. It's improvement since then is a tribute to both the dedication of its editors and the strength of the Wikipedia system. the wub "?/!" 09:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
