Talk:Green Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Green Revolution, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Edit explanation

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.

Justin

[edit] Soil

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

[edit] Graph

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)

[edit] "violet"?

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Cloned?

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 165.86.71.20 (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graph removal

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)

[edit] Section removal

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)

[edit] ideological bias

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 165.86.71.20 (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 129.170.125.190 (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

129.170.125.190 (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)