Talk:Green Revolution

message: China part of the article reads like something taken directly from the Chinese official propaganda textbooks.
And not new ones, considering such peculiarities like the "Agrarian Reform Law of 1950, which ended private land ownership and gave land back to the peasants" - which is self-contradictory.
Also suggesting that Great Leap Forward was beneficial for food security in China, when in reality it caused one of the greatest famines in history, reads like a morbid joke. Or an official Maoist propaganda, take your pick.
This definetly doesn't fit Wikipedia rules about unbiased articles. 176.106.33.167 (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  China part of Green Revolution 

message: The article gives a very pro-Green Revolution view, and little voice is given to the many reliable sources that are more critical of it.
Here is a variety of sources that take a more critical eye to the Green Revolution - they represent a variety of views on it, from "on the whole positive but not without major flaws" to "wholly negative". There are plenty more sources that could be incorporated into the article than these.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/apr/01/norman-borlaug-humanitarian-hero-menace-society
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9780203840443/green-revolution-revisited-bernhard-glaeser
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-019-09372-7
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/green-revolution-norman-borlaug-race-to-fight-global-hunger/
http://kyle.dyson.cornell.edu/aem%204640/Hazell%20green%20rev%20paper.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/how-unintended-consequences-unraveled-a-legendary-agricultural-achievement/2020/04/17/b62f0f04-7ff0-11ea-8013-1b6da0e4a2b7_story.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farm-protests-in-india-are-writing-the-green-revolutions-obituary/
https://ourworldindata.org/reducing-fertilizer-use
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/27/using-far-less-chemical-fertiliser-still-produces-high-crop-yields-study
https://agricultureandfoodsecurity.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40066-023-00409-5
Furthermore, I don't think "Norman Borlaug's response to criticism" deserves its own section. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the situation is a bit more complex than that. There is in fact some critical material in the main text (perhaps moved out of the deprecated 'Criticism' section). There is therefore a danger of duplication if materials are added to 'Criticism' or 'Responses' or whatever. We need to remove the section altogether and apply the new sources wherever they fit in the main text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no policy against "reception" or "assessment" sections. With how controversial the Green Revolution is I think such a section would be appropriate, providing it gave adequate weight to both those who think the Green Revolution was a good thing and those who think it was a bad thing.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't, indeed, but that doesn't licence duplication, nor a definite non-neutral tone throughout the article. The whole thing beads a careful rewrite; the assessment could either be built into each section, or at the end. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Green revolution of India 2409:4065:41A:56DE:0:0:1771:18B0 (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political science  

message: The term Green Revolution 2409:408C:2C9C:4237:3DB3:3364:DFD3:47F0 (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Revolution:  The term "Green Revolution" is applied to the period from and 1967 to 1978. The green revolution started by Dr. Norman Borlaug in Mexico and Dr. M.S. Swaminathan in India. The term green revolution is a general one that is applied to successful agricultural experiments in many countries. But it was most successful in India.