Talk:Allan Savory/Archive 1

References, PoV & quotation
The reference "2" links to an article that discusses some of Savory's agricultural work, not to his political activities & exile (where it was located).

I have deleted the phrase "installation of a fake government" (in reference to Muzorewa govt). This is a clear PoV. Politically the author might not have liked that government, but it ruled Zimbabwe-Rhodesia for just under two years and signed the Lancaster House Agreement - that it wasn't a "fake"

Savory's opposition to the internal settlement was based on his belief that it wouldn't bring peace because it excluded the external opposition parties, not because of an ideological "anti-racist" stance. (This is my PoV of his writings & actions, he does not emphatically state this).

I would say that Savory is more a eccentric & a political realist rather than a ideologue. His brief discussion of his political activities in "Ramblings" is curious to say the least. He says he went into politics because he thought that his experiences as a solder fighting guerilla's (in Malaya? Kenya?) would be invaluable to the (Rhodesian) government. Note: I think he served in the Rhodesian army while leader of the opposition??

In "Ramblings" his criticizes of Ian Smith's is strategy (& apparently semantics) rather than politics. His main criticism is Smith's government failure to a) honestly understand the "black viewpoint" b) address economic & social desires of the black population and c) for using the word "terrorist" on the grounds that "If you want to spread terror use the word terrorist repeatedly, associated with terrifying pictures, and low and behold you do spread terror".

As for the quote: "If I had been born a black Rhodesian, instead of a white Rhodesian, I would be your greatest terrorist." I would say that this partial quote that changes the meaning of the original full quote: "If you want to win this 'war' you need to understand your opponents and to understand why someone like me would say, "If I had been born a black Rhodesian, instead of a white Rhodesian, I would be your greatest terrorist.""

He goes on to say in Ramblings: "I am not indulging in hindsight as many times on the public platform I said that Mugabe's greatest allies were Ian Smith and his generals who, while waging a 'war against terrorists', were winning political victory for Mugabe and ensuring the end of democracy for years to come. "  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And he is now a US citizen and lives in the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems interesting and worthy of inclusion. I don't know to Ramblings work. Do you have a reference. Do we have a reference to his new citizenship? --Salix alba (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot see how Reference 7 (D.D. Briske et al.) contradicts the concepts of holistic management. It just states that in most of the analyzed cases rotational grazing was less efficient than continuous grazing in terms of plant and/or animal production. But maximizing efficiency is not the core point of the concept. Besides that, this reference doesn't make any conclusions about reverse desertification or the effectiveness of the method. And Reference 6 is (as already mentioned elsewhere) indeed supporting the concept, so the reference is wrongly placed (or someone replaced it?). --79.202.125.234 (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you caught that too! 68.229.214.55 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving criticism section
I am the author of one of the articles currently linked in the Criticism section and have a few ideas for how that section might be improved. However, because I have been very critical of Savory in the recent past, I will only make suggestions in the talk page instead of editing the article directly.

First, it seems to me that some of the criticisms of the TED talk, particularly the one by me, do not meet Wikipedia's standards. While I have strived to be fair and accurate, my understanding is that self-published blogs should not be cited in biographies of living persons. This seems to exclude my blog post ("Cows against climate change: the dodgy science behind the TED talk"), and perhaps the posts by Guy McPherson and Ralph Maughan. However, the post by Chris Clarke, which is on a KCET website, seems more likely to be allowable.

There are a couple of criticisms which I encountered in the course of researching my post which I think would be worth citing here.

First, from a review of Savory's Holistic Resource Management:
 * There exists a wealth of range management theory in this book. However, the value of this theory is difficult to assess. Discerning between what is agricultural prophesy and unsubstantiated, anecdotal observation, from case studies and corroborated theory is not an easy task. It is made more difficult by Savory's clear disregard for most ecological and range management literature. He cites few references in support of his views and argues that because '... modern science ... (is) ... reductionist...' (p. 486), it is of'... limited application to the HRM concept as a whole ...' (p. 513). However, he accepts that '... to comprehend and work with the complexity of our ecosystem we do have to break it up to some extent:' (p. 61) and that knowledge derived from reductionist studies '... is often of great importance in cases of detailed specific application' (p. 513). This issue lies at the heart of the holistic-reductionist polemic. Savory's inconsistent rejection of reductionism repre- sents, perhaps, the most controversial aspect of this book. Furthermore, his insistence that some aspects of his model (eg. 'herd effect' (p. 263-272)) '... cannot be isolated for research ... (but) ... can easily be observed and monitored in the field' (p. 265) is difficult to accept.
 * The apparent inconsistencies and lack of definitions (eg. for concepts such as complexity, stability, resilience, diversity and production which have a number of different meanings in the ecological literature), render it frustratingly difficult to compare his HRM approach with the broader literature. In addition, his description of succession (one of four 'ecosystem foundation blocks') represents a narrow, ecosystem-centred view of this process and ignores entirely the voluminous population-centred literature. There are a number of recent treatments of succession (eg. Anderson, 1986; Pickett, Collins & Armesto, 1987) which appear far more pluralistic and 'holistic' in their approach, and Savory would do well to acknowledge their existence.

Also:
 * As a scientific body dedicated to the research and development ofthe sustainable utilisation and management of Southern African rangelands, the correct approach to Holistic Management would be to rigorously evaluate the proposals put forward by Allan Savory and others. However, this is extremely difficult. Not only because of widespread fmancial cuts and reduced manpower, but by the very inconsistency of the Holistic Management approach. It would be difficult to evaluate even a short-term research endeavour (of 5 to 10 years), as the approach taken by Holistic Management proponents would surely have changed by then, as it has in the past.

Finally, I think it's worth pointing out that the entire Criticism section was recently deleted by a Wikipedia user who shares a name with a director of the Savory Institute. While there is certainly room for improvement and some of the existing criticism may not be compliant with policies, there may be a conflict of interest to watch out for.AdamMerberg (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of removing the reference to your article as it appears you are right regarding the use of blogs in biographies of living persons.  Danny Sprinkle (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the other 2 blog sources. Danny Sprinkle (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Obvious NPOV Violations Continue
This article already has been tagged due to Allan Savory's favorable contributions to his own page, but there are now additional edits (Feb 2011) from his organization, the Savory Institute, providing links and updating their awards. This is very simply a violation of user conduct on Wikipedia.

Moreover, despite anecdotal evidence put forward by the author himself, the Holistic Management approach as outlined by Savory has no scientific credibility. Perhaps his methods are beneficial, but this needs to be established in the literature before including extravagant claims such as: "thousands of families, corporations and businesses are using the holistic management framework developed by Savory to radically improve the quality of their lives and regenerate the resource base that sustains them." Radically improve their lives? What resource "base" is regenerated? This is nothing but PR fluff that has no place in an article that is supposed to be factual.

There is not enough substance to the article to warrant a NPOV dispute at this point, but based on the trends, this article will NEVER meet quality standards. I highly recommend that Allan and his employees refrain from future edits.

Rob Shepard (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite a lot of this article sounds like marketing :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.182.137.219 (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It is an extremely strong statement to say that "the Holistic Management approach [...] has no scientific credibility", especially since the only working reference to this discussion in the article is to one meta-analysis in which many of the referenced articles are in fact supportive of this approach. I think this, and indeed the whole "Criticism" section of the article, need solid references and much less outright name-calling.Insurrectionist (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference [6] is misused - the linked article is entirely in favour of Savory's work. Suggest we replace it with "citation needed". Mrdavenport (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This sections also contains false statements, there are a number of journal articles that address rotational grazing and holistic management, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10705-010-9360-x?LI=true for example. This section looks more like someone has an axe to grind.137.111.13.200 (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have clarified info by adding a second source, which expanded on the conclusions of the source already cited. If anyone takes issue with the changes then let's discuss it. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I just read this account today (22 Mar 2013) and the tone is ridiculous. Nobody objective would call this anything like NPOV. I agree, it's basically a marketing page for Holistic Management, and a rather shallow one at that. Xanthoptica (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Again the criticism section has been amended in a manner which misrepresents the source, and more specific information was removed. Without discussion. Discussions should clarify this issue, lest we get into a pointless cycle of reversions.137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure to what extent the Faccio paper relates to Savory's methods, but it has no relation to the Briske paper. And the Briske paper has nothing at all to do with 'tilled grazed land,' whatever that might be. I would remove the Faccio ref for lack of germaneness, and would expand on the Briske, since that's one of the main sources cited by Savory's detractors. I'd at least remove the Faccio from 'Criticism.' Danny Sprinkle (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and moved the Faccio reference from Criticism to Holistic management, since presumably it is supportive of Savory. Danny Sprinkle (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Tracker Combat Unit
Just found a reference to the Tracker Combat Unit he set up in 1965. http://selousscouts.tripod.com/zambezi_valley_manhunt.htm --Salix (talk): 23:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section
I posted this on the other page and found the same mistake here.

The Criticism section is completely false as even a cursory inspection of the source he posted proves. In fact the consensus seems to be that while rotational grazing CAN work, when it doesn't work it is because of NOT using proper management, ie Holistic management. And that is exactly the opposite of what the criticism section states. It is the holistic management or other knowledgeable management system that is required to make the rotational grazing work. Stated differently and plainly, you have to know what you are doing and not just arbitrarily throw cattle on land a couple times a year. And that is EXACTLY what his so called source for criticism states, if you go through the references in the meta study. Here is one example of a specific reference in the supposedly critical review of holistic management (there are many more):

"Managers have found that rotational grazing systems can work for diverse management purposes, but scientific experiments have demonstrated that they do not necessarily work for specific ecological purposes. These interpretations appear contradictory, but we contend that they can be reconciled by evaluation within the context of complex adaptive systems in which human variables such as goal setting, experiential knowledge, and decision making are given equal importance to biophysical variables. The scientific evidence refuting the ecological benefits of rotational grazing is robust, but also narrowly focused, because it derives from experiments that intentionally excluded these human variables. Consequently, the profession has attempted to answer a broad, complex question—whether or not managers should adopt rotational grazing—with necessarily narrow experimental research focused exclusively on ecological processes. The rotational grazing debate persists because the rangeland profession has not yet developed a management and research framework capable of incorporating both the social and biophysical components of complex adaptive systems. We recommend moving beyond the debate over whether or not rotational grazing works by focusing on adaptive management and the integration of experiential and experimental, as well as social and biophysical, knowledge to provide a more comprehensive framework for the management of rangeland systems."

Since Holistic management is a framework for the management of rangeland systems, it follows that this is NOT a criticism of holistic management, but instead a criticism of rotational grazing without management! Please note that it states "experiments that intentionally excluded these human variables" So while there may be criticisms of holistic management, most certainly the post made by whoever in the criticism section should be removed. It is a false post. The reference does not say what the post claims it says. Managers found it worked, while scientists excluding management found it didn't work.

In addition, the last sentence with citation needed is also false. Rotational Grazing properly managed (not necessarily, but including Savory's management system) is well proven and all you have to do to find sources for that is to go to the MIRG (Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing) wiki page for references68.229.214.55 (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To gain WP:NPOV I think its fair that both sides of the argument are presented. It seems that Holecheck (2000) and Briske (2008) are the two papers most often use as criticism of Savory. Due to their importance they need to be mentioned as do the rebuttal papers (Teague, Provenza, et al 2008; Teague, Dowhower, et al 2011, Gill 2009b, Gill 2009c). The Savory Institute research portfolio and PlantTech site seem to have good access points into the literature.--Salix (talk): 19:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a sentence or two on Savory's claims for carbon uptake in his TED talk, and the criticism by Briske & West. The statement, "To be fair it has to be noted Briske's conclusions are in dispute in the scientific community," has been added after my addition, but the reference is to a document which does not cover the carbon uptake claims. Can anyone supply a reference to a better response to this specific claim? Dayvey (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @Davey Actually a very well written rebuttal is in the comments section of the RealClimate blog you posted Written by a colleague of Brisk. 126

Richard Teague says: 17 Nov 2013 at 10:13 PM DEFICIENCIES IN THE BRISKE ESTIMATES OF CARBON SEQUESTRATION ON RANGELANDS

By Richard Teague Professor, Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University Senior Scientist of the Borlaug Institute Associate Resident Director, Texas A&M AgriLife Research P.O. Box 1658, Vernon, TX 76385 E-mail: rteague@ag.tamu.edu

Most research related to grazing management, and thus carbon sequestration potential, on rangelands cited by Briske et al. [1,2,3] has been short-term and has examined the issue from a reductionist viewpoint that ignores the critical influences of scale, and does not use adaptive multi-paddock grazing to achieve sound animal production, resource improvement, and socio-economic goals under constantly varying conditions on rangelands [4]. Superior results in terms of range ecosystem improvement, productivity, soil carbon and fertility, water holding capacity and profitability have been regularly obtained by ranchers using multiple paddocks per herd with short periods of grazing, long recovery periods and adaptively changing recovery periods and other management elements as conditions change [4,5].

The references cited by Briske et al. [1,2,3] concentrate only on differences in rangeland productivity without meaningfully taking into account negative impacts on the environment that can lead to misleading extrapolations. These conclusions cloud, rather than enhance, knowledge about sustainable grazing management and are not relevant to practical grazing management. Multi-paddock grazing research from Australia, Southern Africa, Argentina and USA [4,5] that was: i) conducted at the scale of ranching operations, ii) adaptively managed as conditions changed to achieve desired ecosystem and production goals, and iii) measured parameters indicating change in ecosystem function, have arrived at the opposite conclusion. These published data were omitted in the reviews by Briske et al. [1,2,3].

Many ranchers around the world have used adaptive, multi-paddock grazing management to restore ecosystem services and productivity on degraded rangelands in areas with less than 10 and up to 80 inches of annual precipitation. Many of these ranches in drier areas were initially so bare of vegetation that they would have been classified as desertified. By ignoring such successful restoration examples, Briske and other scientists with the same limited experience are grossly underestimating the potential of management to increase carbon sequestration on the rangelands of the world. Consequently, the inferences and conclusions made by Briske et al. [1,2,3] do not represent the subject adequately because conclusions have been selectively chosen so as to exclude published data showing superior results at commercial ranch scale from adaptively managed multi-paddock grazing. The studies referenced underestimate positive benefits to soil and ecosystem function, so they almost certainly underestimate the potential of rangelands to sequester carbon. The accumulated body of small-scale grazing systems research promoted by Dr. Briske and partners needs to be evaluated in light of the discrepancies with larger-scale studies, and perhaps should be largely set aside as being of little relevance to any discussion of grazing distribution on commercial ranches.

The majority of conservation awards to ranchers operating on native rangelands have overwhelmingly gone to ranchers using multi-paddock grazing of one form or another. These ranchers operate in extensive, heterogeneous landscapes, where they are confronted with the adverse effects of uneven grazing distribution, and their collective ecological and management knowledge using multi paddock grazing indicating the necessity of using adaptive, multi-paddock grazing management to achieve superior outcomes. The articles in the Rangelands October 2013 issue, a journal of the Society for Rangeland Management, support this. In calculating the potential of rangelands to sequester carbon to offset global climate change and improve ecosystem function we cannot ignore the superior outcomes achieved by conservation award winning ranchers, those who have restored ecosystem function and productivity on degraded rangeland using adaptively managed multi-paddock, time-controlled grazing, or published research that does not refute the results achieved on these ranches.

References

1.	Briske, D., Derner, J., Brown, J., Fuhlendorf, S., Teague, R., Gillen, B., Ash, A., Havstad, K., Willms, W., 2008. Benefits of Rotational Grazing on Rangelands: An Evaluation of the Experimental Evidence. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61, 3-17. http://www.srmjournals.org/doi/abs/10.2111/06-159R.1

2.	Briske, D.D., Sayre, N.F., Huntsinger, L., Fernandez-Gimenez, M., Budd, B., Derner, J.D., 2011. Origin, persistence, and resolution of the rotational grazing debate: integrating human dimensions into rangeland research. Rangeland Ecology and Management 64, 325e334.

3.	David D. Briske, Brandon T. Bestelmeyer, Joel R. Brown, Samuel D. Fuhlendorf, and H. Wayne Polley, 2013. The Savory Method Can Not Green Deserts or Reverse Climate Change. A response to the Allan Savory TED video. Rangelands 35(5):72-74. 2013 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.1

4.	Richard Teague, Fred Provenza, Urs Kreuter, Tim Steffens, Matt Barnes, 2013. Multi-paddock grazing on rangelands: Why the perceptual dichotomy between research results and rancher experience? Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 128, 15 October 2013, Pages 699-717, ISSN 0301-4797, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.064.

5.	Teague, W.R., Dowhower, S.L., Baker, S.A., Haile, N., DeLaune, P.B., Conover, D.M., 2011. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 141, 310-322. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880911000934 Redddbaron (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I had read the RealClimate comments section you refer to. The problem is, Teague's contribution (126) was very soon the subject of a reply by Briske and West (136). In other words, the argument continues. Moreover, Teague doesn't give any figures at 126: he just says things like, West and Briske "almost certainly underestimate the potential of rangelands to sequester carbon". As a contributor wrote at 140, "What is still missing in all this is a figure for the carbon sequestration potential of regenerating grasslands Savory-style." There are, however, attempts in other RealClimate posts (e.g., almost at random, 145) to talk figures, and some of these do appear to give some support to Savory. I suppose the basic difficulty, which has deterred me from putting in a reference to the RealClimate discussion contributions, is that these debates tend to spin on and on in a forum like RealClimate without ever reaching a conclusion. What Wikipedia users need as a reference is some clear, full setting-out of the positions of the two sides on the carbon-uptake issue, rather than having to plough through a lot of back-and-forth argument. Perhaps in due course something more useful will be published.


 * Incidentally, it might appear that I put in the bit at the end which adds, "...although please note the article cited as evidence of dispute was not published in a refereed journal so has not undergone critical independent review." I didn't. I'd like to take that whole last sentence out, but I don't know of anything to put in its place and there really has to be something indicating that there's controversy about Briske's criticisms. Dayvey (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. I think it is beyond wiki's scope to referee the controversy, just note that the controversy exists. Personally I think the West Briske article is flawed because they are using figures from "broken" ecosystems that everyone agrees are inadequate for the job, and projecting those numbers to extrapolate that supposedly healed land can't sequester enough either. And the Savory Teague side, while using healed land as examples, lacks enough hard data on enough of the various different restored lands to be sure it would be enough of an improvement if applied to enough land. To be sure it certainly needs more in depth long term studies than are currently available from either side. So wiki's best bet is to note the controversy and wait it out for more published science. Time almost always solves these issues. Redddbaron (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * An editor removed a part of the criticism section claiming "This alleged "dispute" is limited to fringe theorists". Which is incorrect factually, nor NPOV. Teague is in fact a named colleague on the published paper used to criticize Savory in the Real Climate blog, so he, maybe more than anyone, is imminently qualified to comment on the deficiencies of that paper when applying it to Savory's work specifically, as opposed to rotational grazing in general. And in fact he has commented in the RealClimate blog as noted above. So calling Teague a "fringe theorist" is improper. But to put the issue to rest I also added a new reference specifically dealing with the issue of carbon sequestration in agricultural systems as a completely independent source showing that this is not a "fringe theory" but rather on being discussed in mainstream agricultural science circles. (not that it matters to the purpose of posting the reference to show there is a controversy, but it is interesting that the paper actually claims more potential carbon sequestration per acre per year than even Savory)Redddbaron (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Verification needed
I have removed the verification needed from "Comparing the effects of continuous and time-controlled grazing systems on soil characteristics in Southeast Queensland", as the second paragraph of its introduction states "A system of flexible, high-intensity, short period grazing followed by a long period of rest (HI-SG) was first put forward by Savory in 1978 (Savory and Parsons 1980) and was later introduced to Australia in 1989 by Stan Parsons as 'Cell Grazing' (McCosker 2000). The terms 'The Savory Grazing System', 'Short Duration Grazing', and more specifically in this paper 'Time-controlled Grazing' are the common names of the new grazing system. Time-controlled grazing (TC grazing) has been increasingly popular among graziers in Australia and the rest of the world over the past 2 decades. However, little research has been carried out on the impacts of this grazing system on soil physical and chemical characteristics." In light of this paragraph, the relevance of the ref can be seen from the abstract. I have also removed the verification needed from "Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho", as the paper cites Savory and Andre Voisin as its source for the holistic planned grazing in the second paragraph of its introduction: "Voisin (1988) and Savory (1999) have suggested that rangelands will respond in different ways to changes in grazing system (e.g., rotational versus continuous), seasonality of the grazing period, the species and density of livestock, and the duration of the grazing/rest period (Snyman, 1998). Relatively recent observations suggest that holistic planned grazing (HPG) allows much higher grazing animal density over a short time period and may result in higher soil-water content through the development of higher levels of ground-surface litter (cf. standing-dead litter and moribund grasses) (Savory, 1999)." Savory is mentioned in "Grazing Management Impacts on Vegetation, Soil Biota and Soil Chemical, Physical and Hydrological Properties in Tall Grass Prairie", but not as a direct source for any methods, so I have taken the liberty of removing that reference. HMman (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC).

JoelWhy took down a part of the criticism section that provides balance. He claims it is because the Teague reference doesn't name Savory. (Which it does name him but as HMan notes above, not as a direct source for any "adaptive" methods trialed" However, this is leading to a very slanted and misleading section. Number 1, the source left in the criticism section is a blog which is pretty discouraged by wiki to begin with. However in this case the blog is reasonably reputable generally. And this particular article does come with well credentialed guests and scientific studies. The problem is that if you look at the listed study by Briske in the Blog, Teague is in fact one of the colleague scientists listed, and in fact broke with Briske and published his own study refuting Briske's study that attempts to refute Savory. So obviously there is legitimate reason to include this if you include the blog with it's reference. If you don't want to include this controversy at all fine. Briske and Teague will certainly battle it out whether it gets posted on a wiki page or not. Wiki is supposed to be reasonably as unbiased as possible, which is why they usually request a criticism section in the first place. But if you do include the controversy, include the whole thing, not just part, or take both parts down. Very misleading as it is. (oh and by the way, the blog is incredibly misleading as well, citing statistics that have nothing to do with either Savory or any grazing system he developed, and then implying it refutes Savory's work. Probably why at least partly (just a guess) Teague left the group and published a paper refuting what Briske was saying.) In fact Briske himself took 1/2 a step backwards in his next paper, "Origin, Persistence, and Resolution of the Rotational Grazing Debate: Integrating Human Dimensions Into Rangeland Research", and admitted the experiments he used to come to his conclusions were in his own words, "intentionally designed to exclude these human variables" and of course Savory's work is all about those human variables. Now JoelWhy took it down without discussion, and that's fine. And I didn't reverse his vandalism because I don't want to enter an editing war. But I expect to see some discussion here to resolve it, or after a reasonable time I will undo it. Thanks Redddbaron (talk) 07:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't about bias, it's about synthesis. I don't have any allegiance to Savory's theories, just to wiki rules. I took it down without discussion because you cited an article that, from what I understand, does not directly contradict Savory's theory. And frankly, that's hardly surprising -- you wouldn't usually publish a peer-reviewed paper to say "my theory is correct, person X's theory is wrong"; rather, you would merely write the article showing why your theory is correct (I know that's an extremely dumbed-down summary of how such articles work, but hopefully you get my drift.) So, it likely will be difficult to find a peer reviewed article you can use here to contradict Savory. Instead, you're going to have to find articles discussing Savory that include criticisms.
 * Just to be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong; to the contrary, I suspect Savory's theories are not supported by the majority within his field. But, you're going to have to find good, direct references for them to meet wiki guidelines.    Joel Why? (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually what you took down tends to support Savory and refutes the criticism of Savory. By a person who was formerly on a paper that criticizes Savory. So yeah, unusual as it is, Teague has "Flipped side" on the issue and changed his scientific opinion to now support Savory's claims (at least in part). And if you are going to use the Briske paper (which includes Teague as a coauthor) to criticise Savory like the blog cited does, it should be noted in some way that Teague has changed sides on the issue, so as not to be misleading or biased. That's why I said it was improper to remove 1/2 of the paragraph. Either remove all of it, or include the balance in some way. If you didn't like my wording, fine, find a better way to word it.Redddbaron (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC) PS Please read Neutral point of view and remember it specifically says you don't take sides but must explain both sides in a fair and unbiased way.Redddbaron (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the NPOV rules, but you're missing the point. You cannot violate the synthesis rules in order to create what you believe to be proper balance. If you wish to balance the article, find appropriate sources to add.    Joel Why? (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns about synthesis. But I would like to point out 1) Savory is in fact mentioned in the source as HMman noted. And if the Teague source is used to provide balance against Briske's misleading criticism, as it was indeed intended, then it isn't breaking synthesis rules and it is following NPOV rules. Either way, as I pointed out from the start, if you can't find a way to include the other side of the controversy, then you need to remove the Realclimate/Briske/West paragraph completely. Because as is, it certainly breaks wikipedia NPOV rules.Redddbaron (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)PS Just so you can understand the issue I am raising....The first two paragraphs in the criticism section are balanced NPOV because they do include both sides, both Teague and Briske. But the RealClimate paragraph specifically addresses Carbon sequestration, disputed by Briske, but confirmed (at least in part) by Teague in the paper I used as a source.Redddbaron (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok I found this: http://planet-tech.com/sites/default/files/Itzkan%202011%2C%20RegardingHolechekSavory%20v4_0.pdf Regarding Holechek and Briske, and Rebuttals by Teague, Gill & Savory - will that be a sufficient source to provide balance to the RealClimate blog without being a synthesis? Personally I prefer using the Teague scientific paper you deleted over this source because it is peer reviewed and IMHO carries far more weight. It also specifically measures SOC properties of the soil. But this source while lacking in the same substance, certainly highlights the fact that Briske's conclusions are very much in dispute in the scientific community. Thus providing a fair and balanced paragraph. Which was my purpose in the first place.Redddbaron (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of again posting this citation in the appropriate places. The reason why is that while digging deeper into the paper I found out the land in the study is actually managed by Holistic management exactly and actually is because of this fact the best scientific evidence in the whole controversy. I had missed it before due to the paywall. However, once the body of the paper is studied, you can find the exact ranch managers and ranches in the study, ranch managers that are very vocal Holistic management users and advocates. Apparently the exact wording "holistic management" was not used only because of the trademark issue, so the study described the methods used instead of specifically stating "Holistic management". So it is not a synthesis to state the Teague study applies to HM land. That actually was HM land in the study.Redddbaron (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Savory's "Holistic Management Research Portfolio"
I've taken a look at Savory's scientific support, as listed by Savory here. The first paper I looked at (Linking Ecosystem Health Indicators and Collaborative Management: a Systematic Framework to Evaluate Ecological and Social Outcomes ) makes no mention of Savory or his grazing system, as far as I can see. It uses the word "holistic", but other than that I cannot see a connection with Savory's theories or methods. Just want someone to correct me here if I'm getting it wrong. MLPainless (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Right in that paper it lists the Diablo Trust. It is a case study on Holistic management that has an ongoing trial of Savory's methods as well as several other grazing systems side by side.Redddbaron (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, but that is hardly supportive of Savory's theories. I mean, the paper in no way endorses him or this theories in its conclusions. I wonder why he listed it as part of his scientific support, and I wonder how many other studies he lists are equally equivocal or irrelevant? Not wishing to do original research here, but someone needs to investigate this. MLPainless (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Images on WC
Thought you might like to know, there are images associated with Allan Savory posted on Wikimedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savory Global (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. I've added a picture.--Salix alba (talk): 16:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Bias from criticism section
Despite the discussions above, and the expertise on wiki's rules and regulations, the article concludes in a biased manner. The criticism section is its final section, and amounts to over a quarter of the article's text (excluding bibliografy etc). The article is about Savory, not about Holistic Management, nor about greenhouse gas emissions, so I've deleted the concluding sentence of the criticism section (which ends uo as the final word on the man). Attributed to George Wuerthner, it seems to be a trojan horse, masquerading as pertinent as it by a co-author of a critical paper, but referring only to an article on greenhouse gases. If this were to be retained then the criticism section would have to be expanded to contain the rest of the debate on climate change. LookingGlass (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Allan Savory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204102007/http://www.savoryinstitute.com/media/40626/A-Global-Strategy-for-Addressing-Climate-Change-2-original-.pdf to http://www.savoryinstitute.com/media/40626/A-Global-Strategy-for-Addressing-Climate-Change-2-original-.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208152705/http://www.savoryinstitute.net/media/40606/Savory_Inst_HM_Research_Portfolio_March2013.pdf to http://www.savoryinstitute.net/media/40606/Savory_Inst_HM_Research_Portfolio_March2013.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204102807/http://www.savoryinstitute.com/current-news/blog/posts/monbiot-rebuttal/ to http://www.savoryinstitute.com/current-news/blog/posts/monbiot-rebuttal/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allan Savory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315111928/http://www.iucn.org/knowledge/multimedia/video/?10774%2FPrince-Charles-sends-a-message-to-IUCNs-World-Conservation-Congress to http://www.iucn.org/knowledge/multimedia/video/?10774%2FPrince-Charles-sends-a-message-to-IUCNs-World-Conservation-Congress

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Update 2018
Given that there is a separate article for Holistic management (agriculture), I propose centralizing criticism and rebuttals of that program in one article. That means 1) completely removing that content from this article, 2) moving relevant content and citations into the criticism section of that article, and 3) adding appropriate links to that article from this one. Militärwissenschaften (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

NPOV flag for Early Work section
I have flagged this section for non-NPOV language, "Savory claims, "he claims," etc. There is no reason given in the section or preceding sections to doubt the veracity of his biographical statements. 2604:6000:D182:51F0:2405:C5A9:E5D7:574B (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Slight inconsistency with sources
At time of writing, this sentence is in the 'Praise and Criticism' section: "three 2007 and 2010 studies document soil improvement as measured by soil carbon, soil biota, water retention, nutrient holding capacity, and ground litter on land grazed according to Savory's methods compared with continuously grazed and non-grazed land". The studies cited are this one, this one and this one. Please take time to read them fully. I suspect whoever added this sentence made a simple mistake because it is not inline with the findings of those studies particularly with regard to ungrazed land. this study found improvements in vegetation biomass and nutrient content of soils for multi-paddock grazing compared to continuous grazing but not when compared to ungrazed areas. They did find slightly better water retention than nongrazed or continuously grazed land as did this study. The third study only compares time-controlled grazing with continuous grazing and does not investigate non-grazed land. Of the three studies, only this one is explicitly applied Savory's method, the other two use similar methods of rotating, multi-pasture grazing. The sentence ought to be rewritten to reflect the actual findings of these studies, perhaps: "three 2007 and 2010 studies document soil improvement as measured by soil carbon, soil biota, water retention, nutrient holding capacity, and ground litter on grazed land using multi-pasture grazing methods compared to continuously grazed land. There is also evidence that multi-pasture grazing method may increase water retention compared to non-grazed land." Note that I wrote 'may increase' because the authors of this study explain in the paper that their sample size was very small and more research is needed to confirm their findings. I have changed the sentence as described. Duria-Antiquor (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)