Talk:Norman Borlaug

Green Revolution problems
This article makes it sound like perfection. I was taught by professors that the disadvantages of the Green Revolution was that the new plants were more suseptible to disease. So if it work, it worked well. If it failed, it failed worse than the old crops. President of Chicago (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That may or may not be true, but even so, a chance that a crop will fail occasionally is far better than chronically inadequate harvests. Life is a crap-shoot, high-yield farming greatly improves the odds


 * Not that they are more susceptible to disease in general but that monocultured crops are more vulnerable when a disease does hit since they are all equally susceptible; a more diverse crop usually means that some plants will survive. Surprisingly this topic is not covered at all at monoculture except for an external link!  --71.174.165.63 (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * indeed it isnt, am adding section to Monoculture now about monocultured crops being more vunerable to a disease if one does strike.Philman132 (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

President of Chicago is indicative of the problem Wikipedia faces: the ability for someone with a rudimentary education to pontificate on something with no credible basis to support it outside of "my professor told me". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.135.171 (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Does this comment fall within the guidelines? In any event, the original comment is not indicative of a problem with Wikipedia. This poster has not changed anything, but merely asked a question, which resulted in clarification. The poster may have expertise in another area. You don't know that he or she doesn't. We don't know anything about this person's educational level. To the extent that someone raises questions about areas they don't understand, they serve the function of showing us what the typical readers see. Many times, such perspectives can show us what needs to be made clearer. Ileanadu (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused about some of the areas in Criticism: The intro material says he helped created disease resistant wheat, but the Criticism section says that he was criticized for increasing herbicide use due to herbicide resistant crops. Wouldn't disease resistant crops require less herbicide? In any event, nothing in the article indicates that herbicide use increased, unless this is one part of large industrial farming. Similarly, the Criticism section mentions the economic effects of using "inorganic fertilizer and pesticides," but nothing in the sections prior to criticism mention anything other than the section on Dwarfing which mentions the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Nitrogen fertilizer can be organic or inorganic. Did Borlaug insist that inorganic fertilizers and pesticides be used? Only in a later section - on Africa - is any possibly inorganic fertilizer mentioned:
 * Visiting Ethiopia in 1994, Jimmy Carter won Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's support for a campaign seeking to aid farmers, using the fertilizer diammonium phosphate and Borlaug's methods.

I also don't see from the article how Borlaug's work resulted in (or increased the drive to) industrial farming. There's no reason the crops could not be planted and harvested by local farms, except for the [mention of] resistance from native populations. Borlaug worked directly with governments and a lot of his work was funded by the Rockefeller foundation. Were they the ones who implemented Borlaug's methods through industrial farming or was that something Borlaug did? The quote above suggests that in Ethiopia at least, Borlaug's methods were introduced via local farmers. There are facts that missing here to make the link between what Borlaug is described as doing in the article and how this led to large industrial farms. There's no foundation laid to be able to understand nor evaluate several of the criticisms. Ileanadu (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Honorary Degree Awarded by Dakota Wesleyan University
Norman Borglaug received an honorary degree from Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, South Dakota, in December, 2008. It was awarded in a private ceremony at his home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.121.49 (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Graphs
It is a shame that the graphs have a 500kg/Ha baseline instead of 0. Also they might be better in Tonnes/HA, decreasing the number of digits. Rich Farmbrough, 12:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Except it is neither Ha (which appears on the graph as well as in Farmbrough's usage) nor HA (Farmbrough), and you shouldn't use a slash with spelled out word. Starting at 0 t/ha rather than 0.5 t/ha would be less misleading; that still hasn't been fixed.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms?
Given the controversy surrounding the Green Revolution and GMO, there should be a section outlining the criticisms of Borlaug's work and research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.81.248 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve accuracy
May I request some help with an edit of mine that was reverted due to my COI because I work for the organization mentioned - IRRI. It relates to the last paragraph in the Expansion to South Asia: the Green Revolution section. The information as presented may give the impression it was only Borlaug involved in developing semi-dwarf rice, which does not accurately reflect the very significant role others played. It is captured a bit better on the Green_Revolution page under history. This non-IRRI source seems to capture it well too I think and another source written by someone around at the time is the IRRI-published book An adventure in applied science - see page 53, for mention of who was responsible. Sophie Clayton (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reworded the passage slightly, in a way i think is consistent with the cited source, but which also (I think) gives greater emphasis to the collective nature of the endeavor. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 09:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * UseTheCommandLine I'm not sure your edit is accurate. It doesn't make sense to credit colleagues at CGIAR with developing the first high-yielding rice because the first high-yielding rice was released in 1966 (as per this book's foreword and this 2013 science paper and this older paper from 1999 to name a couple) which is before CGIAR was formed in 1970. Your source for this edit is not online so I can't see what it says, nor can I verify the involvement of Hunan Rice Research Institute elsewhere (I'll keep looking!), but aside from that would it be possible to to cross reference this paragraph with other online sources? Sophie Clayton (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to wait for someone who knows this material to come along. All I did was change the wording (very slightly) of what the article said before you changed it. I don't know enough about the subject to be competent to evaluate your evidence. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 09:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Norman Borlaug was biologist not agronomist, check here
.......Immediately before and immediately after receiving his Bachelor of Science degree in 1937, he worked for the U.S. Forestry Service at stations in Massachusetts and Idaho. Returning to the University of Minnesota to study plant pathology, he received the master's degree in 1939 and the doctorate in 1942.

From 1942 to 1944, he was a microbiologist on the staff of the du Pont de Nemours Foundation where he was in charge of research on industrial and agricultural bactericides, fungicides, and preservatives.......

He achieved a B.Sc in Science not in agronomy

It's declared also in Nobel Prize biography: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-bio.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.5.238.156 (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Widespread starvation/famine, in India? need sourcing
I would like to emphasize the need for fact-checking and/or reliable sourcing on this statement:

"During the mid-1960s, the Indian subcontinent was at war and experiencing widespread famine and starvation, even though the U.S. was making emergency shipments of millions of tons of grain, including over one fifth of its total wheat, to the region."

The citation-needed tag is from 2012, and my informal Google research tells me there were serious food shortages in Bihar state in the mid 1960s (1966 in particular) but nothing that would be called a widespread famine or starvation as claimed in the content.

Note that there is a source at the end of that sentence, but it's a bio piece on Borlaug. I would like to see an uninvolved source (not about Borlaug) sourcing the claim of widespread famine in India in the mid-1960s, if that is correct factually, and specify the years more accurately if so, as that should be very specifically available information. Otherwise, i would like to remove or tone down the content to be more accurate.

My sense is that there is a story being told here in favor of Borlaug as being a hero of humanity, and in service of this story, some reality is being distorted to paint a picture. We ought to be on guard against such bias if that is the case. SageRad (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that the assumed famine is not on this list of famines. SageRad (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest reading the source, namely the third to last paragraph. It's from Science, so there's really no question we're dealing with a reliable source here for a biography and general related history. It documents there was famine on the subcontinent in 1966-67, the shipping of the wheat from the US, and the role the new variety played. I've removed the citation needed template and the mention of war since it's not really needed here. The Green Giant ref mentions war, but it's tangential. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted your removal of the cn tag because it appears to be a contentious edit, and discussion is underway here. That tag was there since 2012, and there is no immediate rush to remove it at this very moment just because i brought this topic to discussion. As you can tell, i am not satisfied by the existing sourcing, which is a 1970 hagiographic article on Borlaug, and i cannot find other sufficient evidence that there really was what would be called "widespread famine" in the "Indian subcontinent" in the mid 1960s. I would think some basic Google searching would find evidence for this huge event if it were seriously true as presented. It appears the article is not representing reality properly here, on my first glance, and i would appreciate if you'd take my concern more seriously. It has the appearance of following or hounding me, as you and i have had contentious interactions in the recent few months, as well. That's another reason for being a bit more cautious in your editing on this, after my bringing this point up. SageRad (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay. I have downloaded the Science article, the report on Borlaug by Lester Brown, and i find it does not support the content in the article, not even by a stretch. Therefore, you've either misread the source or are misrepresenting it here. The source specifically says: "One need only recall the close brush with famine on the Indian-Pakistan subcontinent in 1966 and 1967, a famine that was averted only by shipping one-fifth of the U.S. wheat crop to India, and the projection of massive famine in Asia in the 1970's, to realize that the new seeds are a godsend." Keep in mind, this is not a peer-reviewed article. It's a report on Borlaug written by one author who appears to have a strong agenda to present in the piece. The piece appears hagiographic in tone and nature, and to be biased to present reality in a way that forwards an agenda. It being in Science does not make it the last word on the subject, and it is not a peer-reviewed article. It's a product of the time, the year 1970, and reflects that mindset. It also does not establish the claim that there was widespread famine on the Indian subcontinent in the mid 1960s, so the claim is not sufficiently sourced and actually should be removed immediately. SageRad (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First, please refrain from WP:ASPERSIONS, especially since your behavior is being discussed at ArbCom. Best to WP:FOC with that in mind.
 * The content was sourced, so there was nothing more to discuss here in terms of the tag. The source documents that famine/food shortages were a problem at that time in that area. Keep in mind that we do not require peer-reviewed sources for biographic content or general history of this type. Science is one of the most reputable journals out there, has fact checking, etc, so that makes it a higher quality source than say most newspapers. If you really want to go forward with the idea that the source isn't reliable for the content, you are more than welcome to bring this up WP:RSN. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What aspersions do you refer to? Please be specific.


 * The source definitely does not support the claims. I quoted the source and the quote does not support the content in the article. SageRad (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that this tends to be a low traffic article in the time I've had it on my watchlist, I went ahead and posted at RSN. [] Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue is not whether Science is a reliable source, but rather that the source does not support the content as written. So it's not a sourcing issue. And over at RS noticeboard, you completely misrepresented this conflict. SageRad (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

undent: I've fixed it. The 5th of wheat is cited to the science article, though the more I read of it the less I'm sure of it's reliability...but don't think that stat is disputed, the not-widespreadness is linked to the full article on the famine/near famine, which has numerous excellent sources. 78.144.221.190 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Further note, I see other examples of statement that simply aren't backed up by the source. Dunno if there's some kinda environmentalist/GMO pov stuff going on here, and I don't care enough to investigate further. The whole section seems a little sensationalist & misleading. 78.144.221.190 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, IP user, looks good to me. SageRad (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the future, please be much more clear on what you're actually looking to do with content. Your language above indicates that the source couldn't be used to indicate the famine occurred or what was done to alleviate it, and we have a very different content outcome that you are saying looks good. That being said, there are issues with the current language because just calling it a minor famine doesn't convey the detail about the major initial food shortage that was alleviated by aid and other methods. Context will be important for expanding this piece of content, but I'm leaving that be until ArbCom is wrapped up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Kingofaces43, i agree that clarity is useful. In this case, i wasn't clear what to do about the content, but i had simply flagged that it seemed problematic based on my reading, and made this comment on the talk page. I am glad we at least improved the article through this dialogue. Thought it may have been a bit rough and a few misunderstandings arose, i think this process worked eventually. SageRad (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Norman Borlaug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/06/29/story909701237.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 one external links on Norman Borlaug. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32821828/ns/us_news-environment/t/nobel-prize-winner-norman-borlaug-dies/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106033643/http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/hearings.cfm?hearingid=1523&witnessId=4333 to http://agriculture.senate.gov/Hearings/hearings.cfm?hearingid=1523&witnessId=4333
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coafes.umn.edu/Borlaug_and_the_University_of_Minnesota.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/6373547.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coafes.umn.edu/Borlaug_s_Work_in_Mexico.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coafes.umn.edu/The_Beginning_of_the_Green_Revolution.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513040148/http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/bor0int-3 to http://achievement.org/autodoc/page/bor0int-3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cabi-publishing.org/pdf/Books/0851994512/0851994512.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RVVZY00MZNrK2YCTTzVrbTFH2t3RxoAZah128gQR-NM/pubhtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604024100/http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_pwm to http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AWARDS_pwm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100415000333/http://www.bas.org.bd/list-of-fellows/userslist.html to http://www.bas.org.bd/list-of-fellows/userslist.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307164539/http://www.ifdc.org/Documents/LS-3-Feeding_a_World_of_10_Billion_People/ to http://www.ifdc.org/Documents/LS-3-Feeding_a_World_of_10_Billion_People/

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) 03:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Lives saved
There seems to be provided no trustworthy source for the number of lives saved being over a billion. ScienceHeroes.com says about 300 million. Shouldn't the number be changed to 295 million lives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.167.170.110 (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

An agency founded in 1935 enabled Borlaug to enroll in 1933
According to the article as it stood, "Through a Depression-era program known as the National Youth Administration, he was able to enroll at the University of Minnesota in 1933." For the moment, I've removed that statement from this article. According to Wikipedia, the Roosevelt administration established that agency in 1935.
 * Wordsmith (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Norman Borlaug. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32821828/ns/us_news-environment/t/nobel-prize-winner-norman-borlaug-dies
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/6373547.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821140453/http://cartercenter.org/health/agriculture/program_staff.html to http://www.cartercenter.org/health/agriculture/program_staff.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003051629/http://www.worldfoodprize.org/press_room/2009/sept/borlaug-tributes.htm to http://www.worldfoodprize.org/press_room/2009/sept/borlaug-tributes.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514153059/http://www.iacad.org/da_fellow.html to http://www.iacad.org/da_fellow.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RVVZY00MZNrK2YCTTzVrbTFH2t3RxoAZah128gQR-NM/pubhtml

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) 06:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norman Borlaug. 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/20150924115318/http://www.plantphysiol.org/site/misc/pp160549.pdf to http://www.plantphysiol.org/site/misc/pp160549.pdf

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) 22:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

New Borlaug biography
There's a new biography of Borlaug, with the focus on the Mexican wheat-breeding project, in Charles C. Mann's 2018 book The Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Dueling Visions to Shape Tomorrow's World. It will fill some holes and cites in our biography, and I'll try to add those before my copy has to go back to the library. Borlaug is the titular "Wizard", and the bio of Borlaug and colleagues is by far the best part of the new book. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Support for pesticide use
Hi What is tendentious about this? Invasive Spices (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The source doesn't establish that the opposition was widespread enough to justify a mention. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll second that in that it seemed to be reaching a bit in my glance over. Is there something in the source that really puts that piece of content front and center for Borlaug? KoA (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Look who it is again. Only so many hours in the day and yet here you are, "You were wrong to say Borlaug faced opposition". Why are you spending so many of your few edits in this manner? Interesting that you are interested in what the source said. You are listening to someone else. That's good to see. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're pinging me from a 4 month old comment, and these comments are especially inappropriate for an article talk page. Please follow talk page policy per WP:TPNO and WP:FOC. KoA (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm a little baffled. The source is an AR, a biographical AR about Borlaug. Its mention is sufficient to establish that it was worth mentioning. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the text itself from the source: Although Borlaug was a leader, who commanded loyalty, he did not particularly foster leadership. Each style has its time and place. Inevitably, as a man of such strong convictions, combined with extraordinary achievements, he was to attract a loyal following and a band of fierce critics, many of whom attacked him for his defense of DDT and other pesticides (13) and his open espousal of biotechnology (14). He gave scant concessions to either group.
 * Looking at the overall AR, this seems like a minor footnote. If there was more depth behind that comment rather than a one-liner, then I'd be more apt to say it warrants WP:DUE mention. Otherwise, I'm left wondering specifics like what kind of pesticide use did he support, what were the nuances of what he supported about DDT (there were blanket use camps back in the day vs. those who mentioned narrow niches for it while agreeing with the problems it has), etc. KoA (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We see you are quoting Sanjaya Rajaram and elaborating upon the general subject of Rajaram's words. What else should we see here? Invasive Spices (talk) 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * About four months later, I'd say there doesn't seem to be much more I could add to my above comment that goes into those details. It still seems like passing mention unless other sources are creating more depth on this subject. KoA (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nutrients
Is it true that the higher-yield semi-dwarf wheat varieties Borlaug introduced are lower in nutrients and higher in starch than earlier varieties of wheat? Source 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)