Talk:Organic farming/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

edit warring

I reverted the article back to before cowicide started editing. the edit warring by cowicide is disgraceful. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop being uncivil next to your edit comments and now on my Talk Page. If you had bothered to read the article's Talk Page, you would have seen where I made many concessions and changes to my edits even in the case while you were wrong about the guidelines and made blanket deletions of my work without discussing it on the Talk Page first. You didn't bother to simply even try to work with me before repeatedly blanket deleting edits. I reached out to you to talk on the Talk Page during that time, now you rejected all that and have wiped out the entire page in anger and revenge. Now you're very obviously trying to wiggle your way back out of it.

You are being incredibly disingenuous by saying that you reverted literally every edit I made "so we could talk". You very obviously did it as an act of vandalism and revenge and you already admitted it within your comment next to your edit (containing an expletive). Now you apparently want to backtrack and finally "talk", but you've already broken enough guidelines, shown bad faith edits, ignored my pleas to utilize the article's Talke Page and used plenty of hostile editing tactics.

If you revert back your vandalism and restore my edits you wiped out and then finally utilize the Talk Page about the edits you disagree with, I'm all for it. I'll work with you on this Talk Page as I've been asking you to do from literally the very beginning. It may at least show some good faith on your part for a fresh start. But, unless you do that right now, you've crossed a line by literally deleting every one of my edits without discussion and we've reached an impasse that regrettably only some admins can resolve at this point. Cowicide (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

here is what i wrote before about why I reverted back to a pre-dispute version - please read it: I reverted to a version before all the nonsense started - including my own edits - so we could all discuss things on talk. This is a tactic I have used in the past to try to avoid going to drama boards. I suggest we try to work things out on Talk.

So, here is my perspective at this point. I have told you several times that a) you edit warred all night tonight; b) I was at work and unable to participate in the discussion and c) I reset the board to before you and me (and i made many edits independent of you) and Yobol made changes, so that all of us, and anybody who cares to join, can discuss and reach consensus while the article remains stable. I did what I think is a reasonable thing (with an admittedly harsh note about behavior - nothing about revenge, but about edit warring behavior! ). if you demand that the article reflect your last version, that is a very poor reflection on you. If you want to bring this to admins, that is great, but it will be mutually assured destruction. you will face a block as you have edit warred all night long.

Your edits, and mine, and Yobol's, have not been wasted. They are all there in the history, and ones that we discuss and agree on, we can implement. There is no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Restore my edits now. Final warning. Cowicide (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

restore point

Last night, I chose a "restore point" from just before the burst of editing/edit warring that went on yesterday, which included edits by me, cowicide, and Yobol. This dif shows the restore point I chose - the revision made on 01:19, 23 November 2014 by Wbm1058. cowicide expressed displeasure with my selection of restore points. Cowicide (and anybody else who disagrees with what I did), what do you think is a more reasonable pre-dispute restore point? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

this version, for example, might be better. It is the one where cowicide deleted the criticism section, which is just before the serious edit warring began. I would accept that restore point. while we talk.... Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

i went ahead and did that. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this diff adds back information that I don't think anyone had a problem with; the sources all appear to be either governmental sources or peer reviewed secondary sources. (Note I don't read Danish so was going by the previous work already in place). Yobol (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Fresh start

Good morning everybody! I'd like to reboot the discussion. I'd like to open by discussing sources, which are the foundation for all the work we do here. We all are working here in good faith, and we all want this article to be as high quality and NPOV as we can make it. Here are some proposals about sources:

1) any content that is health-related (which includes claims about nutrition and if X is "better for you") is sourced according to WP:MEDRS, which means we use the most recent review articles published in the scientific literature that we can find, or statements by major medical/scientific bodies (WP:SECONDARY sources) (this shouldn't be controversial)
2) for all other content, we also search for the most recent and best WP:SECONDARY sources we can find on the subject. For anything science-based (e.g. studies of yield) this means the most recent review articles published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that we can find, or statements by major scientific bodies
3) for content that is historical or economic (e.g. what percent of the food market is organic), we can use sources from popular media, but ones known for high quality journalism (NY Times, LA Times, WSJ, that sort of thing)
4) we avoid low quality sources. If anybody wants to use such a source, they get consensus for the content they want to base on it, and the source, on Talk before implementing. Low quality sources include a) WP:PRIMARY sources published in the scientific literature or elsewhere; b) sources produced by advocacy organizations that are known to be "for" or "against" organic farming.
Can everybody agree to that? Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the ideal we should be striving for. Yobol (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section edits

Hi Jytdog. Thank you for being bold and asking that I improve my sources. However, in your edit's comment you errantly say:

"we don't source scientific discussions based on popular media"

The guidelines do not say that (see below) and are far more nuanced than you imply. You then use your misinterpretation of the the Wikipedia guidelines to apparently justify a blanket erase of literally everything I added to the section without improving upon it, etc. Please explain your reasoning in greater detail and post links and quote directly from sections of reliable sources to back it up, in case I'm mistaken.

In the meantime, here's the actual section of reliable sources (emphasis mine):

" ... For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name. ..."

As you can see, your strict interpretation is incorrect.

And, finally, please explain your blaring inconsistency by not applying your own misinterpretation of the the Wikipedia guidelines to the rest of the section. You left the source of Borlaug, etc. within the same section intact and the first reference is to Salon Magazine which is most certainly popular media. Why didn't you delete all of that as well?

In the meantime, I will re-added my edit with a source that skips the news media and links directly to the study in order to hopefully meet you halfway despite my differences with your errant misinterpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines. I good faith, please do not revert again unless you properly follow the Wikipedia guidelines in the process. Thanks. Cowicide (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the edits by Jytdog; if there are more information that is inappropriately cited to the popular media, we should remove those too. I also believe we need to be citing secondary sources, not primary, and would endorse replacing any material cited to the primary lterature to more appropriate secondary sources. The way to improve the article is to use the best sourcing available, namely secondary sources in the scientific literature for scientific material. Yobol (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to need to start citing actual guidelines (like I did above) before you outright blanket delete my edits or I'm going to need to involve some disinterested third parties who do. In the meantime, I've removed the section (as you both did to my edits for the same reasons) while you work on providing superior sources for that part of the section you left behind. Cowicide (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Also in regards to where you said in your edit comment:

"Review goes to great lengths not to declare one as "healthier"; you will find no such conclusions in the article itself)"

Kind of wish you had asked me to edit it instead of simply deleting it. But I do agree it should have reflected uncertainies in their study and I now ask that you assist me in making the article better. This is how I would change it to better reflect the study overall. What do you think?

My proposed edit:

"A 2014 study found higher antioxidant activity and higher concentrations of a wide range of antioxidants/(poly)phenolics found in organic foods that may indicate a greater potential for nutritional benefits. However, the study pointed out that there is still a lack of knowledge of potential human health impacts of increasing antioxidant/(poly)phenolic intake levels and switching to organic food consumption."

Thank you for pointing out my error. Cowicide (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not see a discussion about the "superiority" of the organic agricultural methods in the cited source. Please point me to the part of the article that says the organic agricultural methods are "superior". Discussions about any health effects of organic foods do not belong in the criticism section, either and are already discussed in the food quality section. Yobol (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If discussions about any health effects of organic foods do not belong in the criticism section, I'll remove them all now and/or move them including the one that you aren't deleting for some strange reason from the paragraph above mine that mentions it. I'll change the wording of the other part to make it more comprehensive. I'm working on it now, please don't blanket delete my edits in the meantime unless your intention is to encumber my work. Thanks. Cowicide (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Cowicide -- every single policy calls us to use secondary sources. In my view, this is all the more important for anything scientific (I grant that I am heavily influenced by WP:MEDRS here, which makes that very strong statement in WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:VERIFY, and in the general guideline [[WP:RS}}, even stronger) but nonetheless we should use WP:SECONDARY sources everywhere. If you do not understand why that is so, I would be happy to discuss on your Talk page or mine. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, thank you for finally engaging in dialog with me on this Talk Page and without rude expletives. However, in your haste to vandalize the page in an obvious act of anger and revenge, it's incredibly difficult for me to take you seriously at this point until you revert the vandalism. Deleting all my edits at once for the entire page at this point without discussion is blatantly against the guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal#Reasons

From the Wikipedia guidelines: "There are various reasons for removing content from an article. Regardless of the reason, it should be described in the edit summary. If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal."

As far as secondary sources go, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. I already used them previously and you proceeded to break from Wikipedia guidelines (as I showed you, but you ignored) and told me to not use "popular media" even though the article repeatedly uses said media as the guidelines allow (again, as I showed you). Now after I removed some of those sources simply to appease you and work with you, you then call for secondary sources that I had there in the first place after deleting every edit I've made. I see the games you're trying to play and I'm ending this game now. Vandalism isn't constructive. I'll give you time to cool down and put my edits back. You do that, I can work with you. If that's not done, it's beyond time for me to involve admins here and get you to cool your heels and start following Wikipedia guidelines I've shown you above. Cowicide (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The criticism section now uses the Baranski source with a "However", to contradict the criticism that it will lead lower agricultural yield. However, the Baranski source and the cited text do not address the issue of agricultural yield at all. This is classic WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and needs to be removed. The addition of the second paragraph to the Food quality section is WP:UNDUE as Baranski is already used as a source in that section, so that material needs to be removed as well. I am also concerned that Cowicide is turning WP:BRD on its head. The correct sequence is for Cowicide to get consensus before putting in contested material. Yobol (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This has now all been outright deleted in a hostile act of vandalism by a poster here who is brigading with you against me. It's becoming increasingly more obvious that you and this vandal have an agenda to whitewash this article and push your own POV. There is no "consensus" that I'm using contested material. You alone are not consensus. And your vandal who just literally deleted all my edits in an act of revenge isn't consensus. The Criticism section now contains content and sources that you have claimed don't belong there. But, I suppose they are fine as long as they are agreeable to your agenda? That's not how Wikipedia works as you and the vandal are about to find out. Cowicide (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Cowicide I can see that editors are having a difficult time working with you here because your comments are in large part directed at editors instead of content--you're assuming quite a lot of bad faith ("hostile act of vandalism", etc.). Please keep comments focused on content. Also, the usual editing pattern is WP:BRD--if you make a change to the article and it's challenged, it stays out of the article until consensus develops for it.

  Regarding the content, I do not see that the concerns regarding questionable use of primary source and possible WP:SYNTH issues have been resolved. Zad68 16:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing - POV tag discussion.

Outright deleting edits you don't personally agree with is against Wikipedia guidelines. I have made edits that after revisions had a NPOV, yet they were simply deleted en masse and much of it was done without previous discussion and/or were reverts done against Wikipedia guidelines as mentioned earlier in this Talk Page and I'll repeat below again so it hopefully sinks in this time. It's time to resolve this and work together instead of resorting to vandalism and hostile blanket deletions that result in a anti-organic POV agenda being pushed along with being disruptive and creating an environment that's hostile towards collaboration.

The contributors (and that's what you're supposed to be, contributors, not content deletion artists) need to work this out and we can start by restoring a better NPOV to the article. I made edits and where I was reasoned with by Yobol (instead of simply deleting without comment on the Talk Page), I made changes to address POV. That showed good faith on my part and it's time for that good faith is returned and knock off the blanket deletions in anger/revenge and POV pushing. It's also time to stop demanding sources that meet an artificially created, personal guidelines while ignoring the quality (or lack thereof) of sources for other parts of the article you may or may not be ideologically agreed to.

Since most of Jytdog edits were against these Wikipedia guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal#Reasons

Specifically from the Wikipedia guidelines (emphasis mine): "There are various reasons for removing content from an article. Regardless of the reason, it should be described in the edit summary. If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal."

I'm reverting my posts from the blanket deletions that's resulted in clear POV pushing and bad faith on Jytdog's part. This will restore the article back to the point were another contributor, Yobol, and myself reached some consensus and were still discussing edits and making some progress. Jytdog's blanket removal of all of the edits that Yobol and myself were working on is disruptive and needs to stop. Jytdog, if you have issues with my edits, please finally discuss them with me here and I'll make changes if you can quote valid Wikipedia guidelines and show a NPOV that benefits this article for everyone. If you're going to continue to break the rules, don't bother, and let's take this up with admins. Cowicide (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Content removal is a user essay, not a guideline. Edit-warring is however against policy and can attract a ban. Cowicide, your proposed edits have failed to get consensus - I'd advise use of this Talk page to talk through any improvements that can be made to the article, and steering clear of further edit warring. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well this is a guideline. And, I'll be back later to help apply it to better this article under those very guidelines. The article in its current form is a pathetic assemblage of industry talking points that throughly pushes an anti-organic POV that's non-encyclopedic and an industry public relations piece in too many areas. You may not see it, but this POV pushing will be seen by many others and it will not stand up to wider scrutiny and true consensus of the greater Wikipedia community. Cowicide (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you start a discussion at a noticeboard please be sure to drop a notification here. Zad68 16:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

apology

and everybody, I apologize for the use of "motherfucking" in my edit note last night. profoundly unhelpful of me. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I accept your apology and I apologize for losing my temper as well. - Cowicide (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected this article for 3 days in response to ongoing edit-warring. I'm hopeful that this time can be used for discussion aimed at generating consensus. If the edit-warring resumes after the page protection expires, I'm fairly certain that blocks for individual editors will follow. Please be sure to follow the letter and spirit of the edit-warring policy and, in particular, the three-revert rule going forward. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks very much MastCell. We had a very bad day here yesterday with a very passionate new editor arriving on the scene and i at least didn't act very well in response; more experienced eyes would be a boon. I'll avoid the mistakes i made when the article re-opens. I am hopeful we can make some progress in establishing common ground while the article is locked. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I thank you as well, MastCell. And, Jytdog, this is from my Talk Page, but it's so cluttered with other stuff, I figured I'd basically copy most of it here.

Jytdog, thank you for at least bringing the article to a more balanced state of NPOV. However, I think removing the criticism section entirely is pretty drastic. I'm not here to push an all positive POV of organic farming and that's why I worked with the other contributor and made concessions/edits to my contributions that reflected that ethos. I'm here to help this article be encyclopedic and informative with a NPOV that attempts to show the pros and cons of organic farming and enables the reader to decide for themselves what they think of all of it. Unfortunately, the holidays are starting and I can't participate until next week. Anyway, thanks again for taking the action of making a legit concession, and I will consider this a fresh start and will assume good faith on your part from here on out despite our past differences. If you celebrate it, I hope you have a happy Thanksgiving. - Cowicide (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sections are always bad style and is best incorporated into other sections. I do not know how widely accepted Norman Borlaug's views are and that must be established before presenting them. TFD (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Reasoning behind fertilizer prohibition?...

While the rationale for not allowing (synthetic) pesticides is pretty clear - fear of potential hazards from residues - I'm not clear on why synthetic fertilizers are not allowed in "organic" farming...As I understand it, the use of synthesized nitrates and ammonia is prohibited - even when they're chemically identical to those found in manure, blood/bone meal, etc. Though I believe raw mined products - such as phosphate rocks and potassium salts are allowed. And I believe even mined nitrates would be allowed as well - such as those mined in Chile before the Haber–Bosch process came into widespread use.

In any event though, I'm not clear on why synthesized nitrates and ammonia are prohibited, and there's not much discussion of this in the article. One thing I've heard discussed is that more whole fertilizers - with the organic bulk and all its carbon and such - is seen as more desirable for the overall health of the soil than more concentrated fertilizers. But then other concentrated fertilizers without the bulk are considered "organic" - ranging from home-made "manure teas" to more concentrated fish-based fertilizers. I've also seen it discussed how synthetic fertilizers are (at least currently) produced from fossil fuels (e.g. hydrogen from nat. gas to make ammonia), but then most organic food has all sorts of embodied fossil fuel energy - from the tractors in the fields to the trucks bringing it to market...

Anyway, not trying to be too argumentative here (the pro-organic folks are welcome to see me as playing devil's advocate) - I'm just trying to get a bit of clarity on this more overlooked aspect of "organic" standards which could hopefully lead to a more informative article. -Helvetica (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about the use of pesticides organic farming section

Hi! I came across the sticker on the use of pesticide in the article asking for contributions saying "need content and sources on externalities of pesticide use in organic farming." I try to contribute some useful informations but it was quickly removed by Jytdog. Reasons: "duplicates content already in the article".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organic_farming&type=revision&diff=663256523&oldid=663250969

This is true. When I read the introduction paragraph it says mostly the same, in a more eloquent way, about pesticide uses.

Having said that I find information about the use of pesticide in Organic farming is laking. There no specific about the substances. Nothing is said about their toxicity and how they compare the one used in traditional farming. The link in the opening paragraph doesn't point to any the specifics about what is allowed of forbidden. It only points to the homepage of the european union about Organic Farming.

I have read a lot of scientific articles lately that opened my eyes about the use of pesticide in organic farming. I think there is a misconception in the public eyes and most people think organic faming doesn't use pesticide. A good section on this wikipedia would help.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dueling-narratives-on-organic-farming/

If you were to point me to what informations are expected in this section I could take some time to write up something better. Please tell me what is the process here? Batisteb (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

3D printing

There's been some confusion over this set of edits. I removed it for two reasons. The first being that it's at odds with WP:CRYSTALBALL in that it's speculating too much on potential future use rather than current usage. Normally we don't consider something with this level of speculation encyclopedic with WP:NOTJOURNAL or WP:RECENTISM in mind where some speculation in a publication is preliminary discussion within the academic community rather than demonstrating encyclopedic weight.

However, The main issue though is that the article is not really about organic farming tools, but just general purpose farming and gardening tools. Since the article's comments are not unique to organic, it doesn't really have a place here. It may be useful for articles on specific tools or 3D printing itself to comment that agricultural tools could be a potential origin in printing though. It is a primary source though, so it really hasn't established weight for the idea or feasibility of 3D printing for ag tools beyond proof of concept. Probably somewhere down the road that will happen, but that's likely a topic best left for another time and another article as the field progresses. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes the source article is about what could be done, not what is being done. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this source:

• Pros - It's a review article, written by a Ph.D. faculty member at an independent academic institution, the journal has a reasonable peer review process, and what looks to be a well-credentialed editorial team.
• Cons - The journal is Librello, it's a pay-to-publish platform (listed as "con" but there can be so many sides to this model), this is the first issue the journal has ever published, so there's absolutely no track record of publication quality evident, and the journal has no reputation of authoritativeness. The article itself isn't necessarily all that specific to organic agriculture (is it really necessary to use biodegradeable shovel handles to be "organic"?), and there are plenty of well-respected journals on sustainable agriculture that would have been more impressive for this review to get publshed in. (Although the author appears to support open source so maybe that's just his preference.) Also as other have mentioned this is a "here are cool things that are possible but aren't being done on any appreciable scale yet."

Overall I don't think this is a very authoritative source and per WP:NPOV it shouldn't have more than a passing mention in the article, in a section on research. Zad68 23:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the source. However, I agree with Kingofaces about crystal ball. I would like to see it mentioned in mainstream media at least a few places indicating that it is being adopted rapidly, or already has been adopted by a significant number of organic farmers. I don't agree with the need of this to be exclusive to organic though. Very few tools are "exclusive" in agriculture. But it's how you use them that makes organic unique. This ability to 3D print is likely to be adopted by organic small farmers more rapidly than industrial farmers. I agree with the premise. But until it actually happens enough that some kind of statistical trends can be referenced, I think it must wait to be added here. A one liner in the wiki article maybe.Redddbaron (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

externalities

Can someone please explain why there is so much junk science in the externalities/environmental impact section? It is true the paragraphs relate that junk science correctly, but since the science is flawed, using those source's flawed conclusions present a deeply flawed bias to the section. For example: Johnson, KA; Johnson, DE (1995). "Methane emissions from cattle". This study measured emissions without measuring oxidation. It is true emissions is higher, but it is also true that oxidation is dramatically higher as well, due to increased methanotroph activity. When a full accounting of the whole system is taken, the NET effect shows a dramatic net reduction in methane and all greenhouse gasses. Writing about only the emissions side (although well sourced) without looking at the oxidation side, presents a biased and misleading slant to the wiki article.Redddbaron (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks for raising this issue. do you have sources for the correct ideas? Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I will look. Due to the nature of my own project, the research I am familiar with is primary sources with narrow focus, and thus apparently not appropriate for WIKI without breaking primary source and/or synthesis rules. But I will see what I can find later when I have the timeRedddbaron (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok Jytdog. Here is one, see what you think: "restoration of the natural grasslands restores natural carbon sequestration (sinks), more than offsetting the methane released by grazing cattle. Comparing results of managed natural grassland grazing (including related bovine methane emissions) with today’s typical feedlot scenario (including reduced bovine methane emissions) shows the overall GWP for grassland grazing is considerably lower than feedlot methods." http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/current-health-articles/bovine-methane/33874.aspx Redddbaron (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've never carefully reviewed that section. Good lord, sources from 1995! I think we do need to update it. Stuff like PMID 22551868 though, are what we want. Jytdog (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! There are plenty like you want. Here is one: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1573521411000340 The problem is finding an up to date review that doesn't include flawed science from the 90's and earlier. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 wasn't even funded until 1994. So a source published in 1995, from data obtained earlier, you really need to be skeptical about. I am not sure exactly when organic became more standardized in Europe. But a lot of those early studies simply came to poor conclusions. Both because the standards were new, and because the science was flawed. Got to start somewhere though. Not to mention the fact that as the science comes in, the standards keep getting updated to take into account the new science.Redddbaron (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The Vision article does not mention organic farming and therefore cannot be used. We cannot say grass fed beef is better, organic beef is grass fed, therefore it is better. That is synthesis and clearly against policy. Of course if relevant sources make that connection we can report it. The Science Direct article unfortunately is a primary study and we would need to show its findings' acceptance in secondary source before reporting them. TFD (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As organic beef requirements include grass feeding, organic beef can reasonably be treated as a subset of grass fed beef. A statement about grass fed beef would not necessarily need to mention organic production to be included in the article. Secondary sources are preferable, but this is not a human health claim, and there is no prohibition on relevant primary sources - in fact WP:SCIRS says they can be used in some instances. Dialectric (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Dialectric we have had loooooooooooooong discussions with Redddbaron about grassfed and organic. Please see Talk:Organic_food/Archive_5#Grass_fed_beef from last fall and yet another one this January in the midst of thread]. Both times the consensus was that the two sets ("organic" and "grass-fed") overlap but they are not identical and we cannot use conclusions about meat from grassfed animals to discuss meat from organically raised animals. Just want you to know the background of this as i don't recall you participating in those discussions... it is a perennial weed-y issue. And while yes one ~can~ use primary sources (even for health content) we should use secondary sources everywhere we can, and even more so on controversial topics. yes? Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." SCIRS is an essay, not a policy or guideline, but it clearly says, "When citing a primary source, be especially mindful of the policy on undue weight...." That policy requires "that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That means secondary sources are required to assess primary sources' weight.

In any case, this approach is the opposite of good practice. Instead of deciding what should be in the article and look for sources, look for sources and let them guide what is in the article. That avoids problems of reliable sources, weight and original research.

TFD (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

To Jytdog - thanks, that archive discussion is helpful. I hadn't seen it before, and reading the relevant links now, I agree that under the USDA regulations for the terms it would be possible to have organic beef that did not meet the definition of 'grass fed'. Dialectric (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With stunning consistency you have talked yourself into a corner. Because the difference in externalities (ie methane and others) is directly related to feed. So in this case if you all stubbornly are committed to the self deception on the grass feed issue, then that whole section needs completely removed. Because EVERY study (good or bad, review or primary, recent or old, with NO exceptions) that makes comparisons in carbon footprint and other externalities between conventional and organic, ALL are comparing feedlot vs grassfed, grains vs pasture. If you guys refuse to accept this, then absolutely no source will ever be available to discuss differences in externalities. Might as well delete the whole thing as it applies to animal husbandry, particularly herbivores. For example, that 1995 study? Invalid not because it is old, not because it only measured emissions and not oxidation, but because it compares grassfed to grainfedRedddbaron (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

revert in Biodiversity

I believe the proper course of action would be to put a "citation needed" after the part you reversed, instead of "need secondary source to show that their proposal matters to anybody". Those scientists and economists regularly supply very detailed information to IFAD and the UN. I would think it would be more appropriate to let the edit stand and work with it to develope an encyclopedic appropriate mention of the concept. This was no poor content, nor spam, nor vandalism. This was a good faith edit by an editor that seems to know quite a bit and has found good content and references. I suggest it be put back and then other editors can make adjustments. Redddbaron (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

gmo and organic

it says here that GMO is not compatible with organic but that is simply not true. They can be grown using organic methods, and are completely organic themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.190.35 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 28 August 2015‎

the article doesn't say they aren't "compatible" - you are right that there is no inherent conflict. the no-GMO thing is law (in some places) and preference as well. (although, there is no point to glyphosate-tolerant GM crops if you can't use glyphosate) - but Bt GM crops would be fine in theory, and ditto ones engineered to resist viruses or change oil profiles. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Organic farming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150609112506/http://www.wn.de/Mobil-Home/Experte-zur-Nachhaltigkeit-in-der-Landwirtschaft-Bio-ist-auch-keine-Loesung to http://www.wn.de/Mobil-Home/Experte-zur-Nachhaltigkeit-in-der-Landwirtschaft-Bio-ist-auch-keine-Loesung

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Lovely image added

... of fruit and veg, organic, has a nice description, which I believe to be WP:UNDUE and cherry picked from the source. Any thoughts? Seems like dissembling to give a point of view that isn't supported by the odd source. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is a proposal over on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ecological_farming to merge with this article. It's over a year old now, so I'm wondering if anyone still has any interest in it. I'm not in favor (for reasons mentioned over there), but since it doesn't seem to be a huge priority, I was thinking of just removing the tags. I won't do it for a day or two, just to give everyone a chance to weigh in. Adv4Ag (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It sounds like removing the year-old tags would be appropriate. HGilbert (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Removed the tag. Adv4Ag (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Origin of "organic"

The text of the History section stated that there is controversy over the origin of the term "organic agriculture", citing this reference. The cited article does not claim that the term organic was coined by anyone else other than Northbourne; it rather points to a discrepancy in what was meant by the term by Rodale/Howard vs. Northbourne and the BD crowd. I have tried to revise accordingly. There are still overlaps and inconsistencies; please feel free to improve!!! HGilbert (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

OK -- researching this has led to quite a bit of new material for the History section and a large-scale reorganization of this section. Please check that this is accurate--I am no expert on the subject! HGilbert (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I made a slight change, but generally it is as close as can be expected. The one vague part remaining and explanation missing is that while the term "organic" was used by both camps, Steiner definitely did not use science for biodynamic and was generally skeptical of "science". Meanwhile Howard as a scientist was highly skeptical of Steiner and biodynamic, and did not view his humus farming as anything at all similar to Steiner's biodynamic, which he viewed as quackery. It largely took Rodale to see the similarities in each and to popularize the term "organic" to apply to both and put them under one heading. Rodale may not have been the first to use the term, but he was the one who gave the term a meaning in agriculture that included both humus farming and biodynamic. He was also one of the first ones to attempt to apply scientific principles and discovery to biodynamic. Lady Eve Balfour one of the first to apply those scientific principles and discovery to a whole organic farm. Thus it was largely Rodale (secondarily Balfour) who were responsible for the later merger of the two camps. There are still biodynamic farmers engaged in quackery though, that have rejected Rodales attempt to merge the largely scientific concepts of organic and the anthroposophy based concepts of biodynamic. So the two are still not exactly the same. Because of this biodynamic still maintains its own certification process.Redddbaron (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Improving Neutral Point of View

I would like to work on improving the neutral point of view of this article. In some places the artcile reads like an advertisement and lacks NPOV, in others the safety of Conventional agriculture is misrepresented. Whilst I will try to be careful not to damage the proper represention of the benefits of Organic Agriculture, I will try to reduce these problems. RAMRashan (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the following text from the Vegetable Photo: "A 10-year-long study showed that fruits and vegetables from organic farming contain up to 180 times less pesticide residues than conventional products." This statement seems designed to instill fear of products produced by Conventional Agriculture. The reference cited is clearly biased and is in French which means that largely Anglophone readers will not be able to analyse it critically. RAMRashan (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that the article reads like an advertisement, and while there may be some phrases that need rewording, the article is balanced in terms of POV. Please list specific sentences that you have a problem with. Also, in reply to the above, see WP:NOENG - foreign language sources are allowed on wikipedia.Dialectric (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with French sources, but it is too weak per WP:SCIRS to support such claims. I support changes to help improve this article which - yes - does seem problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The definition of organic agriculture from the article as it was before these latest changes was better:

Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.

The definition in the current lead is drawn from a more recent USDA publication, but is far too brief and omits important themes that the earlier one included. I would suggest that the old definition be reinstated or that a new one be crafted from a range of defs; see e.g. 1, 2, and 3 HGilbert (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Yes the definition is brief, but it was the best I could find from a Neutral source. The link for the old definition is broken. I think it could be OK to use a longer definition, but am keen that a legal definition or neutral source (like the USDA) is used. Also I'm keen not to include phrases like "enhances biodiversity", because this is desired, but not always an actual, effect. This is examined in more detail below, and with more ability for the reader to critically evaluate.

Regarding the photo caption. Thanks for pointing out that foreign references are OK. Actually I may have give a false impression, I'm fine with foreign language references and I know they are sometimes necessary and/or desirable, but the reference in question was clearly biased and weak. I considered it an agravating factor that a weak reference for a strong implied claim could not be critically analysed by a predominantly English-speaking/reading audience.

A minor point is: I'm confused as to if is pyrethrin allowed in Organic agriculture, or is it just the naturally extracted pyrethrum that is permitted?

Also, I wonder if anyone can help with this question. Were the soil biology scientists that "began to seek ways to remedy these side effects while still maintaining higher production." really linked in any way to the later development of Organic Agriculture? I thought that Rudolf Steiner really kicked it all off (as nicely stated in the next paragraph)

best regards to all, RAMRashan (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Farming Systems Information Center at the USDA is down at the moment. However the old definition actually does come from the USDA. Since the entire AFSIC website is down, the link may be temporarily broken, and may need changed once the new USDA AFSIC website or equivalent opens up again, it is pretty likely that definition and source will still be valid. I think changing it was hastey. Even very reputable online sources still sometimes go down occasionally, usually to reorganise. As such, I am going to replace it for now to the old quote which I agree is both better and from the USDA, which you seem to agree meets your concerns as well. If for some reason the old source doesn't come up again, then possibly a wayback machine is in order?Redddbaron (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, pyrethrin is allowed in US organic agriculture, as long as it contains no synthetic adjuvants such as PBO (increases the activity). Synthetic pyrethroids, on the other hand, are not allowed. Adv4Ag (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed. Just curiosity now, do you know if chemically synthesised pyrethrin is allowed, or only pyrethrin extracted from Natural sources? warm regards RAMRashan (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Redddbaron! I think the definition of Organic Agriculture needs a bit more thought. The one you have reverted to has a broken link, and is also not a complete definition. I could farm completely according to this definition "Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony", but if I used a small amount of synthetic fertilizer, or a synthetic pyrethroid derivative of low toxitity, it wouldn't be be defined as Organic Agriculture. I suggest reverting to the brief but accurate USDA definition for the moment. RAMRashan (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am open to other general definitions, but the definition is from the USDA and quite a bit better that the one that replaced it. The older definition describes organic in principle, while the new one you replaced it with is regarding certification process for US only.Redddbaron (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC) PS The link is pretty unlikely to stay broken forever, as it is a link to the USDA. Redddbaron (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand, you prefer a definition that doesn't define and that has a broken link? RAMRashan (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Again every single website ever made has been down at one point or another, even if only for a short term maintenance. But if you are unwilling to wait on the USDA to get their website up again, then use a wayback machine to retrieve the old citation. As far as your other comment, that is the most commonly understood definition of organic agriculture. Certification definitions only apply to certain countries under those regulations, and are quite limited.Redddbaron (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Definition

It is possible the definition could be improved using a variety of sources. Here's a starting point; please modify for comprehensiveness and comprehensibility!

• Organic agriculture is an integrated ecological farming system that strives for sustainability by enhancing soil fertility and biological diversity. It minimizes off-farm inputs and avoids artificial pesticides and fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics and growth hormones. HGilbert (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! I think this could be moving in the right direction, but I'm troubled by "enhancing soil fertility and biological diversity" (as if it's always a fact), because this is, again, a desired but not always achieved aim (anyway it is rarely even measured). One shouldn't define a system by its desired effected, but by what the system is. It's clear that the Organic movement does have a strong desire for "enhancing soil fertility and biological diversity" and to decrease inputs, but does this within a significant restraint of almost no synthetic chemicals. This is an important factor. How about something like this:

• Organic agriculture is an integrated farming system that strives for sustainability, the enhancement of soil fertility and biological diversity whilst, with rare exceptions, prohibiting synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, synthetic fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, and growth hormones.

But I'm not sure we should really be defining this ourselves at all. Wasn't this supposed to be a quote?

changing somewhat..... have you heard the story of Plato's definition of man as ”a featherless biped"? Diogenese the Cynic plucked a chicken, ran into the Academy, held high the chicken and shouted "here is Plato's man!" --- You only need one exception to invalidate a definition!

warm regards to all, RAMRashan (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The USDA library link (http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml) has been broken since sometime before 20th Jan this year. Accessing previous "WaybackthenMachine" cached pages show that the definition currently on the Wikipedia page is partial. It is just one paragraph of four that make a complete definition. Here it is:

"USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) definition, April 1995

Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.

‘Organic’ is a labeling term that denotes products produced under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act. The principal guidelines for organic production are to use materials and practices that enhance the ecological balance of natural systems and that integrate the parts of the farming system into an ecological whole.

Organic agriculture practices cannot ensure that products are completely free of residues; however, methods are used to minimize pollution from air, soil and water.

Organic food handlers, processors and retailers adhere to standards that maintain the integrity of organic agricultural products. The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people.”

The whole definition is too verbose to make a good definition for the Wikipedia page

I got this, much more succinct, self contained, and more recent definition from USDA site

"How does USDA define the term organic?

Published 03/02/2010 04:29 AM | Updated 11/21/2014 11:15 AM

How does USDA define the term organic?

Organic food is produced using sustainable agricultural production practices. Not permitted are most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients, or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Organic meat, poultry eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. The USDA National Organic Program website has more information including inspection and certification information. Go to: National Organic Program"

Looks like this is a palatable, succinct, current definition that could be used. Warm regards to all RAMRashan (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The definition need not be a quote. It might would be better to use several sources to come up with a generally viable description. If we do choose to stay with a definition, this might be better drawn from an academic work on organic agriculture, for example, than from one country's ag ministry. HGilbert (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think the slightly edited version of your definition could be good:

Organic agriculture is an integrated farming system that strives for sustainability, the enhancement of soil fertility and biological diversity whilst, with rare exceptions, prohibiting synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, synthetic fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, and growth hormones.

RAMRashan (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be good to move on the defintion of Organic agriculture, because the current one is partial. I would much apprechiate if editors could indicate, who has a preference for any of these definitions:

Option 1: The completing the current 1995 definition from the USDA

"USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) definition, April 1995

Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.

‘Organic’ is a labeling term that denotes products produced under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act. The principal guidelines for organic production are to use materials and practices that enhance the ecological balance of natural systems and that integrate the parts of the farming system into an ecological whole.

Organic agriculture practices cannot ensure that products are completely free of residues; however, methods are used to minimize pollution from air, soil and water.

Organic food handlers, processors and retailers adhere to standards that maintain the integrity of organic agricultural products. The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people.”

Option 2: Using a newer (ublished 03/02/2010 04:29 AM | Updated 11/21/2014 11:15 AM) and more succinct definition from the USDA

"How does USDA define the term organic? Organic food is produced using sustainable agricultural production practices. Not permitted are most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients, or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Organic meat, poultry eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones."

Option 3: Use a defintion that is not a quote

Organic agriculture is an integrated farming system that strives for sustainability, the enhancement of soil fertility and biological diversity whilst, with rare exceptions, prohibiting synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, synthetic fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, and growth hormones.

Option 4: Suggest something else!

warm regards RAMRashan (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• My preference would be either option 2 or 3 HGilbert (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

I'd like to edit the first sentence. I formulated this sentence a few weeks ago, but it has now become completely redundant with the definition that now appears slightly lower down the page. I removed this redundancy, but this was quickly reverted. Seems to me that a couple of things that are missing from the Introduction are: Organic agriculture is an "alternative agricultural system" (an obvious thing that seems really appropriate for the introduction) and an historical context of the origin of Organic Agriculture. How about?

"Organic farming is an alternative agricultural system which originated early in the 20th Century in reaction to rapidly changing farming practices. Organic agriculture continues to be developed by various Organic Agriculture Movements today."

Suggestions very welcome! RAMRashan (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions and removals

Recent edits have added and removed significant amounts of content from the article. There are two main areas I see, ELs, and distributors. For ELs, large international bodies with relevant information outside of the article coverage, such as the UN and the European Commission should be included in the EL section, and I don't see any valid rationale for their removal. For distributors, the wording may be a bit promotional, and the refs should be to independent sources rather than the groups themselves, but the content is both easily verifiable and non-controversial. Is there any dispute over who the largest distributor of organic foods in the US is? Why exclude this info from the article?Dialectric (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:EL vs the content of the links closely, so we can attempt to make a case for inclusion as required. Here they are: --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Kuepper, G.A Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture. Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture. 2010.

  I see no reason why this couldn't be used as a reference. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  I agree, better as reference than EL HGilbert (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Organic Eprints. A database of research in organic food and farming.

  I see no reason to keep this. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  This is a valuable link for those interested in further research. WP:EL's criteria for ELs (2nd paragraph of lead) begin: "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". Clearly applies here. HGilbert (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  Good spot of wording that might need to be revised given the general consensus changing the past few years. My understanding is that databases of research are not appropriate, and that individual research articles should be considered for references. The higher quality the Wikipedia article, the more inappropriate both become. --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  Do take this to EL's talk page and see if there is really a consensus to change the standard. Until WP:EL is reformulated, however, we should surely follow what's been set down there. Why else bother to write guidelines? HGilbert (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, can you point to any general discussions which support your view that such links are inappropriate?Dialectric (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a database of research, which makes it questionable.

It's not specific to organic farming, which makes it more questionable. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You wrote above, "Please review WP:EL vs the content of the links closely." WP:EL specifically lists links to further research as the very first example of appropriate links. You cannot set this as a standard and then try to deny that it is applicable. HGilbert (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that what I'm doing? How about we FOC instead of making such assumptions?

Well, yes, but I'm happy to focus on the content. HGilbert (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm putting aside my concerns about the sentence in EL (which isn't elaborated upon elsewhere in EL, and I've yet to find discussion about it on the TALK page).

Could you respond to my subsequent comments? --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Your subsequent comment suggesting that "Organic Eprints," which describes itself as " an international open access archive for papers and projects related to research in organic food and farming" is not specific to organic farming??? I guess I'm just plain confused by this; can you clarify what you mean, please? HGilbert (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It contains research both broader and narrower than only organic farming. External links should be specific to the subject matter. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The focus is clearly on organic farming. Organic food is a closely related topic. While the site may have a small percentage of information not directly related to either subject, this is not a valid justification for the removal of the EL.Dialectric (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Organic Farming. Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission.

  If there are individual pages from this website that cover relevant content that this article does not which cannot be included into the article directly, we may want to link those. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Organic Agriculture Programme. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations.

  As with the link above, maybe there are appropriate subpages that could be linked? --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Alternative Farming Systems Information Center (AFSIC), National Agricultural Library, USDA.

  As with the two links above, maybe there are appropriate subpages that could be linked? --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  This link is included in the DMOZ listing. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Organic Agriculture. eOrganic Community of Practice with eXtension: America's Land Grant University System and Partners.

  As with the three links above, maybe there are appropriate subpages that could be linked? --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  Why is one this restored? --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps I misunderstood your statement below (I don't think there's a strong need to get rid of any links that...). In any case, this is a link to the organic agriculture page of a site gathering together "research-based information from America's land-grant universities." This is preeminently justifiable by the same WP:EL criteria. Why would we not want to include this??? HGilbert (talk)

I'd be open to hear arguments for the other links. None of these remotely violate WP rules and all are closely related to the subject. While I'm not sure all are necessary, I certainly don't know why anyone would object to these. If there is an editor who wishes to include them, there is no reason to battle over them. HGilbert (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As long as this remains a C-class article, I don't think there's a strong need to get rid of any links that could help us expand and improve the article that aren't redundant with current references or other external links. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Distributors

I have undertaken a large-scale revision of this section. Much information was too old to be of current value or too specialized for a general article on organics. I also agree that particular distributors do not need mention here. HGilbert (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! RAMRashan (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Naturally-sourced

Please provide some justification for maintaining the term "Naturally-sourced". I can not find any meaningfull definition of this word, and certainly not one that applies to bone meal or compost, which both involve processing by humans. (Maybe, for instance Guano could be said to be naturally-sourced) The link attached to the term goes to the Wikipedian entry of compost. I don't understand, compost is mentioned again, a few words later in the sentence.

with thanks RAMRashan (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I take "naturally-sourced" to mean products that come from "nature". To me it seems to be splitting hairs to suggest otherwise and really splitting hairs to suggest that even guano only may be naturally sourced. I think that most people that read this article have the same understanding that I do in this case. Gandydancer (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

What ultimately doesn't come from Nature? It's term carrrying a value judgement and a contentious one at that. Coca-Cola say Truvia is "naturally-sourced" for example. Probably a term best avoided. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, a more precise term should be used. Zad68 14:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. For clarification, when I wrote "Maybe, for instance Guano could be said to be naturally-sourced" the "maybe" was about the questionable utility of the term "naturally-sourced", not the nature of Guano itself, which obviously occurs in nature as-is. "Naturally occurring" seems a more precise term that could be useful. I have used the term "organic origin" for the fertilizers, and also in the first paragraph replaced "natural" with "naturally occurring", and changed "natural insect predators" with "insect predators" (I don't think any predators exist that are not natural). Please don't think I am trying to split hairs, this is not my intention, but to use the most precise and informative terms posssible. Once again thanks for the input RAMRashan (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"declines in overall soil fertility"

I'm trying to critically evaluate the phrase "declines in overall soil fertility". In the context of this article it implies that this took place early in the 20th Century. Certainly, the book cited (Organic Farming: An International History) does talk about "declines in soil fertility" and "yield decreases" at this time, but I can not find data to support this. The trends in yield that I can find show surprizingly stable yields from 1900 to the 1930s, 40s, 50s (depending on the crop/region/dataset), when they really start to take off. The Organic farming book cites two references in this regard. I'll dig into these if necessary (although they are in German, so it will be hard work for me), but if anyone could help with other data sources that would be very helpful. RAMRashan (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Rotenone not registered for any use other than piscicide ?

This page mentions "rotenone" as an allowed organic pesticide multiple times. However, from my research, so far as I can tell this is no longer used for any purposes other than to kill fish in lakes. The best sources I can find for this are:

makes it seem like rotenone pesticides on food have been inactive for over 5 years (in America)!

("In the United States and Canada, all uses of rotenone except as a piscicide are being phased out.[9][10]") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anfurny (talk • contribs) 23:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

However, I'm new to pesticide research, so I'm hoping that I'm the one in error here. If this is indeed a mistake, I think all other organic pesticides mentioned on this page should be reviewed as well as any conclusions about the relative safety of organic pesticides.

Part of the reason I consider this point substantive is that rotenone is a quite dangerous pesticide, so suggesting it as an "organic pesticide" suggests that organic pesticides are no more safe than synthetics. However if this case is to be implied/made it should not be done with prohibited pesticides, but rather the organic pesticides that are in actual current use.

I consider the accuracy of this page to be of fundamental importance since it may guide people to make health-related choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anfurny (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Organic farming. 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/20140110074736/http://www.organic-research.net/european-projects.html to http://www.organic-research.net/european-projects.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129051841/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007_MONTH_06/5-12062007-EN-BP.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007_MONTH_06/5-12062007-EN-BP.PDF
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.essex.ac.uk/bs/staff/pretty/AgSyst%20pdf.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010306044501/http://www.maninnature.com/Bovines/Cattle/Cattle1a.html to http://www.maninnature.com/Bovines/Cattle/Cattle1a.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Labor practices

I am looking to edit this article and inform those on the lack of consensus on whether or not organic farming presents a more socially just alternative for farmworkers. There is evidence and literature suggesting that organic agriculture is a more socially sustainable and economically viable alterantive, but there is little research done by scholars or by institutions that considers the position of the farmworkers. Social sustainability is often equated with small-scale family farms but according to the USDA 80% of California farms are classified as individual or family-owned. This makes the "family-owned" category very vague when it comes to explaining labor relations of farms and farmworkers. Organic farmworkers are also subject to the declining wages that all farmworkers are facing, continuous hours of strenuous stoop labor, toxic dust from use of organic materials such as sulfur, and doubts about security due to organic farm's use of FLC's(farm labor contractors) to fill seasonal positions.

I have found a few sources, if anyone would like to review them, or suggest other sources, as well as a direction for my edits, you are all welcome.

"Social sustainability, farm labor, and organic agriculture: Findings from an exploratory analysis" Shreck, Getz, Feenstra

"Privatizing farm worker justice: Regulating labor through voluntary certification and labeling" Brown, Getz

"Class Politics and Agricultural Exceptionalism in California's Organic Agriculture Movement" Getz, Brown, Shreck. 2008.

"Agrarian Dreams" Guthman

"Determinants of the Organic Farmers’ Demand for Hired Farm Labor" Carrie E. Neely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1untouched (talk • contribs) 02:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ethical animal husbandry

Any opinion on this? Organic animal husbandry is considered more ethical than intensive animal husbandry i.e. feed lots, pens and caged egg farming. Doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.9.161 (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Genetic modification section clarification

Hi, I'm the user who has been making changes to the "Genetic modification" section. I'm interested in the minority view that accepts transgenic technology in organic farming. I think Adamchak and Ronald's view is a bit more nuanced and shouldn't be folded into the previous sentence, but I'm not sure about the best way to break it up. I tried once with "point out" not knowing about that policy, sorry about that. Would a different phrasing like:

"...agricultural researchers Luis Herrera-Estrella and Ariel Alvarez-Morales continue to advocate integration of transgenic technologies into organic farming as the optimal means to sustainable agriculture, particularly in the developing world, as do organic farmer Raoul Adamchak and geneticist Pamela Ronald, who argue..."

to

"...agricultural researchers Luis Herrera-Estrella and Ariel Alvarez-Morales continue to advocate integration of transgenic technologies into organic farming as the optimal means to sustainable agriculture, particularly in the developing world. Additionally, organic farmer Raoul Adamchak and geneticist Pamela Ronald write..."

be more acceptable?

I also want to avoid seeming to give undue weight to this point of view, as I know it's the minority side. To avoid cluttering the history with edits that will be reverted, I want to get it right the first time. Thanks!

168.150.37.122 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Update an important new study on environmental impacts

I rewrote another version of the text based on the cleanness of the content and clarity of the text after the previous revert by Diannaa. I have tried my best to fully describe the content and meaning that the latest research is aimed at. I cannot write more briefly because it will not be able to fully convey what the most important research shows. Hopefully these new updates to my article will become useful and please anyone who looks the most carefully before changing my latest content. I also thank those who discovered the mistake in my previous edits, and thanks all you guys very much because Wiki will not become a useful encyclopedia that is accurate and clean. If it doesn't have the presence of all of you guys. I have contributed a detailed supplement to a latest and very important study, so before canceling my text. Please observe and read carefully. I wrote it all down at Diannaa's request. I will accept it if the Diannaa administrator reviews my update and if she finds a mistake she can delete it. But I will not accept if someone erases my contribution but I have done it for a lot of hours with just a simple mouse-click. Enrico Vandenberg (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the latest addition so that it meets our requirements from a copyright point of view. However the material has repeatedly been removed for reasons other than copyright issues, and my cleanup should not be considered an endorsement of the current version. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank Diannaa! But it seems like I have added a huge weight of text and I have also emphasized an issue too much. So you can help me check another version for the new text. I plan to cut them all down to 2 sentences. I will write it here, if you agree... If you feel it's okay, please publish it on my behalf. Anyway, you have seen all the sources that I offer. From those sources you can write into the most perfect paragraph and add to the Wikipedia. Then I will learn from it to improve! Hope you help me, Dianna I will be very grateful you! :) Enrico Vandenberg (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I can check any new version for copyright suitability but you have to take responsibility for your own edits. I am not going to add anything on your behalf, because to do so might be considered an endorsement of your addition. Per the WP:BRD cycle, since your content has repeatedly been removed as not being a good addition to this page, you need to make a case here at to why it should be included, and not keep repeatedly adding it when other editors believe it does not belong here. This is true even for any shortened version of a couple sentences. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC

As I wrote on your talk page, 2 (referenced) sentences maximum is a reasonable approach to including a new study, though you will still need to get consensus here as to whether the study should be added at all at this time. WP:SCIRS is relevant here, and emphasizes the importance of review articles over individual studies.Dialectric (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

–

Yet another important new study on environmental impacts

Actually importance unknown, haven't read it. Culled from an article which was confusing one of the authors with a guy in another continent who died long before this guy was born, so I´m not the only guy not to read it. 08:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Leo Breman (talk)

References

Copy to other page

--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Picture

The first picture in the article (World map of organic agriculture (hectares)) is one of the worst charts I've ever seen. Just because it was used in a paper doesn't mean it's a good reference for the average viewer. Surely a pie chart showing hectares of organic farms by country or something would be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.168.48.32 (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Tools

Hello all! I am a new Wikipedian and I wanted to see if it would be a good idea to make the Tools section more comprehensive, but I don't want to overstep. Thank you and have a nice day.Jrcarrol (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

On-topic improvements and expansion of sections is welcome as long as you have references that support the additions, and those references are WP:RS. This is true nearly everywhere on wikipedia, though on some controversial or well-developed pages it is best practice to post your proposed changes to the talk page first for comment. Dialectric (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I have made edits to the Regional support for organic farming section by adding a United States of America subsection to help broaden that section. I hope this edit adds value to the article as a whole. Cheers! Jrcarrol (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Organic agriculture

Should we include GM crops in organic farming Mandipkhanal10 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Read the article--your answer is right there in the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty pictures removed

A few minutes ago I removed two pics from the article. There was no explanation of the meaning of the wierd shapes of the continents and colours on the first, and although the outline of Australia on the second appeared accurate, the strange arrangement of colours has no meaning. There was no key on either. In plain terms, they told our readers nothing at all. -Roxy . wooF 17:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Both maps are from the paper that was linked in the Australia map - https://www.academia.edu/37851248/Maps_of_Organic_Agriculture_in_Australia - which paper is under a Creative Commons license. The Australia map just represents the states of Australia, with shapes adjusted to reflect their production relative to the other states.Dialectric (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

NPOV violation: only "pro-organic farming" views

It seems like a neutrality violation that the lead only covers the views of "Organic farming advocates" in the lead whereas there is no counterpoint to the claims that organic farming has "advantages in sustainability, openness, self-sufficiency, autonomy and independence, health, food security, and food safety". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You left out the qualification "strives for." If you want to argue that vegetables are bad for you and a diet of Big Macs is superior, you can put it later in the article.TFD (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Well that's as pretty bad faith accusation that doesn't belong here and not to mention a misrepresentation of their comments. KoA (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, what the heck? That is completely off from what "organic farming" even is. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That can be a common problem in general when it comes to fringe or pseudoscience subjects. Unfortunately, NPOV is always going to be a challenge when trying to describe this subject, especially due to its nebulous nature of what exactly it is in a particular time and place. I could see the first paragraph being rewritten since most of the other things like biological control are not unique to organic, but it's not something I have specific ideas for right now. KoA (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans that the lead, as currently written, is not neutral. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

KoA, the full wording of the definition is "an integrated farming system that strives for sustainability, the enhancement of soil fertility and biological diversity while, with rare exceptions, prohibiting synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, synthetic fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, and growth hormones." (My emphasis.) To strive means "to devote serious effort or energy." {Merriam-Webster.)[1] By omitting this qualification, Snooganssnoogans misrepresents its meaning. It would not be neutral to launch into an attack on organic farming without also providing its justifications. I think that misrepresenting the text is unhelpful to the discussion. TFD (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead has this sentence which is from a pro-Organic viewpoint only "Organic farming advocates claim advantages in sustainability, openness, self-sufficiency, autonomy and independence, health, food security, and food safety."Inf-in MD (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice it is presented aa a claim. What specific ojections to organic farming do you think belong in the lead? TFD (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's borderline tendentious that you're scrubbing a peer-reviewed study on the purportedly adverse environmental impact of organic farming from the body of the article while arguing that it's perfectly fine to include claims about the positive environmental impact in the article's lead and asking "who could ever object to these claims?" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I replied below. TFD (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• The lead is not neutral by describing the claims of organic farming advocates and leaving out the many criticisms by scientists as found in secondary academic sources. That must be rectified. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Scrubbing peer-reviewed study from body

The editor 'The Four Deuces' scrubbed a study[2] from the Annual Review of Resource Economics, a respected journal, by two scholars at the University of Goettingen (one of whom has 20,000 citations) from the body of the article with the absurd edit summary "Need to show the acceptance of this study in the literature". No, there is no need to "show the acceptance of this study in the literature" whatever that means – the mere fact that the study was accepted by a top journal is indicative of its "acceptance in the literature". This edit[3] should be reverted: the contents of the study should be restored to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It would be peculiar to have an article about organic farming without including its claimed purpose. If you have a better source for the claimed purpose, then please provide it.

Note that RS is not a sufficient reason to include a primary study, weight is also required. May I direct to Talk:Organic farming/Archive 3#Fresh start, where the very same issue was raised: "Low quality sources include a) WP:PRIMARY sources published in the scientific literature or elsewhere." Personally, I would not use the description low quality, but the issue is that different original papers might come to different conclusions and we need to know the degree of acceptance of their findings in the literature. I note for example that while the paper discusses the pollution rate by output, it doesn't mention pollution from transportation or the what effective organic farming would have on overall production. These are things that we would expect experts to weigh on so that we could assess the relevance of the claim.

The fact that an author has been widely cited does not mean that every opinion they present is accepted. There's a reason that Wikipedia prefers secondary over primary sources.

TFD (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The study that you scrubbed from the article is literally a review of the existing literature published in a prominent journal which is primarily known for its reviews of existing literature. It is best example of a secondary source: a peer-reviewed review by recognized experts in a recognized outlet. It is the very thing that you're saying that you want. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed and I have reverted the removal. There is no valid grounds for excluding this. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not labelled as a review study and anyway the statement appears to be sourced to one other paper, which was a letter in IOP Publishing. the letter incidentally says its sample was heavily skewed to Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand with very little weight given to other countries. I think it is more accurate to say that Matin Qaim wrote the article in order to advance a thesis that "Organic farming is not the paradigm for sustainable agriculture and food security." That brings up the possibility that someone else could find different studies to argue a different conclusion. TFD (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course it isn't going to be labeled as a review in a journal dedicated to reviews and with "review" in its name. Speculation on the author's motives or vague allusions to other studies that could theoretically be written about are not relevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jrcarrol. Peer reviewers: Ajpettis, Kristenzima.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 1 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Farid Chbeir.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 1untouched.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

'Agroecology' and polyculture sentence

The sentence currently with source 42 next to it says that the "science" of agroecology proved the "benefits" of polyculture. This is misleading, because agroecology sometimes refers to a science and sometimes does not. Also, polyculture has mostly zero or negative benefit. One notable exception is Three Sisters farming practice in indigenous America. But modern forms of polyculture lack scientific rigor, and this sentence implies that they're okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.4.40 (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

'Destroy the Rainforests' sentence

The article currently contains the sentence 'Critics of organic farming methods believe that the increased land needed to farm organic food could potentially destroy the rainforests and wipe out many ecosystems'. Another editor tried to remove this, but was reverted. This sentence, an unscientific reframing of the idea that organic uses more land, should be removed because (1) The article already has a land use section based on higher quality WP:SCIRS refs, (2) neither reference used actually supports the text as written, with the Bob Goldberg opinion piece not even mentioning rainforest (3) it gives undue weight to a fringe prediction that is not supported by any peer reviewed publications.Dialectric (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

- Organic farming, specifically referring to the component of it that rejects GMO crops, could reduce land use in theory. non-GMOs have less immunity to disease and therefore lower yields. On the other hand, avoiding modern fertilizers would not increase land, as long as crop yields were the exact same. Please consider this before deciding whether to remove the "Destroy the Rainforests" sentence.

Here another source which says: "Organic farming can have a beneficial effect on the environment and biodiversity at the local level. However, because organic farming has lower yields compared to conventional farming, additional agricultural land is needed elsewhere in the world, which means that nature has to be converted into agricultural land. This can cause loss of biodiversity and negative climate effects that outweigh the local (in Europe) environmental gains achieved." (Scientists urge EU to allow the use of novel breeding techniques and modern biotechnology in organic farming). I think there should be included something like this. ----PJ Geest (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A finding that organic farming involves greater land use is not equivalent to stating that organic farming will destroy the rainforests. Does the paper you cite mention rainforest at all? It appears to be in Dutch. As I note above, there is a land use section which would be a good place to add quality sources, including sources that find that organic farming uses more land.Dialectric (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. We should say that it uses more land to produce the equivalent amount of food and that this will have adverse effects, but to specify the rainforest destruction seems to be over sensationalist. Aircorn (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The source [4] (also available in English) speaks about natural land. --PJ Geest (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session22

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 August 2022 and 4 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Swaag2000 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: A2prieto.

— Assignment last updated by A2prieto (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL

One source: Bourne, Joel K. (2015). The End of Plenty: The Race to Feed a Crowded World. W. W. Norton. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-393-24804-3. Retrieved 28 January 2022. We aren't going to feed six billion people with organic fertilizer. If we tried to do it, we would level most of our forest and many of those lands would be productive only for a short period of time. If you want a real-world case, see Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan government would have accepted the help of Lucifer and Ahriman, if they could feed their country.

Rodale Institute is too much like "We, the people at Toilet Duck, recommend Toilet Duck".

There is indeed the dream to feed ten billion people with organic agriculture, but as of 2022, it is a pipe dream. Of course, if genetically engineered crops are on the table, that could change in the future. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I agree with you that this is a good source to add. The author appears credible on the overarching subject and its geopolitical + global consequences. However the phrasing you use in the article will need to be WP:NPOV. Whilst I agree with your POV we shouldn't inject that POV into the article. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: Bourne actually opposes the quote from his own book. But, that aside, the proof is in the pudding. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Who does he quote? Invasive Spices (talk) 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: Norman Borlaug. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the 'rainforests' section above, The article already has a land use section based on high quality WP:SCIRS refs. Individual studies and non-research-based opinions should not be weighted above review articles.Dialectric (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Dialectric. We should use expert sources rather than books by journalists. it might be useful though as "Further reading." TFD (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree however Norman Borlaug is notable. Invasive Spices (talk) 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Perhaps Dialectric and The Four Deuces would accept a different source for the same quote. I am unable to find the original source quickly but you may be able to find it. Invasive Spices (talk) 30 September 2022 (UTC)