curprev19:5119:51, 9 March 2024 Volunteer Marektalkcontribs 87,329 bytes−258 →Second Green Revolution: 1st, include page numbers when citing sources, 2nd this is a misrepresentation of the source as it does not say these are the only 4 available alternatives - they are just 4 which happened to be discussed in a inset box. Others are discussed in text. And assessment of these isn’t completely positiveundo
curprev20:2720:27, 22 February 2024 Veedractalkcontribs 87,527 bytes−1,324 The sources clearly do not support the claim, and the first explicitly contradicts it. I did not check the book. (Specifically: the first said GR displaced alternatives worse for GHG, several of the others were merely stats about how intensive agriculture was and not a comment on GR, the last source was both a comment in a debate and also didn't address GHG or sustainability but a different question of who benefits were available to.)undoTags: Visual editMobile editMobile web edit
curprev19:1219:12, 5 February 2024 Cletertalkcontribs 88,852 bytes−34 removed the neutrality template per: When to remove This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.undoTag: Visual edit