Talk:Eco-imperialism

message: This line, found at the end of this article seems highly argumenative, and distinctly non-encylopedic. "Driessen's arguments, in short, amount to little more than a slick reversal of words to discredit environmental concerns and to support the economic interests of polluting corporations such as ExxonMobil."
I'd suggest removing or rewording this line.
99.249.168.4 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Very Argumentative language

message: This article almost reads like propaganda against the environmentalist movement. Yes it should state that Eco-imperialism is about criticising environmentalism but the article should be balanced with the reponses to the claims and criticism. I think the best way to describe it is as being one side of an argument with nothing at all from the otherside. That one book, however influential to the movement is not gospel, I'm sure people must have made criticisms of it, and responded to the claims made. If they haven't, why haven't they? Is this not as notable as it claims to be or are they just hoping if they ignore it it will go away? Thryduulf 15:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bias still exists. These problems must be amended. Dustin (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I moved the nolink template here. The Google search in it indicates that there's a good number of linking articles. BioTube 03:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no linked articles (use "what links here", not Google, to find that), but Google found a few it made sense to link. --Alvestrand 12:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nolink template 

message: Cut from intro:
*Proponents of the concept argue that the attitude of some environmental groups towards Africans and Asians continues the patronising and paternalistic attitude of colonial-era environmental policies.
I think this means opponents of the (alleged) practice make this argument. It is an awkward way of saying:
*Critics of the practice oppose the practice
*These critics have coined a neologism to label the practice negatively (associatie it with "imperialism" which socialists generally hate)
*These critics advocate the use of this neologism.
*Others dislike the use of the neologism.
Perhaps, if there are rebuttals to the views of the "opponents of eco-imperialism", we should describe these views.
I propose a rewrite, wherein we set up two opposing views:
#The idea that environmentalists place the well-being of the environment over the well-being of humans, particularly those living in developing countries
#*This has been labeled "eco-imperialism" by advocates who claim (1) that environmentalists do this and (2) that doing this is akin to "imperialism"
#The idea that environmentalists are either (A) not doing this or (B) doing this with justification
#*Perhaps Thryduulf can find a source who complains about the use of the neologism "eco-imperialism" to describe the alleged practice
I'll wait a few days, and if no one objects I'll go ahead and make the above changes. --Uncle Ed 13:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Term versus concept

message: This article doesnt cite one single reference. If no references are cited soon the page should be nominated for deletion. At the moment it is pointless OR. Willy turner 15:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No references

message: Would the editor that made the sweeping revisions in the first part of the month please follow WP:CITE
& WP:REF? Many of the sources cannot be easily found.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos1 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2011 revisions 

message: Several of the references in this article would suggest that this term predated Driessen's use of it. Is it accurate to say, then, that he coined it? As such, and beyond this, in my opinion the article lead needs to be rewritten to more broadly reflect the content of the article, including the multiple contributions and perspectives on it. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I think that given the lack of reliable sources, it would be safe enough to change it to 'popularised' for the moment. Guettarda (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've taken another step towards making the lead more generalizable. Further contributions welcome! Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lead/ origin of term? 

message: I'm struggling to see how this topic is notable. It seems to be a WP:FRINGE opinion on environmentalism, combined with an occasionally dusted off (twice in the last decade) rhetorical device. Seriously considering converting this page to Environmental_movement#Criticisms Simonm223 (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems it's really all about the ideas of Paul Driesson. But he isn't notable enough to have his own page. Other sources like Innis mention things like DDT not being allowed but they don't compare it to imperialism so I don't see the connection and why it's in the article. I second your motion to convert. Popish Plot (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose This topic is a frequently appearing concept in science and news. It might be considered a political slur or a reasonable objection. Anyway, there enough articles, which this issue in deep. Basically, it is about the question of poverty vs enviromental polution in the context of international relationships.--Geysirhead (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Driesson is not the first and not the only one.--Geysirhead (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources used to re-create this article are very weak. This does not appear to be a notable concept or phenomenon. To what extent the term is thrown around, it does not even seem to have a consistent meaning. Since there was agreement to re-direct this article years ago, I think it's inconsistent with guidelines to restore it in the absence of consensus. Thenightaway (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear @Thenightaway: thank you for the answer. Gardian, reuters and peer-reviewed science, which the cover the topic in depth does not look weak. "Eco-imperialism" and "Ecoimperialism" get over 1000 hit on Scholar, but I would rather call it "Green imperialism", since this concept gets over 4000 Scholar hits on Scholar and is less ambiguous and older. In etymology, I actually linked articles, which say that the meaning of "Eco-imperialism" changed and equals now to "Green imperialism". The original consensus creation was not given enough time to arise and resulted in deletion of content instead moving it to Ecological imperialism. Basically, the content was deleted instead of moving it. A deletion requires a deletion discussion. Geysirhead (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My read is that it meets notability guidelines, and the rename is probably appropriate. The article itself appears in need of neutrality edits. signed, Rosguill talk 04:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Rosguill thank you very much! I found here a very old description of the idea from 1993. "There is a contemporary movement of idealists in the West -- the global environmentalists -- who might trigger another round of imperialism" (Page 6) and "what are the bets on the emergence of a green variant of the 19th century's white man's burden" (Page 7) So, I'll move it to Green Imperialism Geysirhead (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability