Talk:Green imperialism

NPOV issues, especially in the "Controversy" section
Hi Geysirhead, I'm not trying to be dismissive of the article here, but I think this article has some issues that have to be addressed, especially the "controversy" section. From what I gather from the article, the term "Green Imperialism" is essentially a left-wing "critique" of the environmentalism of Western Democracies. I think you touch on that issue a small bit by placing this in the Category:Political slurs category. Green Imperialism is not so much an identifier someone would voluntarily subscribe to, but a political insult/slur/pejorative. Therefore, the "Controversy" section, I feel needs to be renamed and rebalanced.

Let's take the following extract for example:

One of the proposed myths of eco-imperialism is that poor nations cannot afford the luxury of environmental protection

First off, "proposed myths" is decided NPOV language; you're stating in the Wikipedia voice that this argument is definitely wrong. Whether we agree with the argument or not, We cannot write things that way on Wikipedia. Secondly, there are no self-identified "Eco-Imperialists" who propose such an idea. There are critics who suggest their opponents think this. So this is all very much written from the perspective of those calling others "Eco-Imperialists".

Or this sentence An eco-imperialist argument holds that environmental considerations fundamentally restrict economic growth. Once again, there are no self-identified Eco-Imperialists from whom this argument can be sourced to. This sentence is not any more true than if someone else wrote "A Social Justice Warrior argument is that all notions of gender should be abolished". There might be some people who called for the abolition of gender, whose opponents might call them "Social Justice Warriors", but you can't just write that as it's just a statement of fact.

A more encyclopedic way of writing the same sentence might be something like People labelled as Eco-imperialist are accused of believing that environmental considerations fundamentally restrict economic growth, which Anti-Capitalists believe to be untrue

Many of the things found in the "Controversy" section are essentially elements of the fundamental critique. I don't think it be stated Eco-imperialism is a subject of a controversy anymore than it be stated "Capitalism is the subject of controversy" or "Quislings are the subject of controversy". To Anti-Capitalists, of course Capitalism is controversial, but that doesn't necessarily make Capitalism universally controversial. "Quislings are controversial" is always true because it's always derogatory to call someone a Quisling, but being called a Quisling doesn't automatically make it accurate. Similarly, the section is written a bit like "Eco-Imperialism, a term we've invented for a bad people who do bad things, is considered bad. Here are some (unattributed) arguments of theirs (people we say are Eco-Imperialists, but whom disagree), which are universally accepted as bad". That's me putting it very bluntly but I'm just trying to make the point clear.

I could go through more example but I presume you understand what I'm getting at; that just in general the article needs have a less accusing, less skewed, more neutral language that doesn't come across that it's in firm agreement with the current sources. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @CeltBrowne Thank you very much for the input. Yes, I agree. It is a critique, even a derogatory epiphet. I added an actual source for it. But, it is not only "left-wing".
 * Yes, I understand your point about "Controversy". I will fix it. Geysirhead (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Geysirhead (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The epiphet comes from conservative, libertarian and radical centrist critics of environmentalism. Geysirhead (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The lede as it stands is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. The remainder of the article is little better, and is little more than an opinionated essay, with obvious elements of WP:OR. Frankly, without a fundamental rewrite, I suspect any AfD discussion would result in deletion per WP:DYNAMITE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "a derogatory epithet for" is added to the lede. Dear, please sort sources into WP:BIASED categories. Geysirhead (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean by 'sort sources into WP:BIASED categories'. WP:BIASED makes no mention of any such categories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Per the above, I've started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard: AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What is this article about?
The lede now states - twice - that 'green imperialism' is a 'derogatory epithet'. The article body itself, however fails to provide any discussion of the term's use as an 'epithet'. Instead, it consists of what appears to be WP:OR, selecting from multiple sources in order to provide evidence that 'green imperialism' is something that is argued to exist in reality. So what is the article about? A phrase or a phenomenon? If it is the former, then we need evidence that the term has been discussed as a 'derogatory epithet'. If it is the latter - something that sources have suggested is real - then we need to say so. And do so in a manner that makes it clear that (a) this is an argument that not everyone agrees with, and (b) that the sources we cite don't necessarily share even remotely the same perspectives on the subject, and may be describing entirely different things. The intersection between sustainability, concern for the environment, and global economic and political imbalances is complex, and deserves better than this exercise in selective Google-mining built around a couple of words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Current Topics in Earth and Environmental Sciences
— Assignment last updated by Zshan5 (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)