Talk:Green state/Archive 1

Green Republic

On 5 March 2011, User:Ourmetis removed the following sentence from the article:

In 2010, Québécois cultural creative [VDT] developed the concept of a “green republic”, a constitutional state organized according to the principles of “green co-operative economics”.

In his edit summary, Ourmetis wrote: “Read the book before posting somthing.There is not enough commonality (if any) between co-operative economics and the philosophies, and eco-centrism employed by Eckersley”

Since 1) Eckersley does not have a monopoly on the definition of a “green state”, 2) the short sentence discusses a thinker who has conceptualized a green (constitutional republican) state, which he calls a “green republic”, based on co-operative economics as opposed to capitalist economics, and 3) the sentence is sourced to two reliable sources independent of the subject; I restored the disputed sentence and improved it (based on my re-reading of the sources and personally contacting the thinker in question for some clarifications) to now read:

In 2010, Québécois cultural creative [VDT] developed the concept of a “green republic”, a constitutional republican state organized according to the principles of deliberative democracy, green politics and co-operative economics.

Then, on 9 March 2011, Ourmetis removed the sentence again while stating the following in his edit summary: “Please provide a CLEAR justification for why there should be made reference to [VDT] - besides the fact there is a common mention of the word "green" in the titles. Or perhaps I should add a link to the Greenbay Packers?”

I've restored the disputed sentence for the same reasons I mentioned above so I didn't see the need for more justification. (Do I really have to explain why the concept of a green republic is relevant in this article while the Greenbay Packers aren't?!?)

Then, on 9 March 2011, User:Delicious carbuncle undid my restoration while stating the following in his edit summary: “Agree with Ourmetis - open a discussion on talkpage before re-adding please”.

I've again restored the disputed sentence for the same reasons. --Loremaster (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Do I really have to explain why the concept of a green republic is relevant in this article..." - Yes you do. A "green republic is just a term" IF you want to draw a correlation between one writer's ideas with another - be clear and provide proper justification. You have still not done this. And if you are able (to draw a true correlation) then we can talk about how its should be mentioned on Eckersley's page. Otherwise, just leave it on this self-promoting "cultural creative"'s page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourmetis (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice but I have already explained that 1) Eckersley does not have a monopoly on the definition of a “green state”, 2) the short sentence discusses a thinker who has conceptualized a green (constitutional republican) state, which he calls a “green republic”, based on co-operative economics as opposed to capitalist economics, and 3) the sentence is sourced to two reliable sources independent of the subject. That being said, UQAM is the only university in North America which offers a bachelor's degree in “hosting and cultural research”, which teaches students the theoritical knowledge and practical skills to become a professional “cultural creative” as an occupation so there is nothing self-promotional about the use of this term when describing him. --Loremaster (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If [VDT] is not a notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir De Thézier) and his "green republic" has not been widely recognized by reliable third party sources, there is no reason to mention it here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The growing consensus is that he is a notable person or, at very least, notable enough that the Wikipedia article on him should be kept. There is a small but growing number of reliable sources independent of the subject for his concept of a "green republic" so there is ample reason to mention it here. I'm therefore restoring the mention. --Loremaster (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources used to support the claim in this article are insufficient. One is a French-language blog which refers to a "green republic" in the vague terms and does not support any coining of the phrase by [VDT], which would, in any case, be a neologism. The other source (vigile.net) is not a reliable source, per previous discussions in WP:RSN. Loremaster, please learn to use the preview function - your frequent corrections make it difficult to carry on a discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Although it is true that Vigile.net (a French-Canadian political news and opinion website similar to the Huffington Post) was deemed not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, Steve Proulx's article was published in the printed version of Voir (which is how I first learned about it) and posted in his blog on Voir.ca. Furthermore, it does in fact support the coining of the phrase by [VDT]. That being said, in light of lack of sufficient reliable sources, I am willing to temporarily remove the mention until some become available. In the meantime, I will work to improve and expand this article as discussed in the merge debate below. --Loremaster (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. Perhaps you could remove the vigile.net references from [VDT] article as well? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Vigile.net may have been hastily judged not to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but it's a political news and opinion website that was made notable when it was mentioned by Jean Charest, the current Premier of Quebec during a parliamentary session of the National Assembly of Quebec, which caused a controversy and provoked many editorials to be written about it in mainstream Quebec newspapers. That being said, Vigile.net wasn't judged to be an unreliable source during the WP:RSN debate. It was simply concluded that it could not be used as a source when it republishes copyrighted material from other websites. So it doesn't mean that original articles published on Vigile.net cannot be used as sources in a Wikipedia article. --Loremaster (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have started a new discussion at WP:RSN. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster - I don't know why you continue to push this. But let me try to be more clear this time around and refer to your points in bold. The main point you use to justify linking Eckersley with [VDT] is that "She does not have monopoly of the term "green state". Very true. I agree with you, and everyone would. However - like I said before - you have not justified a reference to [VDT] in Eckersley's article - you do not make adequate correlation between the IDEAS which underline the use of the term by both writers. I argue that to make any correlation between two writers, you need to accomplish the following: 1. Explain Eckersley's conception of the green state fully. 2. Explain [VDT] conception of the green state, at least in so much it is relevant to Eckersley's conception (as it is her page). 3. Make valid points of analysis, stating clearly, where the two conceptions differ, but most importantly, where they converge. I am sorry, the fact that both use the word "green" is inssufiecient, and therfefore, so is the argument "Eckersley doesn't have a monopoly on the word "green state". Try to remain within these 3 points above. If people didnt make adequate correlations, Wikipedia would be a mess of illogical links to nowhere.

Also - Without getting into whether [VDT] is just another Wikipedian self-promoter, and is notable enough for a profile (which is highly debated, but as I can see is being dominated by a few people, while others have given up on it) - I also fail to see the correlation between these persdonal traits, and the fact that the U of Quebec in Montreal has a course on cultural creatives?

There are very clear disconnects in your arguments. However - being that I brought it up,. apologies,. and lets keep it to the [VDT] and Eckersley debate. Also, in Canada, the heads of provinces are Premiers, not prime ministers - thats the leader of the country :)Ourmetis (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Perhaps you didn't noticed but, after my discussion with Delicious carbuncle, I decided to temporarily remove the mention of [VDT] and his concpet of a green replublic from the article until more and better reliable sources are found. However, if I decided to push it in the future, it is because I have legitimate reasons to do so while your objections will be shown to be fallacious so you are the last person who should be lecturing anyone about disconnects in one's arguments (Greenbay Packers?!?).
2. I'm not linking Eckersley with [VDT]! I am expanding the Green state article to include the a mention of an activist who has developed a different concept of a green state which he calls the “green republic”.
3. You are operating on the false premise that there needs to be a correlation between the ideas which underline the use of the term by all writers on this subject. A term can have multiple definitions that have no correlation to each other and Wikipedia has tons of articles (especially disambiguation articles) that reflect this fact.
4. Even if no correlation is necessary, there actually IS a correlation between the ideas which underline the use of the term by both writers: Both of them propose an economic and political state ideology whose primary policy influence would be the health of the environment (i.e green politics). The only difference is that he emphasizes that the green state must 1) be a constitutional republican state (which is why he uses the term “republic” instead of “state”), and 2) be based on co-operative economics instead of capitalist economics.
5. So the only valid objection to mentioning [VDT] and his concept of a green republic in this article is the lack of undisputably reliable sources to confirm that his proposal is notable. I have already conceded to this objection hence my deletion of content.
6. The use of the term “cultural creative” has been misintepreted by one editor as evidence of self-promotion when the reality is that the term has several meanings, one of which is an occupation for which one can study for at UQAM, a university [VDT] studied at many years ago.
7. In Quebec, French-speaking people call the head of provinces “premier ministre” so I was just borrowing two words from French into the English language. My mistake. ;)

--Loremaster (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect?

"Green state" seems to be used in a variety of ways, but associated in this particular context with Eckersley. Perhaps a redirect would make more sense? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Eckersley does not have a monopoly on the definition of a “green state”. Although the article is or was written in way that associates the concept almost exclusively to her ideas, it is actually a violation of Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality to not fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Therefore, I suggest we improve the article by expanding it to include more viewpoints rather than push the point of view that the green state is only Eckersley's idea through a well-intentioned but ill-advised merge. --Loremaster (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is a very general term, but if there were significant differing views, yes, those should be included. Your [VDT]'s view simply is not significant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that the significance of [VDT]'s views is irrelavant to a debate about whether or not we should merge the Green state article with the Robyn Eckersley article; [VDT]'s views will be considered significant enough to be mentioned in the Green state article if and when they are reported by good reliable sources. That being said, in the same way that I don't share Troy Southgate's malignant views on National-Anarchism despite the fact I took a personal interest in improving and expanding articles related to his views; I don't share [VDT]'s benign views on a “green republic” despite the fact I took a personal interest in improving and expanding articles related to him and his views. Any insinuations to the contrary violates Wikipedia guidelines that demand you be polite, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, and, most important of all, respect a contributor's right to privacy. If such violations persist, they will be reported on the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard for incidents. --Loremaster (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. - I would personally like to see a detailed explanation of the two viewpoints.Ourmetis (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that [VDT]'s viewpoint will not be mentioned in the Green state article until we find reliable sources to justify it being mentioned, can you clarify whether or not you oppose the merge? --Loremaster (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Question for Delicious carbuncle: Is your merge proposal nothing more than a tactic to prevent the views of an individual you think is not notable (despite the consensus that he is) from ever being mentioned in this article? If so, this is not a valid justification for a merge. In other words, why do you care so much to push this merge when it is obviously a topic (which deserves its own article) that you have never taken an interest in before? What led you to come to this article in first place? --Loremaster (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your question earlier, but my rationale for the merge is stated above. Since [VDT] is not even mentioned in this article, a merge proposal is in no way "a tactic" to exclude their views. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You proposed the merge before I decided to remove the mention of this individual from the article so forgive me for having doubts about your stated rationale... That being said, you will still haven't answered my secondary questions: why do you care so much to push this merge when it is obviously a topic (which deserves its own article) that you have never taken an interest in before? What led you to come to this article in first place? --Loremaster (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't expect answers to questions posed in bad faith. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what you get when you accuse people of “playing games”... However, your refusal to answer these specific questions speaks volume and, as usual, no one ever takes any of your suggestions seriously so this merge proposal thread will be closed and archived in a few weeks. --Loremaster (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have explained why you should not close proposals in which you have a vested interest. Please consider the advice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say I would close it myself. Like all your silly proposals, it will be closed by someone else sooner or later. Take a hint. --Loremaster (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Improvement and Expansion

We need to improve and expand this article by providing 1) a concise yet comprehensive defintion of the green state in the lead; 2) a section reporting the proposals of all green state theorists, 3) a section focusing on a comparison to other states, specifically the liberal democratic state, the welfare state and the neoliberal state; 4) a section focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of the green state according to theorists and critics, and 5) a See also section --Loremaster (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've started working on 1 and 5. --Loremaster (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I started working on 4 but we might want to move the content from that section to the Political theory section. --Loremaster (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the quote in the Political theory section but we could decide to paraphrase it or delete it entirely once we start seriously improving the entire article. --Loremaster (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark D. Whitaker and the Bioregional State

I recently removed content added by anonymous User:59.10.25.91 about Mark D. Whitaker and his proposed “Bioregional State” because I think we should clarify whether or not the Green state article should only mention proposals that explicity use the term “green state” or, at the very least, have been described by some reliable source as a version of a green state. Furthermore, if Whitaker's Bioregional State is a notable concept, it should have its own Wikipedia article instead of having undue weight in the Green state article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone can't guess, this is not an encyclopedia about 'green state' ideas. It's an encyclopedia about Loremaster's conceptions of green states alone. So I suggest it be renamed to Loremaster's Conception of a Green State Limited to Eckersley. Seconded?--59.10.25.91 (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Following "Loremaster"'s improvement and expansion section above, he is unable to see how he works against the things he wants to see this article do! Given Loremaster does more deleting than anything, he's not a real force for developing this article even along his own hypocritically suggested lines. Loremaster acts like an ideologue instead of an encyclopaedist.--59.10.25.91 (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

How many personalities does Loremaster have. A month ago, he claims to be for expanding this article beyond Eckersley. Now a month later he/she/it wants it to be a fan page of Eckersley. I don't get it. Read this from Loremaster a month ago:

"Eckersley does not have a monopoly on the definition of a “green state”. Although the article is or was written in way that associates the concept almost exclusively to her ideas, it is actually a violation of Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality to not fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Therefore, I suggest we improve the article by expanding it to include more viewpoints rather than push the point of view that the green state is only Eckersley's idea through a well-intentioned but ill-advised merge. --Loremaster (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC) "

So what is going on looks very much like Loremaster is attempting to associate the concept exclusively with Eckersley. 1. He agrees he/she/it is in "violation of Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality to not fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"; and 2. he/she/it is indeed "push[ing] the point of view that the green state is only Eckersley's idea". We await the self-rationalizations as well as the explanation of why he/she/it wishes to keep deleting everything that comes along on this page. It isn't your baby. This is an encyclopedia page. A plurality of ideas of green state exist, though no one would know as long as Loremaster is a biased filter.--59.10.25.91 (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, we should clarify whether or not the Green state article should only mention proposals that explicity use the term “green state” or, at the very least, have been described by some reliable source as a version of a green state. Furthermore, if Whitaker's Bioregional State is a notable concept, it should have its own Wikipedia article (bioregional state) instead of having undue weight in the Green state article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

The Green state article now redirects to the Robyn Eckersley article. Case closed. --Loremaster (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)