Talk:Oil imperialism theories

Discussion

Are there any counter arguments?

Whilst this article is one of a well-known anonymous contributor's rants, the term "oil imperialism" is commonly used by those who have his particular political views to mean more or less what the article states.

I'm leaving it as is for now, even though it is strongly POV.

Would someone else like to edit it for NPOV, please? -- The Anome 10:53 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

This is a conspiracy theory, and might belong in that group of pages, but it is also a political theory. It needs NPOVing, as there is much that can be said to counter the claims in it. I don't have the energy right now though...2toise 13:46, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I put it in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, but no one has wanted to take it on yet. Yes, it's horribly one-sided. -- VV 05:46, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how this can exist as a serious article. It is one person's political idea; it does seem to verge on conspiracy theory. Maybe this should be removed and put on her or his own home page? Or it can be edited into a shorter form, and merged into a conspiracy theory article. JeMa 20:28, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

I will give it a serious going over to NPOV it. Let me do some research to clear up a few specifics first, and Ill get to it later today AQBachler 15:13, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I attempted to NPOV this article. I feel that this is the best format because it does nto go into specific details of a specific theory, just as you could not place a Robert Frost peom under the article for poetry and then assert that that explains what a poem is. AQBachler 07:18, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The article says 'This theory is rejected by most analysts', does anybody have any sources? Edward 17:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--- "In neolithic times flint deposits were important; during the copper and bronze age those minerals were important." Not essential to the subject. I have rendered the entry less contentious and more neutral. Wetman 21:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article needs work on NPOV for sure. For example, one should do research on public opinion on whether the public thought the Gulf War and 2003 US Invasion of Iraq was about oil imperialism because at least in Canada where I live and from talking to people in Europe and even among some Americans, it is a popular view that the US invaded Iraq mainly or even entirely to control it's oil supply. I find it hard to believe that it is only a far left view.

Weaker versions of this theory are very commonly held by significant proportions of people from nations around the world.

There have been polls conducted in Iraq etc. showing that a large proportion of the general population believe that Iraq was

invaded for the sake of it's oil reserves.

As to this being a conspiracy theory Marxism is demonstratably wrong (oil imperialism in the 21st century has a much better

case for it). Yet it is not considered a 'conspiracy theory'. I think this subject is fairly legitimate and should not be

deleted nor labled as crank nonsense.

--I (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does the reference article on abiogenic oil have to do with Oil Imperialism? Deletion required? Jm butler 21:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of some (but not all) people from inside the USA, pretty much everyone does not consider "Oil Imperialism" a theory but a fact. The very fact that some are arguing over this being POV or not is already biased.

I added a link to Hydraulic despotism as it seems to be growing more relevant to petroleum politics. I was looking for a word for a commodity with the preeminent economic importance of oil; this was the closest I could find and I think it should be linked to somewhere among the pages closely associated with Petroleum. Kineticman 16:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article (link http://www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm ) by Norman D. Livergood uses unecessary derogatory terms and his article contains factual errors and many unsubstantiated claims.

Livergood refers to US government as a "regime", to George Bush as "Dubya", to Dick Cheney as George Bush Sr.'s "hitman". He calls the current conflict a "Standard Oil-Bush junta war against Iraq" and describes the 1990s sanctions against Iraqi as "genocidal" He also claims the US invation of Iraq was to "loot" Iraqi oil.

He also somehow brings drug trafficking into the subject by claiming the "Bush administration and its plutocratic controllers are at the center of the $1.5 trillion per year in U.S. cash transactions that result from the international drug trade" and that the "Wall Street and the Bush administration depend on the South American drug barons for hundreds of millions of dollars for corporate income and election campaign finances."

He provides no evidence for any of his claims and the article reads like a rambling conspiracy theory. I say, remove the link.

Cleanup

I removed all dubious unsourced statements and the links to two webpages that look more like personal rants than anything serious. A search via Google scholar did not show any evidence that "oil imperialism theories" are serious political science theories, and a search via Google showed that Oil imperialism theories are rather dubious theories at best, conspiracy theories at worst. Novidmarana (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Control, not acquisition

The criticism section talks about "acquisition" rather than control of oil. The US doesn't want all the oil in the Middle East, or even most of it; it just wants to have its hand on the tap.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum politics

This article handles the same subject as Petroleum politics. It is currently getting very little attention : I suggest to delete or merge it.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]