Talk:World government/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"The political unity of the Muslim Ummah"

This material is a copy-and-paste from the Caliphate article. As WP:NOR I am aware that some hold the aspiration of making this a world government, but the Caliphate article goes no further than "pan-Islamic state". I suggest that without citations and a proper explanation it has no place here. Removed again.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Shortened account, now referenced, added. I'm still not overwhelmingly convinced that it has a place here and other contributors' oversight of the edit would be welcome.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Google

Please to redirect "Google" here. Kthx. 204.210.162.218 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Because they are the world's governing body. They have the right to do anything they like, whenever they like, to whomever they like, and no government can stop them. 204.210.162.218 (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. The (US) FTC (and probably the European Union Privacy Commission) has forced them to make some changes in their privacy polices. They settled a lawsuit for copyright violation against Google Books; in fact, my parents had the right to get some money from Google for posting excerpts from their books. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

World governments in fiction split it in to two article

Please add you opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamuslim (talk • contribs) 05:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been done - World government in fiction. SilkTork *YES! 16:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

"He was exiled from many countries even though many people had great respect for him. The Netherlands is one of the few places that he was exiled from. He had no desire to return there for he knew that he was guilty. " "He was exiled from many countries" "The Netherlands is one of the few places that he was exiled from" "Many countries" or "few place"s? 46.64.52.117 (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

File:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 5 June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Link?

Why is there no link to the official site of the world government? --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What? There isn't a world government, therefore there is no official site to link to... John Shandy` • talk 15:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Obscure acronym

I'm not sure what the acronym FWG means in the "The end of the Cold War (1991)" section. "Federal world Government" perhaps? I suggest changing it to clarify the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.203.251 (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

World Government article with no mention of the bilderberg group

I think the bilderberg group is beyond relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.132.197 (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


they're already listed

look at "Current global governance system" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.119.229 (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?

I just wanted to know why "Conspiracy Theory" in parenthesis is next to the New world Order? It's confusing somewhat because I've heard several Presidents as well as various heads of state from numerous countries. It's been mentioned and referenced as a point of topic during SOTU addresses and U.N. Assemblies, and always in the same context. Seems to be a pretty legit topic discussed widely by and within the mainstream media. Not sure if this is the proper venue to raise this question so I raised it anyway. Just somewhat curious is all. Thanks , Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.19.143 (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge from Global governance?

Hi, I noticed there is a separate article for Global Governance (and it's pretty awful). It looks like that article is duplicating the subject of this one, while focusing more on political theory. But I wanted to check what people here think before endorsing a merge. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Its topic is far different, the article would be much larger, but I support this idea.Rolyatleahcim (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad this was brought up. Skimming over the contents of global governance, I can find no section that would be individually out-of-place in an article with this title.
If you asked the average layperson what the difference was between "world government" and "global governance," I doubt they'd be able to tell you. If there were a clear difference, there would probably be a link to global governance in the "for [x], see [y]" section at the top of this article. (Off-topic: does that type of section have a name?)
Even if consensus is to keep this article separate from its twin, I believe that both need such links, because despite their redundancies each is incomplete without the other. For instance, I came to this article to read about criticism of the idea of world government. There's no section on that topic here. Although the other article has none either, it looks to be the only place on Wikipedia where that topic is explored.
Despite all this, I'm not sure that one article is sufficient to cover everything the twin articles do. I'm in favor of merging them but having the result be no longer than this article. Some offshoots will likely be necessary. Elmsbye (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Inadequate lead

The article's lead is way too short, no way three sentences can summarize it. Also it gets dwarfed by four sentences about redirects (and now a template, sorry, but I feel it is needed and, hopefully will not stay long). Also, out of only three sentences one half of the last one seems to my as opinionated, POV-ish, implying that "cooperation of nations" can not be a form of world government (I don't know if it can be, but presume it is not excluded either) - Nabla (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello a very simple method to make a WORLD GOVERNMENT I have discovered. please download article of it and then read it carefully and then explain it to people of America and then coerce government of America to do it for people of other countries. it is two pages.

http://myvegetarianism.mihanblog.com/post/1420

thanks a lot

95.38.51.75 (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on World government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone tag this article with "better sources needed" or "unsourced"?

Thank you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

STOIP TRYING TO MAKE THIS LOOK GOOD. THIS IS VERY BIASED. PLEASE BELIEVE MEE!!140.198.45.65 (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This article really is rubbish. A ludicrous 'history', a literally random selection of individuals some of whom had no conception of world government whatsoever, while leaving out many who did actually promote the idea, then an equally random section about regional unions without any explanation about how that ties in with the idea of world government; it's entirely incoherent. Can anyone explain what is the intended aim of this article, and if they can, could they re-write the article? --JHumphries (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"Global nation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Global nation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#Global nation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 00:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexander the Great and Other Historical GLobal Expansionist Empires

Global Expansionist Global States aspirations are as old as Alexander the Great, The Persian Empire and the Romans, shouldn't ancient empires desiring to conquer the globe be mentioned too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.95.151 (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No these are totally different concepts in different time periods. Île flottante (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
These fall under this article’s title. World empire is an ancient concept. A world empire obviously establishes a world government. Even the Sumerians thought they were close to control the four corners of the world. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Pop-culture "non-WP:RS"?

@Nikkimaria: Your latest edit which removes the pop culture section is based on the premise that it is a non-reliable source, do you mean with this that - a. - the examples shown in the pop-culture section aren't reliable examples of a World Government? or - b. - that those pop-culture references don't have references to their exact examples for such World Governments that they display? (If the last one, can we link to a wikia/fandom wiki of origin that'd display the World Government in question?)

In any case, I think keeping the pop culture section would help a lot with envisioning World Governments, or maybe change/merge it into a "in Fiction" section, in my opinion. Shadowjonathan (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Such a section would need reliable sources indicating the significance of the references to the topic, and Fandom is not a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I think the significance of pop culture/fictive references to World Governments, when a World Government does not actually exist, would actually be of use when trying to shape an accurate view on the subject, so why not keep them in regardless? I think they're significant, but I question the need for a reliable source on the subject of it can be cited/referenced/found in the original article on the show, or would that need a direct reference to an instance in the original fiction work where such a government structure is referenced? How exactly do we "verify" fictional elements, anyway?
My point stands, I think they're significant to the article in question (a World Government), but I'm confused as to how exactly you want a "reliable source" to fictive elements in a fictive story/world. Shadowjonathan (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
In general, there are plenty of reliable sources that discuss fictive elements in works of fiction. The question is whether there are any reliable sources discussing these specific fictive elements. If no, then they should not be included. See this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that clears up some things, and I can work with that, thank you! Shadowjonathan (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I added references to the content that I added about Star Trek, from memory-alpha, almost the entire references about star trek articles are taken from this website, if memory-alpha isn't a "reliable source", maybe I could try the specific reference to the episode or use a star trek official webpage. Is it okay? Xillegas (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Xillegas, Memory-Alpha not a reliable source, and in this case referencing the episode would be a primary source. See the RfC link I posted above for more information about what kinds of sourcing should be included for pop-culture entries. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Nikkimaria: The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets use primary sources, could I use it here too? I guess I can do the same thing here, Is it okay? Reading this RfC I guess this article primarly sources isn't properly cited. Xillegas (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
"In popular culture" (IPC) sections are an ongoing issue on Wikipedia, but in general the Wikipedia community agrees that caution is called for. My assessment is that this agreement has become stronger in the years since that RFC. Pop culture sections are optional, and must be supported by good sources.
So we should stick to reliable, independent sources. Avoid WP:PRIMARY sources for most things, but especially for "pop culture" sections. World governments are a trope in sci-fi, and without independent sources, such a section would quickly balloon out of control with hundreds of works. This would quickly swamp the article and make it harder for people to understand the topic. The essay Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content explains this: "Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference" (emphasis added). We are looking for encyclopedic significance. We may agree that this is a helpful or informative example of the topic, but it's not up to us as editors. We still need sources so we can indicate to reader why it is more than trivia. Therefore we are looking for sources which demonstrate the importance of this pop culture reference, not merely proof that it was mentioned. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Perfect. I got it. I'll be brave and add a new section with references and significance. Xillegas (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I hope Gene Roddenberry's section meets the requirements, I think it's encyclopedic content, an example and model of world government like the others mentioned in the history. Not only a trivia. Xillegas (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt

Roosevelt was actually quite fond of The Hague,(He mentioned it with some routineness in this context) as can be seen in this excerpt from his 1905 State of the Union:

I most earnestly urge that this Nation do all in its power to try to further the movement and to make the result of the decisions of The Hague conference effective. I earnestly hope that the conference may be able to devise some way to make arbitration between nations the customary way of settling international disputes in all save a few classes of cases, which should themselves be as sharply defined and rigidly limited as the present governmental and social development of the world will permit. If possible, there should be a general arbitration treaty negotiated among all the nations represented at the conference. Neutral rights and property should be protected at sea as they are protected on land. There should be an international agreement to this purpose and a similar agreement defining contraband of war. During the last century there has been a distinct diminution in the number of wars between the most civilized nations. International relations have become closer and the development of The Hague tribunal is not only a symptom of this growing closeness of relationship, but is a means by which the growth can be furthered. Our aim should be from time to time to take such steps as may be possible toward creating something like an organization of the civilized nations, because as the world becomes more highly organized the need for navies and armies will diminish. It is not possible to secure anything like an immediate disarmament, because it would first be necessary to settle what peoples are on the whole a menace to the rest of mankind, and to provide against the disarmament of the rest being turned into a movement which would really chiefly benefit these obnoxious peoples; but it may be possible to exercise some check upon the tendency to swell indefinitely the budgets for military expenditure. Of course such an effort could succeed only if it did not attempt to do too much; and if it were undertaken in a spirit of sanity as far removed as possible from a merely hysterical pseudo-philanthropy. It is worth while pointing out that since the end of the insurrection in the Philippines this Nation has shown its practical faith in the policy of disarmament by reducing its little army one-third. But disarmament can never be of prime importance; there is more need to get rid of the causes of war than of the implements of war.

Here is what he said in his Nobel speech, again praising the Hague: [1]

Finally, it would be a masterstroke if those great powers honestly bent on peace would form a League of Peace, not only to keep the peace among themselves, but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by others. The supreme difficulty in connection with developing the peace work of The Hague arises from the lack of any executive power, of any police power to enforce the decrees of the court.

His biggest gripe was that The Hague didn't have an enforcement capability. Progressingamerica (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverts on lead

@Nubia86: Your edit summaries and reverts[2] are vague. Can you detail your issues in length because I don't see a problem with summarizing rest of the article the way it was done. You can also see the earlier version and you must gain WP:CON first before you revert again. Also ping TrueBlueSea who did a fine job with the lead and I am willing to restore that lead version again. Editorkamran (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Nop,
  • 1. My edits pretty well explained into my edit summaries with the main point, anyway;
  • 2. Drastic and big changes of the lead needs consensus first, as this is not some blog to someone come and change the whole lead section.
  • 3. This type of articles needs special attention for neutral point of view especially as this topic overlaps with widespread conspiracy theories pushed around by some people.
  • 4. In general this whole article is pretty much already pov, collection of calls, many redundant or without notability, for some type of a world government, but this is not a tool for promotion or advocacy of any kind, that is for blogs or so.
  • 5. The main point is that there has never been any world government, and except into some conspiracy theories, no any serious plans for one, so that is the main result, that is how it is for now and every distorting from that is undue weight or advocacy and Wikipedia is not for that. Full stop
  • 6. Currently more useful for this article would be stand alone sections for world government in fiction and in conspiracy theories. Nubia86 (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I start to suspect some COI and sudden interest of different editors to edit this article in the same way. I would not like to that is true. Nubia86 (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Nubia86 I'm sympathetic to some of your argument and edits but overall the version by TrueBlueSea was a better base to work from. Please stop editing over me so I can finish cleaning up the referencing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but as this is encyclopedia, we must to be careful, about npov, undue weight and so on and especially about some topics what have many people who push some crazy conspiracy theories. That is my only concern. Nubia86 (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Please stop editing while I'm editing. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I think Nubia86 is stonewalling. Dismissing constructive edits as promotion of "conspiracy theories" lacks any sense and also violates WP:AGF. Accusing anybody of COI without evidence is as bad if not worse. Editorkamran (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Accusing, I never saw something like that here in this discussion. Nubia86 (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm done. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
No comment, total ignoring of any talk page discussion. I have challenged changes so one who made them needs to get consensus and to explain why they are they improvement. I am not convinced and that is it, "fixing" already POV stuff to be more POV and just a longer collection of calls for some world government, mixing world government with governance, trying to ignore the main thing and that is to there has never been one world government and except in some conspiracy theories there is no plan for any, is not an improvement. Nubia86 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

So what I'm hearing is that "the main thing" in your opinion is to include the mention that there is not currently a world government. I added that back in. On the other points, I don't think you actually reviewed my edits in detail because I was eliminating the things that you were complaining about. My edits also included a huge amount of article cleanup, and you should be editing over the new content on the specific points you want to work on. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The lead is now somehow ok, pretty balanced, but about your other edits I wrote more detailed here on the talk page of this article under discussion titled "Needs opposing views". Nubia86 (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_government/Archive_2&oldid=1215149579"