Talk:World government

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)

Needs opposing views

If anyone has good sources, this article needs better documentation of opposing views. All that's there currently is a mention in the lead of the fear of totalitarianism and the concern of Christian fundamentalists. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I dont agree with your massive recent changes, removal of content, change of stand alone sections. So you will open a talk page discussion, you will explain your edits (as you dont use edit summaries in some useful way), and you will get consensus about. There only was some talk about the lead section but you decided to change the whole article, so pls. If you have something against for example, the main point to there never was any world government, or to it is often a topic in various conspiracy theories you will also explain your concerns about. And enough, any ignoring of the talk page discussion, reverts without explanation and so on will be reported. Nubia86 (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Cuñado: Hmmm the lead ok, somehow can work. But sorry, all other stuff not improvement. I already see many problems, except majority of this article was just pov onesided collection of supportive thoughts and calls for some form of a world government, your edits are problematic there also; there is so much removed content, for example creating undue weight stand alone section about proponents what is not needed especially as a stand alone section etc. And you know, to be bold is ok, but as per WP:BRD, when your edits are challenged as not improvement then you discuss and try to get consensus on the talk page of article. I will check more careful but seems I will have to revert all except the lead section and you will have to explain step by step section by section your eventual future edits, to get consenus and so on. Nubia86 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Nubia86 I shrank and eliminated a large amount of information on people "of supportive thoughts and calls for some form of a world government", as you described it. You can't justify reverting to the old sloppy article. Make productive edits over what's there or I will keep restoring it. I agree with your assessment that the article had many problems when I started and still has some problems. It needs some academic review articles to establish a good structure of sections. That would be a good place to start. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm @Cuñado: there is no point to reverting each other all the time, I mean, I can without problem to keep to do that but I see to you have a good will and wanna to make this article better. Only what I can see as some kind of fast fix is to that "notable proponents" section is removed or incorporated into the body of the article as it is high pov and undue weight, and would need a list of ones who opposed that concept to put some npov and balance undue weight, and it can cause a lot of future edit wars. And then it can be a kind of good job in general about whole article. Nubia86 (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

For context, go back to the article from a few weeks ago. About half of the page was a list of people advocating for world government and some of them lengthy and undue weight. I reduced it to a small section with a single sentence each on a few of them. I don't think eliminating it entirely is appropriate, just keep it short, and if you want, add a list of notable people opposed to world government. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cuñado: Then incorporate it into content, NPOV is one of the main things at Wikipedia and "notable proponents" are high POV stand alone section and just one list. Nubia86 (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with any mass deletion of cited content. It's one thing to simply make the content more concise and better organized (and in some respects, this happened), but much of the cited content was deleted outright. Significant changes like that should be discussed beforehand. TrueBlueSea (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing sacred about content being cited. This page was a big disorganized mess when I started, and still is. Be bold and continue improving it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

To be a little more specific... see WP:PROMOTION, the page was previously mostly a long list of people's opinions promoting world government, it was promoting views with no clear threshold for inclusion, and undue weight within the article. The new structure of the article starts with a definition of world government, it goes into ancient views, BRIEFLY summarizes more recent views from notable individuals, then gets right into practical movements toward it, starting with the era leading up to WWI. I also left alone the section on regional integration of nations, which arguably doesn't belong in this article other than a brief mention to their connection to world federation. If you have an example of a summary outline of the topic from a few reliable sources, that would be helpful. I highly doubt they will dedicate a few paragraphs to H.G. Wells and Gene Roddenberry. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of Nineteen eighty-four in lead paragraph

1984 should not be used in the lead paragraph Nineteen eighty-four has three huge countries (Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia) and thus the concept of world government doesn't apply as the lead paragraph states. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sudi the jackal

@Sudi the jackal 110.138.87.185 (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)