Talk:World government

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 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)

Articles for deletion/World government in fiction
This subarticle is now being considered for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)