Talk:Timeline to Global Governance 1986 to Present

Please put questions in talk

Please place questions in Talk and not within main article. All information inserted into this on-going article needs to be sourced. Thanks. Artificial Intelligence 09:06, 18 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Why not if they're commented out? If someone's interested in the subject matter, they'll edit the article and see them.

What do you mean by sourced? And isn't being factual sufficient? Are you referring to anything in particular that I wrote?

Mememe 09:19, 18 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Making the timeline more useful

I suggest that there be several timelines:

• Timeline of the development of Global institutions
• Timeline of conferences concerned with Global governance
• Timeline of Global environmental treaties
• Timeline of events causing a global response

and perhaps some others, with Timelines charting the development of Global Governance listing them all. They should also be put in a category.

The commissions, etc of the UN (though probably not those merely instigated by it) should link to and be described in wikipedia articles with, e.g. [[w:Commission on Population and Development|Commission on Population and Development]]

Also, crucially, for this to work the events listed need some text describing why they are significant. Mememe 09:18, 18 Jul 2005 (EDT)

What is the point of this timeline?

If you don't mind my asking, what is the agenda or interest of the person/people writing this timeline? Why the particular preoccupation with environmental laws/issues? I don't altogether "trust" the UN and its agencies, nor do I consider the UN to be entirely neutral or impartial (as some would have you think), but why doesn't United States unilateralism and militarism figure into all this? The USA has done just about everything in its power to castrate the UN, and has practically declared a neverending war on the rest of the world...how does this fit into your timeline? I guess I just don't get the point of the timeline.

I agree, though I wonder if the attention to development of national environmental laws reflects the writers experience more than an agenda. 1986 was not particularly a watershed year for global governance, and the events listed that year don't particularly inform the move toward global governance. The move seems to have accelerated in the late 20th Century, but hallmarks of the move toward global governance would need to include the early efforts to form a league of nations, establishment of the U.N., efforts of and U.S. resistence to a World Court, the 1947 establishment of a world General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trade, the formation of a world bank, creation of the WTO, operations of the Trilateral Commission, efforts to create a united Arab nation and the move toward a unified Europe (probably as significant as NAFTA). GATT led to the first internatioal dispute resolution committee under the aggreement in 1971, but the committee was not active until 1991. I would suggest dropping 1986 as an arbitrary start for the timeline, and allow for at least a century of globalism efforts.

-prpgtr

Perhaps you both failed to read the preamble to this "piece" ... There are THREE separate files which cover "at least a century of globalism [sic] efforts", the first of which BEGINS with 1800.

Secondly, the timeline was borrowed from an existing file on the internet and has been updated, as many of the old links did not work, and it continues as a work in progress.

There is no agenda or single interest other than continuing with an earlier work and fleshing it out ... It will always allow room for expansion, especially since it began as a single file and has increased in volume sufficiently to require three sections ... additionally, so as not to overtax slower browsers, etc.

Instead of constantly criticizing what is or is not included in the SourceWatch -- which is also a work in progress (and obviously not quite up to snuff at this time for all users) -- I suggest that you contribute something positive. Somebody took the time to start the timeline and it, as well as the SourceWatch, is worthy of expansion.

Since I am the one who has worked hardest and longest on expanding the timeline, I will defend the "focus" as resulting from following one or more threads and including as many of the various meetings, summits, etc., found (if and when found), then moving on, as time allows, to follow another thread.

Maybe you should also consider that what "fits" or is appropriate to the timeline is a matter of opinion. The SourceWatch is not a Master Thesis or Dissertation, it is not being graded or vetted to suit anyone's individual needs, .... and that is the beauty of it, is it not?

10/21/03 19:17 (EDT) AI

Add links to other parts of the timeline

For my part, I am just learning to use the "what links to" feature, so I have not yet located the rest of the time line. My advice, which I will continue to dole out, would be to at least provide a link to the rest of the time line. Apparently we find our way into these articles through a variety of paths and sometimes the approach does not always render the information the way a contributor might have hoped it would appear.

"Positivism" as a rhetorical device

As for whether contributions should be positive, I long ago began to understand the use of so-called positivism as a propaganda device. Positivity is an entirely subjective matter, usually pitched in such a way as to demand compliance with a speakers veiled intentions. In this case, a demand for positivism is to defend against an allegation of error without offering a factual basis for the defended information. I would call it an avoidance method. The question remains, how do national environmental laws inform the move toward global governance?

Source watch articles have different levels of credibility

SourceWatch is being vetted. It is vetted by this sort of challenge to questionable entries. That something is a matter of opinion does not provide contributors a wall of protection - opinions of informed commentators carry more weight than opinions of less informed commentators. Information that appears untrue or irrelevant likely damages the credibility of an opinion, and invites replies reflecting better-informed opinions.

The beauty of SourceWatch is that I can add comments that will allow readers of this article to understand that it is not generally recongized as an accurate article. I have the choice of correcting the page as I see fit, or of offering suggestions while allowing the errant copy to stand as it is. In this case, I choose to reinforce another contributor's view that this does not seem like a particulary relevant set of events related to the growth of globalism. With the benefit of reading other contributors' replies here on the talk page, a reader might have a better idea how to place this article in their personal heirarchy of credibility.

This is a good idea and worth trying to do

All that said, your effort is commendable, but the article is incomplete and wanders down apparently irrelevant paths. That is easier to understand in the context of your explanation that it is the result of piecemeal writing. I think I have probably started some articles like that. Perhaps it is years experience as a professional journalist that guides my decisions about whether I have enough information to start an article. As my new-article rate began to increase, I started thinking I should add comments to indicate when an article I started appeared to me to be incomplete. -prpgtr

The "world government" and appeals to environmental groups

I read the preamble in more detail and it satisfies most of my concerns about informing readers as to the status of the article. My critique remains related to the first entry on this page. I will say that in propaganda I have reviewed both for and against international governance, it is in pro-world-government propaganda I most often see discussion of national environmental problems coupled with reasoning for global governance. My hunch is that environmentalism tends to balance the corporate-greed image of many of those involved in expanding transnational activity. Environmental groups have been more responsive to appeals based on the international nature of pollution.