Talk:Earth Charter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Globalization (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Use of assertions of endorsement, etc. from Earth Charter Intitiative as reliable sources[edit]

I don't think that we should take the word of the ECI about endorsements. The web site is promotional in nature and the comments are self-serving. I'm not saying it's not true, but we can't rely on this. If the Pope said that they claim he did, there should be a reliable third party who will confirm this. See verifiability (section on questionable sources). Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is another example of what I'm talking about. The ECI says that the EC is "endorsed the thousands of organizations representing millions of people", and it's been put in the article. I have searched for hours looking for endorsements, and they are not easy to find. I put the one's I found in the article. Now representing millions of people is proven: the U.S. Conference of Mayors and a few big cities shows that. But my search has turned up dozens, not thousands of organizations. The ECI website doesn't seem to have a list with these thousands. There's a blog, but that only has a few. Mila, if your organization has a list, can you point it out to us?

Anyway, this may show the wisdom of not taking big claims by organizations that are promoting the thing the claim is being made about. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In today's addition by AMJEDCR (that had already been reworded by me as of this writing) it is stated that Pope John Paul II approved the Earth Charter in a telegram sent to Mikhail Gorbachev. Apparently, as this was a private message, it might not be possible for a third party to confirm the validity of this statement. Some time ago, the ECI had been inquired if there either exists a copy of the original telegram, or someone external to ECI who could affirm that this fact indeed took place. In reply, the ECI provided a scan of the original telegram in Italian, and they had said that it would be posted at their website too. Are there opinions on whether this can be accepted? Vladimir Frolov (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

From Bill Jacobs: I think it is up to the writer who claims the Pope has approved the Earth Charter to prove it. If one looks at official Church websites, including the Vatican, or anywhere else for that matter (e.g. Catholic news sources), there is absolutely NO evidence that the Church endorses the Charter. The person who makes that claims should prove it, or else remove it from Wikipedia, in my opinion. The writer provides a copy of a document not even written by the Pope. Furthermore, according to the claim, Gorbachev is introducing the Charter. There is no evidence that the Pope has even seen the Charter yet when that note was alleged to have been written. Its a pretty huge claim to say that the Pope has approved the Earth Charter. Please Wikipedia... Make the writer prove that or remove it. Thank you!!! ~Bill Jacobs Jake5577 (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

From AMJEDCR: There is no claim that the Vatican has endorsed the Earth CHarter, here I'm posting a valid public message sent by the Pope John Paul II's secretary expressing the Pope's gratitude to the work done by Gorbachev in reference to the presentation of the Earth Charter in Italy. Since the visit was specifically about the Earth Charter, it is obvious that this is what the Pope referred to the "work that he (Gorbachev) did". I understand Bill Jacobs concern, no one is claiming to have the Catholic Church endorsement of the Earth Charter. I'm Catholic myself, and have send this document to some of my friends who are priests, they have not raised the concerns that your group does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's wiser to not make live edits to the article until full consensus is reached on disputed additions. --Vladimir Frolov (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"useful" in lead[edit]

Claiming the Charter is "useful" in the lead is POV. While many would agree about its usefulness (including myself, I'm environmentalist), it's certainly not a neutral statement, thus conflicting with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You can say that "X considers the Charter useful" or similar, but just saying "it's useful" without qualification is making an interpretation and thus is original research. I would also remind MilaJECD to be mindful of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, as MilaJECD has acknowledged involvement with an Earth Charter-related organization. Not that I think the conflict of interest policy is being violated or that MilaJECD is heavily POV-pushing, but rather just that caution should be used and WP:NPOV must be actively taken into account. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that "useful" shouldn't be there stated as a fact. It would have to be proven or widely accepted as true to be there in that way. While being aware of MilaJECD's employment and its potential for NPOVishness, let's remember too that the knowledge of a person who is part of a thing is a very valuable, and that MilaJECD has freely and openly admitted their affiliation. WP:COI is a guideline and not a policy, and so admits sensible exception. MilaJCED had added some good content: I think the addition of the 'pillars' by MilaJECD was a constructive addition. So I think we're in agreement here. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Completely agreed. I was initially against the pillars as excessive quoting, but on reflection, they were useful (wordplay purposeful and humorous). --Cybercobra (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reason for most recent manual semi-reverts[edit]

Wikipedia's copyright policy means we can't just cut-and-paste from sources that are not free-content-licensed and that have not given special permission for Wikipedia to use their text because that violates copyright law. The bits in question that I reverted were direct quotes from the webpage I gave in the edit summary (which may itself be based on other Earth Charter materials, which I would assume are also copyrighted). The policy does not mean that we can't consult primary sources and include information from them or that we can't quote sources. It does mean that the information needs to be rewritten in one's own words (which should probably be done anyway since primary sources are inherently POV) and that direct quotes need to be indicated as such. Now we could just add quote marks and a citation for what I removed, but that just makes them bare quotes without any supporting context and would make the majority of the section one giant quote, which I submit is not POV and also seems unprofessional. So, to summarize: Feel free to add back the information in the edits I deleted, but please rephrase it into your own words first. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To whomever keeps adding text allegedly written by me: You have no right to print comments allegedly made by me, and no right to print false accusations about me. Print your own comments please and leave me alone. This is just more proof about how creepy Earth Charter sycophants can be. You're going to bring about world peace? You can't even be peaceful on Wikipedia. This whole Earth Charter project is "utopian dreaming without any real content."Jake5577 (talk)

I do have a right to restore comments made by you, Bill, as they are published under the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA license. These comments will be available until the issue becomes obsolete.
The other fact is that the essay that you have tried to add the links to had been updated with a passage stating that a Moscow-based associate of the ECI "regularly removes dissenting statements about the Charter from a free and open online encyclopedia" and that "links to the page about the Earth Charter at the Catholic Conservation Center and references to statements by Church officials are promptly removed" (ref. to Bill Jacobs) since "The Earth Charter's "big brother" is already watching. Dissent is not allowed." That you're trying to delete the discussion which is an evidence to the actual process behind the removal of your additions: a) is not in compliance with Wikipedia's rules; b) may be an attempt to create an image of a "poor, censored CCC", while that's certainly not the case. Vladimir Frolov (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill's response to Vladimir, December 29, 2009: I'm sure that anyone can plainly see what is going on with this article. As it stands now, the article is nothing more than a propaganda piece for the Earth Charter Initiative. Let us be clear, while some random and dissenting comments may remain temporarily in this discussion page, all dissenting or different opinions, statements, links, etc. have been deleted from the actual Wikipedia article; therefore I stand by my statement "Dissent is not allowed." Keeping this discussion alive is probably a good idea in the end because people can at least read here that Pope Benedict XVI calls such an effort "utopian dreaming without any real content, except insofar as its exponents tacitly presuppose some partisan doctrine as the content that all are required to accept." They will know that they can read more about the Holy Father's statements and other Church statements at the website of the Catholic Conservation Center (CCC). Fortunately there are alternative sites about the Earth Charter on the Internet where people can read varying viewpoints (that you can't delete) and freely decide for themselves. Jake5577 (talk)

Use of opinions from the Catholic Conservation Center as reliable source[edit]

From Bill Jacobs, December 2009: Below is another excerpt from one of Pope Benedict XVI's statements, this one from the Holy Father's book "Jesus of Nazareth" (published by Doubleday, 2007, pages 53 and 54). Its truth and application to the Earth Charter movement is self evident.

"A secularist reinterpretation of the 'Kingdom' has gained considerable ground, particularly, though not exclusively, in Catholic theology. [...] The 'Kingdom,' on this interpretation, is simply the name for a world governed by peace, justice, and the conservation of creation. It means no more than this. This 'Kingdom' is said to be the goal of history that has to be attained. This is supposedly the real task of religions: to work together for the coming of the 'Kingdom.' They are of course perfectly free to preserve their traditions and live according to their respective identities as well, but they must bring their different identifies to bear on the common task of building the 'Kingdom,' a world, in other words, where peace, justice, and respect for creation are the dominant values. This sounds good; it seems like a way of finally enabling the whole world to appropriate Jesus' message, but without requiring missionary evangelization of other religions. It looks as if now, at long last, Jesus' words have gained some practical content, because the establishment of the 'Kingdom' has become a common task and is drawing nigh. On closer examination, though, it seems suspicious. Who is to say what justice is? What serves justice in particular situations? How do we create peace? On closer inspection, this whole project proves to be utopian dreaming without any real content, except insofar as its exponents tacitly presuppose some partisan doctrine as the content that all are required to accept. But the main thing that leaps out is that God has disappeared; man is the only actor left on the stage. The respect for religious 'traditions' claimed by this way of thinking is only apparent. The truth is that they are regarded as so many sets of customs, which people should be allowed to keep, even though they ultimately count for nothing. Faith and religions are now directed toward political goals. Only the organization of the world counts. Religion matters only insofar as it can serve that objective. This post-Christian vision of faith and religion is disturbingly close to Jesus' third temptation... Our main criticism of the secular-utopian idea of the 'Kingdom' has been that it pushes God off the stage. He is no longer needed, or else he is a downright nuisance. But Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God, not just any kind of kingdom."Jake5577 (talk)

From Bill Jacobs: Here is just one article from the CCC Earth Charter page, with quotes by Msgr. Schooyans, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences and consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family - two pontifical councils. Citations are provided on the CCC website. I apologize for reprinting it here, but I don't know how else to address Vladimir's allegations.

(article text deleted by Diderot's dreams, link to article is below.)

"Catholic Theorist Cites UN Threat" (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Jake5577 (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a link to this article may be included as a reference in the Wikipedia's article on the Earth Charter. Michel Schooyans is a noted theologist, and one can find him in French Wikipedia. There is no article on him in English Wikipedia, so I suggest that it should be translated for readers' convenience.
There is no proof so far that phrases used by Pope John Paul II and other quoted officials, that had not named the Earth Charter in their speeches, are synonymous to it. That they use "this kind of language" seems to be an assumption as of yet.
--Vladimir Frolov (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
There is an article on Michel Schooyans in the English Wikipedia already. You may have mistyped something. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I see. I hadn't looked for it, as there had been no English interwiki link in the French Wikipedia, so I assumed there is no English article about him. It's wrong to make any kinds of assumptions, thank you. --Vladimir Frolov (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Two years later, in Pope John Paul II's Message for the World Day of Peace (2003), the Holy Father used the term, and was critical of, the "global super-state." From the story above, Msgr. Schooyans, an official member of a pontifical council, criticized the Earth Charter BY NAME and referred to a "supergovernment." Founders of the Earth Charter movement themselves publicly refer to this global ruling body as "global governance." Vladimir criticizes me for using these terms, however, as you can see these terms did not originate with me.Jake5577 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Two popes now have directly criticized the ethics of "this form of globalization," and I have provided portions of their statements on the CCC website.Jake5577 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There was only one Commission on Global Governance. Maurice Strong was a member. Maurice Strong initiated the Earth Charter movement, together with Mikhail Gorbachev. In addition, there is only one notable global document that is touted as providing the new global ethic behind the new global government (which they refer to as "governance") that they have publicly called for, and that is the Earth Charter. This is not a conspiracy theory, which is another allegation directed at CCC by Vladimir; The information from these group's own websites is available for everyone to see. Officials of the Catholic Church generally do not mention the Earth Charter by name. They are, however, highly critical of the ideas and ethics proposed by the Commission and the Earth Charter Initiative. The term "constitution of a global super-State" is Pope John Paul II's, it is not my invention. The Church has spoken out numerous times against such a new global ethic. As the editor of the Catholic Conservation Center website, I provide this information, all properly sourced, on the Earth Charter page at the CCC website. When the Church criticizes ideas like a new global ethic without God, or a new global super-State, it it fairly obvious that they are criticizing the same ethics of the Commission on Global Governance and the Earth Charter Initiative. Why not let people read the Church's criticisms, and let them decide? Portions of the Wikipedia article were recently rewritten by Vladimir Frolov, an associate of the Earth Charter Initiative in Moscow, Russia (Source: Google Vladimir Frolov Earth Charter) Why is someone from the Earth Charter Initiative turning this article into a propaganda piece for the Earth Charter? He has repeatedly deleted any references and links to any opposition to the Earth Charter. When I restore the information, Vladimir promptly deletes it again. In the spirit of free knowledge, and Wikipedia's intent to "provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information," I will restore the link to the CCC Earth Charter page, and I hope that the editors of Wikipedia will respect true freedom of information and seek a more balanced article about the Earth Charter. ~Bill Jacobs24.186.229.179 (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the latest of what you consider to be the reasons for including your assumptions to the article:
Rarely one can meet the Earth Charter in the search results.
You are clearly not the Church, so this is your criticism, not one of a Church. I had found no notable and reliable sources that had ever quoted CCC.

Bill's response: I provide statements of Church officials, all sourced, on the CCC website. It wouldn't make sense to repeat all of this material here in the Wikipedia article. A link would do that more efficiently.Jake5577 (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a member of the ECI, nor do I work for it. Associate in my case means that I consider the Charter useful, and do my personal work to promote the principles of sustainable development. I do not protect the ECI, nor would I if I knew it were for evil. As I took time - almost two years - to make a good research, I'm perfectly aware that there are no notable Catholic organizations that oppose the Earth Charter. There are marginal unregistered groups that themselves are often in conflict with many notable Catholic organizations, but none of them is notable enough to have been included in Wikipedia. I believe that this fact might be added to Wikipedia if some reliable source conducts a research on these groups and publishes an article on that. CCC and other groups may be included as examples of opposition then. This may actually serve the best interests of all parties.
Until now, you:
  • seem to have ignored the due process of consensus building;
  • seem to target my personality, instead of working to justify your additions and reaching a decision that would satisfy all parties;
  • seem to want to promote your own opinion at any and all costs

Bill's response: I'm responding to your charges Vladimir. I didn't target you about anything. You targeted me. I have attempted to justify my recommendations to 1) remove all reference to Pope John Paul II and 2) if possible, provide a link to the CCC website for alternate views by the Church. I am the editor of the website; all of the official Church statements are quoted and properly sourced.Jake5577 (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you should follow the corresponding procedures to resolve the issue, and I request for a neutral to this dispute party to provide opinion on the validity of the latest additions that you first introduced on November 9, 2009.
--Vladimir Frolov (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The "Various groups from a variety of religions support the Earth Charter." phrase can be removed in my opinion, as it doesn't provide more information than all the links below it.
Mr. Jacobs, please, care to get to know what Wikipedia is, what it's not, what its principles and practices are, and who editors that you often appeal to are.
Vladimir Frolov (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Previously from Bill Jacobs: A few more quick points if I may. Sorry for being a bit long-winded, but Vladimir issues a slew of charges I feel I need to address. The article was fine a couple of weeks ago, before all opposition viewpoints were deleted from the article.

1. In the Wikipedia article, the reference to Pope John Paul II is under the heading "Various groups from a variety of religions support the Earth Charter."

2. The quote alleging the Holy Father's support appears in the Wikipedia article to be a quote made by the Holy Father himself. In fact, if one looks at the alleged document, the quote is actually by Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, NOT the Holy Father. It would be more correct (although still wrong) to say "Archbishop Leonardo Sandri said that the Holy Father expressed whatever..." There is no actual quote from the Pope here! Given that this is being misrepresented by Vladimir as a quote from Pope John Paul II, I will delete it. (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Here is the deleted section for future reference:

Pope John Paul II expressed "his satisfaction for a work well done in defending our environmental heritage", and encouraged Gorbachev's "meritorious effort to bring forth greater respect for the planet’s resources, given by God so that every person may live a dignified life" in a telegram sent by Archbishop Leonardo Sandri to Archbishop Angelo Comastri, Pontifical Delegate, on the occasion of Mr. Gorbachev’s presentation of the Earth Charter in Urbino, Italy on 2 July, 2001.[10]

3. You'll notice that in the Holy Father's alleged expression on the alleged telegram, the Holy Father himself does NOT say "Earth Charter" by name. Vladimir uses this logic, so I will too. Archbishop Leonardo Sandri only says that Gorbachev is in Italy to present the Earth Charter. There is no evidence that the Holy Father or anyone else has even seen the EC yet! It is just being presented at that time.

4. It is clear that using the Holy Father's name anywhere in this article is intended to imply his support for the Charter. This is a HUGE falsehood, and should be deleted. ~Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you google "Catholic Conservation Center" (on 'web," not "news" - we rarely issue news releases) you will see the Center referred to and linked to on numerous Catholic websites. There are approximately 20 pages worth of links, including links from Catholic parishes, schools, colleges, and universities. By the way, every quote in my article on the Earth Charter is referenced. Jake5577 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've discussed some of Vladimir's charges of CCC's credibility, it might be interesting for all of us to google Vladimir, and check his credibility. You might find a few interesting articles - not written by me I might add. ~Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC) With just a quick investigation, you'll see that Vladimir is associated with the Earth Charter Initiative in Moscow, and has been coordinating translations of various materials related to it.[1] [2]What a surprise. Can someone at Wikipedia take this article from Vladimir and make it honest and fair again like it used to be?Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). ~Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"Neither the Pope nor any officials of the Roman Curia have ever signed or endorsed the Earth Charter." As for the Pope not endorsing the Earth Charter, it is impossible for me to prove a negative. I would think the writer who implies that the Pope endorses the Charter should be the one to prove it, or else his/her claim should be removed from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake5577 (talkcontribs) Signed by Bill Jacobs - I don't know how else to sign it.Jake5577 (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago the article about the Earth Charter on Wikipedia was properly balanced, showing both sides of the issue honestly and fairly. Unfortunately, the person who has made all these claims about CCC has really butchered the article. Thanks for listening. I hope you will continue to present all sides fairly. ~Bill Jacobs Jake5577 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The cause to questioning credibility of the CCC is the reasoning behind its "Constitution of the Global Super-State" essay. The article is a compilation of quotes from various texts and speeches most of which don't contain a word about the Earth Charter itself. As for the EC endorsement by Pope, as far as I know, there had been no official endorsement, just that private one described at the ECI's website (the scan of the original telegram: But there had never been a disagreement of Pope or other high level Catholic officials with the EC. Since none of the quotes by religious officials in your article are directly related to the Charter, the conclusions in it look like nothing but a personal interpretaton.

Not true. There are serious criticisms, many provided and all cited to their original sources at CCC website. Terms like "constitution" and "global governance" are those used by the founders of the initiaitive. I provide citations for them. The term "global super-state" is the pope's term. Again, his statement is cited at the CCC website. The so-called quote you provide in the article is actually NOT a quote by the pope, it is a quote by an archbishop.Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I explain below, Church officials in their quotes (not mine) don't always refer to the EC by name. That's just how they write. Instead they refer to the central concepts of the EC, such as "new global ethic," "new paradigm," or "global super-State." Based on the meaning of EC, you can see from the CCC Earth Charter website that many in the Church are are opposed to this new global ethic. I'm not going to debate this forever. Feel free to have someone responsible there at Wikipedia remove whatever you want. But you really need to remove your Pope Paul II reference. There's NO evidence that the Church has endorsed EC. And if you're going to list groups that support the EC, including Catholic groups, then please link somewhere to the CCC Earth Charter page, which describes an opposing viewpoint, all carefully documented. Thanks! Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Credibility of the CCC is not an important matter, but the facts that there are virtually no materials that suggest that the Center undertakes any activities besides generating papers that attack environmentalists (from the "Green sisters" book), and that you're CCC's only known speaker, don't promote the image of this "group". Also, there are clear neutrality issues here. Are you kidding? Vladimir works for the Earth Charter Initiative in Moscow.Jake5577 (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at the CCC site again. We have articles by numerous environmentalists! I am an environmentalist. The CCC website features numerous Catholic writers, most of them not me. And yes, that's all we do. "Neutrality?" The only reason I added anything at all to the article is that it was so incredibly biased in favor of the EC! And you were the one who questioned CCC's credibility and made it an issue. The CCC website has writings from literally dozens of Catholic writers! I am merely the editor. Have a closer look, would you please? Google CCC. At least 20 pages of links to CCC. Numerous parishes, colleges, and universities refer to CCC's resources on their websites and instructional materials. Forgive me if I failed to present another side as perfectly as you demand. Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Last, consider the statements and their wording:
"Two years later, however, the Holy Father cautioned" - the readers may assume that the Holy Father talks about the Earth Charter, but this isn't the case - it's not mentioned in the speech at all.
"Neither the Pope nor any officials of the Roman Curia have ever signed or endorsed the Earth Charter." - nowhere it is said that they officially did.

Are you saying you aren't implying that when you say Pope John Paul II expressed "his satisfaction for a work well done in defending our environmental heritage", and encouraged Gorbachev's "meritorious effort to bring forth greater respect for the planet’s resources, given by God so that every person may live a dignified life" You need to prove the Holy Father endorsed the EC, and if you prove it you should probably notify the press because it would be HUGE news. You show me the Holy See endorses the Earth Charter, and I'll sign it too! Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I request other editors to take part in this case for a consensus-oriented discussion.
Vladimir Frolov (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The article at the Catholic Conservation Center seems to heavily rely on a multitude of logical fallacies and loaded words to deliver its message. The citations used in the essay are either out of all relation to the Earth Charter, or are taken out of context so as to distort the original meaning.

Hey, I got an "A" in my college logic course. At a Catholic college no less. Does that count? Please don't tell my old professor about my "fallacies." ~Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the article again. See my explanations here about how the Church refers to EC and similar efforts as "a new global ethic" etc. Yes, they do not always refer to EC by name. And they likely never will.~Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is a source like that worthy to be included in the article? Vladimir Frolov (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether their response is logical or accurate or not, it is sounded like a significant organization and their reaction is seemed worth mentioning. If you have a reliable source commenting on or rebutting their response, that could be included too. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC) [comment edited based on subsequent comments]
This is what I thought too, being infuenced by the domain. But I became curious just now when I saw CCC has no Wikipedia article. As far as I can tell, CCC website is just hosted at, but not endorsed or a part of it. It seems that they are just a group at one church in Wading River, NY. Take a look at their about page and home page. A search of Google News archives for them found a total of one article, in the Deseret News, and this only mentions them for a position CCC holds that the writer wanted to assert:
Catholics believe that they should worship and give thanks to God in Holy Mass. The Catholic Conservation Center,, urges: "Contemplate the wonders of God's creation in the woods, by the sea, in a park, on a mountain, on a farm, or in a garden. Many people can sense the presence of the Lord in the midst of nature."
Not one article on who they are or about. I just don't think anymore that CCC is significant. Diderot's dreams (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We're used as a resources by many parishes, schools, and others. Also, I'd be happy to scan and send an interview from the National Catholic Register from a few years back. Google "Vladimir Frolov Earth Charter," and you'll see that he works for the Earth Charter Initiative in Moscow. I'd say that makes this a somewhat biased attack against CCC. I've been honest about who I am.Jake5577 (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Research into significance of the CCC group shows no evidence that it is a legitimate organization. It appears that there is just a single person named Bill Jacobs behind it.
There are 18 websites in total linking to the CCC's website, with half of them being blogs of ultra-fundamentalist Christian groups, and the other half - just link catalogs that contain hundreds or even thousands of links. The only significant link at the moment is the one at this Wikipedia article for the Earth Charter. Vladimir Frolov (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Only 18 sites? Better look again. There are numerous legitimate Catholic groups that link to CCC, including Catholic parishes, schools, colleges, and universities. You will find Catholic teaching materials that recommend CCC. ~signed by Bill Jacobs. Jake5577 (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the link to "a group opposed to the Earth Charter, in part on religous grounds" for the following reasons:
  • There had been no information related to the Earth Charter at the page linked.

We have a whole page devoted to the Earth Charter. Jake5577 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It's illogical to include links to unrelated third parties with the only motivation that they are "opposed" to the subject of an article. There are, probably, hundreds of groups stating they are opposed to the UN or various other institutions, for example. Do we include them all at the corresponding pages?

I am attempting to provide a way for people to read statements by leaders of the Church, as well as quotes by the founders of the Earth Charter Initiative. The purpose is not to "oppose." The purpose is to share information and knowledge. It is you who are opposing this information.Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Our motivation is to promote the position of the Catholic Church as authentically as we possibly can. Why are you so worried about people who view things differently than you do? I'm OK with having the Earth Charter on Wikipedia, and all the wonderful things the article says about the Charter. I just wanted to see a little balance. Not everyone agrees. If you can show that the Church endorses the Charter, then do so. Otherwise remove the reference to Pope John Paul II. Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • There is no evidence of the significance of the CCC group so far.

Try googling. I just did, and stopped looking after 20 pages of links. Jake5577 (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Frolov (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Research shows that the opinion expressed at the website of "CCC group" is popular, along with similar opinions about other organizations, among the conspiracy theorists.

Yikes! I'm a professional ecologist, with a masters degree in forestry, and a volunteer for my Church... But a conspiracy theorist? That's a new one. Sure, add CCC to the list of conspiracy theorists if you must. ~Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As these unproven claims might negatively impact the reputation of the initiative should they be left at the main Earth Charter article, I suggest that they should be moved to the list of conspiracy theories. Vladimir Frolov (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

All claims are linked to cited statements.Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories"... The CCC website has quotes from Church officials and has quotes from the founders of the Earth Charter. All documented. I basically just share what they say. Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the most recently added link to the CCC's website from the External links list and the following recent additions by Jake5577 referencing CCC's website as the source: "Two years later, however, the Holy Father cautioned, "Is this not the time for all to work together for a new constitutional organization of the human family, truly capable of ensuring peace and harmony between peoples, as well as their integral development? But let there be no misunderstanding. This does not mean writing the constitution of a global super-State."[11 - - taken out of context, no mention of the Earth Chapter in the text] Neither the Pope nor any officials of the Roman Curia have ever signed or endorsed the Earth Charter. On the contrary, representatives from several Pontifical Councils have spoken out against the Charter and related efforts to supplant Christian values with a new "global ethic."[12 - ref. to CCC, no original confirmation of these claims in relation to the Charter provided]

How can anyone prove that the Church has never signed or endorsed the Earth Charter? I can't prove a negative. It is you who should prove your claim that the Pope did endorse the Charter. You have the Pope listed among groups that support the EC. Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've re-printed the articles about and by Pontifical Councils, at the CCC Earth Charter page, all referenced. The Church doesn't always mention the Earth Charter by name. Instead they refer to the concepts of the Charter, such as "global government," "a new global ethic," or "new paradigm." Here's an example from the CCC Earth Charter page, fully referenced: VATICAN CITY, FEB. 11, 2003 ( - A Vatican official warns of a plan to supplant Christian values with a "universal ethic" in the new context of globalization. Archbishop Javier Lozano Barragán, president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers, analyzed and criticized the fundamental characteristics of the "New Paradigm" in an article in the Jan. 11 Italian edition of L'Osservatore Romano..." I can provide other examples. Look at the articles reprinted on the CCC Earth Charter page. To say that officials from Pontifical Councils are not concerned with the Earth Charter, ie this new "global ethic," is very misleading. At the very least, there is no evidence that the Church endorses the Charter. Jake5577 (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Bill Jacobs Jake5577 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Catholic Conservation Center is opposed to the Earth Charter for religious reasons, claiming that the principles underlying the Charter are in conflict with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.[26 - ref. to CCC]"

I use the term "opposed" to go with the flow and logic of the Wikipedia article, which lists those who "support" the EC.Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone deleted the few sentences I had originally put up a few weeks back. Let's be fair, like the article used to be. The fact is that some groups endorse the Charter, and some are opposed to it. There is NO evidence that the Roman Catholic Church endorses the Charter. That's what people need to know, and that's all I'm trying to say. Bill Jacobs Jake5577 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved these cuts here temporarily to allow for discussion if any is possible. Later, they will be completely removed as per the Wikipedia rules on exceptional poorly sourced claims, unless relevant links to original sources are provided.

What's poorly sourced, that some groups oppose the Earth Charter or have different viewpoints? That some Catholic groups oppose the Charter? You've listed some that support it. Why don't we also mention, even briefly, people who oppose it? I have quotes from numerous Catholic officials on the CCC's Earth Charter page, all sourced. Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Vladimir Frolov (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I undid the edits just made by Jake7755. This time, this user had also introduced a typo into the address of the ECI website. Vladimir Frolov (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I did that... Maybe when I copied and pasted something, trying to restore what someone had deleted. If it happened, it was accidental. Sorry. The material I had on there previously did nothing to anyone's link. Bill JacobsJake5577 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Jacobs, as for the point of the talk:
1a. Neither I, nor any other editors claim that Pope John Paul II supported the Earth Charter. The fact that His Holiness "expressed his satisfaction" with the work is stated at the website of the ECI (Earth Charter Initiative) — — with a link to the original telegram. The ECI is a recognized global network represented by many organizations, and their statements are highly visible. Consequently, if their statement that Pope John Paul II "expressed his satisfaction" had been false or misinterpreted, that would certainly had lead to a proper response from Catholic senior officials.
Again, it's not stated in the article that His Holiness officially supported the Earth Charter. It only says that there been a telegram in which His Holiness "expressed his satisfaction" with the work.

Bill responds: Come on, the quote you use is placed in the same list of groups that endorse the Charter. I repeat. It is not a quote of the Pope. It is a quote of the Archbishop. It is a general greeting. You keep saying "the work." Mr. Gorbachev has a large body of "work." "Work" is not synonymous with "Earth Charter." Maybe the quote should be in a Gorbachev article. The only relevance of that statement to the Earth Charter is that the presentation of the Earth Charter happens to be the purpose of Gorbachev's visit to Italy. The Church often sends greetings to heads of state and former heads of state when they travel to Italy. Each time they send a greeting, it doesn't mean they support the Earth Charter. Its merely proper protocol. I think you know that.Jake5577 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Church officials have most definitely responded! I have plenty of referenced statements by Church officials on the CCC website.Jake5577 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

1b. From your comments: Our motivation is to promote the position of the Catholic Church as authentically as we possibly can.
Since CCC can hardly represent the global Catholic communuty due to its presumably very local scope, position of the Catholic Church can be authentically promoted only by Catholic Church itself in official high-level statements.

Bill responds: That's why most of the CCC website quotes Church officials, saints, and other leaders. The EC article quotes popes and pontifical councils, among others. As I said before, I am the editor. The CCC website quotes bishops from all around the world. Before you criticize, you should check the entire website.Jake5577 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

2. From your additions: Two years later, however, the Holy Father cautioned, "Is this not the time for all to work together for a new constitutional organization of the human family, truly capable of ensuring peace and harmony between peoples, as well as their integral development? But let there be no misunderstanding. This does not mean writing the constitution of a global super-State."
Because "however" implies a negative change (but in this context His Holiness had never "expressed his dissatisfaction" with the efforts), "caution" is a loaded word, and His Holiness had not been talking about the Earth Charter in this speech, this addition cannot be left in the article.

Bill responds: Someone deleted what I had up originally. The Holy Father is indeed talking about the new global ethic provide by the Earth Charter and any other new global ethics. I wrote this quickly to respond to the fraudulent implication that the Pope supports the EC, which wasn't there before. Two popes now have criticized this new global ethic. Their pontifical councils have criticized it. I'm not sure what else to tell you if you just want to continue denying it.Jake5577 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

3. From your additions: Neither the Pope nor any officials of the Roman Curia have ever signed or endorsed the Earth Charter.
No official statements by Vatican or ECI had been made so far that Vatican had officially endorsed the Earth Charter or had made a desicion to not endorse it, so I believe that this fact may actually be neutrally presented in the article.

Huh? Again, there's a whole bunch of writings from Church officials opposing a new global ethic without God. You just don't want to see it. There's much more at the CCC Earth Charter page than my one essay.Jake5577 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

4a. The data behind the statement that in total there are only 18 unique websites hyperlinking to your website is from Google search:
4b. Out of 216 total mentions of "Catholic Conservation Center" on the web (Google), more than two thirds are in thematic link catalogs. Others are at various websites of questionable notability. Yes, CCC had been noted for generating position papers that "expose" Catholic environmentalists who have "stepped over the line" and are no longer, according to center director Bill Jacobs, following the teachings of the Church (Sarah McFarland Taylor, 2007. Green sisters: a spiritual ecology).

Yes, many dissident green sisters can't stand us! They are among those who agree with the EC. You have a group that includes them in the Wikipedia article. Why not also list a different viewpoint? I think I generated two papers. One on the EC, and one on Creation Spirituality. Hundreds of other statement on the CCC website are by others.Jake5577 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

4c. All organizations that had been referenced in the article so far are of significant scope. CCC doesn't seem to be of even remotely comparable notability. Moreover, there is no evidence that CCC actually ever communicated with ECI to get their confirmation that the aim of the Initiative is the creation of a "global super-state". Nor there is evidence that CCC communicated with senior officials of Vatican to find what their official position is. So everything stated in the referenced essay seems to be a pure assumption, which renders it invalid as a source for Wikipedia.

Bill's response: I would be more than happy to provide text to Church statements here, on Wikipedia, including the original sources. That seems redundant to me, since we've already done that on the CCC website. Hence the efficiency of a adding a simple link. The various Earth Charter websites, Mikael Gorbachev, and Maurice Strong have all made the claim that they wish to establish a "global governance" and "world government." There was a Commission on Global Governance with members of the Earth Charter Initiative. This is all public, common knowledge: I can't cite a whole world of information that is freely available on the Internet. Pope John Paul II refers to the "global super-state." That is the Pope's terminology, not mine. I have cited the original document by a senior official of the Vatican (ie the Pope) in which that phrase is introduced. I have properly cited quotes on the CCC website. Again, we are recommended by a variety of notable people or organizations, including the former head of the environmental justice program of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference. The Earth Charter Initiative and its spin-off organizations provide plenty of information on the Internet, which is how I find it. There's no need to ask for it. There's no assumptions here... All sources are carefully quoted and documented. Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I provide quotes by Gorbachev and Strong. Here's one from Gorbachev: "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government."7 Note the term "world government." From Green Cross International, "The Founding Speech of Green Cross, by President Mikhail Gorbachev," Kyoto, Japan, April 20, 1993, Internet document,, p. 7. I have other quotes, all sourced. How about the Commission on Global Governance?Jake5577 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC) There are other examples I can provide, but there has to be an limit to this exercise.Jake5577 (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

5. To make it clear:
a) I do not work for ECI, nor do I actually promote them as organization. Things I did, like the translations, I did on my own at my own expenses, independedly of any organizations.

Huh? You promoted ECI independently of ECI? That doesn't make sense. You don't promote them? They're on your facebook page and just about every other internet site you're on. Your comments are commonly found on ECI websites. You link to ECI videos on YouTube. I have a copy of a statement from a website where you say you are associated with ECI and do translations for them. You said that, not me. Jake5577 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

b) I concider that the Earth Charter is useful as a declaration of principles of sustainable development.
c) It's important to me that the declaration should not be used to achieve or cover bad or evil aims.
d) In the past two years, I conducted a thorough research on what the Earth Charter document is, what people and organizations are participating and supporting the Initiative, and I'm aware of pretty much all mentions of the Earth Charter, positive and negative alike, and I as well know .
e) I'm actively communicating with various organizations, including the ECI, in regards to the dissemination of the principles, protecting their integrity (preventing mis-use, as one aspect), etc.
f) The Earth Charter document and the Earth Charter Initiative organization aren't the same thing.

Bill's response: I've thoroughly studied it too.Jake5577 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, my credibility is not important, because I don't add to Wikipedia my own information. I only use direct statements made by authoritative original sources. The opposite is true for CCC that promotes its own original research.

Well then who added all that propaganda to the article? The Earth Charter itself is a collection of opinions. It is not science. The whole Wikipedia article looks like an advertisement for the EC.Jake5577 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

6. Please, justify the inclusion of an external link to CCC as per Wikipedia's external links guidelines. I'm removing it now until consensus is reached on that matter.

The CCC Earth Charter page has numerous articles, written by numerous Catholic authors, with sources cited. Most people are smart enough to recognize this current Wikipedia EC article as a propaganda piece.Jake5577 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

7. Please, do not insert your comments in the middle of comments of other users. It's very hard to follow conversations now. I'm numbering the paragraphs in my long comment to make it easier to reply in a linear manner.
8. Please, also, make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and the five pillars of Wikipedia. They are very relevant.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir.frolov (talkcontribs)
I've added a question regarding the subject of the discussion to your talk page, Mr. Jacobs, so as not to overload this page. --Vladimir Frolov (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Two popes and at least three pontifical councils have written against the new global ethics as presented in the Earth Charter. Their statements are clear, and are provided at the CCC website with citations. Rather than a new EC or new global super-state as the Holy Father calls it, Pope John Paul II asked for an amendment to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights granting people the right to a safe environment. The Church supports the United Nations, not the EC Initiative. Sorry. That's a fact. You can say these statements, which I present on the CCC website, are irrelevant, misleading, or wrong, or whatever. I am merely the editor of the website. For the most part, I let Church officials speak for themselves. Hopefully someone a little more impartial and fair can be the judge here.Jake5577 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I ask that Wikipedia remove the quote by the Archbishop about Pope John Paul II, which is being used out of context. Pope John Paul II does not belong anywhere in this article. Thank youJake5577 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I recognize that some of your points regarding inclusion of a reference to the private telegram where His Holiness "expressed his satisfaction" for some work, as I wrote about this before (see section "Use of assertions of endorsement, etc. from Earth Charter Intitiative as reliable sources"). For a proper process I will invite to this dispute the user who had originally added this reference to the article, so he or she could speak about their position.
As there are unresolved issues with the references and links that you want to add in violation or regardless of the due practices, I ask you to remove them until they are fully resolved and consensus is reached. This means that the article will be restored to a state it was in before November 9, when you first added those references. After we go through all the procedures relevant to this dispute and Wikipedia's principles, we, hopefully, will have a proper decision that everyone will understand.
--Vladimir Frolov (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vladimir: The quote you provide is by an archbishop, not the Pope. Your campaign to prohibit dissenting statements and differing viewpoints goes a long way toward validating my concerns about the EC Initiative. You yourself say at another website that you are associated with the Earth Charter Initiative in Moscow. I couldn't have made this up any better if I tried. I am not arguing to censor the opinions presented here that are in favor of the Earth Charter. However, someone is censoring opinions or statements that oppose or disagree with the initiative. You say that you support "open knowledge." What about the knowledge of people who may disagree with you? The Earth Charter itself is a collection of opinions and viewpoints. It is not proven science, and not everyone agrees with it. I don't expect to win this one here, because I believe someone is always going to keep changing the Wikipedia article back to being pure propaganda (by definition of the word "propaganda"). (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

All is fine, Bill, but there is no Earth Charter Initiative in Moscow. This way one can say that every person who shares the vision of the Earth Charter is its associate, and it will not be far from truth. Yes, in my heart and mind I am associated with the Earth Charter and many other initiatives that I consider useful, even if I don't know about them yet. I openly state that and I will any time of day.
What you continuously do so far is personally attacking me. Addressing the points that had been raised in the talk would do better for everyone.
--Vladimir Frolov (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What? Did you really just say there's no Earth Charter Initiative in Moscow? It is you, Vladimir, who first questioned my qualifications and the credibility of the Catholic Conservation Center. I am now questioning your qualifications and your credibility. Please justify the credibility of this obviously biased essay about the Earth Charter here on Wikipedia. By what authority do you represent the interests of the Earth Charter? What special knowledge do you have, that lets you know for sure when others are wrong? You have questioned the credibility of the Catholic Conservation Center. I responded by saying that our website is recommended by the former head of the environmental justice program of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference. There is no higher Catholic authority in the United States. Why is that not good enough for you? Now I question the credibility of your organization. Most of the article about the Earth Charter is an opinion essay, or an editorial. The Earth Charter itself is an opinion, it is not science or facts. By what authority do you contribute to the Wikipedia essay? What is the credibility of your views and your contribution to this article? I only ask because you have asked me those questions in an attempt to block a different viewpoint. I typically would just accept the fact that other people have opinions that are different than mine, without arguing with them. Why don't you allow dissenting statements in this article, or links to dissenting statements, or the views of Pope John Paul II in his own words? (You quote the words of an archbishop.) My essay includes quotes and statements, all with the original sources cited. The CCC's Earth Charter page contains more than the one essay that I wrote. There are also statements and articles written by others, including statements by popes, bishops, and pontifical councils. I have responded directly to your points. Now please explain the credibility of your contribution to the article on the Earth Charter. I am merely holding you to your own standard. Thank you. (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all it wasn't me alone who contributed to this article. I think that should one look at its history, they would find that the article was created far before I made my first edit on all of Wikipedia.
My qualifications aren't important to state here since I have never added to this article information that was created by me. I only used other websites of confirmed status as sources of the information I add.
The notability of yours and your organization, on the contrary, is important because you are the author of the referenced article. As far as I could see from Google and Bing search results, CCC's website had not been quoted by any notable websites. Therefore, it is unwise to use it as a source until sufficient justification is provided. This is how I understand Wikipedia's guidelines.
I can talk about my qualifications and opinions as far as the Earth Charter is concerned, but I consider that they are of no relevance here as they won't be added to the article. (At least, not until some reliable and notable source happens to quote me.) Anyway you might be surprised if you learn some things. Like everywhere, it's not all that simple.
As for translations, that you mentioned several times, I did them on my own for Russian speaking people, not for the organization that now "exists to promote the Charter".
Of course, I'm associated with the Earth Charter document, as I consider it very useful, but I'm independent of the organization that now "exists to promote the Charter", and I'm happy to do what may be the most appropriate for the integrity of the originally intended message of the declaration.
--Vladimir Frolov (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

From Bill Jacobs: I left a message with additional information at the discussion section of Diderot's dreams.Jake5577 (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Diderot's dreams[edit]

(Sorry for putting this in a separate subsection, but it seems we might want to start afresh)

First, I wanted to say that both of you have kept a civil attitude, despite strong differences of opinion. And you both seem to know when to stop and take things to the talk page. I'm sure you both will continue to do so.

A first issue is whether Vladamir has been forthcoming about his association with the Earth Charter Initiative, and whether that association is formal or not. Since he is editing under his real name, first and last, which has easily linked him to the ECI, I think it is clear he is not hiding his affiliation with that group. He also seems to be a member and volunteer wth ECI or its youth group. There's no formal association, especially involving being paid. Basically, it seems to me that both Bill and Vladamir have been forthcoming about their associations.

A second issue what should be made of Pope John Paul's greeting to Mr. Gorbachev. The interpretation and validity of it have been questioned, and I think we are stretching verifiablity beyond the breaking point by accepting the source. The source is a primary one hosted by a promotional site that did not create it, and the statement it backs is a big contentious one, the Pope practically endorsing the Earth Charter. So we would be backing up a contentious highly positive comment with a doubly dubious source. We just can't do this, and the Pope's greeting should be excluded.

Related is the Pontiff's comments about the creation of global super state. It is clear the Pope doesn't want to create a global super state, but it isn't clear that he thinks the Earth Charter is trying to do this, and that the Pope opposes it. So I think this also doesn't belong in the article.

There are more issues to talk about, and I'll chime in on them a little later (There's a lot to consider!) Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

From Bill Jacobs: Thank you Diderot's dream for your thoughtful comments. To address your point about the global super-state, I have added an article to the top of this page, with cited quotes by Msgr. Schooyans, a member of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences and consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family. In 2000, the Msgr. criticized the Earth Charter by name and used the term "supergovernment." This official representative of a Pontifical Council connects the Earth Charter by name with the "supergovernment." Two years later, as I have cited along with the article about Msgr. Schooyans, Pope Paul II criticized the "global super-state." These terms are synonymous. Founding members of the Earth Charter Initiative themselves say that we need to establish a new "global governance." I don't think there's any disagreement there. They are all referring to the same ruling body, as is evident by how and when the terms are used by both sides. Obvously one side likes the global governance and the other side does not like it, as is illustrated by the different terms they prefer to use. Again, these are terms used by the key parties involved; they are not my own terms.Jake5577 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC) (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I'm glad we appear civil. I respect Vladimir's opinion. I believe we are both sincere and well-intentioned. We just have an irreconcilable disagreement, and one of those situations where hopefully we can agree to disagree. Fortunately we all love peace and justice, and that's a good thing.

By AMJEDCR: I've been the one adding the reference to Pope John Paul II's message congratulating Gorbachev for his work, and although I think it's a valid reference, I agree on leaving it out, until confirmation about this message can be found.

I want to also comment on the article that Bill Jacobs provide, by Msgr. Schooyans. I haven't heard about this author, but there are many misinterpretations and errors in this article. First of all, he says that the UN officials drafted the Earth Charter! This is completely false. The Earth Charter is a result of a long consultation process around the world. I have met people who participated in the drafting process in many countries, and who are not related with the UN or the Earth Charter Secretariat. So, it is false to say that this is a UN document. In fact, the EC Initiative has tried to get an endorsement from the UN, but there's no agreement on this, and has been impossible.

Another thing is, that coming from the civil society, is IMPOSSIBLE for the Earth Charter Initiative to start a SUPER GLOBAL STATE! This is a grass roots initiative, it's not coming from the UN.

In addition, I think it's important to distinguish what is GOVERNMENT and GOVERNANCE. Governance is a quality of been able to achieve consensus. We are facing global problems, such as climate change, famine, transboundary natural resources use and exploitation (such as fisheries), so we need to have some ways to be able to reach agreements between nations, to see how to deal with these issues. This doesn't mean to build a GLOBAL GOVERNMENT. No one in the Earth CHarter Initiative, and I actually haven't heard this in any place, are trying to build such thing. Who would like to have such thing?

I think it's good to have critics such as Bill Jacobs and Vladimir, but it's important as well to be an informed critic, because it's really bad to affect the image of an organization or people involved in the organization. I agree with Vladimir that Bill Jacobs should be in touch with the Earth Charter Initaitive Secretariat, and get direct responses about his criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMJEDCR (talkcontribs)

From Bill Jacobs:

To AMJEDCR: Please go to the Earth Charter's website. There's a whole page there about the United Nations and Global Governance. Its one of the Initiative's focus areas. Gorbachev used the term "world government." Two popes and at least three pontifical councils call this a global "government" or "super state" and they are highly critical. One side often calls it "governance" because they support it, and the other side (i.e. the Church) calls it "global super-state" or "super government" because they oppose it. This is all freely available information from the original sources themselves.Jake5577 (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Msgr. Schooyans is a member of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences and consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family. Whether you think he's right or wrong is irrelevant... I offer the article to provide just one example of the Church's position.Jake5577 (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly its a waste of my time to keep arguing in this forum because I know that EC associates are never going to allow dissent of any kind. Maurice Strong was a member of the Commission on Global Governance, and he, Gorbachev, and Steven Rockefeller publicly acknowledge that they seek a new form of global governance, and that they believe that the UN needs to become like a world government. They've spoken about it many times. And their connection to the UN is well known. Its almost like you want me to defend what THEY said, which doesn't make a lot of sense for me to do.Jake5577 (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As for an informed critic, I'm among the most informed critics on the internet related to the Church, the environment, and the Church's views on the EC. I've already justified that above. The Catholic Conservation Center website provides one of the most extensive collections of writings about environmental justice, the stewardship of creation, and related Church teachings (faithful teachings) on the Internet. I challenge you to find a more extensive collection.Jake5577 (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Jake5577 (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, keep turning the article into propaganda... In the long run it only strengthens my position. Its kind of ironic if you think about it... Your Earth Charter can't even bring peace and justice to this one Wikipedia article, let alone to the whole world!Jake5577 (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


To Bill Jacobs:

Of course I’ve seen that ECI website has a focus area on global governance. But, going back to the differences between GOVERNMENT and GOVERNANCE, there’s nothing wrong about global governance. That is what has been going on for more than 50 years with the UN, governments coming together to discuss international, global issues, and trying to reach multilateral agreements. That is global governance, about finding agreements to deal with common issues.

As one of the most informed critics on internet, (as you very ‘humbly’ claim to be) you should know the meaning of governance. I learned this in grad school, and any scholar would know the difference. So, I invite you to research on this. I’ll try to find the quotes from Gorbachev about a ‘world government’, I agree with you that this is not good. But in any case, I think it’s important to see the discourse now, and acknowledge that no one is trying to create a ‘world government’ or ‘super state’. That is not feasible, especially with our current global situation. And, it’s certainly not feasible for the Earth Charter to do this.

I do believe that my criticism to Msgr. Schooyans’ article is valid, because he’s making wrong assumptions, and important one been that the Earth Charter comes from the UN. That is a big error, and is misinforming people, which is irresponsible. I also would like to say that, as Catholic, I read a lot about our Church, and frankly I don't know why you disagree that much with the Earth Charter. I talk about this with priests, brothers and nuns, in a very peaceful way, and of course there are things that you may disagree, but I don’t know why you attack that much this document and initiative. But, you’re free to do so of course.

Finally, I don’t see these exchanges of ideas as waste of time; it’s always enlightening to exchange points of view and disagreements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMJEDCR (talkcontribs) 17:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

From Diderot's dreams:
One further comment on Pope John Paul II's greeting. He is no longer the Pope as he has passed away, and it was a private message not even given by him personally. If the Vatican wanted to endorse the Earth Charter, then they would have done so publicly. If the information is ever added, we must keep it clear that this is the opinion of an former Pope, and wasn't and isn't the position of the Vatican.
OK, let's get to another main question. Does information on accusations that the Earth Charter is a blueprint for a global superstate, global religion, etc. belong in the article? I see 2 reasons why it would under Wikipedia rules: (1) it represents a view held by a significant minority, which can be demonstrated by coverage in reliable secondary sources, endorsements by organizations with large memberships, or it is an organization with large membership itself or (2) one or more prominent scholars have asserted this. Note you cannot argue that it is true by presenting peripheral evidence like Maurice Strong's other activities, etc. This would be original research.
The CCC has about 4,000 unique visitors from the U.S. a month according to Quantcast, which is quite small. I searched for other references to the EC with opinions along CCC's lines. The best I could find was an opinion piece in a journal run by the John Birch Society, a fringe group.
Bill has made the argument that the CCC is a significant organization because it has been talked about it in the National Catholic Register. The NCR gets some traffic, about 30,000 unique visitors from the U.S. a month | again, according to Quantcast. And there is some kind of editor or something. As a reliable secondary source, it's marginal, but it is too small to accept as evidence that something it talks about it significant.
The article by Michel Schooyans in Catholic Culture is more promising. has a larger reader base (79,000), and Mr. Schooyans seems to be a religious scholar of some kind. I think on point 2 if not point one, we can include information from him, remembering that his view is a minority and the Undue Weight rule. Other opinions by other important scholars who see the Earth Charter more favorably may be included too. Someone just needs to go find them.
In the interests of NPOV and verifiability, I am going to make some edits to the article on general Wikipedia principles that don't affect the issues I've been talking about. I'll return the endorsements back to just a few paragraphs like they were before. The listing now with many one sentence paragraphs for emphasis is not a neutral tone. I am also going to delete some unsourced statements that have been fact tagged for a while, as such things should be deleted as unsourced. Overall this will reduce space dedicated to criticism and be better balanced. So if these items are returned, a reliable source must be included. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
From Bill Jacobs: Thank you for your comments. To clarify, Msgr. Schooyans is (or was at the time) a member of a Pontifical Council, and a consultant to a second Pontifical Council. Schooyan's statement is only one of several statements provided on the CCC website. This shouldn't be a discussion about me or CCC. I am the editor of the CCC website, analogous to a newspaper editor, who has collected Church statements about EC and global governance and put them in one place on the CCC website. For this Wikipedia article, I'm only trying to say one thing: Various high-level Catholic Church officials have spoken out against the Earth Charter Initiative and its movement to establish global governance, including two Popes and at least 3 Pontifical Councils. Hopefully someone can correct this article so that it is more balanced, as I don't seem able to do it. In addition, allegations or claims against CCC or myself, neither of which are the subject of this article, should be removed from the discussion.Jake5577 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your sound judgment and edits, Diderot's dreams.
I believe that claims expressed in the article by Michel Schooyans may be included in "Criticism" section or something.
Bill, discussions of CCC have been relevant to the provisions that regulate whether it could or could not have been referenced to as a source in Wikipedia. These discussions will be kept at the talk page until they become old enough as per the Wikipedia's guidelines, and then will be available at Wikipedia's archives for the time being.
--Vladimir Frolov (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion about CCC is no longer relevant to the EC article.Jake5577 (talk)

This discussion is not about CCC, but is about certain additions to the article and validity of their source. Contents of this discussion will be at this page until it becomes irrelevant due to becoming old enough. After that, they will be archived as per the Wikipedia's guidelines. Vladimir Frolov (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ark of Hope[edit]

"and point to the fact that at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, a copy of the document was placed symbolically in an 'Ark of Hope' -- an independent project by the American artist Sally Linder."

What's bad about this fact? Or, more specifically, what's the logic behind its use by opposition? Vladimir Frolov (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe nothing "bad" as you say. Print the facts and let people decide for themselves. The fact is that the Ark of Hope is closely associated with the Earth Charter. The Ark has been traveling the world, with the Earth Charter inside, and it has appeared at many more places than the 2002 summit. It is also more than just an "independent project" as you claim. The description of the Ark that I have on CCC's Earth Charter page was taken directly from the website of the Earth Charter Initiative. Below is just one example: a 2007 article from the Adrian Dominican Sisters website. I can produce other examples. My point is that the Earth Charter and the Ark are closely associated. If others view the Ark and the Charter as news, why can't it be mentioned in Wikipedia?Jake5577 (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"3/2/2007-Siena Heights U Celebrates 'Earth Season'

The Adrian Dominican Sisters, Siena Heights University and St. Joseph Academy will celebrate Earth Season during March and April with a series of events, including a play, book signing, workshop and major speaker, that will culminate with Earth Day on April 22. To mark the beginning of Earth Season, the Ark of Hope will be on display March 12-20 in St. Catherine Chapel on the Adrian Dominican Sisters campus. Viewing hours will be 1:30-4 p.m. daily.

The Ark of Hope is a 49"x 32"x32" wooden chest that houses the Earth Charter document, an international peoples treaty for building a just, sustainable and peaceful global society in the 21st century. Designed and painted by Vermont artist Sally Linder, the Ark of Hope was crafted from a single plank of sycamore maple from a sustainable forest in Germany. The five painted panels that form the sides and top of the Ark represent the flora and fauna of the world as seen through the images of the world’s traditional artists. The Ark has traveled the world, including a stop at the United Nations in 2002..." [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake5577 (talkcontribs) 04:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry! I don't know how to sign these! Signed by Bill Jacobs :-) I'm new to Wikipedia... please go easy.Jake5577 (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Is the website of Maurice Strong really relevant in this article? Vladimir Frolov (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved it to the article on Maurice Strong where it was missing. Vladimir Frolov (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the Earth Charter Initiative's website, Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev launched the Earth Charter Initiative. Seems relevant to me, even though I didn't add that link to Strong. Jake5577 (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[4] Signed Bill Jacobs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake5577 (talkcontribs) 04:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Also Stephen Rockefeller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^