This article, like the "sister" articles are a very good example of blatant POV pushing of non-notable organization to an extreme level, one that I haven't really seen on Wikipedia before. Rather than acknowledge the fringe nature and obscurity of the organizations involved it treats it as one of global significance. The fact that the section on ratification conveniently ends after describing how these self-proclaimed rulers of the world called upon the states of the world to ratify the "Earth Constitution", thus avoiding the humiliation of having to mention that none have done so and this "constitution" is worthless. Arcade222 (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Arcade222 Very first of all it's 50 years old event related article and if you saying that Multiple Nobel laureates, Head of governments, 5 Countries, Scientists, Religious leaders, Politicians, Human rights activists and many more such initiated a Constitutional Convention for creating a world constitution is POV or some non-notable or something like... then no one can argue with you. Just because a created constitution wasn't ratified or adopted doesn't mean you can declare it worthless or anything of the sort .... it's called personal opinion, and Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions. This article is not about constitution ... it's about Constitutional Convention. Kindly refrain from engaging in edit wars and avoid wasting the time of editors by posting the same thing in multiple places. This article was reviewed by multiple experienced editors and wikipedia administrators. And required editings were made. If there are any factual errors in the article, please feel free to suggest corrections. However, just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can request such additions: "avoiding the humiliation of having to mention that none have done so and this constitution is worthless". --BeLucky (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I don’t intend to engage much here, but I want to point out that this editor seems to dislike the convention, likely due to perceived “globalism” which may be coloring their judgement. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't intend to engage much either. But I definitely support removing the tag, since there doesn't seem to be a real content dispute under discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Are you referring to me? If so that's a strawman argument without any basis. I have no issue at all with this convention or its alleged "globalist" nature. What i have an issue is about a series of articles that grossly misstate the significance and state that the "World Constitutional Convention" was a pivotal moment of world peace. Arcade222 (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
@Arcade222 First it was "non-notable organization" and "constitution was worthless" ... now it's about "world peace". Even as advised by multiple other experienced users here you are in edit war. --BeLucky (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
"Even as advised by multiple other experienced users here" wow are you trying to browbeat me? Trying to use your "wikipedia" experience as some kind of proof of authority? Arcade222 (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
What i have an issue is about a series of articles that grossly misstate the significance and state that the "World Constitutional Convention" was a pivotal moment of world peace. Does the article still say that? Generalrelative (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
No it does not. That change is a good start. Ultimately though the systemic issue with the article is that at no point does it even implicitly acknowledge that this a fringe subject with no relevance. A naive reader could easily get the impression that these self-claimed representatives of all the human race were legitimate when in reality they have no legitimacy whatsoever.
"Dr. Lucile Green from California" and "Mrs. Helen Tucker from Canada" cannot seriously be claimed to have legitimacy as representatives of humanity, which is what the article implies. Arcade222 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that any names that do not yet have their own Wikipedia article can safely be cut from signatory lists, unless they are somehow singled out as especially important by a reliable, secondary source (in which case perhaps they should have their own article after all). Generalrelative (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I mean, if you'd like to try to get the article deleted, you are welcome to try WP:AFD, but spoiler alert: you will fail because the subject is notable according to our standards. If you would like to get a community consensus that something about this subject should be considered WP:FRINGE, we have a noticeboard for that. But if you just think there are a few non-notable names and a bit of puffery here and there (which really does seem to be all you've actually demonstrated), by all means make some BOLD edits yourself. Just don't come at the article with the same flame-war attitude you've come at other editors on this talk page and you'll be fine. Generalrelative (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is rad like that. Even when folks disagree strenuously, we make one another smarter –– at least 80% of the time. But it's also why WP:CIVILITY is a core principle. Without it we're dumber than a flock of chickens. Generalrelative (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
"and a bit of puffery here and there"
The preparations made during this congress were instrumental in ensuring the smooth and successful execution of the historic events that followed.[31]
The Convention's outcomes were a significant milestone in the pursuit of a united and harmonious world order.[11]
It doesn't seem that anyone will object if you simply edit constructively. That would include, in this case, removing puffery without interfering with the informative flow of the article. Generalrelative (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
You mean it's consensus at Wikipedia that fringe groups should be described in such a manner as to implicitly give them legitimacy as being representatives of the entire human species without any mention at all of the fact that they are frnge? Arcade222 (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
^^^This is precisely the point where you've crossed the line into disruptive editing. Believe it or not, I was engaging with you because I was assuming good faith on your part. But now I'm done talking to you. Have a nice life :0 Generalrelative (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry but i fail to understand your objection? The only thing i have done is pointed out the numerous NPOV problems with this article and added and subsequently re-added the NPOV tag because the issue has not been addressed. Given every other section of the article includes statements that inflate a fringe groups notablity and importance i fail to see how this constitutes "disruptive editing". Arcade222 (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh you can satisfy me if the article was written in such a way as to acknowledge that it is a fringe group of no significance despite false claims made. Arcade222 (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, but this talk page is not the place to discuss that. If they keep this attitude up they will not last long on the project, but so far they have not crossed over any bright red lines. Feel free to discuss any further concerns you may have about conduct issues on my talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
