Talk:Earth Charter

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Use of assertions of endorsement, etc. from Earth Charter Intitiative as reliable sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "useful" in lead 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Ark of Hope 

message: Is the website of Maurice Strong really relevant in this article? Vladimir Frolov (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved it to the article on Maurice Strong where it was missing. Vladimir Frolov (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Nothing 190.7.211.6 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The earth charter