Global justice was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 23, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 24, 2006 Good article nominee Listed June 18, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Social and political High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Globalization High‑importance 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, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is currently sketchy and tendentious. I plan to revise it. Anyone want to help?

Things which need to be covered (UPDATED: version 2):

• history of global justice as a philosophical concern
• central issues:
  • institutions: the role and moral significance of states, the UN, the WTO and World Bank, NGOs, etc.
  • moral universalism
  • distributive justice
• central positions:
  • 'realism'
  • cultural relativism/particularism/communitarianism (e.g. Walzer)
  • liberal nationalism (e.g. Miller, Tamir)
  • Rawls's 'society of peoples' and criticisms (e.g. Beitz)
  • human-rights based cosmopolitanism (e.g. Pogge)
  • consequentialist cosmopolitanism (e.g. Singer)
• measures of poverty (inequality of what?):
  • relative inequality of resources
  • basic needs
  • capacities
• further reading
• see also:
  • poverty
  • economic inequality
  • moral universalism
  • cultural relativism
  • moral relativism
  • social justice

What else?

--Sam Clark 09:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain why 'global justice' now redirects to 'global justice movement'? They're not the same thing: as my comment above suggests, global justice is an issue in political philosophy.

UPDATE: I take it back - it doesn't redirect any more. I wonder what was going on?

FURTHER UPDATE (25 July): I get it. 'Global_justice' is the global justice page; 'Global_Justice' with a capital J redirects to 'Global Justice Movement'. I'll request deletion.

UPDATE 3 (27 July): capital J now redirects here.

--Sam Clark 10:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New version now live. It's less ambitious than the plan above, in two ways: 1. the 'history' section rapidly turned into a general history of political philosophy, so I dropped it; 2. the 'measures of poverty' section would have duplicated material from the article 'Poverty', so again, I dropped it. --Sam Clark 10:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please post such comments on the Peer Review page, which is linked at the top. Thank you.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a tentative first go at an extra section in response to comments above. I'm putting it here, rather than straight into the article, because I'm currently unsure about whether it strikes the right balance between concision and focus, on the one hand, and meeting the points made above, on the other. Comments welcome.

---

The broader philosophical context of the global justice debate, in both its contemporary and historical forms, is the issue of impartiality. Many people are inclined to think that they have more important duties to family-members, friends and compatriots than they do to strangers and foreigners. But are they right to endorse such partiality? Some thinkers, perhaps beginning with the ancient Greek Diogenes of Sinope, have described themselves as citizens of the world. Some, including the utilitarian anarchist William Godwin, have argued that everyone has an impartial duty to do the most good he or she can, without preference for any one human being over another. The question of impartiality seems to have occurred independently to thinkers all over the world: Confucians have argued, for instance, that the benevolent man loves all men, but loves them partially rather than impartially.

The broader political context of the debate is the longstanding conflict between more and less local human institutions: tribes against states, villages against cities, local communities against empires, independent nation-states against the UN. The relative strength of the local against the more global has waxed and waned over recorded history. Since the early modern period, the preeminent political institution in the world has been the state, which is sovereign, territorial, claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of power in its territory, and exists in an international system of other sovereign states. Over the same period, and relatedly, political philosophers' interest in justice focused almost exclusively on domestic issues: how should states treat their subjects, and what do fellow-citizens owe to one another? Justice in relations between states, and between individuals across state borders, was put aside as a secondary issue or left to international relations theorists.

Since the First World War, however, the state system has been transformed by the creation of supranational political and economic institutions: the League of nations, the UN, the World Bank, and others. And, since the 1970s, global justice has increasingly become an important issue in political philosophy. ^[1] In the contemporary global justice debate, the general issue of partiality is focussed particularly on the moral significance of borders between nations (or states, peoples or cultures) and of shared citizenship. Some thinkers defend and others criticise partiality towards compatriots, in questions of human rights, benevolence, and distributive justice.

---

Cheers, Sam Clark 15:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. It's certainly a step in the right direction. Put it up! If anyone has anything else to say about it we'll surely find out. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam - you are clearly taking an active interest in this page and doing a good job improving it, so I'd like to address your concern about the external link to the Great Transition Initiative. I believe this is a very useful resource for the Global Justice article because it is an example of large group of engaged thinkers (including well-known theorists and global activists like Daniele Archibugi, Tariq Banuri, Hazel Henderson, Gus Speth, and many others) who have come together to think through the philosophical implications of Global Justice. It builds off of the well-respected and internationally reknown work of the Global Scenario Group- whose scenario analysis, including extensive quantitative work, have been used in numerous studies (including the UNEP's Global Envrionmental Outlook series). GTI is specifically an attempt to envision a global society rooted in principles of justice, thus it is not a neutral scientific study -- it is a prominent and resepected resource for people interested in this type of exercise. I think it adds as much value to the Global Justice article as any of the other essays listed. Please take a closer look at the GTI essay series and judge for yourself. OrionK 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. 'Great Transition Initiative' gets just over 400 hits on Google[1] I'm not denying the value of the essays on the site (I have had a look at a few, and they seem professional and potentially interesting). My argument against inclusion is that this is not a notable or authoritative resource on the subject of the article, it's a worthy but small-scale project on issues which relate, but aren't obviously central, to that subject: the article is about the issue in political philosophy of how to describe a just world, not about how we might get there. My argument against you in particular linking to the site is that it contravenes WP:VAIN, since you wrote one of the papers (assuming I'm right that Orion Kriegman is you? Apologies if not). Cheers, Sam Clark 10:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link, you (or anyone else) can add it back if you come to agree with me (*Great Transition Initiative An attempt by over 200 international scholars and activists to envision alternative scenarios of future global society rooted in the principles of global justice and ecological sustainability). The essays are primarily DESCRIPTIONS of what a global society rooted in principles of justice and ecological sustainability might look like -- they are visions (they also provide hints or clues as to pathways, but that's a very hard task for anyone) -- so I do think they are quite good illustrations of the theme of this article.

In terms of notability, I think you are quite wrong, but maybe we just travel in different circles -- Google page rank for GTI is 7/10, and the Great Transition essay is well known among international scholars and activists working on issues of global justice. Your call, I guess. OrionK 15:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on a good article. One way of improving is to include more inline citations, for example:

Some, for instance Kai Nielsen, endorse world government; others, such as Simon Caney, do not.

should be cited with a page number to a suitable reference. It's not critical, but it makes it a lot easier when verifying the article. CloudNine 09:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The philosophy piece here very thoroughly done. The problem is that I think the broader public understands global justice to be a movement as much as a political philosphy (both of which are, admittedly, not household discussions alas). I've taken Sam's suggestion and bulked up the Global Justice movement page and will create a global justice (organization) page, but am thinking the political philosophy page should probably be listed separately too... So maybe a disimbiguation page? I'm a bit new to how best to do it, but not to Global Justice... and I think it's pretty key to bring the movement at least as front and center as the philosophy... for example, try googling "Global Justice" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewkavanagh (talk • contribs)

Replied at User talk:Matthewkavanagh, relevant bits copied here:

... I certainly agree that the GJ movement is important, and that the GJ page should point people to the movement page (which you've greatly improved, by the way). So far, I've put a disambiguating link at the top of GJ, and think this is enough. The alternative would be: 1. move Global justice to Global justice in political philosophy; and 2. make Global justice a disambiguation page between pol.phil. and movement. But I'm simply not sure that this is necessary with only two pages to disambiguate. Incidentally, I don't think that the google test is quite as unambiguous as you suggest: the top ten results include Thomas Nagel's 'The Problem of Global Justice', and several organisations which don't seem to be linked to the GJM.

Sam Clark 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under Nationalism: "...reflected for example in the fact that the benefits of the welfare state are not available to citizens of other countries." The "other" fails to define a contextual "us", and thus assumes the reader lives in a welfare state. Generalised reformulation, anybody? -Ahruman 10:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the article slightly biased towards the political left. If there is a moral question posed it should be cited, in quotation and context. Also there are many weasle words in the article. I suggest the use of "members of this movement" instead of the over generalized and biased "many people". Audirs8 (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Many people are extremely poor, while others are extremely rich."

What is this crap? What does poverty have to do with Jusitce? I know the rest of the intro gets worse, but I couldn't read logically past this point without slowly getting more and more repulsed. The content in this article needs a complete rewrite ASAP. I don't know the topic well enough, so I leave it to better editors, because if it stands in a week, i'll simply rip out all the unsourced content. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Global justice/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. Normally I would leave the article on hold, but it looks like the entire article needs a re-write based on the suggestions below. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. Although the article has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the below points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this assessment, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you need clarification or assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
2. Address the POV tag which has been there since November 2008. The article asks readers questions, declares various ideology, and seems to be written as an essay.
3. "Many people believe they have more important duties to family members, friends and compatriots than to strangers and foreigners." Needs source. May be true, but the claim "many people" without a source is using weasel words.
4. "But are they right to endorse such partiality?" Questions should not be asked in the text unless it is within a quote or sourced as a fundamental question to the topic.
5. "Three related questions, concerning the scope of justice, justice in the distribution of wealth and other goods, and the institutions responsible for justice, are central to the problem of global justice." Says who? Specify.
6. An explanation is needed beyond the questions in the "Central questions" section.
7. "1.1 billion people — 18% of humanity — live below the World Bank's $2/day poverty line while the Canadian government provides farmers with $3/per cattle for food." Why is Canada singled out here? I'm assuming its mentioned in the source, but if poverty is going to be discussed a worldwide view needs to be focused on.
8. "So the food we consume, is eating better than the people in the 3rd world countries." It's generally not a good idea to use "we", the article should be written as an impartial author.
9. "Is this distribution of wealth and other goods just?" Words should not be italicized in the text for emphasis as it could appear to be pushing POV.
10. "Five main positions — realism, particularism, nationalism, the society of states tradition, and cosmopolitanism (in two forms) — have been taken by contributors to the global justice debate." A source is needed for this.
11. The "Main positions" section is undersourced. A lot of claims are made, especially for the different types of positions, but no citations are provided verifying the views.
12. A lot of the book sources are missing page numbers. Some of the online references are improperly formatted.
13. The dead links should be fixed. The Internet Archive can help.

What does Poverty have to do with Justice? The distribution of resources is a, if not the, central issue of modern discussions of Justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.216.246 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The initial quote is taken out of context. Nagel's article expresses skepticism about global justice; we do not live in a just world, he thinks, because it doesn't make sense to apply the idea of justice to the world as whole. It doesn't follow from this, thought, that we *do* live in an unjust world: which is surely what the use of the quotation in the article suggests. Perhaps I'll change this - but if I don't, someone else should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.184.26 (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to update the article to address the "Good Article" concerns. This section can be used to address all of those items. First I have Changed(diff) the section with "But are they right to endorse such partiality"

1. The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
2. Address the POV tag which has been there since November 2008. The article asks readers questions, declares various ideology, and seems to be written as an essay.

#"Many people believe they have more important duties to family members, friends and compatriots than to strangers and foreigners." Needs source. May be true, but the claim "many people" without a source is using weasel words. It is partially true but I removed it for now Jadeslair (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC) #"But are they right to endorse such partiality?" Questions should not be asked in the text unless it is within a quote or sourced as a fundamental question to the topic.[reply]

1. "Three related questions, concerning the scope of justice, justice in the distribution of wealth and other goods, and the institutions responsible for justice, are central to the problem of global justice." Says who? Specify.
2. An explanation is needed beyond the questions in the "Central questions" section.

#"1.1 billion people — 18% of humanity — live below the World Bank's $2/day poverty line while the Canadian government provides farmers with $3/per cattle for food." Why is Canada singled out here? I'm assuming its mentioned in the source, but if poverty is going to be discussed a worldwide view needs to be focused on. I removed(diff) part that was not in the citation. I will try to expand worldwide views. Jadeslair (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC) #"So the food we consume, is eating better than the people in the 3rd world countries." It's generally not a good idea to use "we", the article should be written as an impartial author. Removed Jadeslair (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC) #"Is this distribution of wealth and other goods just?" Words should not be italicized in the text for emphasis as it could appear to be pushing POV. Done Jadeslair (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Five main positions — realism, particularism, nationalism, the society of states tradition, and cosmopolitanism (in two forms) — have been taken by contributors to the global justice debate." A source is needed for this.
2. The "Main positions" section is undersourced. A lot of claims are made, especially for the different types of positions, but no citations are provided verifying the views.
3. A lot of the book sources are missing page numbers. Some of the online references are improperly formatted.
4. The dead links should be fixed. The Internet Archive can help.

Please use this section if you would like to discuss my edits Jadeslair (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His views are not widely cited and I think they should be limited in scope. Request for comment Jadeslair (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global justice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919070037/http://thomaspogge.com/books/world-poverty-human-rights/ to http://thomaspogge.com/books/world-poverty-human-rights/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder what global justice means

àěÊĚǎÃ
< <gallery>