Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article New World Order (conspiracy theory) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 9, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
April 4, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

To become a Featured Article[edit]

New World Order (conspiracy theory) is a good article that is being improved by supporters of WikiProject Rational Skepticism, which seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with counterknowledge. Therefore, although remaining neutral, this article will be written from a rational skeptical perspective. Like its name suggests, this article isn't about “new world order” as a paradigm shift in international relations (if you are interested in that subject, I suggest you read and possibly edit the new world order (politics) article instead). It's about conspiracy theories about a “New World Order”. By “conspiracy theory”, we mean any “a belief which explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end”. Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism because they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are rarely supported by conclusive evidence.

Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

That being said, in order for the article to be chosen by the Wikipedia community to become a feature article, I am interested in collaborating with anyone who has created a user account well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough to meet featured article criteria. Creating a user account is extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him or her the ability to more easily watch over pages he or she is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of relative accountability on Wikipedia. Lastly, as this article gets closer to becoming a featured article, it will most probably become a target for vandalism by anonymous cranks so an administrator will have to semi-protect it to prevent them from editing it, which means even good anonymous editors won't be able to edit it either. --Loremaster (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

In the first paragraph "ideology" is spelled incorrectly. (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

External links[edit]

From the Wikipedia:External links guidelines page:

Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. They must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Some external links are welcome, but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.

What should be linked

  1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. The official site should typically be listed first.
  2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Internal links[edit]

I have restored the internal links to articles which deal with the various subsections of this article in more detail. No reason, valid or otherwise, has been given for removing these links. Edward321 (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

template {{main}} is not appropriate in this context. That template is used when the section is an exact WP:SUMMARY of the main article. These sections instead deal (or should deal) only with the topic in relation to NWO. In these cases, it is instead appropriate to simply link to the topic within the first sentence of the section. -Verdatum (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Verdatum which is the reason I have and will continue to remove these internal links. --Loremaster (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


I have done some research on literature on the topic lately. Even though I have not yet read all these texts, I though I might just suggest them for review and possibly inclusion into the article. Also, I think it would be a good idea to have a list of scientific literature about this topic as well, not only primary sources by conspiracists.

  • Parish, Jane (ed.): The Age of Anxiety. Conspiracy Theory and the Human Sciences, Oxford 2001.
In this book: Alasdair Spark: "Conjuring Order: the new world order and conspiracy theories of globalization", 46-62, Nigel James: "Militias, the Patriot movement, and the internet: the ideology of conspiracism."
  • West, Harry G & Sanders, Todd (eds.): Transparency and Conspiracy. Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order, Durham and London 2003.
In this book: West and Sanders: "Introduction", 1-37, Daniel Hellinger: "Paranoia, Conspiracy, and Hegemony in American Politics", 204-232, Susie Harding and Kathleen Stewart: "Anxieties of Influence: Conspiracy Theory and Therapeutic Culture in Millenial America", 258-286, Jean Comarof and John Comaroff: "Transparent Fictions; or, The Conspiracies of a Liberal Imagination: An Afterword", 287-300.

The may also be bits on NWO in

  • Fenster, Mark: Conspiracy Theory. Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Minneapolis 2008,

as well as in

  • Goldberg, Robert Alan: Enemy Within. The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America, New Haven, London 2001.

Chapters 5 and 6 of Rupert, Mark: Ideologies of Globalization. Contending visions of a New World Order, London, New York 2000, may give hints towards the spread of conspiracism.

There also are an entries on the New World order in Landes, Richard A (ed.): Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millenial Movements, London, New York 2000 and in Knight, Peter: Conspiracy Theories in American History. An Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara, Denver, Oxford 2003.

I thought I'd just put that up here. As soon as I get to read these in depth, I hope to be able to contribute. Maybe others take an interest in some of these texts. If they are not always suited for this article, I guess they are still relevant for adjacent ones, like conspiracism, for example. (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you User: Those are very good sources. If you intend on contributing directly to the article at some point, I suggest you create a user account since it is extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him the ability to more easily watch over pages he is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of accountability on Wikipedia. Despite the fact you will probably use a pseudonym, it's easier for other editors to discern your motivations when a track record of contributions is attached to your user account. Lastly, as this article gets closer to becoming a featured article, it will most probably become a target for vandalism by cranks so an administrator will have to put a semi-protection on it which will prevent them as well as good anonymous contributors such yourself from editing it. So seriously think about it. --Loremaster (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This article does not take a neutral stance on the topic it is describing.[edit]

I am not at all a conspiracy theorist, if anything I am the opposite. I know a couple of things about the history of the Illuminati, the Free Masons, etc and what happened to these early secret societies in later years. I don't think we're ruled by a secret government, and even if we were, I don't believe it would make that much of a difference in the larger scheme of things. It certainly wouldn't make me feel any less or more empowered to know that the US government was really in charge - or to find out that it wasn't.

Having said that - I read this article for work research. And I have to say it is not an objective article. It is clearly trying to prove that conspiracy theory is a hoax and a pastime for people who have nothing better to do. And that does not belong in an Encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with citing examples that both prove and disprove the validity of a certain thing, but when there is so much emphasis on proving that these theories are a hoax, it becomes a very irritating read for someone who is simply trying to do un-biased research, and it makes one think that the article can't be trusted. And I wanted to point that out, here, because Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and I've never had this problem with an article on Wikipedia before - I actually created a Wikipedia account just to be able to write this comment. Again, let me reiterate that I, like the writer of this article, I personally lean towards the position that most of these conspiracy theories are indeed a hoax, but that doesn't mean that I want that agenda shoved down my throat when I read what is supposed to be an objective description of this particular topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roslo1426 (talkcontribs) 22:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please point to problematic portions of the article, or suggest how a neutral article would look. Otherwise, your post is useless complaining.
However, do note that you yourself agree that the conspiracy theory is wrong. We do not give "equal validity" to both sides of a discussion when one is rejects and is rejected by mainstream science, history, and academia; and so in describing the facts of the conspiracy theory, it is described as wrong. This is no different than our article Earth having a strong bias against beliefs that the earth is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
How does the Earth being flat or hollowed have any correlation to this topic? All you did was take an irrelevant subject, and juxtaposed it to modern alternate theories. Not too mention most of these concurrent "theories" have yet to be completely (and scientifically) debunked. The error in this page was pointed out in the fact that it goes into extra efforts to emphasize that all these theories are false, instead of taking a neutral stance. I couldn't agree more with the fact that the only articles on Wikipedia where I run into this problem are those of controversy. So, without an irrelevant juxtaposed, can you please explain to me why Wikipedia fails to take a neutral stance on this subject or any other controversial subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fb90:270e:ddda:5eda:7640:7e69:87ac (talkcontribs)
When Wikipedia decides to be "neutral," that means it presents information according to the broader academic and journalistic consensus. It does not mean that it creates an illusion of equal validity to views that are outright delusional and utterly rejected by mainstream academia. The comparison with the flat earth is that as flat-earthers make delusional claims about the shape of the earth that we do not give a false sense of equal validity; so to do conspiracy theorists make delusional claims about the shape of society that we do not give a false sense of equal validity.
It is not mainstream academia's job to "debunk" the theories (although many are debunked if you do any real homework), it is the conspiracy theorist's job to present proper evidence that can be recognized as such by anyone. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Knight additions[edit]

I just sent a mail to Peter Knight[edit]

Hi, according to you and Blueboar Peter Knight doesn't know what he is talking about and is not a reliable source. Therefore I have sent a mail to his university mail and asked if he can correct the mistakes in his books. He has written what I added to Wikipedia, but right now thanks to your reverse the sentence doesn't make sense at all anymore, because this is what Peter Knight has never said, but I understand that he writes nonsense from what you say, it's a bit strange thought that they accept a person like that at university to teach to people. But if university professors are not reliable sources, could you explain me what reliable sources are? Wikipedia makes less sense to me everyday. Bokareis (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of whether Mr Knight is reliable or not - if you want his information to influence Wikipedia it's up to you, not me, to show that his input is valid. Where are his published papers? Where are his peer-reviewed papers? I'm not saying he has none, but I'm saying that it's up to you to find them and show him to be a reliable source. If you don't understand that, then I'm not surprised Wikipedia makes less sense to you every day.
You should note that I'm not saying that "Peter Knight doesn't know what he is talking about", nor do I say anywhere "that he writes nonsense". You shouldn't insinuate such things when they are patently untrue. All I said was that it was up to you to justify the inclusion, not up to us to justify the removal.
You have one valid point though - the sentence was not grammatically correct, so I've fixed it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
It isn't that Mr. Knight is "not-reliable"... it's that what he says is contradicted by lots of other sources that are more reliable. The idea that the emblems on the Great Seal of the United States were in any way influenced by Freemasonry is a common myth... repeated by many people (even by well intended, but misinformed Masons)... but it has been thoroughly debunked. It's a matter of WP:DUE WEIGHT. The sources that debunk the connection between Freemasonry and the seal out weigh the sources that say a connection exists. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
That said... if we are now citing Knight for something he does not say... we should remove the citation. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Moved from my talk page, as it seems more appropriate here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure emails aren't under WP:Identifying reliable sources, since they're hardly verifiable. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Valid reliable reference?[edit]

The following sentence: "The United Nations was designed in 1945 by U.S. bankers and State Department planners, and was always intended to remain a free association of sovereign nation-states, not a transition to democratic world government," is supported by an article by a J. Hughes, Ph.D., apparently "Executive Director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies", a sociologist and bioethicist teaching health policy at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He has excellent personal credentials. However I am not able to verify that the UN was designed by "by U.S. bankers and State Department planners" anywhere else and this dude is not an historian but teaches health. Adding this sentence suggests Wikipedia stands behind the idea that bankers started the U.N. Are we? Or is there some question about this veracity? What can we do here? Can/should we ask for more verification? I can't find any myself though I have looked. Bankers did start the World Bank, now associated with the U.N. but not the U.N. itself, if one reads the history of the U.N. at its own site.Ridingdog (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman and freemasonry[edit]

So, after reading the section on Freemasonry thoroughly, I failed to see any mention of Harry S Truman and his less than secretive ties to Freemasonry. Could this possibly be added somewhere into the section about Freemasonry? Thanks.

2607:FB90:270E:DDDA:5EDA:7640:7E69:87AC (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What importance/relevance would that have for the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Why wouldn't it have relevance? He was the President of the United States, and a freemason. Since there is an article on freemasons, and it talks about possible connections to the Founding Fathers, why is a subarticle about freemasons and more current presidents irrelevant? 2607:FB90:270E:DDDA:5EDA:7640:7E69:87AC (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me try this again. If you look closely at the article, you'll notice that the material discussing common motifs in conspiracy theorist fantasies cite reliable academic source that is independent of conspiracy theorism for each portion. That's because Wikipedia does not propagate any sort of original research, especially conspiracy theorist fantasies, and so we just summarize what reliable and mainstream academic sources say without addition, interpretation, alteration, or elaboration.
Now, what mainstream academic sources do you have that demonstrates that Truman being a Freemason is a common theme in conspiracy theorist fiction? Merely going with "freemasons are mentioned in the article" and "Truman was a mason" is synthesis of unrelated sources to make statements neither makes, which goes against our policy on original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so you just assume I'm making the presumption that Truman was a Mason. Based on the idea that I think that every president is a freemason, right? That right there, that attitude, is a complete reflection of what's wrong with this page.
By the way, it says it right here on Wikipedia.
2607:FB90:270E:DDDA:5EDA:7640:7E69:87AC (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I suspect what Ian.thomson is pointing out as synth and OR is the idea that Truman being a mason has any bearing on the NWO conspiracy theory... if there is no mainstream sources that tie the two together, it don't belong in this article. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


wikipedia is run by illuminati, spreading false deception — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The above statement is irrelevant.This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions." I've read through this piece, and from this material, I'm led to conclude that the New World Order conspiracy theory is an opinion historically held by 'right-winger' Americans, exclusively. Seeing some clear bias in the references, as well, as there are undoubtedly other significant yet somehow uncited groups of individuals in American history and elsewhere that have also subscribed to this theory besides those who adhere to a single particular political philosophy, to which it seems a majority of the editors on this page aren't opposed to devoting special attention to by grand-sweep linking its practitioners' politics with a conspiracy theory.

In all fairness, and as a Conservative, myself, I would happily give this page an A if I had assigned the writers to cite historical events that support a correlation between Conservative thinking and the NWO conspiracy theory. Needs focus. C- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory about a world government already existing[edit]

Is there not a conspiracy theory claiming that a world government already exists? I came across that weird idea during the 2012 scare. That imaginary world government was accused for preventing people from documenting what they saw in the sky. It was also imagined to control the global information flow to prevent the spread of supposedly crucial information. To me it was very evident that such things are not humanly possible. Also, people – including those in power – can’t keep 100% quite. So if there really was a world government we would have noticed it.

Personally, I don’t think time is ripe for one world government. It will never be during my lifetime. My countryman Leif Lewin has suggested that it may come about in the year 2119. That sounds a little too exactly to be likely, but some time during the 2110ies or 20ies seems plausible. If it really happens in that very year it will be a coincidence. Anyway, it will be in the form of global democracy and not the New World Order conspiracy theorists imagine.

2015-01-03 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015[edit]

Fix year "22014" in reference #9. (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)