Talk:New World Order conspiracy theory

To become a Featured Article

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)

External links

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

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)

Literature

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. 78.55.218.66 (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you User:78.55.218.66. 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)

Edit request on 12 May 2013

The New World Order cannot be called a conspiracy theory anymore as Joe Biden has publicly announced that the U.S. Government is involved in forming a New World Order.

Rex Crouch (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The term "New World Order" in the context of a political speech generally means something very different from the conspiracy theory discussed in this article. --ElHef (Meep?) 19:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You have no basis to claim it means something else, there is no "generally" that I know of in the informed ranks, these types of classic excuses are used by gatekeepers, or you may just be uninformed, the appearance of this article is not decided by people who provide baseless "popular consensus" for their justification. As a matter of fact, the major powers in the world automatically have by common sense a default to be a prime suspect, their historic track record supports that, most mainline people rely on hard evidence, which there is many, but unreported, and takes personal research and analysis, effort that takes time, however, these people don't understand circumstantial evidence which is the major part of these conspiracy theories, some of the circumstantial evidence is supported by hard facts as well.Xowets (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

See New world order (politics). This is what ElHef and JoelWhy? were each referring to, which is quite different indeed from the conspiracy theory which this article is about. You would do well to assume good faith and be civil, as your insinuations that JoelWhy is a paid shill are not in keeping with the atmosphere of the Wikipedia community and they will not gain you any ground in debate. At Wikipedia, only reliable sources and their proper usage are what can turn an article on its head. John Shandy` • talk 01:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Some merging with New world order (politics)

I believe there needs to be some merging of facts from this section to the New world order (politics)#Criticism/New world order (politics)#Public_reaction, as much of what has been termed as "conspiracy theory" seems to be one sided, where as much of it is actually criticism of the New word order (politics) as well as being an alarming sight to the many commentators who not only criticize but warn and rebuke the concept. Faro0485 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow. Can you provide a couple of specific examples to clarify? Thanks! JoelWhy?(talk) 19:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb33Xv73Acg&list=PLC0D55BF59624C756 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.237.209 (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure watching this video just made me a little dumber. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

NWO Proofs

These guys can provides lots of solid proofs and facts :-

- Jesse Ventura with his program (conspiracy theory). - Alex Jones. - David Icke. -...ETC

Those names must be mentioned in the article. We must provides facts for the world to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhalawan (talk • contribs) 10:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This conspiratist source refers to the UN, but illustrates a normative global-conspiracy-resistment ideology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTE-3Fl7wgg 173.14.238.118 (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to consider launching a free blog at blogspot.com or wordpress.com, where you may express your... thoughts... free from Wikipedia's quality constraints. John Shandy` • talk 17:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Venture is a violently insane loon whose fraudulent lies on television and radio have been and continue to be repeatedly exposed and debunked.

Jones is a violently insane NRA gunloon extremist with serious mental problems who spews utterly insane lunatic notions to the point where one could ask his opinion about what the time of day is and be rewarded with a racist lunatic rant about Obama and goats -- or something equally unhinged.

Icke is one of the more prolific mental cases out there who has been spewing unending lunacy about Roswell flying saucers and fluoride in the water and Baby Jesus along knows what all.

Point being, before a legitimate reference can be applied to the article, one must locate a legitimate reference. If someone goes off spewing delusional quotes by such luminous right wing lunatics as these three, that only further adds to the fact that belief in the extreme, unfounded aspects of the New World Order is an unhinged conspiracy theory. Damotclese (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Note that our job is not to "prove" (nor "debunk") the various theories, our job is to merely to report (in an encyclopedic tone) what the theories are, and what reliable sources say about them. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There is truth in that, yes. Also it seems these days everything is part of the New World Order conspiracy. Even notable loons like Hal Lindsey has been revitalizing his amusingly loopy "Satanism!" books as part of the current NWO conspiracy, so we find greatly-debunked-for-decades notions climbing aboard. It's not as if all this stuff has not been debunked already endlessly anyway. Damotclese (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The idea that Jesse Ventura, Alex Jones and David Icke would be considered reliable sources on the subject of the "New World Order" is just preposterous. Everyone knows -- or should know -- that Voopmeister, my talking dog, is absolutely the best, reliable source on this subject.

Unfortunately, just can't seem to get him to talk to me. Famspear (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Nah... talking to you would not be enough for Wikipedia... He has to get his views published. Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. And Voopmeister just doesn't have the attention span needed to write a scholarly article that someone would publish. But I'm sure he knows everthing there is to know about the New World Order..... (sigh....) .... What a waste of a dog's life! Here boy! Treat!!???! Good doggie! Famspear (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb33Xv73Acg&list=PLC0D55BF59624C756 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.237.209 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Freemasonry

This sentence, "Freemasonry is one of the world's oldest secular [sic] fraternal organizations, which arose in late 16th- to early 17th-century Britain.", is not entirely accurate since no Anglo-American Grand Lodge will admit atheists or agnostics to membership, and therefore cannot be described as "secular." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons, "[Anglo-American:] Requires its members to express a belief in God as a condition of membership (although it does not specify what form that belief should take). A regular lodge must have an open volume of scripture when it is in session." Autodidact1 (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You may have a point there, AD. Not sure whether you can use the term "secular" in this context where no particular religious beliefs are required other than a belief in some form of higher-power. Presumably, a Hindu could join, but not an atheist, right? If that's the case, is there a definition of "secular" that fits? Or, does that automatically contradict the term in all its uses? I'm really not sure. Would "quasi-secular" be more appropriate? JoelWhy?(talk) 14:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2013

I would humbly ask you to include the following article in your page. This article is a United Nations document which details the use of technology which can change the weather. It's not a conspiracy theory but an actual fact document signed by the UN in 1977. If the New World Order is nothing to worry about and only a conspiracy theory then why would the United Nations see fit to include such an article in their archives. This technology has been in use and is being tested even today (birds falling out of the sky, hundreds of thousands of marine life washing up dead on shores around the world, freak weather conditions etc.). The technology relates to the use of electrical frequencies and pulses to affect life and the weather on this planet.

Here is the link to the actual document held in the ICRC archives and I think it deserves a mention in your article:

Also, the following video on Youtube illustrates some of the uses of this technology (although there are many more videos explaining the same thing - this one is more pertinent because of the credentials of the reporter)

Thank you for taking the time to read my request.

Cazpolar (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Should the New World Order really be protected (unable to edit) as a "Conspiracy Theory" on Wikipedia?

Constitutionally Demo Repub (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Who or what entity, body, or testimony, has declared the NWO officially a "conspiracy theory"?

In all seriousness, is this because some wrestlers in the 90s and 2000s had a gang named "NWO"? Could it be because of constant associations with childishness and crazyness, those who are aware of the plans and implications of possible NWO mobilization are silenced in their quest for at the very least some clarity/transparency and honest discussion?

What needs to be done, in my honest opinion, (as a member who has donated to wikipedia on the sole reason that it is a great service for the world - to put it shortly) is that the moderators of wikipedia need to ask us how much evidence those who are interested in this subject must compile in order to have the NWO that has been announced in full force in the 90s NOT be deemed a "conspiracy theory" for the benefit of mankind.

It could be similar to the analogy of wikipedia telling us that the hacker group "Anonymous" is a just a "conspiracy theory" or a "myth" despite the very same group having meetings, referencing and publicizing their plans, taking steps toward their goals in sight of the public, etc. I'm not expressing a taste or distaste for the hacker group Anonymous, but you have to be living under a rock if you think this group is "just a myth", the same way you must be living under a rock or simply ignorant of the information if you believe that the "New World Order" is simply "just a conspiracy theory".

Despite groups like the "Council on Foreign Relation's" practical takeover of American politics since before the 40s, despite global elitists funding BOTH sides of the world wars, and despite these connections relating to the NWO-promoters in 1990 such as George H.W. Bush who made their plans evident in his new world order speech. Other established groups since then, like the "Project for a New American Century", have publicized REAL works that describe their plans in full for (violent if necessary / or gradual), New World Order/one world government/UN takeover. The elitists on the other side such as Al Gore, and other environmentalists, Democrats OR Republicans push the (global elitist funded) UN mandated "Agenda 21" plans which in essence diminish sovereignty and market capabilities and transfer those capabilities from the people and their nations to the global elite. How many publications and testimonies by these controlling global elite where they propose... “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” -James Paul Warburg, whose family co-founded the Federal Reserve – while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950

Is the Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg group, Trilateral commission, CFR, CNP, UN, and other groups really just "innocent clubs where likeminded people get together" or are they something more than that? Are they engines to which a global elite can organize its soon-to-be-mobilized plans for NWO? Are they engines in which figures with vast amounts of decision-making-power can manipulate the global stage of events behind the scenes?

So the question still begs to be asked once more, How much spot-on evidence must the community compile to have the misleading title renamed and not be called just a "conspiracy theory"? Constitutionally Demo Repub (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Constitutionally Demo Repub (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

NOT DONE - Wikipeida is not a soap box. Also, per WP:NOR Wikipedia does not allow the use of Primary sources to "prove" information. What you would need to do is find a reliable secondary source that comments on the primary UN Document and makes all the connections you are making. As for not calling the NWO a conspiracy theory... um... when someone connects the dots and theorizes that a conspiracy exists, that theory is by definition "a conspiracy theory". Blueboar (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

But nobody is "theorizing" anything anymore, and that was the purpose of my supposed "soapbox" rant... This is all blatantly evident now. You're supposed "connecting the dots" is in actuality just paying attention to when these globally enabled players act and actually WHAT they do. I am in the process of compiling timelines, data, interviews, legislations, etc.. and I'm sure others are too. Constitutionally Demo Repub (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. You misunderstand how our articles are developed. This is very different from writing an essay where you build up an argument from sources such as the one you suggest. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Due to a now-fixed formatting error, I think the edit requests from Cazpolar and Constitutionally Demo Repub were conflated. Nevertheless, the comments from Blueboar and Dougweller are relevant to both.

Sorry Cazpolar and Constitutionally Demo Repub, but Blueboar and Dougweller are correct, and I've closed this edit request. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly not neutral, regardless of claims

This article is anything but neutral, which anyone with a few neurons to rub together can see. There's an obvious bias in favor of both socialism and marxism, while the featured proponents of the new world order conspiracy theories are the most loony that can be found (e.g., believers in religious Armageddon or reptilian overlords). I'm sure this sort of self-congratulatory pseudo-intellectual masturbation is immensely satisfying to a few armchair-socialists who spend most of their free time shouting their vacuous blatherings in echo chambers like Reddit, but it's a disgrace to Wikipedia - and anyone who prides themselves on an actual neutral stance - to allow this sort of crap to stand.

Either rewrite the article to reflect an actual neutral stance instead of your thinly-veiled political views, or have the balls to call a spade a spade. Your bias here is neither witty nor well-written, regardless of what you told yourself when you approved this drivel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.186.0.86 (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The goal of this article is not to "prove" or "debunk" the various conspiracy theories that are lumped together under the banner of NWO... the goal is to neutrally explain a) what those theories are (ie what proponents of a theory say), and b) what others say about the theories (ie what critics of the theory say about it). Note that our WP:Neutral point of view policy explicitly says that we should not treat all theories (and criticisms) the same... instead we are to them DUE WEIGHT, which means that we give some theories and criticsims more space (and others less space... or even no space at all) in accordance with the amount that they are discussed by the sources.

As loony as some of the theories may be, the ones we spend the most time on are those that are the most prevalent... and the most discussed by critics. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You completely avoided the criticism, which doesn't surprise me. This article is heavily biased and clearly has a political agenda not at all rooted in a scientific approach. You should be referencing empirical studies by accredited sociologists and psychologists, not left-wing hard-core marxists whose views on the subject aren't any more news-worthy than the average Joe on the street, and whose opinions on the topic aren't relevant in any way, shape or form. This article is the very definition of why university professors ban students from referencing Wikipedia, and even caution against using sources on anything other than the most mundane of subjects. If you're having difficulty grasping why the article is so horribly bad, I suggest who go to www.dictionary.com and look up the word "empirical". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.186.0.86 (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We would love to be able to cite studies by accredited sociologists and psychologists discussing the various NWO conspiracy theories... the problem is with finding them. If you know of any... please let us know. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm only seeing one person with a political agenda, and it isn't any of the authors of this page. As long as information can be cited with a verifiable, reliable source and is done in a manner that Blueboar stated above, it can be here. If there are things missing, they can certainly be added. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

True, and the IP may be confused if they aren't actually what they appear to be, a conspiracy theorist. This is an article on the conspiracy theory, we have a separate article on New world order (politics). Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There's zero in the way of specific, legitimate criticisms. Until specific examples of incorrect/unreferenced information is provided, specific information that is missing, etc, there's no reason to waste time engaging in this debate. All the editors here understand that topics such as these are always going to attract a fair number of trolls and cranks. (Not saying the OP fits either of these labels; but, unless specifics criticisms are levied, there's really nothing to discuss.) JoelWhy?(talk) 12:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion polls

Please add this poll to the article. A survey by Public Policy Polling from 2013 says "28% of voters believe secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order. A plurality of Romney voters (38%) believe in the New World Order compared to 35% who don’t" [1]