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
          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.
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 been mentioned by a media organization:

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Extreme, Shameful Bias[edit]

If this article were written from any more of a left-biased standpoint and with any more contempt for Christianity/any and all things conservative, it could pass for an unbridled hate rally. This article is in severe violation of Wikipedia's nutrality policies, though I'm sure that won't matter. My comment will likely be deleted and I'll probably receive some kind of warning accompanied by fallacious arguments against what I've said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18B:8000:3158:CD9A:46D:FEFA:CD5 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The above comment was indeed deleted, but I am returning it. I think we should at least give this editor a chance to answer the questions that ‎Dustin asks in his edit summary... "What do you think is biased? What should be changed?" Please be as specific as possible. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller... wtf man? You leave this entire post but delete the conversation attached to it. you my friend are an example of why i will never donate to wikipedia. Its full of liberal ass jackers like you.

THIS section for starters is EXTREMELY narrow-minded and pointedly faulting right wing ideas. he Red Scare came to shape one of the core ideas of the political right in the United States, which is that liberals and progressives, with their welfare-state policies and international cooperation programs such as foreign aid, supposedly contribute to a gradual process of collectivism that will inevitably lead to nations being replaced with a communist one-world government.[14]

I am reading this out of interest and i am disgusted with how political this article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists of the Christian right, starting with British revisionist historian Nesta Helen Webste... no mention of Conspiracy theorists of the Liberal Left... just more mockery / pointed attack on conservatives and christians.

Read this article with a open mind hoping for a educational experience and all you end up with is a bad taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Calm down. Editor Mr.Ninja (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

United Nations?[edit]

Is there any reason why the subject is treated so dismissively? The idea of a single world government is not a fringe position. It is often called globalization. It isn't really a theory that many people are working towards such goals. The theory seems to be more about whether such a structure is good or bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you want New world order (politics) which is not about the conspiracy theory. Doug Weller (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
So why isn't any of that in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
No I'm in the right place. The article is just very poor — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Then you are confused. This is an article about the conspiracy theories surrounding the concept, not the political concept itself. It looks poor from your perspective for that reason. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on New World Order (conspiracy theory). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There is an EXTREME and blatant bias in this article.[edit]

Enough of one, in fact, that I would not even consider awarding it with the title of "good article". In fact, if I were in power, I'd have this article revised, reevaluated, and until further notice, stripped of its title. I hate sympathizing with NWO nuts as it is, but my god, this article doesn't even give them any platform to stand on. The "criticisms" section does not even attempt to clarify that it is coming from a neutral and unbiased standpoint, and frankly, it doesn't. It unencyclopedically states the opponent's beliefs as though it were irrefutable fact, in an extremely matter-of-fact and progressively-biased manner, when the arguments of both sides haven't been proven, and are virtually unprovable.

Don't have enough proof yet? Let me just explain.

That is why conspiracy-focused movements (JFK, UFO, 9/11 Truth) are treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work of truly left-wing progressives who are marginalized from mainstream public discourse. "That is why", when used as an opening phrase with no previous context, implies that what is being stated is an irrefutable fact, when, as I cannot stress enough, this is not the case. Not only that, but it is also an extremely poor choice of words when you take into account that saying "that is why" on an encyclopedia is hilariously redundant, as the soul purpose of an encyclopedia itself is to accurately and neutrally inform the masses as to why that is. A poor choice of words in validity, in its striking bias, and in the redundant and illiterate context that it was used in.

It is the aforementioned paragraph where the entire "criticisms" section thereafter incorrigibly sends itself to a hypothetical, encyclopedic hell... — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-rod916 (talkcontribs) 09:40, 2 April 2016‎

See WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia doesn't create artificial balance by giving WP:UNDUE validity to WP:FRINGE claims.
The Berlet source does need better in-line attribution, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I've removed that paragraph. And the tags, which don't belong in the middle of section in any case. I don't think a brand new editor who claims that " Nazis are proven to have left-wing beliefs" can add such tags from an unbiased perspective. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. There is one important piece of information from the early history of the New World Order that is still missing, indeed, the definition of "New World Order" as presented by such hawks as Lindsey Williams, and really everyone I remember talking about it during the early 90s. You can find it under the heading of the McAlvany Intelligence Agency's definition of the term "New World Order." I will not attempt to state it here because it is not OR. This is an important consideration for anyone who attempted to credit or sympathize with the term "New World Order" as such in the 80s and 90s. (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"OR" stands for "original research," which Wikipedia does not use. That said, your statement only vaguely implies sources instead of actually citing them (which makes it rather hard to figure out if they would be reliable or not). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Mass surveillance and Edward Snowden / Mark Cline[edit]

I just got finished reading the section can concerning Mass surveillance, and I noticed that there's no information pertaining Edward Snowden/Mark Klein or their revelations of the mass surveillance state/room 641a. The whistle being blown on room 641a pretty much confirmed the fears of conspiracy theorists, as well as proved them, right to an extent. (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That is a good point. --Loremaster (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Loremaster I wouldn't be sure how to word it myself, but maybe a few lines on a correlation between the mass surveillance and the revelations of the men mentioned above world be appropriate? (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Careful... We need sources saying this ... Otherwise it would be considered Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Blueboar Does the Washington post count as a reliable source? (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Well... that depends on the specific article appearing in the Post, and whether it actually supports the specific phrasing that you want to add to our article. If you can provide a link to the Post article, we can examine it and see if it works or not. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Reason why the goal of NWO looks confusing...[edit]

The New World Order is a dream of all the 13 Secret Families, and each of them have a different agenda. That is why the goal of NWO seems confusing. It is not one goal, but possibly upto 13 different goals. Goals of the 2 major families confirmed:

  • Rothschild - establish and operate central/federal reserve banks, in all countries, by force if needed.
  • Rockefeller - Depopulation:
    • by Vaccines - Autism, AIDS, etc.
    • by Genetically Modified food - Glyphosate
    • CODEX Alimentarius (Free trade Agreement)
      • by defining nutrients as poison, and then engineering non-nutritional foods for the public.
      • by irradiating all food
      • by making it a trade-violation to stop food containing toxins at border inspections
    • by Chemtrails
    • denying medical care to selected group of people, that is, not saving lives deemed not worthy to be lived.

--Ne0 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The tricky part is that Wikipedia does not allow original research... we will need reliable sources that lay all this out... otherwise we can not mention it in the article. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Created a temporary section for adding sources and maybe refine into prose: Talk:New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)/13_Secret_Families --Ne0 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
First... most of the sources you provide are not considered reliable (the various youtube videos, for example). Second, even if we omit those, you still have a WP:SYNTH problem. What you are doing is presenting us with bits and pieces of "evidence", in an attempt to "prove" that your theory about these families and their goals is correct. the problem is that Wikipedia does not work like that... it is not our job (as editors) to present "evidence" and attempt to "prove" things... our job is to report on what others (reliable sources) have said, and the conclusions they have reached. We can't include the conclusions unless there are (reliable) sources that takes all the bits and pieces of "evidence" you have presented, and tie it all together... explicitly stating the conclusion that these families have (disparate) conspiratorial agendas.
Suggest you create a blog or website of your own... then you can lay out your theory and present your evidence to the world without having to worry about Wikipedia's restrictions. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Just to add that while you're welcome to create your own website/blog don't assume that said created blog is a realiable source and then can be used to back up claims in Wikipedia. As alluded to above, all sources need to meet certain criteria before they can be called reliable. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
What's going on ? why censor a discussion ? Also, I intend this to go under illuminati or it could be a separate theory. As for sources, what better proof than video ? Or is there a Wikipedia 'guideline' saying video dosen't qualify as a legitimate source ? --Ne0 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, yes, there is such a guideline... see: WP:IRS. YouTube videos are not considered reliable, since any idiot can make one.
That said... I think you miss the point... we are not looking for proof... what we are looking for is a source that examines the proof, makes all the connections you have made, and reaches the same conclusions you have made. We don't care if you can prove that the "13 families" have their own agendas, if you want to include it you need to show that someone else (a reliable source) has examined the evidence and reached this conclusion. We don't care if you can prove that some event or trend "proves" what the 13 families are up to ... what we need is for you to cite someone else (a reliable source) who proves it... someone who has examined the same data that you have examined, who reaches the same conclusions you have reached... and (most importantly) has published it all in a reliable venue. Otherwise, everything you present to us is nothing but WP:Original research... a conclusion that you have reached, based on your own examination of data and your own logic. Your logic may be perfectly sound... we still don't want it. Why? Because we don't allow original research. Sorry, but those are the rules. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Rockefeller dreams by their own admissions, and Rothschilds dreams judged by their actions, are different. Now the real question is, will self-incriminating videos like [1] be considered a reliable source or not ? what about [2] --Ne0 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Short answer: Nope, nope and nope. We're done. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Subpage nominated for deletion.[3] Doug Weller talk 20:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)